My Reasons for Opposing Horace Greeley: Addresses Delivered in Boston, Massachusetts, on September 5, 1872
MY REASONS FOR OPPOSING HORACE GREELEY:
ADDRESSES DELIVERED IN BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS,
ON 5 SEPTEMBER 1872
New National Era, 12 September 1872 and Boston Daily Advertiser, 6 September 1872.
Another text in Boston Daily Globe, 6 September 1872.
On 5 September 1872, fifteen years after the first such political assembly,
about five hundred black New Englanders met in convention at Boston’s
Faneuil Hall to proclaim their support for the Republican party in the national
election two months hence. The convention was high-spirited. The Metro-
politan Band played, former Garrisonian abolitionist Charles L. Remond
presided, and Douglass, who spoke at both the afternoon and evening ses-
sions, evoked glee as well as accord. The New York Times claimed that his
eloquence and personal example constituted the single most effective force in
the Republican campaign. Douglass’s particular prominence at this time was
in large part circumstantial. In his “Letter to Colored Citizens” of 29 July
1872, Charles Sumner had stated his conviction that only Horace Greeley, the
Liberal Republican candidate, could serve the interests of blacks as U.S.
citizens; Grant had blatantly disqualified himself from this role when he failed
to include Frederick Douglass along with the other members of the Santo
Domingo Commission in an invitation to dinner at the Executive Mansion. In
the weeks following Sumner’s statement, Douglass repeatedly had to respond
to the charge for which he was used as principal exemplar, and rehearsed to
friends and to hostile Democrats, in letters and speeches, the logical and
political arguments that he considered counterbalanced it. As he also noted in
a wry personal letter published in the Boston Daily Globe, he “would rather
avoid” the issue. In the course of the convention, the delegates approved a
draft letter of gratitude to President Grant for his services to the country and to
black citizens. See Appendix A, text 7, for precis of alternate texts. Boston
Daily Globe, 22 August 1872; New York Times, 6 September 1872; Charles
Sumner: His Complete Works, 20: 173-95.
AFTERNOON SESSION
[Speech by George L. Ruffin; election of convention officers; speech by
Charles L. Remond; prayer by the Reverend Van Horn.]
MR. PRESIDENT: I regret somewhat this call upon me at this time for a
speech. As most of you are aware, I have been busy prosecuting the
political campaign during the last three weeks in the State of Maine,1From 19 August until 2 September Douglass canvassed Maine for the Republican presidential ticket.
speaking often twice a day, traveling in all weather, and at all times, and
now, after having ridden all night, I feel unfitted to respond in a becoming
manner to the warm and urgent call made upon me at this moment. It seems
only a few weeks, or at most a few months ago, since I appeared in
company with William Lloyd Garrison, Francis Jackson, Mr. Quincy,2Edmund Quincy. and
others of the distinguished citizens of this great city, for the purpose of
receiving
AN ADDRESS SIGNED BY DANIEL O’CONNELL,
Father Mathew,3Theobald Mathew.and 60,000 Irishmen calling upon the American people to
make themselves consistent with the Declaration of Independence and put
down slavery forever.4Douglass recalls a meeting of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society in Faneuil Hall on 28 January 1842 at which he spoke and at which an “Address From the People of Ireland to Their Countrymen and Countrywomen in America,” signed by O'Connell, Mathew, and sixty thousand others, was presented. Lib., 4 February 1842. That is now, short as the time seems to me, thirty
years ago. Then the most sanguine did not dare to hope to live to see the day
which we now see. I certainly did not dream that it would ever be my
privilege to address in Faneuil Hall a convention of colored citizens con-
vened from all parts of New England for the purpose of canvassing the
policy of public men and public measures, and to take part in the election of
those men and in the support of those measures. I have appeared in Faneuil
Hall quite often; sometimes as a slave, sometimes as a fugitive slave,
always as an advocate of human liberty. But this is the first time I have been
permitted to appear here in the somewhat dignified, I may say almost
SUBLIME POSITION OF THE AMERICAN CITIZEN.
(Applause.) Look where you will over this wide, wide world of ours, and
where is the country which a man has a right to be so proud of as this same
Republic of ours? Where is there a citizenship so desirable, so exalted,
endowed with more sublime attributes than the citizenship of the United
States? Nowhere. We are the only people in the world, with one or two
exceptions, that have devolving upon us the duties of self-government.
France has it not; England has it not in any such sense as we have it;
Austria, Russia, Prussia, no country on the globe, has it to the same extent
as we have—this right, this duty of electing the men and deciding upon the
policy which shall be pursued by the Government—and it is only very
lately since you and I in a national way had this right.5Congress passed the Fifteenth Amendment legalizing black male suffrage on 26 February 1869. It was declared ratified on 30 March 1870. Gillette, Right to Vote, 81. You in Massachu-
setts had it, but the country as such had it not. Thanks to the magnanimity
of the American people; thanks to the justice of the American people;
thanks to the thought, courage, wisdom, and
PATRIOTISM EXERCISED BY COLORED MEN
themselves in the tremendous struggle through which this country has
passed, we now are citizens, we now have that liberty in common with
others, and have the right to feel an interest in the welfare, permanence,
and prosperity and glory of this Republic in common with others. I am not a
New Englander just now, but for the purpose of liberty I suppose I may call
myself such; for a man that goes in for the equal rights of man he is my
countryman, my kinsman, my clansman, my brother everywhere, and
should be held so to me in general. We are engaged, fellow-citizens, in a
very peculiar, sanguine canvass, and the peculiarity of this campaign is
this,
THAT WE HAVE TWO PARTIES AND ONE PLATFORM,
two cats and one mouse—(laughter)—the Democrats and Republicans.
Judging from the professions of these two parties, judging from the utter-
ances of the candidates of these two parties, it might be somewhat difficult
for us to determine the path of duty; but happily for us, we are not left to
find the path of duty by such lights as are afforded by mere platform and
profession. We have some other guide upon which we may rely in a case
like this. There is such a thing as history, and history shows us the tenden-
cies and failures of movements. The social and political movements of our
time are no exceptions to the rule. Left to a mere profession of the one or the
other party, we might as well choose Horace Greeley as Ulysses S. Grant,
for Horace Greeley has said some good things in his day and generation. I
am not here to deal in vituperation, invection, and denunciation of Horace
Greeley. Not at all. I admit that it would give me pleasure to vote for Horace
Greeley,
IF I KNEW JUST WHICH GREELEY
my vote would elect. (Applause.) But I don’t know. But I say we are not left
to the professions of men and platforms of parties to determine what is wise
and what is best in the canvass. These parties have their history. We are to
judge them in the light of history, and apply to them the rules of common
sense. We know very well what the Democratic party has done; we know
very well what the Republican party has done. We need to go back far into
history to arrive at sound conclusions concerning them. Take the Demo-
cratic party for the last thirty years, and what has it done to you and me, and
to the race with which we are identified? You know as well as I know that
the vital and animating spirit of that party, from the first until now, has been
the intensest
HATE, SCORN, AND CONTEMPT OF THE RACE
to which we belong. (Cries of “True.”) We know that forty years ago it
allied itself with the late master class of the South.6Douglass may be referring to the fact that in the early 1830s, the prominent proslavery senator from South Carolina, John C. Calhoun, and the many planters from that state who supported him were important members of the Democratic party. Yet Douglass is wrong to suggest that planter support for the Democrats prevailed throughout the South in the 1830s. The Whig party maintained significant strength among the southern planters in the 1830s and 1840s. Charles Grier Sellers, Jr., “Who Were the Southern Whigs?" AHR, 59: 335-46 (January 1954). The four hundred and
fifty thousand slaveholders became their voice and their instrument for evil
during all that time, and even during the great struggle of protracted force
and sanguinary rebellion which under the captaincy of General Grant
(applause), backed up by the Boys in Blue, was finally suppressed, we
knew that that party, as a party, had no joy in our victories, no grief in our
disasters. That party throughout gave aid and comfort to the rebels, and
before the close of the rebellion it indicated its regret for the late master
class of the South by selecting for its standard-bearer and representative of
its spirit the only general with large opportunities to assist in the loyal cause
who accomplished little or nothing for the cause, and who was the most
popular general in the army on the rebel side, George B. McClellan. It
selected him to be its standard-bearer; put him on the platform; affirming
that the war for the Union was accomplished.
WE MET M’CLELLAN
as we shall meet other people by and by. (Laughter.) A partial reconsidera-
tion took place, and slavery was abolished. The fourteenth amendment,
making us citizens, was enacted; it became a part of the Constitution. What
then? In 1868 they gave us a new platform. What was it, and who were its
candidates? You remember well. They selected the man of all men at the
North who had most industriously and perseveringly and indefatigably
opposed the war for the Union, in the nomination of Horatio Seymour, a
man who addressed a mob in New York during the rebellion—a mob
whose hands were bloody with the blood of the innocent black children and
the innocent black men in New York—addressed them as friends, not as
murderers.7On 14 July 1863, the second day of the New York City draft riots, Governor Horatio Seymour addressed a large crowd outside City Hall. The opposition press characterized the audience as composed largely of participants in the riots and pilloried Seymour for addressing them as “My friends." Generally overlooked were his pleas for New Yorkers to desist from violence while attempts were being made to have federal authorities suspend the draft in the city. New York Times, 15 July 1863; New York Daily Tribune, 15 July 1863; Mitchell, Horatio Seymour, 307-09, 323-29. He was selected. That was the tendency of the party and what
it means to do when it gets into power. What was its platform? Why, it was
this: The beneficent measures of justice to humanity and equality which
have been incorporated into the Constitution of the United States are un-
constitutional, revolutionary, and null and void8The Democratic platform of 1868 condemned the measures demanded by the Congress for the readmission of each Confederate state into the Union. Douglass paraphrases the part of that platform, which states: "we regard the reconstruction acts so-called, of Congress, as such an usurpation, and unconstitutional, revolutionary, and void." One of the requirements for readmission was a state's ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Johnson, National Party Platforms, 1: 38. and that is the mind of the
party and has been until within the last few months. It now professes to
have met with a change of heart; to be born again.9Douglass employs a biblical allusion to describe the seemingly more conciliatory Democratic platform of 1872, which pledged the party to maintain the Union, uphold the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments, and guarantee the equality of all men before the law. John 3: 3 and 3: 7, 1 Pet. 1: 23; Johnson, National Party Platforms, 1: 41. (Laughter.) It now asks
us to receive them into full communion with the political saints. (Laugh-
ter.) Well, for my part I distrust that convention. I know human nature well
enough to know that people who have been thinking and acting in any one
direction, as the Democratic party has been thinking and acting,
CANNOT EASILY BE CHANGED IN AN INSTANT.
I know there have been instances of instantaneous conversions, and I
believe in them in some cases. We read of one which was quite in-
stantaneous in the Scriptures—the story of Saul, who was converted, and
the great light that prevailed was visible to his attendants;10Acts 9: 3-7. but I don’t
know about this conversion of the Democratic party, or that they have seen
any such light. I am afraid the light that has dawned upon the Democratic
party didn’t come from above. (Laughter.) There is a voice, and there is a
light, no doubt, and a good deal of it, but I doubt where it came from. I
want to know how the Democratic party came to its change. Our good
friend Charles Sumner, whose name should only be mentioned with re-
spect for the past, believes that party has been converted;11In the presidential election of 1872, Charles Sumner supported Horace Greeley, the candidate of the Democratic and Liberal Republican parties. Donald, Sumner and the Rights of Man, 552. but I want to see
the Democratic party on its knees before I shall trust it. When one has
experienced a religious conversion he is ready to come on board the Gospel
ship and act in the most humble capacity, but the Democrats want to man
the ship, take the helm, and seize the cargo.
I WANT TO PUT THEM ON PROBATION
for six months, so as to have a little more time to examine the evidence.
The Democratic party of late has become very Scriptural, and preaches
the doctrine of forgiveness. I don’t know but that I am prepared to act on
the principle inculcated by the parable of the Prodigal Son.12The story is recounted in Luke 15: 11-32. The prod-
igal said he had sinned, and asked to be taken back as a hired servant. The
father received him as a son; but the spirit of the prodigal was that of great
humility. He did not ask to get possession of the farm, as did the Demo-
cratic party. On the other hand, the Republican party has been true to the
great idea of removing the stain of slavery. It was true under Grant as well
as under Lincoln. I know General Grant well. It has been
SAID THAT I WAS SLIGHTED
in not being invited to a certain dinner. Where is the Democratic President
who ever invited a colored man to his table? Who ever raised this as a
standard of friendship as to whether a colored man was invited or not to
dine? I confess I met an insult on the steamer upon the Potomac, and I
would have been glad had President Grant resented this insult by inviting
me to his table. But I am sure, from what I know of General Grant, that he
was not capable of any intentional slight to the colored race. I have General
Grant’s word that, had I been present with the commission in Washington, I
should have been invited with them.13This is Douglass's official, politically determined version of the dinner incident. The “insult on the steamer" took place toward the end of the Santo Domingo Commission's return voyage on the Potomac River near Washington, D.C. The captain of the mail packet on which they were traveling refused to allow Douglass to dine with the commissioners, and neither their strong protests nor the refusal of two of them to stay at their table was to any avail. Replying to a letter from 254 blacks of Washington, D.C. requesting his opinion on the presidential election, Charles Sumner characterized the White House dinner incident as a repetition of “the indignity" on the Potomac. That Douglass personally saw the two incidents as Sumner did and was pained by them is clear from private statements not only to Sumner but to several of their mutual acquaintances. Washington Evening Star, 28 March 1871; Charles Sumner: His Complete Works, 20: 180-81, 206-08.
Mr. Harris, of Springfield, interrupted the speaker by inquiring if he
did not complain to Senator Sumner of his slight by the President?
Mr. Douglass replied that he would have been glad to be invited, so as
to break down prejudice by inviting a colored man to his table. Was that a
reason why he should be removed or distrusted? (Loud responses of “No! ”
followed this question.) We have now in the Constitution the fourteenth and
fifteenth amendments. We are asked what danger is there to let the Demo-
cratic party come in, as they could not do away with these great reforms.
While I do not believe Mr. Greeley would consent to the doing away of
these laws, we all know that
if necessary, without Congressional action. There was years ago in the
Constitution a provision that all men should enjoy liberty everywhere, and
yet how often was this provision made null and void by State action? Are
we so simple as to believe that the Democratic party once in power would
pass any suitable provisions for the securing of justice for the colored man?
No; far from it. Our only safety lies in the re-election of U. S. Grant. Our
colored brethren are instinctively alarmed at the possibility of the election
of Greeley even, as the old slave drivers flock to his standard. In all my
Southern tour I have not found a colored man who did not wish success to
the Republican party.14From approximately 24 to 28 July, Douglass made a speaking tour in support of Grant and the Republicans through the upper South, stopping at Richmond, Virginia, as well as Raleigh and Wilmington, North Carolina. Raleigh (N.C.) Carolina Era, 23 July 1872; Richmond (Va.) Daily Enquirer, 24 July 1872. l have just traversed the hills and valleys of Maine,
and I will encourage you by the assurance that the people there are awake,
and that the Republicans next Monday will
ROLL UP A MAJORITY OF TWENTY THOUSAND,
against a majority of 10,000 last year.15In the gubernatorial contest in Maine in 1871. Sidney Perham, the Republican candidate. defeated his Democratic opponent 58,285 votes to 47,578. AAC, 1871, 483. As it is my intention to address the
convention at another time, I will not further trespass upon your time at
present.
EVENING SESSION
[Speeches by William H. Crogman and John M. Langston]
([Douglass] said, first, that he was glad of this convention, for it showed
that the colored people knew how to think for themselves. In speaking of
their asking for Senator Sumner’s advice,16Still holding Charles Sumner in high regard and confused as to which party to vote for, many blacks wrote letters to Sumner. as well as to Horace Greeley, in search of both explanations and advice. Charles Sumner: His Complete Works, 20: 14. he said: I sometimes think
those colored men who solicited his advice were actuated more by the
desire to compliment that great and good man, than for anything else. Still,
I don’t suppose we shall ever see any thing like this again, for after the
rebuke which colored men all over this country will give to this effort to
alienate them from their friends, no one will attempt it again. It may be
reckoned on as having decided the question for ourselves and by ourselves.
Why, how ridiculous it is! Are we always to be in leading strings? Now I
mean no disrespect, said Mr. Douglass, and here he eulogized Mr. Sumner
at some length.
Speaking of the similarity of the Baltimore and Philadelphia plat-
forms, he said they amounted to the same thing if carried out, but the
Democratic party could not be trusted.17Douglass here is alluding to the fact that the platforms of the Democrats and Republicans in the election of 1872 bore an almost point-by-point resemblance. In fact, the Democrats did not prepare their own platform but rather adopted wholly that of the Liberal Republicans. whose presidential candidate. Horace Greeley. they endorsed as well. Both the Republicans and Democrats supported the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments and called for reform of the civil service. While both parties denounced the repudiation of the public debt and further grants of public lands to corporations, they called for economy in governmental spending, noninterference in the industry of labor and capital, the full opening of public lands to settlers, and a speedy return to specie payment. Both parties acknowledged the heroism and patriotism of Union soldiers and sailors while supporting amnesty for ex-Confederates, although the Democrats more clearly demanded a rapid return to local selfgovemment in the South. On all the major issues of the time, the Republicans differed from the Democrats only in calling for a mildly protectionist tariff, recognizing an obligation to consider the demands of women, and denouncing European powers who claimed continued sovereignty over subjects who had immigrated to the United States. Johnson, National Party Platforms, 41-42, 44-45, 46-48. The reason is plain. We don’t
see that the Democratic party is essentially changed. We have slight sus-
picions that it is the same old snake in a new skin. Behind the white coat,
behind the Greeley fan, we see the tail of the snake. (Laughter) A man’s
head on the body of a fish is a suspicious circumstance. A Republican at
the head of the Democratic party is a suspicious circumstance. My reason
for opposing the election of Horace Greeley is that I believe that what this
country needs most of all for the next four years is repose—freedom from
all manner of social and political disturbance,—and I see in the character
of Ulysses S. Grant those qualities that guarantee this freedom from all
revolutionary movement.
Mr. Douglass continued speaking of Mr. Greeley in a very cutting and
humourous way. He continued: Fellow citizens, moral and intellectual
progress is attained only at immense cost. It does not come easy, neither for
nations nor for mankind generally. We have made great progress in this
country, but at a great cost. The simplest propositions or moral truths that
commend themselves to us today have been purchased with blood and
agony. Even the doctrine that every individual has a right to worship God
according to the dictates of his own conscience was purchased at the price
of eighty years’ war in Europe. It cost the Netherlands eighty years to
establish the Dutch Republic on the principles of freedom. Our own free-
dom cost sorrow, bloodshed, agony that no speech of mine can describe. It
was the simple doctrine that every man belongs to himself. When we have
made a single inch of progress, that progress has been not only costly but
precious, and as it is so precious we should look to it that we do not
surrender it, but remember the revolutionary maxim, “The price of liberty
is eternal vigilance.”18Douglass paraphrases John Philpot Curran, A New and Enlarged Collection of Speeches by The Right Honourable John Philpot Curran, Late Master of the Rolls in Ireland (London, 1819), 188- 89. (Cries of “Good.”)
But we are told that we should not vote for General Grant, and several
reasons are given.19Douglass probably refers to a meeting of the Liberal Republicans of Massachusetts in Faneuil Hall on 3 September 1872 to which Charles Sumner sent an open letter, extolling Horace Greeley’s many virtues over the myriad flaws and sins of Ulysses S. Grant. Sumner warned the audience not to vote for Grant for various reasons but especially because of his nepotism, gift-taking, petty quarrelsomeness, and aggressive policy toward Santo Domingo. These reasons all fell under the rubric of "Grantism," that sweeping characterization of the sitting administration against which most of the Liberal Republicans rallied. According to Sumner, Grantism indicated the veering of the Republican party from its originally high principles, and this necessitated a vote for those who now supposedly embodied those principles, namely the Liberal Republicans. Charles Sumner: His Complete Works, 20: 170-71 , 209-54; John G. Sproat, “The Best Men": Liberal Reformers in the Gilded Age (New York, 1968), 74-76; Schlesinger, American Presidential Elections, 2: 1303-09. One is that, he has given offices to his family and
relatives.20President Ulysses S. Grant's son, Frederick Dent Grant, had graduated forty-first in discipline in a class of forty-one from West Point in 1871. Nonetheless, the younger Grant was immediately appointed to General William T. Sherman's staff and accompanied him to Europe that fall, whereas most cadets upon graduation served with their regiment. In 1869 Grant appointed his brother-in-law, James F. Casey, collector of the customs in New Orleans, a lucrative position as well as an excellent one to influence local politics. In addition to family members, Grant placed numerous friends in governmental positions: General James A. Longstreet, a friend from the army and best man at Grant’s wedding, was made surveyor of customs at New Orleans; Moses Grinnell, a wealthy merchant and contributor to Grant campaign coffers, was appointed collector of customs in New York City; and Alexander T. Stewart, owner of a large New York City department store, became secretary of the treasury, an office for which many believed him unqualified to fill. William B. Hesseltine, Ulysses S. Grant: Politician(New York, 1935), 139-40, 153, 296-97, 342; Charles Sumner: His Complete Works, 20: 164. Now I don’t presume to stand here and defend him in that,
because any defence would be a reproach upon him. Do you think it would
have looked well and grateful if when Gen. Grant had taken the presidential
chair he should have proceeded to remove his father from the post-office to
which Andrew Johnson had appointed him? (Cries of “No.”) I say if Gen.
Grant’s friends can fill an office as honestly, as creditably and as well in
every other respect as any other man, I hold they have as good a right to
hold office as well as any other man. (Applause)
It is said that Gen. Grant has taken presents and gifts.21One of the most common charges made against Grant during the 1872 campaign was that he had accepted gifts from favor-seekers and compensated them with offices. This charge was not unfounded. Alexander T. Stewart, Grant's short-lived secretary of the treasury, was a generous contributor to Grant's campaign. Adolph E. Borie, a Philadelphia merchant and close friend, contributed to the upkeep of Grant’s house in Philadelphia and became secretary of the navy in early 1869. Thomas Murphy, a New York City contractor and politician who apparently gave gifts to Grant, replaced Moses Grinnell as the collector of the custom house in New York. In his last major philippic from the U.S. Senate floor, Charles Sumner, on 31 May 1872, attacked the corruption of Grant's administration, characterizing him as “the greatest gift-taker among Presidents.” Hesseltine, Ulysses S. Grant, 145-46, 211-13; Charles Sumner: His Complete Works, 20: 117-24, 126, 139, 167. Why, look at
Richard Cobden and John Bright, in England. Who accuses them of doing
anything wrong, or of being bribed in any way? Yet Richard Cobden
accepted £80,000 from the people of England for his services in securing
the repeal of the corn laws,22In 1838 Richard Cobden joined the Anti-Corn Law League and played a major role in its successful campaign for the repeal of that legislation in 1846. At the height of this political triumph. Cobden faced acute financial difficulties in his business affairs. In tribute to his work and personal sacrifice, the Anti-Corn Law League raised the approximately £80,000 that enabled him to pay his debts and start investments anew for future sustenance. In 1860, after Cobden returned to public advocacy, he again faced financial embarrassment; once more well-wishers aided him. this time through a private subscription by close friends that raised £40,000. John Morley, The Life of Richard Cobden (London, 1906), 413-14, 750; DNB, 4: 604-10. and it was not thought wrong, yet Gen. Grant
has done far more in this country than Richard Cobden did for England.
John Bright was given £52,000 for his good services to the people of that
government,23No evidence for a gift of this size to Bright has been found. Following the repeal of the Corn Laws, however, the mayor and citizens of Durham, which he represented in Parliament, honored Bright with a banquet and a large personal library, purchased with a subscription from 3,647 contributors of £5,000. DNB, 22: 273-91. and he was a particular friend of Mr. Sumner’s, yet I have
never heard him complain of him. Then there was the Santo Domingo
affair. Gen. Grant saw the importance of having the possession of a harbor
of our own in those waters, and was in favor of the purchase of that island. It
was asked, What do we want of it? Well, what do we want of anything
except for our own advantage. Uncle Sam wanted to get married and Hayti
attempted to oppose him, and when Uncle Sam told her to mind her own
business, that constituted about all the menace that was offered by the
United States in that quarter.
Mr. Douglass then asked the audience to join him in three genuine
cheers for honest Hannibal Hamlin24Best remembered as vice president during the first administration of Abraham Lincoln. Hannibal Hamlin (1809-91) was a leading power in Maine politics for half a century. He did not attend college but apprenticed for the law in the office of Samuel Fessenden. Originally a Democrat, Hamlin served in the U.S. House of Representatives ( 1843-47) and the U.S. Senate (1848-57). Shifting to the new Republican party in 1856, he won election as governor that year but resigned after a few weeks to begin a new Senate term (1857-61). His tenure as vice president was unremarkable and Lincoln replaced him with Andrew Johnson of Tennessee. Hamlin returned to the U.S. Senate for two more terms (1869-81) where he joined Radical Republicans on Reconstruction issues. After brief service as ambassador to Spain (1881-82), he retired from public life. H. Draper Hunt, Hannibal Hamlin of Maine: Lincoln's First Vice-President (Syracuse, N.Y., 1969); ACAB, 3: 65; DAB, 8: 196-98. and honest Ben Butler, whom he had
just met in the canvass in Maine.25Douglass appeared in Republican campaign rallies in Maine with Hannibal Hamlin in Bangor on 19 August 1872 and in Newport on 20 August 1872, and with Benjamin F. Butler in Portland on 27 August 1872 and in Farmington on 31 August 1872. All three appeared together at Augusta on 30 August 1872. Boston Daily Evening Transcript, 20 August 1872; Bangor (Me.) Daily Whig and Courier, 20, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31 August 1872; Portland (Me.) Transcript, 30, 31 August 1872. He introduced the regular Maine style
of cheering, and three rousing cheers were the result.)26From Boston Daily Advertiser, 6 September 1872.