and an absentee candidate the attack of Strong, who stumped the territory.

Strong preached radicalism up and down Wisconsin. He had the paper support of his organization, but experienced many individual defections. The success of Tweedy was an omen of the approaching decomposition of the Democratic party, locally and nationally. The vote indicated a declining interest in politics due to schisms. Fewer persons voted in September, 1847, than had voted in the preceding April, although the population of the territory grew unceasingly. Even the worst opponents of Strong had not wanted to carry revolt thus far, and the defeat sobered the party for the time being. Few realized that the slavery issue was soon to make impracticable a close affiliation between eastern and southern Democrats. In the canvass, Strong had tried to stop the drift towards Tweedy by charging him with abolitionism. But now personal feelings were temporarily set aside, and in the second convention election, in November, 1847, the Democrats again secured a majority of the members. How far the defeat of the constitution of 1846 was due to principle, and how far to these factions, is revealed by the character of the second constitution. The schisms that disrupted Wisconsin were spreading elsewhere. Polk's veto of the river and harbor bill had produced a great internal improvements convention at Chicago in July, 1847, where it was made clear that the Northwest would not assent to the southern doctrines of narrow construction.79 Tariff, internal improvements, and slavery were proving themselves undigested issues for the Democracy, and the name of Zachary Taylor was acquiring an ominous significance for James K. Polk.

The new constitution was far from being an amended version of the old one.80 The two Democratic factions were un

” Milwaukee Sentinel and Gazette, August 6, 1846; Madison Argus, July 13, 20, 1847; Chicago Daily Democrat, quoted in Wisconsin Democrat, July 17, 1847. So The convention met December 15, 1847. Journal of the Convention to Form a Constitution for the State of Wisconsin, with a Sketch of the Debates (Madison, 1848).

reconciled in spite of their good working majority,81 and the Whigs were often able to hold the balance of power. "The Milwaukee K's," said the Wisconsin Democrat, meaning Kilbourn and King, the editor of the Milwaukee Sentinel and Gazette, "are regarded as the Siamese twins of the convention--a separation would be fatal to both." "Byron Kilbourn," it continued, "is so well known in the territory that his name has become almost synonomous with political tergiversation and intrigue. ''82 It was Kilbourn who, at the opening of the convention after the election of Morgan L. Martin as president, tried to persuade the body to content itself with revising the controverted sections of the first constitution-those on judiciary, bank, exemption, and the rights of married women.83 He was voted down, though he was one of the distinct leaders in the convention,84 and the new constitution was as different from the first as either was from the constitution of any nearby state.

A comparison of the two constitutions, section by section, shows that almost no sentence was saved from the first without change. From preamble to signatures it was a new draft. But most of the changes were only verbal and in arrangement. The skeleton of government was slightly altered, and even the disputed provisions were changed less than was to be expected.

The banking article was completely revised as was inevitable. In place of the sweeping prohibition of banks, the legislature was now authorized to take a referendum on the question of banks or no banks; and should the vote be affirmative it was authorized to pass a "general banking law, with such restrictions and under such regulations as they may deem expedient and proper for the security of the bill holders." But no such law was to be effective until ratified

1 Strong, History of the Territory of Wisconsin, 562.

82 Wisconsin Democrat, January 1, 1848.

83 Journal of the Convention with Debates, 1847, 8; Wisconsin Democrat, December 18, 1847.

* J. A. Noonan, Milwaukee, to Morgan L. Martin, December 12, 1847, in Wisconsin MSS., in Wisconsin Historical Society.

by the people at a general election.85 Under this procedure state banks were soon admitted into Wisconsin; but the triumphant advocates of banks had not dared to go beyond this bare and devious concession to the banks.

The judiciary article remained almost unchanged. The principle of elective judges was becoming better grounded every year, and whatever influence it may have had in defeating the first constitution, it was none the less repeated in the second. The married women's clause was omitted entirely, but nothing was put into the constitution forbidding the legislature to do by law what had created so great a noise when done by constitution; and the legislature soon responded to the sentiment of the day and used this privilege.

The exemption clause was also omitted, but into the bill of rights was incorporated a new section at the instigation of Martin: "17. The privilege of the debtor to enjoy the necessary comforts of life shall be recognized by wholesome laws, exempting a reasonable amount of property from seizure, or sale for the payment of any debt, or liability hereafter contracted. ''86 The cause had gained strength since 1846. Michigan, Georgia, Connecticut, and Texas had passed or were passing laws to this effect, and more than one Wisconsin Democrat believed that all that was essential in the section of the repudiated constitution was saved in the shorter section of the new bill of rights.87

The new constitution was submitted to the swelling electorate in March, 1848, and there was some apprehension as to its fate. "There was an effort made a few days ago by some of our Tadpole friends to unite with the Whigs and get up a systematic opposition to the constitution," wrote one of the Milwaukee conservatives to Martin in a private letter.88 But the opposition failed to materialize. The Pro

85

8 F. N. Thorpe, American Charters, Constitutions, and Organic Laws (Washington, 1909), 7, 4093.

se Thorpe, Constitutions, 7, 4078.

"W. Chase, Ceresco, Wisconsin, February 14, 1848, to M. L. Martin, in Wisconsin MSS., 13C36, in Wisconsin Historical Society.

8 J. A. Noonan, Milwaukee, to M. L. Martin, January 8, 1848, in Wisconsin MSS., 13C17, in Wisconsin Historical Society.

gressives were opposed to banks, but every month threw them further into the minority on this item, and they all wanted statehood. Their chief organ wrote, "The instrument is better than we expected from the body that framed it,''89 and urged its ratification. Criticism faded away, and though the vote was small the majority was overwhelming in favor of the constitution.90

It was, after all, factional politics that defeated the former document, fomented but not created by the extravagant attack upon the banks. Tweedy's election revealed to the Democrats the dangers of internecine feuds. They patched up their differences, elected a compromise governor in 1848, in the person of Nelson Dewey, "a thorough radical and consistent Democrat,'"91 and retained for a time their partisan control of the state and its representation. But their control was weakening; not again until 1893 had Wisconsin two Democrats in the United States Senate.92 Their constitution marks the high water mark of Democracy in the Northwest, before the tide began to ebb.

FREDERIC L. PAXSON.

89 Wisconsin Democrat, March 11, 1848.

o A. M. Thomson, Political History of Wisconsin (Milwaukee, 1900), 56; Strong, History of the Territory of Wisconsin, 556.

"Wisconsin Democrat, April 22, 1848.

"New York Nation, February 9, 1893, p. 76.