ANOTHER TERRIBLE CRIME; ANOTHER PROBABLE MURDER; THE SLAVE TRADE (7/10/1860)

New York Times - Times Machine ^ | 7/10/1860

[Homer_J_Simpson]

Testimony at the Corner's Inquest. Ere the excitement incident to the recent murders of Messrs. WALTON and MATHEWS has in the least degree subsided, we are called upon to give the particulars of another fearful tragedy, which more than parallels the first crime in features of atrocity. In this instance the victims are Mrs. ANN SCHUMAKER and her infant, a boy seven months old, residing near the corner of Seventy-first-street and Eleventh-avenue. A German, laborer, named FRANCIS HOFFMAN, is the murderer, and his only motive for taking the lives of two human beings seems to have been to obtain possession of a few dollars which were in the house at the time. The circumstances of the case, as developed by the testimony, are these! Mr. JOHN SCHUMAKER, husband of the injured woman, (who, although she is not yet dead, cannot by any possibility survive the injuries she has received,) is a man of considerable means, and carries on the business of a market-gardener, having a plot a few acres in extent at the place in question, in the centre of which stands his cottage, a two-story frame building, with no other dwelling within pistol-shot distance of it in any direction. Yesterday morning between 2 and 3 o'clock, he went down to the City with a load of "market truck," leaving his family and laborers asleep. About 4 o'clock the laborers, two Germans, named JACOB STEIRE and HANS TRUSEE, left the house and commenced working a short distance away from it in the field. Their sleeping apartment was in the rear room of the second floor, the front room being occupied by Mrs. SCHUMAKER and her child, and an intermediate apartment being used as a kitchen.

[Homer_J_Simpson]

Free Republic University, Department of History presents U.S. History, 1855-1860: Seminar and Discussion Forum
Bleeding Kansas, Dred Scott, Lincoln-Douglas, Harper’s Ferry, the election of 1860, secession – all the events leading up to the Civil War, as seen through news reports of the time and later historical accounts

First session: November 21, 2015. Last date to add: Sometime in the future.
Reading: Self-assigned. Recommendations made and welcomed.

Posting history, in reverse order

To add this class to or drop it from your schedule notify Admissions and Records (Attn: Homer_J_Simpson) by reply or freepmail.

Link to previous New York Times thread

[Homer_J_Simpson]

1

2

3

4

5

6

[Homer_J_Simpson]

Another Terrible Crime – 2
Another Probable Murder – 2
The Slave-Trade – 2-3
General Telegraphic News by the Overland Mail – 3-4
From Utah – 4
Editorial: The Popular Sovereignty Doctrine and the Douglas Ticket – 4-5
The Seventh Regiment in Camp – 5-6
Base Ball: Charter Oak vs. Putnam – 6
New Jersey – 6
Coroners’ Inquests – 6
Fires – 6

[rustbucket]

July 10, 1860. Alexandria Gazette, Alexandria, D.C.

Two articles in this paper – one for Douglas and one against Douglas (kudos to the paper for presenting articles pro and con). I quote below the first few paragraphs of each article.

(Column 5, in favor of Douglas)

Speech of George W. Brent, esq.,
At the Douglas Ratification Meeting in Washington..

Stephen A. Douglas for a short period of time separated himself from his Northern associates and the sympathies of his Northern friends, and he has placed himself in antagonism and hostility to his Southern friends. But notwithstanding this position, notwithstanding disaster threatened to over whelm him, yet boldly, in defence of the constitutional rights of the South and this Union, he stood forward the bold champion of his brethren of the South. Look at the fearless stand which he assumed upon that peculiar measure of the compromise of 1850, the fugitive slave law. The North, a short period prior to that, had become so aggressive upon the rights of the South that they had refused to carry out in good faith that clause of the Constitution which renders it obligatory upon them to return fugitives from labor, and it became necessary that a new act of Congress should be passed in or order to enforce that constitutional obligation of duty. Stephen A. Douglas, in the discharge of his duty as a Senator, supported that measure; and look at the result.

It awakened a storm of indignation and fury against him in his own home in the Northwest; and it was said that upon his return there the indignation was so great that burning effigies of himself illumined his pathway home, and his own city. Chicago, had passed resolutions condemnatory of his course. But notwithstanding this furious opposition against him in his own city, he breasted to storm of public indignation, even at the hazard of his own life; and such was the ability and eloquence with which he maintained the constitutionality and propriety of that measure, the City Councils of Chicago, by a large vote upon the ensuing day, rescinded their resolutions of condem- nation. (Great applause.)

Thus, my fellow-citizens, the whole career of Stephen A. Douglas has shown that he is an intrepid and fearless champion of the rights of the States of this Union without regard to section. He has known no North, no South, no East, in his Congressional career: and as the past is a sufficient guarantee for what his future will be, you may rest assured that if he is elevated to the Presidential chair by the suffrages of the American people in the administration of this government, he will administer it with equal justice to all sections, and without being swayed by favor and affection to any.

. . . [rustbucket: The article continued in the paper.]

(Column 7, against Douglas)

Please publish the following reasons, among others, why Democrats cannot support Mr. Douglas for President:

1. He is not a candidate of the Democracy of the whole United States, but was nominated by a disrupted Convention, whose elements were almost as sectional as those of the Convention at Chicago, which, as well as the Douglas Convention at Baltimore, contained only scattering delegates from several of the slave States.

2. To vote for Judge Douglas, in his present position as a half-nominated candidate, would do him no good.

3. Because Judge Douglas, being an irregular candidate, and his forced nomination being destitute of any element entitling it to respect, therefore, to vote for him would be to become his voluntary endorser.

4. Because Judge Douglas's leadership of the Democratic party has been fickle, headstrong, selfish, and unsafe, and has brought upon the Democracy numberless defeats that wise councils and skillful generalship would have avoided.

5. Because Judge Douglas, actuated solely by considerations connected with his personal ambition, commenced a war on the National Administration of the Democratic party, and by a combination between himself, Broderick, Forney, Hickman, Haskins, and the Black Republicans in general, succeeded so far in weakening its strength before the people, as to throw the lower house of Congress into the hands of the Know Nothings and Black Republicans.

6. Because Forney, Haskins, Morris of Illinois, and other enemies of the Democratic party, known to be in the personal confidence and favor of Judge Douglas, prompted and voted for getting up the Covode and other infamous Committees, having for their sole object the disgrace of President Buchanan, his Cabinet, and the Democracy by whom they were defended.

7. Because Judge Douglas, by aiding and abetting in the nefarious attempt to persuade the public mind the public mind that Mr. Buchanan and the Chosen National Administration of the Democratic party sought to fasten slavery on an unwilling people, HAS DONE MORE TO MANUFACTURE RECRUITS FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAN HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED TOWARD THAT END BY THE WHOLE REPUBLICAN PRESS OF THE UNION DURING AN EQUAL PERIOD.

. . . [rustbucket: The article continued in the paper.]