rhe oagus rZxas Deleqatio to the 1860
/Republica NatioHal Convetiao
PAUL DOUGLAS CASDORPH
T HE SECOND REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION met in
Chicago in May, 186o, amid an intense sectional feeling
that was about to plunge the country into civil war. Be-
cause "Black Republicanism" was abominated in all of the South,
any southern delegation to this convention was bound to be highly
unpopular at home. Several southern states were, nevertheless,
represented at the convention, and Texas was one of them.
The question immediately arises whether the "Texas" delegates
at Chicago were bona fide Texans, representing a valid party or-
ganization within the state. A partial answer may be found in a
statement on May 17, 186o, by A. M. Gentry, president of the
Texas and Louisiana Railroad, who said "that they had but two
parties in Texas, American and Democratic. Texas Republicans
were bogus. No men could have assembled anywhere in Texas to
elect delegates to the Chicago convention and lived until morn-
On the very same day, the New York Tribune reported that the
"Texas delegation, which is made up mostly here [actually in
Michigan] will be denounced tomorrow as a bogus delegation;
it is for Mr. Seward."3 Horace Greeley, who controlled the Trib-
une, was hostile to Seward and favored the nomination of Lincoln
in the Chicago convention. Ten days after the convention, Greeley
himself wrote that the delegates to the convention "(save the
bogus delegation from Texas concocted in Michigan who voted
for Gov. Seward) did their own proper work at Chicago--did it
wisely and well."4
'Gentry was speaking in behalf of the candidacy of Sam Houston before a Union
Party rally in New York City.
2New York Tribune, May 18, i86o, p. 6.
Slbid., May 17, 186o, p. 5.
4lbid., May 28, 186o.
Texas State Historical Association. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 65, July 1961 - April, 1962. Austin, Texas. The Portal to Texas History. http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth101195/. Accessed December 12, 2013.