Three San Francisco Homicides
Moment of Truth: 2. The Conventions
Link to Start / Introduction / Table of Contents
Moment of Truth
2. The Conventions
From the Sacramento Union:
The Broderick faction of the Democratic Party ended its convention here on disappointing terms. The goal of fielding a competing slate of candidates to run against the mainstream Party was certain to be challenging. But "The Chief" received no help at all. Few solid candidates were willing to present themselves in opposition for the major offices, and one man who was chosen repudiated the nomination. The slots for governor and congressmen were filled with men who cannot hope to win come this September.
David Broderick, of course, has always been the leader of his own wing of the California Democrats. He has famously confronted the Chiv faction with his own strong team in prior state conventions. But in holding his own separate convention, and in running his own slate of candidates, he has broken with the national Democracy. Many who’d been strong for Broderick refused to join in his convention or left it prematurely as they watched it peter out. A particularly pressing issue was whether all the Broderick Democrats should simply join the new Republicans as the only avenue remaining for the anti-slavery crowd. We understand that Colonel Baker, as a longtime friend of Broderick, begged him to embrace the cause of the Republicans. But The Chief instead insisted that they join with him inside his faction of the Democratic Party, and the Republicans refused.
Broderick has framed his group as "Anti-Lecompton" Democrats. He seeks to paint the Democrats as split between his own Free Soil wing and a “Lecompton” wing supporting President Buchanan's goal of slavery for Kansas. But to many this was just a "Broderick convention," a meeting of his personal supporters. He demanded so much personal control over the important nominations that certain disappointed allies walked away, despite strong anti-slavery positions. And so the whole affair broke down in bitterness and lacking candidates of quality.
The question now is whether Broderick will throw his own weight into the campaign by getting on the stump himself and holding rallies, or whether he will simply face reality and let his slate of candidates dissolve into oblivion before election day. For those who've watched The Chief for many years, there's little doubt he won't concede the fight, regardless of his chances.
* * *
Chief Justice Terry of the California Supreme Court, speaking at the mainstream California Democratic Convention:
"Here we gather, united with ourselves, united with our President and united with the national Democracy. We share the vision of the Buchanan Administration and stand prepared to triumph over the Republicans. Those within our ranks who tried to splinter us have miserably failed, as proven by the outcome of that gathering of has-beens, led, to our great shame, by one of our two U.S. Senators.
"That rump convention, despite a pretense over differences of principle, was but the gathering of slaves of one great master. Broderick summoned all of his dependents in an effort to conceal the clear, plain truth that his political career is finished. He went to Washington, purportedly to represent our state, but chose instead to stand against our President, the leader of our Party on the greatest issues facing the United States. He even tried to force the Little Giant, Stephen Douglas, to help him in his fight against our President. And in a vain attempt to seem more moderate, more rooted in the national Democracy, the Broderick convention claimed to have the full support of that famed Senator from Illinois. How laughable! Great Stephen Douglas, so long the fulcrum of our Party, would never side with Broderick against our President! I must assume that when they speak of Douglas, they do not mean our Stephen Douglas, but Black Douglass! Frederick Douglass! Because the Broderick clan is nothing but a tool of abolitionist Republicans -- Black Republicans we call them -- to trouble our cohesion from within and coddle radicals without."
* * *
At an open-seating breakfast table in a San Francisco hotel, David Broderick eats with many other people, including Mr. Perley, a longtime friend of Justice Terry and his fellow Southerner:
Broderick:
I read here, Perley, that your friend Terry tore into me at their convention. He's a Southerner, but I respected him. I used to say he was the only honest judge on the Supreme Court. But now I take it back. When he was in the clutches of the Vigilance Committee, I paid three separate papers to support him. And this is how the wretch repays me!
Perley:
Who are you calling a wretch, Mr. Broderick?
Broderick:
Judge Terry. The man's a god damn wretch for treating me like this.
Perley:
I'll inform him of the language you are using.
Broderick:
Please do so.
Perley:
You wouldn't dare to use such language to his face!
Broderick:
I wouldn't dare?
Perley:
No! You wouldn't dare to speak to Terry in this way, and you know it! I'm shocked you dare to speak to me this way about my friend!
Broderick:
If I don't care if Terry hears what I just said, how could I possibly care about what you think?
Perley:
I'm leaving now, but this is not the last you'll hear of it!
Broderick:
Pathetic.
* * *
From the San Francisco Herald:
We have this copy of a letter purportedly delivered to Senator Broderick and thought it worthy of the public's notice:
Mr. Broderick,
You will recall that you addressed me over breakfast to insult my dear friend David Terry in the most offensive terms. You called him a "wretch" and disparaged his honesty on the Bench, and you did this in the presence of the most important people in The City, among them Maj. Selover and his wife.
In doing so, you have personally offended me and my honor demands that I either receive your apology or that you accept my challenge to arms. I eagerly await your answer.
Perley
* * *
From the next day's Herald:
Senator Broderick's reply to the letter published yesterday:
Mr. Perley:
I read your missive with amusement. That you would publicize this challenge, which all proprieties demand be private, entirely reveals your motives. I will therefore take the liberty of making this response in public.
Any gentleman would understand that no one occupying my position could conceivably regard a challenge from anyone in yours. It's plain that you are simply trying to advance yourself among your friends in politics by being forward in their efforts to remove me from the stage. You could hardly have believed that I would contemplate a deadly confrontation with a person of such little consequence.
As this response is being broadcast to the public, I will define my own position clearly. I will not acknowledge any challenge of this nature until after the election. I must give all my energies to the campaign because I owe it to my loyal friends and followers. After the election, I will only contemplate a challenge from a gentleman of equal stature to myself. I dare not risk my life, which I believe of value to a noble cause, on any other terms. Should a true peer of mine in politics then challenge me, I will accept.