CHAPTER II THE ANTIMASONS As already mentioned, the Antimasonic party participated in its first national campaign in 1828, being then confined to the State of New York. Almost from its inception the party suffered from a divided leadership. The mass of it was almost fanatical in its attitude toward Masonry and toward anyone even remotely connected with that institution. This extreme wing of the Antimasons favored the destruction of Masonry, first and foremost, and intended, by subordinating all other political issues, to accomplish its ends through a majority in the State legislature. On the other hand the ablest and most prominent leaders, Weed, Tracy, Whittlesey, Fitch and others,1 desired to utilize the movement for political ends primarily, and therefore did not hesitate to bend, or to sacrifice if necessary, the party's principles to expediency.2 For convenience we may refer to these two elements in the party as the extremists and the politicians. The former composed the bulk of the party; the latter had a monopoly in experienced political leadership. It was this condition which led most of the extremists to refuse to follow the politicians in joining forces with the Adams party in New York in the campaign of 1828, and to nominate as a separate gubernatorial ticket Southwick and Crary. But for this division it is probable that Van Buren would have been defeated for governor that year, and that Jackson would have received only a minority of the State's electoral vote. 1 Weed, Autobiography, p. 336. 2 McCarthy, The Antimasonic Party, p. 383. 3 Niles' Register, vol. xxxv, p. 89. William H. Seward, Autobiography, 1801-1834 (F. H. Seward, Ed.), pp. 73-74. The Utica convention of August 4, 1828,-the first Antimasonic state convention and that in which the politicians had tried to ally the party with the National Republicans— had appointed a general corresponding committee for the State, composed of Whittlesey, Weed, Backus, Works and Ely, all able politicians, and had empowered it to call future state conventions when it deemed necessary. Two points in this connection are interesting to note. From their first local beginnings, the Antimasons resorted mainly to the small convention; hence it was natural that when their movement became statewide they should follow the precedent established by the Pennsylvania Jacksonians in 1824 and resort to the state convention, as they did at Utica in 1828. Second, this state corresponding committee of the Antimasons was exactly analogous in function to the present-day National Committee, which analogy was further exemplified when it called a state convention of its party and designated the time, the place, and the size of delegations." The convention thus called met at Albany, February 19, 1829. It was highly important for two reasons. It marked the Antimasons' point of departure from state into national politics, while its proceedings and organization formed a model and precedent according to which its offspring, the national convention of Philadelphia in 1830, was operated. After a reconciliation between the extremists and the politicians, this Albany convention adopted a resolution disavowing connection with any political party, State or national, and proposed to run an Antimasonic ticket at every subsequent state election, whether local or general.8 Except for a resolution appointing a general central committee of correspondence for the State, composed mainly of the politicians, the other acts of the convention were of a nature to further 5 Proceedings of the Albany Convention, in Antimasonic Pamphlets, Maryland Historical Society. • Ibid. 7 Albany Argus, Feb. 20, 1829. 8 Proceedings of the Albany Convention. the party propaganda. Despite the strong element of extremists present, the superior political and forensic ability of Weed, Whittlesey, Fitch, Granger and others of the political element enabled them to dominate the convention's activities. Only one of its acts merits closer observation. Among several propagandic resolutions, Timothy Fitch proposed one to appoint a committee of five to "enquire whether it is expedient for this convention to recommend a convention of delegates from the several United States, to be held at some future time and place, to deliberate on" the furtherance of Antimasonic principles, "and if so whether it is expedient for this convention to designate the time, and place, and also the number of delegates for each State." This motion was adopted and Granger, Seward, Robinson, Lay and Green were appointed on the committee. Some hours later Granger reported for the committee that they had found such action expedient and submitted a resolution to hold a national convention of Antimasons at Philadelphia, on the 11th of September, 1830, the delegates to be elected as each State saw fit and to equal in number its representation in Congress. The objects stated in the resolution for holding this national convention were the adoption of measures looking to the destruction of Masonry and similar secret societies. After submitting it, Granger made some explanatory remarks. He stated that the committee, in recommending this course, had been actuated by information from newspapers and private letters that conditions were ripe for a general spread of Antimasonry in most of the States north of Maryland, and hence it seemed an auspicious time in which to hold a national convention for Antimasonic purposes. The resolution was adopted and thus the machinery was set in motion which resulted in our first political party convention.10 Although the ultimate aim of the politicians was doubtless to enter the field of national politics, it was too early Ibid.; Albany Argus, Feb. 23, 1829. 10 Ibid. to let this be known to the party generally, hence the language of the above resolution and the remarks made when it was presented show that its authors intended to convey the idea that this national convention was to be simply a means of spreading Antimasonry, and of uniting all efforts to break up the Masonic institution. What individual first suggested this national convention is unknown. Its alleged objects being what they were, it seems highly probable that the plan was borrowed from the Masonic practice of holding General Grand Encampments made up of delegates from the state organizations, as in 1826. This idea, indeed, was mentioned by Granger as an argument for defending the proposed convention against charges of ulterior motives.11 Henry Ward Dana's Antimasonic Review also justifies the Philadelphia convention on the same ground.12 Antimasonry, thus planning to enter upon a national career, was essentially anti-Jackson as well. Its extremists naturally were opposed to Jackson, who was a high Mason, and its politician element saw in him a formidable obstacle to local and national political progress. As noted above, in 1827 both the Adams and the Jackson party had made efforts to secure the Antimasonic support in New York. That this contest terminated in favor of Adams naturally set the Regency in New York and Jackson's followers elsewhere firmly against Antimasonry. During the campaign of 1828 a letter from Adams stating that he never had been and never would be a Mason 13 had helped to draw his party and the Antimasonic politician element together. The doings at Albany, and especially the personnel of the state central committee appointed by that convention, prove conclusively that the anti-Jackson politicians among the Antimasons were again leading the party. It was with this group that the resolution for a national convention at Philadelphia originated.14 11 Proceedings of the Albany Convention, Granger's Report. 12 Ibid.; The Antimasonic Review, I, vol. xii, p. 365. 18 Weed. Autobiography, p. 312. 14 The Antimasonic Review, I, vol. xii, pp. 364–365. Between this convention at Albany and that at Philadelphia, the Antimasonic movement spread in the States of Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Ohio with unprecedented rapidity.15 The initial excitement aroused by Morgan's disappearance and probable murder was kept stirred by a series of reports, investigations and trials in New York until well into 1829.18 This agitation was exploited and constantly fanned in the public mind by the party's frequent conventions and by the notice given by such papers as Weed's Antimasonic Enquirer and Ward's Antimasonic Review to their resolutions and addresses. In this manner the charge was spread far and wide that the Masons controlled and intimidated legislatures, judges and juries, and that Masonic obligations constituted a tie upon the individual more binding than the national constitution and laws. 17 That the Antimasonic leaders were planning, despite the purely propagandic motives alleged by them at Albany, to utilize the Philadelphia convention as a means of entering the next presidential campaign is shown by their cautious casting about for a candidate previous to the date on which the convention was to assemble. They preferred Clay as their candidate because he had the most numerous following outside the Jackson party, but Clay himself was a Mason and it was not certain that he would renounce his allegiance to the order. Accordingly, he was sounded through his friends, and John McLean of the Supreme Court was also approached on the subject of Masonry before the Philadelphia convention met.18 From Clay's friends came nothing definite as to his attitude toward Masonry, though they were profuse in cordiality and in assurances that Clay was the 18 Ibid., James Buchanan to McLean, June 11, 1829, McLean MSS.; Niles' Register, vol. xxxvii, p. 276. 16 Weed, Autobiography, pp. 285-299. 17 Ibid., p. 310. 18 Ibid., pp. 351-352; G. W. Harris to McLean, May McLean MSS. |
