Front Page Titles (by Subject) MASSACHUSETTS - Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and of the Political History of the United States, vol. 2 East India Co. - Nullification
Return to Title Page for Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and of the Political History of the United States, vol. 2 East India Co. - Nullification
The Online Library of Liberty
A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:
MASSACHUSETTS - John Joseph Lalor, Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and of the Political History of the United States, vol. 2 East India Co. - Nullification 
Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and of the Political History of the United States by the best American and European Authors, ed. John J. Lalor (New York: Maynard, Merrill, & Co., 1899). Vol 2 East India Co. - Nullification
Part of: Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and of the Political History of the United States, 3 vols.
About Liberty Fund:
Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.
The text is in the public domain.
Fair use statement:
This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
MASSACHUSETTS, one of the original thirteen states of the American Union. I. BOUNDARIES. The present boundaries of the state are the final result of compromises and agreements with all the surrounding states. (See MAINE, NEW HAMPSHIRE, VERMONT, NEW YORK, RHODE ISLAND.) The territory granted by the first charter to the "governor and company of the Massachusetts-Bay" was embraced between points three miles south of "any or every part" of the Charles river, and three miles north of "any or every part" of the Merrimac river, and extending westward to the Pacific ocean. The southern boundary, between Massachusetts and Connecticut, was run in 1642, according to the terms of the charter; but the line was not run due west, and two towns of Connecticut were considered part of Massachusetts for nearly a century. The present southeastern portion of the state, the counties of Plymouth, Barnstable and Bristol, fell to it on the union of the Massachusetts-Bay and Plymouth colonies in 1691; and the boundary between it and Rhode Island was fixed in 1741. The northern boundary offered more difficulty. Massachusetts' agents traced the course of the Merrimac toward the extreme north; and the colony claimed the whole coast to a point on a line passing "three miles north of the Merrimac." The claim to the district of Maine was not established until 1737. The claims to the jurisdiction of the territory to the west of the present western boundary line were terminated by cessions to New York and to the United States. (See the states named above, and TERRITORIES.)
—II. CONSTITUTIONS. The first civil organization was the "covenant" signed on board the Mayflower, Nov. 11, 1620, by the so-called "pilgrims" who were to form the Plymouth colony. They obtained a patent from the Plymouth company. June 1, 1621, and a grant of the land included between lines drawn north from the mouth of Narragansett river, and west from Cohasset rivulet, June 13, 1630; but neither of these transactions was confirmed by the king, nor was a charter granted. Nevertheless, the Plymouth colonists maintained a government of their own (see NEW ENGLAND UNION), and remained distinct until the union of their colony with that of Massachusetts-Bay, Oct. 7, 1791.
—The colony of Massachusetts-Bay was chartered March 4, 1628-9, and the English associates, by resolution of Aug. 29, 1629, of doubtful legality, transferred the powers of government from England to Massachusetts. Here the legislative powers were at first exercised by a general meeting of the freemen (church members). In 1634 the general court was made representative, consisting of not more than two delegates from each town. (See BURGESSES.) In 1644 the general court was divided into two coordinate bodies. June 18, 1684, upon a writ of quo warranto, the English chancery gave judgment against the colony, and vacated its charter. King James then attempted to govern Massachusetts as a royal colony, appointing first Joseph Dudley, and then Sir Edmund Andros, as governor. April 18, 1689, the people openly revolted and kept the royal officials in prison until the news of James' abdication arrived. The new sovereigns, William and Mary, were willing to enjoy the fruits of James' oppression; they refused to restore the old charter, but granted a new one, Oct. 7, 1691. This charter vested in the crown, instead of in the colony, the choice of the governor; gave that official a negative on the acts of the general court; and united Nova Scotia to the "reall [royal] province of Massachusetts-Bay." Aug. 26, 1726, an explanatory charter gave the lower house of the assembly the right to choose their speaker, subject to the governor's approval, and to adjourn for not more than two days.
—From the year 1766 the crown was engaged in a persistent attempt to still further modify the republican features of the Massachusetts charter, and the attempt, equally alarming to every colony, seems to have been the great moving cause of the open conflict which followed. (See REVOLUTION.) A series of mutual provocations on the part of ministry and colony, unnecessary to be detailed here, resulted in the practical abrogation of the charter by an act for the government of the colony, April 15, 1774. It took from the legislature the choice of the council and of superior court judges; gave the appointment of sheriffs to the governor, and the selection of juries to the sheriffs; and forbade town meetings, except for elections only, or by special permission of the governor. Congress approved the resistance of Massachusetts to the abrogation of the charter; the ministry undertook to meet resistance by force; and the organization of a new national government took place. (See CONGRESS, CONTINENTAL; DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.)
—Provincial congresses met Oct. 5, 1774, and Feb. 1, 1775, and the last general court under royal authority was dissolved June 17, 1775. July 19 following, a popular general court met at Watertown, and assumed both the legislative and the executive powers. This body, Feb. 28, 1778. adopted a constitution, which was rejected by popular vote March 4. A constitution, drawn up by John Adams, was adopted by a convention at Cambridge, Sept. 1-6, Oct. 28 - Nov. 11, 1779, and Jan. 5 - March 2, 1780, and was accepted by popular vote. It declared the commonwealth to be "a free, sovereign and independent state"; gave the legislature power to compel attendance upon public worship; constituted a legislature, called "the general court," composed of a senate of forty, chosen annually by districts of various sizes, and a house of representatives, chosen annually by towns in proportion to population; provided for a governor, to be chosen annually by the legislature if there was no popular majority, and to be given the title of "his excellency"; limited the right of suffrage by a property qualification of £60; provided for the support of Harvard college, public schools and grammar schools; and gave the governor power to remove judges on address of both houses of the legislature. The constitution went into force Oct. 25, 1780, and the first legislature under its provisions met at Boston on that day.
—A convention, Nov. 15, 1820-Jan. 9, 1821, adopted fourteen amendments, nine of which were ratified by popular vote, April 9, 1821. Their principal changes were the abolition of the property qualification for suffrage; the adoption of a simpler form of an oath of allegiance, without retaining the declaration of a belief in the Christian religion; and provision for future amendment by vote of the legislature and ratification by popular vote. In this manner amendments have been proposed and ratified by nine legislatures, the most important being the change of the beginning of the political year from May to January (1833); the apportionment of the senators according to population (1840); the establishment of an educational limitation (ability to read and write) upon the right of suffrage (1857); the disfranchisement of aliens for two years after their naturalization (1859), and the abolition of this latter amendment (1863).
—In 1851 the popular vote was against the calling of a constitutional convention. In the following year the result was the reverse; and a convention at Boston, May 4-Aug. 1, 1853, adopted a revised constitution, which was rejected, Nov. 14, by a small popular majority. The organic law of the state is therefore still the constitution of 1780.
—The representation of the towns in the lower house has caused a difficulty which has grown with the increase of population. From 1840 until 1857 one representative was apportioned to 1,200, and one more for 2,400 additional population in a town; each town having less than 1,200 inhabitants was to be represented as many years in each decade as the number 160 was contained in the number of its inhabitants; and the apportionment of representatives or representation was to be made by the governor and council after each decennial census. Since 1857 the house is fixed at 240 members; the legislature apportions the representation to the counties; and the county commissioners (or the mayor and aldermen in Boston) apportion the county's representation among representative districts. In the state political conventions, however, town representation is still retained, making these bodies very large in numbers.
—GOVERNORS: (from 1775 until 1780 the legislative council); John Hancock, 1780-85; James Bowdoin, 1785-7; John Hancock, 1787-93; Samuel Adams, 1793-7; Increase Sumner, 1797-9; Moses Gill, 1799-1800; Caleb Strong, 1800-7; James Sullivan, 1807-8; Levi Lincoln, 1808-9; Christopher Gore, 1809-10; Elbridge Gerry, 1810-12; Caleb Strong, 1812-16; John Brooks, 1816-23; William Eustis, 1823-5; Marcus Morton, 1825; Levi Lincoln, 1825-34; John Davis, 1834-5, Samuel T. Armstrong, 1835-6; Edward Everett, 1836-40; Marcus Morton, 1840-41; John Davis, 1841-3; Marcus Morton, 1843-4; George N. Briggs, 1844-51; George S. Boutwell, 1851-3; John H. Clifford, 1853-4; Emory Washburn, 1854-5; Henry J. Gardner, 1855-8; Nathaniel P. Banks, 1858-61; John A. Andrew, 1861-6; Alexander H. Bullock, 1866-9; William Claflin, 1869-72; William B. Washburn, 1872-4; Thomas Talbot, 1874; William Gaston, 1874-6; Alexander H. Rice, 1876-9; Thomas Talbot, 1879-80; John D. Long, 1880-82; Benjamin F. Butler, 1882-3.
—POLITICAL HISTORY. The colonial history of the state has colored all its after history. The government was very democratic, excelled in this respect only by Connecticut, in which the governor was still elective; in intelligence, education and wealth the people were very nearly on a plane, and that a high one; freemen and representatives alike were infinitely more accustomed to dealing with equals than with superiors; and yet the population was so homogeneous that feeling and action were generally in unison, and the establishment of a state church was hardly felt to be a burden. The great force of Massachusetts came from this combination of conscious individualism with unity of action; it was not so much the law that was supreme, as the individual's conscientious interpretation of the law, and the general agreement of the mass of individuals in the same interpretation. There was thus developed a state which fought the battles of Lexington and Concord upon the technical ground of the individual's right to traverse the king's highway unmolested, and which followed them up by the collection of a voluminous mass of affidavits, by spectators and participants, to influence individual opinion at home and abroad. Individualism has always been the law of state politics; Massachusetts democrats have been as tenaciously indifferent to the fact that their party was in a hopeless minority in the state as their federalist and whig neighbors have been to the fact that their parties were in a hopeless minority in the nation; and Massachusetts members of all parties have been pre eminent for a personal dissection of principles to their logical results, regardless of personal, party or other interests. This last form of individualism has been variously characterized as fanaticism or as devotion to principle; but its existence has always been an essential factor in Massachusetts politics.
—The political history of the state falls most naturally into four periods: 1, 1775-97; 2, 1797-1823; 3, 1823-48; 4, 1848-82. During the first period the agricultural interest was predominant; during the second, the commercial; during the third and fourth, the manufacturing; but, during the fourth, the rise of a moral question to the surface of politics upturned the state parties from the foundations, and for the first time since 1797 placed Massachusetts in sympathy with a dominant national party.
—I.:1775-97. Massachusetts went into and came out of the revolution at the head of the states, though she only stood eighth in population. She had brought on the contest by her stubborn resistance to the ministry; she had fought the opening battles and begun the siege of Boston of her own motion; to the prosecution of the war she had contributed 92,563 men, her nearest competitors being Virginia with 52,715, and Connecticut with 42,831; and, though a formal deference was always paid to the leadership of Virginia, it is indubitable that Massachusetts was the backbone of the rebellion, which was mainly sustained by the community of interests, feelings and action between these two states, a community which was not fairly broken for twenty-five years. In both states there was the same difficulty in ratifying the constitution in 1788 (see CONSTITUTION, II.); but in Massachusetts the weight of ability was so heavily in favor of ratification, and the voters of the state were so much inclined to choose able men as national representatives, that the senators and congressmen were almost entirely federalist from the opening of the first congress. The state was thus represented in congress by such federalist leaders as Tristram Dalton. Fisher Ames, Caleb Strong, Benjamin Goodhue, Theodore Sedgwick, George Cabot, and Harrison Gray Otis; but in the annual state elections for governors and legislatures the anti-federalists maintained themselves successfully until 1797. It would not be accurate to represent the gradual change, which finally made Massachusetts a very reliably federalist state in 1797, as directly due to commercial interest; for in 1797 the western counties, which had been the seat of Shays' insurrection, and which had no commercial interests, were federalist, while the democratic strength lay in and around Boston and in Maine, the commercial portions of the state. It was rather due to the widening influence of the able federalist leaders; but as these were strongly influenced by their sympathies with the commercial interests of the state, it must be confessed that commerce had a great deal to do with the change, directly or indirectly. (See SHAYS' REBELLION, under CONFEDERATION, ARTICLES OF; ESSEX JUNTO; FEDERAL PARTY, I.)
—II.: 1797-1823. In 1797 Samuel Adams declined a re-election as governor, and Increase Sumner, a federalist of the Adams school, was chosen in his stead. From that time until 1823 the governors and legislatures were federalist, with the exceptions of Govs. Sullivan, Lincoln and Gerry, and the legislatures of 1806-7 and 1810-12. The majorities, however, were always small: Strong had but 1,600 majority out of nearly 40,000 votes in 1800, and Gore but 3,000 majority out of 93,000 votes in 1809; and in 1806 and 1808 Govs. Strong and Lincoln served with legislatures of opposite politics. In 1804 the general depression throughout the federal party gave the state's electoral votes to Jefferson and Clinton, the democratic candidates; in all other presidential years the state was federalist until 1820, when, like all the other states, it voted for Monroe and Tompkins.
—Political conflict in the state grew gradually warmer as the embargo policy was developed and adopted. (See EMBARGO.) The rise of the war feeling, which followed the collapse of the restrictive system, gradually gave the democrats the small percentage of increase necessary to gain control of the state; but it was not until 1811 that they finally elected a governor and a majority of both houses of the legislature. They then proceeded to make a number of changes: the inferior courts were "reorganized," so as to oust the federalist occupants; the church laws were so modified as to allow dissenters from the congregational church to divert their taxes to the support of ministers of their own faith; and the new apportionment of senatorial districts was as unfair as it is apt to be after similar political revolutions. (See GERRYMANDER.) The result was that in April, 1812, ex-Gov. Strong was again nominated by the federalists, and beat Gerry by a majority of only 1,600 out of 104,000 votes; the lower house of the legislature was strongly federalist; but the senate remained democratic for another year. From this time the state remained federalist by an increasing majority. Gov. Strong was re-elected throughout the war, and his annual messages and conflicts with the federal government as to the control of the state's militia made him particularly obnoxious to democrats in other states. The legislature more than kept pace with the governor, although nearly three years were required for it to pass through the stage of resolutions to the point of action. In 1813 the senate adopted Quincy's resolution "that in a war like the present, waged without justifiable cause, and prosecuted in a manner indicating that conquest and ambition are its real motives, it is not becoming a moral and religious people to express any approbation of military and naval exploits not immediately connected with the defense of our seacoast and soil." This may be taken as indicative of the feeling which prompted the many other anti-war resolutions and acts of the legislature until they culminated in the "Hartford convention." (See HENRY LETTERS; CONVENTION, HARTFORD.) At the end of the war Gov Strong retired, and another federalist took his place. The state remained practically isolated in politics from the other states, even from the other New England states, which had formally or heartily renounced federalism. In state elections the federalists were regularly successful; in congressional elections the democrats regularly secured less than one-third of the state's representatives (see MAINE); but the complete nullity of the state in the national councils was so evident as to be a perennial subject of reference in the newspapers of other states as "the result of the Hartford convention." In 1823 even Massachusetts tenacity gave way, and a democratic governor and legislature were elected. The change, however, to which this state was the last to yield, was the development of manufactures, which finally destroyed the federal party elsewhere. (See FEDERAL PARTY, II.)
—III.: 1823-48. Gov. Eustis' message congratulated the legislature that "this ancient and respectable state had been restored to the confidence of her sister states" by the late election; and the state senate proceeded to justify the confidence by expunging, in January, 1824, by a vote of 22 to 15, the famous resolution of 1813 against rejoicing over victories The new democratic state administration at once began to press for payment of the state's claims for militia services during the war. The federalists had never obtained any recognition for them, for the state had refused during the war to allow the control of her militia to the federal government. The new powers were more successful. President Monroe advised their payment, in a message of Feb. 23, 1824; but the act for that purpose was not passed until May 31, 1830.
—The federalist vote in 1824 was still 34,210 for Samuel Lathrop to 38,650 for Gov. Eustis. In the following year both parties united on Gov. Lincoln, and party divisions disappeared until the rise of the whig party revived them. In the interval the state gave her electoral votes to her citizen, John Quincy Adams, in 1824 and 1828, the popular vote in his favor being 83 per cent. of the whole; in 1832 its electoral vote was cast for Clay; and in 1836 for Webster. In 1834 Gov. Lincoln retired, and a whig governor and lieutenant governor, Davis and Armstrong, came into office. Everett, the successor of Davis, was also a whig, and he retained office until in 1839 he was beaten by Marcus Morton in the closest election of the state's history. The popular vote was for Morton 51,024, for Everett 50,725, scattering 307, Morton's majority 2. In the following year the whigs nominated and elected ex-Gov. Davis, but in the following year Morton was again successful. In 1843 the whigs elected George N. Briggs, and he retained office until 1851. The party proportion of the popular vote may be estimated from a typical year (1846): Briggs, 54,784, Davis (democrat) 33,196, scattering (abolitionist and others) 13,589. In 1844 the democrats nominated George Bancroft, the historian; in 1848, Caleb Cushing; in 1845-7, Davis.
—During the latter years of this period the abolitionist feeling in Massachusetts grew into something like the controlling importance which it held soon after 1848. It was strengthened by the arrest of George Latimer, a Virginia fugitive slave, in Boston, in the autumn of 1842, and though the fugitive was released by purchase, the legislature soon after passed the first personal liberty law of the state. (See PERSONAL LIBERTY LAWS.) In 1843 the democratic legislature, elected with Morton, passed resolutions proposing to congress the passage of an amendment to the constitution basing representation in the lower house of congress on the number of free inhabitants. (See COMPROMISES, I.; SLAVERY.) The resolutions were presented in the house, Dec. 21, 1843, by John Quincy Adams, and, coming from a democratic legislature, gave rise to an intense anger among the southern members. The abolitionist vote rose, after 1844, to about one-third of the democratic vote, and in 1845 compelled a choice by the legislature, in default of a popular majority for any candidate; but it showed no sign of any positive and living growth until 1848.
—IV.: 1848-82. The original free-soil party had its kindliest home in Massachusetts. (See FREE-SOIL PARTY.) Its leaders, Henry Wilson, J. G. Palfrey, the historian, Horace Mann, the promoter of education in the state, Francis W.Bird, John B.Alley and others made it a more successful party than the old liberty party had been. In 1848 the popular vote for Stephen C. Phillips, the free-soil candidate, exceeded that for Cushing; and, though it feel slightly behind the democratic vote in 1849, it was sufficient in both years to prevent a choice by the people. In both years the whig legislature chose Briggs. These two elections seem to have suggested to Wilson the idea of the famous "coalition campaign" of 1850. The legislature then chosen was to elect a United States senator for the remainder of Webster's term, ending March 4, 1851, and another for the full term of six years from March 4. Wilson's proposition to George S. Boutwell, the democratic leader, who had been his party's candidate for governor in 1849, and was to be the candidate in 1850, was that the democrats and free soilers should run separate candidates for state officers; that they should unite on members of the legislature wherever such a union would be successful; and that, in the probable event of no popular choice for governor and a coalition majority in the legislature, the free-soilers would only claim the election of Charles Sumner, a Boston lawyer, for the long term senatorship, and would give the democrats the rest of the principal offices. The popular vote was for Briggs 57,364, for Boutwell 36,363, and for Phillips 27,803: and the coalition was successful in the legislature, having 27 to 13 in the senate, and 210 to 174 in the house. The coalition agreement was carried out in the election of Boutwell and the state officers and of Robert Rantoul, an anti-slavery democrat, for the short term senatorship, and the free-soilers were further given the presidency of the senate, four of the nine councilors, and one of the state officers; but Sumner's election occasioned more difficulty. Caleb Cushing and other leading democrats opposed it warmly, and implored the democratic legislators not to send this "fireband into the councils of the nation." In the senate Sumner was chosen without difficulty, but one democrat refusing to vote for him; in the house twenty-three democrats voted for another candidate, thus preventing a choice. The balloting continued until April 24, 1851, when Sumner was chosen on the twenty-sixth ballot, one democrat having voted for him and given him a majority. In the next legislature the coalition still had a majority in both branches, and chose Boutwell governor in spite of a plurality of 21,000 for Winthrop, the whig candidate; but in the following year the whigs recovered their majority, and the governorship. In 1853 the whigs elected Washburn, through the legislature; and as this was the last disputed election it is as well to give the popular vote, which was as follows: Washburn (whig) 60,472, Henry W. Bishop (democrat) 35,254, Henry Wilson (free-soil) 29,545.
—The anti-slavery feeling in the state had been intensified by the arrest of Sims, April 3, 1851, and of Anthony Burns, May 23, 1854, and their forcible removal from the state (See FUGITIVE SLAVE LAWS.) The free-soilers, at a mass convention, July 20, and a regular state convention, Sept. 7, took the name of the "republican" party (see REPUBLICAN PARTY), and nominated Wilson for governor; but most of its voters, almost immediately afterward, fell into the "know-nothing" organization. (See AMERICAN PARTY.) The result of the election was an overwhelming surprise, particularly to the whigs. The popular vote was, for Gardner (American) 81,503, Washburn 27,279, Bishop 13,742, and Wilson 6,483. Nearly all the legislature were "know-nothings": in the house there were but six whigs and one democrat; and all the eleven congressmen were of the same party. Gardner was re-elected in 1855 and 1856: but in 1855 the republican vote rose to 36,521, while his own fell to 51,674; and in 1856 he claimed to be a "Fremont American," and was voted for by the republicans. In the following year the state became republican in all its branches of government, and thereafter remained so until 1874. Governor Banks' first vote was 59,889 to 30,887 for Erasmus D. Beach (democrat), and 37,553 for Gardner. In 1860 Gov. Andrew received 104,527 votes to 35,191 for Beach (Douglas democrat), 23,816 for Amos A. Lawrence (constitutional union), and 6,000 for Benj. F. Butler (Breckinridge democrat). Andrew's majorities remained large during the war, and in 1864 his vote reached 125,281 to 49,190. At the same election there were no democrats in the senate, and but six out of 240 in the house. From that time until 1874 the democratic proportion of the popular vote was always below 40 per cent., except in 1867, when 42 per cent. was given to John Quincy Adams, and in 1873, when 45 per cent. was given to William Gaston. During all this period all the congressmen had been republicans, and the state's electoral votes had been given to the republican candidates.
—In the election of 1874 a complete bouleversement took place. An attempt to modify the state's prohibitory liquor law at the previous session of the legislature had been defeated by the governor's veto His renomination, and the nomination of Horatio Knight, another prohibitionist, for lieutenant governor, excited opposition and aggravated other dissensions. Talbot was defeated, Knight was only elected by a small majority, but the republicans elected a majority of both branches of the legislature and all the state officers except the governor. Of the eleven congressmen but five regular republicans were elected, four democrats, and two independent republicans. In 1875 the republicans elected Gov. Rice by 83,639 votes to 78,333 for Gaston, and in 1876 Rice's majority was increased. In the latter year but one democratic congressman was elected.
—It is difficult to class the "Butler movement," which fairly took shape in 1878, otherwise than as one of general discontent. It is true that Butler (see his name) openly advocated the peculiar ideas of the greenback-labor party in that year; but the party which supported him in the state seems to have cared little for any interests outside of the state. Its existence seems to have been based upon the assertions that there was a dominant "ring" in the dominant republican party of the state, and that the manufacturing and other corporations, with which the state was filled, coerced the votes of their employés by threats of discharge in case of disobedience. The latter influence, it was said, was fast destroying the independence and self-respect of the voters; the former was filling the offices with its dependents, was increasing taxation and the public debt, was enabling its favorites to escape their share of taxation, was instrumental in expending the public money for purposes useful only to its protégés, and, by its power to control the committees of the state convention, through the appointment of the presiding officer, had already made reform through the republican party an impossibility. How much truth was in all this it is hard to say, for specific instances are usually conspicuous by their absence from "Butler" speeches; it is at least certain that the charges, were supported by nearly half the voters of the state. Butler had been meagrely supported in previous republican conventions as a candidate for governor, when, in 1878, he offered to run as an independent candidate if 20,000 voters should desire it. The names of 51,784 persons were signed to the invitation, and the "Butter campaign" at once began. The leaders of the two former parties ridiculed Butler's "signers" as men of straw; but it soon became apparent that Butler delegates to the democratic state convention were being chosen all over the state. The democratic state committee therefore announced. Sept. 12, that no delegate pledged to a non-democratic candidate was entitled to sit or vote in the convention. On the day appointed for the convention, Sept. 17, at Worcester, the Butler delegates were present first, and seized the hall; the state committee therefore adjourned the convention to meet at Boston, Sept. 28. The Worcester convention nominated Butler, without referring to the "greenback idea" in the platform; the Boston convention nominated Josiah G. Abbott, proclaiming itself the only representative of the national democratic party. Butler had been nominated, Sept. 11, by the greenback convention; and the republicans nominated Governor Talbot, Sept. 18. The struggle was ended, Nov. 5, by the following popular vote: Talbot 134,725, Butler 109,435, Abbott 10,162; and the state legislature and all but one of the eleven congress men were republican. In 1879 there was no "capture" of the democratic convention. Butler was nominated by a greenback convention John Quincy Adams by the democrats, and John D. Long by the republicans; but the popular vote varied very little from that of 1878. In 1880 Butler declined to be a candidate; Charles P. Thompson was selected by the democrats; and the popular vote at once settled to its normal proportions: Long 164,825, Thompson 111,410, H. B. Sargent (greenback) 4,864. scattering 1,147 In 1881 the collapse of political excitement, through Butler's withdrawal, reduced Long's vote to 96,609 and Thompson's to 54,586; the other party votes were little changed. In the senate there are thirty-six republicans and four democrats; in the house 181 republicans, fifty-five democrats, and four independent.
—The state has been so prolific of men who have been influential in politics, that any attempt at selection must be a difficult undertaking. Reference should be made to Charles Francis Adams, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Samuel Adams, Fisher Ames, N. P. Banks, George S. Boutwell, Anson Burlingame, Benjamin F. Butler, Caleb Cushing, Edward Everett, Elbridge Gerry, John Hancock, Joseph Story, Charles Sumner, Daniel Webster, and Henry Wilson (see their names); to the list of governors given above; and to the following: John B. Alley, free-soil leader, republican congressman 1859-67; George Ashmun, whig congressman 1845-51; Bailey Bartlett, high sheriff of Essex county 1789-1830, and federalist congressman 1797-1801; George Cabot, federalist United States senator 1791-6 (see also ADMINISTRATIONS, III.; ESSEX JUNTO; CONVENTION, HARTFORD); Rufus Choate, whig congressman 1831-4, and United States senator 1841-5; B. W. Crowninshield (see ADMINISTRATIONS, VII.), democratic congressman 1823-31; Benj. R. Curtis (see JUDICIARY, DRED SCOTT CASE); John Davis, whig congressman 1825-34, governor 1834-5 and 1840-41, and United States senator 1835-40 and 1845-53; Henry L. Dawes, republican congressman 1857-75, and United States senator 1875-87; William Eustis, democratic congressman 1801-5 and 1820-23 (see Administrations. VI.). minister to the Netherlands 1814-18, and governor 1823-5; William Lloyd Garrison (see ABOLITION); Benjamin Goodhue (see ESSEX JUNTO), federal congressman 1789-95, and United States senator 1796-1800; Benjamin Gorham, federalist and whig congressman 1820-21, 1827-31, and 1833-5; Ebenezer R. Hoar (see ADMINISTRATIONS, XXI.), judge of the state supreme court 1859-69, and republican congressman 1873-5; George F. Hoar (brother of the preceding), republican congressman 1869-77, and United States senator 1877-83; Samuel Hoar (father of the preceding), whig representative 1835-7, and the state's commissioner to South Carolina in 1844 (see SLAVERY); Levi Lincoln, one of the democratic leaders until 1823, governor 1825-34, and whig congressman 1834-41; Horace Mann, secretary of the state board of education 1837-48, free-soil congressman 1848-53, and president of Antioch college, in Ohio, 1853-9; Marcus Morton, democratic congressman 1817-21, judge of the state supreme court 1825-40, and governor 1840-41 and 1843-4; Harrison Gray Otis, federalist representative 1797-1801, and United States senator 1817-22 (see CONVENTION, HARTFORD); Wendell Phillips (see ABOLITION); Timothy Pickering (see ADMINISTRATIONS, I.-III.), federalist United States senator 1803-11, and congressman 1813-17; Josiah Quincy, federalist congressman 1805-13, president of Harvard college 1829-45 (see CONVENTION, HARTFORD; WARS, III.; SECESSION, I.; NATION); Robert Rantoul, democratic United States senator 1851, and congressman 1851-2; Theodore Sedgwick, federalist congressman 1769-96, and 1799-1801 (speaker), and United States senator 1796-9. Joseph B. Varnum, democratic congressman 1795-1811, speaker 1807-11, and United States senator 1811-17, Robert C. Winthrop, whig congressman 1840-50, speaker 1847-9, and United States senator 1850-1.