Produced by Polyvios J. Simopoulos
[Transcriber's note:
In Memoriam
Michael S. Hart (1947-2011),
Inventor of the e-Book
and
Founder of Project Gutenberg
]
================================= A History of the Republican Party by George Washington Platt =================================
[Frontispiece: Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley.]
A History
OF THE
Republican Party
BY
GEO. W. PLATT
—————————————————-
"And summon from the shadowy Past,
The forms that once have been."
—————————————————-
C. J. KREHBIEL & CO., CINCINNATI, O. 1904
Copyright, 1904, by GEO. W. PLATT. All rights reserved.
Inscribed
to the Memory of
the three Martyred Republican Presidents
LINCOLN, GARFIELD, McKINLEY.
PREFACE.
Early in February, 1900, the writer delivered an address before the Stamina Republican League of Cincinnati on "The Origin and Rise of the Republican Party." The interest in the subject shown by the audience and the many words of approbation led to a deeper consideration of the history of the Party, and the address was repeated on a more elaborate plan before many other organizations in Cincinnati and vicinity.
It soon became apparent that the great majority of every audience had very vague recollections of the tragic events which led to the organization of the Party, and of its early history, owing perhaps to the fact that they belonged to a generation that had followed the enactment of those events. It was also clear that those who had lived in the momentous decade before the Civil War were deeply interested and stirred by a new recital of the history of that period, and thus it was suggested that a History of the Republican Party might prove of interest and value.
Like the place of Homer's birth that of the Republican Party is in dispute, but it is believed that the facts herein narrated are supported by the weight of evidence.
It is hoped that this work does not display so much partisanship as to make it uninteresting to members of other political parties in the United States.
GEO. W. PLATT.
Cincinnati, February, 1904.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER. PAGE I. Formative Causes …………………………………… 5 II. Ancient and Modern Slavery ………………………….. 11 III. Beginning of Slavery in the United States …………….. 22 IV. The Early Federal Government ………………………… 28 V. The Missouri Compromise …………………………….. 42 VI. The Abolitionists ………………………………….. 51 VII. Compromise of 1850 …………………………………. 59 VIII. Birth of the Republican Party ……………………….. 70 IX. First Republican National Convention …………………. 86 X. The Lincoln-Douglas Debates …………………………. 101 XI. Lincoln …………………………………………… 112 XII. Reconstruction and the National Debt …………………. 135 XIII. Grant …………………………………………….. 148 XIV. Hayes …………………………………………….. 170 XV. Garfield and Arthur ………………………………… 185 XVI. Blaine ……………………………………………. 201 XVII. Harrison ………………………………………….. 213 XVIII. Cleveland's Second Term …………………………….. 230 XIX. McKinley ………………………………………….. 244 XX. Roosevelt …………………………………………. 285
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
PAGE 1. Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley …………………. Frontispiece 2. White House ……………………………………. facing 28 3. Capitol ……………………………………….. " 44 4. Alvan E. Bovay …………………………………. " 76 5. Schoolhouse at Ripon, Wis ……………………….. " 84 6. John C. Fremont ………………………………… " 92 7. Wm. H. Seward ………………………………….. " 100 8. Lincoln's First Inauguration …………………….. " 124 9. New York Herald, April 15, 1865 ………………… " 132 10. Andrew Johnson …………………………………. " 140 11. Ulysses S. Grant ……………………………….. " 148 12. Rutherford B. Hayes …………………………….. " 180 13. Chester A. Arthur ………………………………. " 196 14. James G. Blaine ………………………………… " 204 15. Benjamin Harrison ………………………………. " 213 16. John Sherman …………………………………… " 220 17. Inauguration of Wm. McKinley, March, 1897, ………… " 244 18. Thos. B. Reed ………………………………….. " 252 19. Second Inauguration of McKinley ………………….. " 260 20. Marcus A. Hanna ………………………………… " 276 21. Theodore Roosevelt ……………………………… " 285
A HISTORY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
CHAPTER I.
FORMATIVE CAUSES.
"Resolved, That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign power over the territories of the United States for their government, and that in the exercise of this power it is both the right and duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery."
Republican National Platform, 1856.
Near the beginning of Mr. Conway's small volume entitled "Barons of the Potomack and Rappahannock" occurs the sententious remark that "a true history of tobacco would be the history of English and American Liberty." With whatever truth there is in such sweeping statements it may also be said that "a history of Slavery in this country would be the history of the Republican Party." This is distinctly so, at least to the close of the Civil War, for we are to notice that while the party originated in a desire to oppose the extension of slavery, the cause of its origin disappeared in less than ten years after the birth of the organization. But the results of that cause remained for many years, and justified the assertion in the Republican platform of 1860 that "a history of the nation during the last four years has fully established the propriety and necessity of the organization and perpetuation of the Republican Party, and that the causes which called it into existence are permanent in their nature." From its primary position as an opponent of slavery extension, the new party became the champion of abolition, and in the chaos brought on by the Civil War, and in the Reconstruction period which followed, it was kept in power, notwithstanding the disappearance of its direct formative cause, and the justification for its continued existence was found in the urgent necessity of the hour. Gradually but firmly it became a strong State and National Party, solving the many vexed problems which followed the great conflict, restoring public credit, reducing the enormous war debt; and when the slavery question and its direct consequences had been eliminated from national politics, taking up new political ideas and economic policies, for the welfare of the entire country, until now, after half a century of existence, during which time it has written some of the brightest pages of American history, the Republican Party stands out as one of the greatest and most consistent of political parties in all the world's history.
Taking the popular vote as a criterion of permanent growth, the vote for the Republican presidential candidates, beginning with 1,341,264 for Fremont in 1856, reached the maximum of 7,208,244 for McKinley in 1900, and only once (in 1892) during this entire period did the popular vote for the Republican presidential candidate fail to show an increase over the vote of the preceding election.
The events of the momentous decade before the Civil War (during which period the Republican Party was firmly established), the election of Mr. Lincoln, the Civil War and Reconstruction, the story of the national development along commercial and financial lines since that period, present the most interesting and vivid chapters of American history. Throughout its history of fifty years, covering the period just mentioned, the Republican Party has a remarkable record for solid and consistent action, resulting universally in national prosperity and honor, and on the three occasions since its formation (1856, 1884 and 1892), when the voters turned away to listen to the teachings of Democracy, the invariable result has been national disaster and humiliation and a retarding of progress.
The Republican Party was organized in the early months of 1854, and the direct formative causes leading to its establishment were the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and the efforts on the part of the South, under the leadership of that ambitious politician, Stephen A. Douglas (with his specious doctrines of non-intervention on the part of the Government, and popular sovereignty), to force slavery into the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, which, by the Compromise of 1820, should have been forever dedicated to freedom. By these efforts it was seen that the South was attempting to make slavery a national instead of a sectional institution, and the situation early in 1854 (after the long series of triumphs of the Slave Power) seemed almost hopeless as far as concerned political opposition to these radical measures was concerned. At this time, and, indeed, for many years past, the Democratic Party was firm and united in its support of slavery, and the course of the Whig Party, intimidated by its southern members, and fearful of civil strife, had been one of subserviency to the exacting demands of slavery. The Whig Party had proven itself totally incapable of meeting the great question of the hour, and after the election of 1852 was on the verge of absolute dissolution.
The astonishing repeal of the Missouri Compromise early in 1854, coming, as it did, in a time of comparative peace on the slavery question, obliterated old party lines in the North completely, and left disorganized groups of anti-Nebraska Whigs, anti-Nebraska Democrats, Free-soilers, Abolitionists, and Know-Nothings, all of whom represented every extreme of the northern views of slavery. But underneath these views was the belief that slavery was a great moral wrong, and that its extension, at least, should be opposed, and from these seemingly discordant elements it became, in fact, an easy matter to organize, in a short time, a strong opposition party to the new aggression of the slave interests.
The Republican Party was at first one of defense only; it was a combination of the existing political elements opposed to slavery, and its first stand was conservative, not to abolish slavery, but to firmly oppose its extension. The Party at first had no intention of interfering with slavery in the States in which it then existed, but the idea of allowing slavery, with its manifest evils, to be extended into other States and Territories at the will of the South was not to be silently borne. The early views of the party, up to the Civil War, were well expressed by Mr. Lincoln in his last great public utterance before his election as President in November, 1860 (The Cooper Union Speech, February, 1860): "Wrong, as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the national territories and to overrun us here in these free States?"
It will be of interest, before taking up the history of the immediate casual events which made necessary this new political party, to consider the early history of that great institution, slavery, which, from the very beginning of American history to the close of the Civil War, and indeed for many years after, was the chief disturbing element in the country; to consider how this institution established itself in other countries, how it insidiously began its growth in the Jamestown colony, and how it gained in strength and political power, until, at the opening of the Revolution it owned half a million slaves, and after Independence had been gained, forced recognition in the Constitutional Convention and there domineered the North into the first of a series of humiliating compromises on the slave question. And from that time on, with increasing force, pressed its obnoxious doctrines upon the press, the pulpit, platforms and political parties of the country, until, after many years of bitter contention, it was met in 1854 by the organization of a determined opposition political party, which, after one failure, brought about its political overthrow, an event followed by a last tremendous struggle for the mastery, in which slavery was wiped out forever in the life-blood of those who upheld and those who opposed it.
CHAPTER II.
ANCIENT AND MODERN SLAVERY.
"Slavery is as ancient as War, and War as human nature."
Voltaire.
"That execrable sum of all villainies, commonly called the slave trade."
John Wesley, 1792.
The earliest records of the human race begin with accounts of slavery. The first slave was probably a war captive whose life had been spared, and slavery probably originated when the nations emerging from the savagery of early times discovered that the prisoner captured in war could render to the conqueror more service alive than dead; and it became a very early custom that all persons captured in war and not ransomed by their fellows should remain the property of the conqueror to be used by him at will or sold to others. It is seen that slavery in its inception was in some degree an innocent and humane institution, because it saved many lives and resulted in much development in building, agriculture and the crude manufacturing of early times.
It is convenient to divide the history of slavery into two epochs, ancient and modern, although there are times in the history of several nations when ancient slavery assumed the modern form. The ancient slaves were the prisoners captured in war, the hereditary slaves, and persons who, by the laws of their country, became slaves by the commission of crime or inability to meet their debts. Modern slavery assumed a more brutal aspect. Here the slave was not the result of wars, but the direct object of them, and we find nations engaged in the shameful traffic of deliberately declaring war upon a foreign and inoffensive people for the purpose of obtaining possession of their bodies to carry them away for sale in foreign countries. The modern slave for four centuries was a distinct article of commerce, quoted and bargained for in the markets and reckoned on as a medium of exchange.
For the history of ancient slavery we turn first to Egypt, and find abundant evidence of the use of slaves from the very earliest times. Egypt thrived, and its native population was overflowing; but notwithstanding this, thousands of slaves were brought into the country by the early Wars of Conquest. Most of these slaves, for lack of other work, were put to labor on vast monuments, buildings, shrines and temples. The great Pyramid of Gizeh, near Memphis, the smaller pyramids near it and the ruins near Thebes, and the Karnak, still remain as mysterious and wonderful records of the skill of the Egyptian builders, and as mute evidence of the use of vast numbers of slaves.
In the quaint diction of early biblical history is told the manner of the Egyptian use of slaves. We learn how Joseph was treacherously sold by his brethren into Egyptian captivity, but gaining favor, was placed in the house of his master, and how, in later years, when famine waxed sore in the land of Canaan, Joseph's father, Jacob, and his brethren and their flocks went into Egypt and prayed to Pharaoh for permission to dwell there, and partly through the influence of Joseph were given permission to live in the country of Goshen. The Israelites grew and multiplied until the land was filled with them, but new Kings ruled in Egypt, hostile to them, and their lives were made bitter with hard bondage and compulsory work in mortar and brick, "and they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses."
When the Hebrews, under the guidance of Moses, left Egypt, they took slaves with them, and in their subsequent history we find a record of the use of two classes of slaves, the Hebrew born and those of alien blood. The Hebrew slave usually became such by selling himself on account of his poverty, or because it was imposed upon him as a punishment for crime. He could claim his liberty at the end of six years, but not so with the alien, who was in bondage for life. Jerusalem was built, and after many years captured by Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, who razed the city and carried the upper classes of the Hebrews captive to Babylon, where they remained in a condition of servitude until the destruction of Babylon by Cyrus the Great, King of Persia, who, as a political measure, permitted the Hebrews to return to their homes and rebuild Jerusalem. Egypt went down to rise no more before the new power of the Persians, who, in turn, gave way to the Greeks, and they to the Romans. Throughout the history of the ancient people, the Egyptians, the Syrians, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Medes and Persians, slavery developed in the same general way; the prisoner of war was held in slavery and reduced to the lowest caste, and this we find true in China, Ancient India and in the history of the Aztecs.
Slaves were used in Greece, especially so at Athens, where, at the height of the city's power, there were four times as many slaves as citizens. The slaves took a prominent part in the domestic and public economy, being used as agricultural laborers, and as artificers and servants, and by the State as policemen and soldiers. Sparta possessed very few slaves, probably only enough to supply the demand for domestic servants. With the rapid progress of the Greeks came an increased use of slaves, and the wars not being sufficient to supply the demand, an open slave trade was soon established. In Greece arose to its height that peculiar form of slavery practiced by the early Hebrews, wherein foreigners violating laws, and Greeks themselves, if unable to meet their debts, were sold with their families into slavery. This brought about such a threatening state of affairs that by the wise laws of Solon this form of slavery was abolished. This peculiar slavery also existed in the early days of Rome, but in the third century before Christ it was also abolished.
In the Roman Empire slavery existed from the earliest times, and was carried to an excess not known before or since in the history of slavery. The wonderful and rapid rise of the Romans in power, domain and wealth led to a moral and political degeneracy which demanded the increased use of slaves in all branches of domestic and public life. Here, as in Greece, the Wars of Conquest bringing in, as they did, vast numbers of slaves, failed to supply the demand, and here again, as in Greece, the slave trade, with its acts of piracy, was established to obtain a supply, and the occupation of the professional slave hunter and slave dealer became fully recognized and were the forerunners of similar acts in the history of Negro slavery many centuries later. The abuses brought on by the Roman system of slavery led to such decay and corruption in the Empire that it became an easy prize for the Teutonic tribes, and Rome of the West fell to rise no more, about the middle of the fifth century.
Then probably began the Feudal system, which practically abolished the ancient form of slavery, and in its place the lower classes of the population were put in the semi-servile condition of serfs and villeins to their Feudal Lords. This system spread in Germany, France, England and Russia, but by the time of the capture of Constantinople in 1453 by the Turks, Feudalism, the last relic of slavery in Western Europe, was almost extinct, and was gradually assuming a very mild form in the other countries, when suddenly and unexpectedly slavery was revived and perpetuated in a new, its modern form, by a singular and interesting series of events which brought about the ruthless bondage of an entire people to nations whom they had never offended.
Portugal, Spain and England were mainly responsible for fastening the evils of Negro Slavery on the New World. The Portuguese first began the modern traffic in negro slaves; the Spaniards introduced them into America, and the English engaged in and encouraged, more than any other nation, the infamous slave trade, to supply the New World demand.
In a strange way Christianity was indirectly responsible for the beginning of negro slavery in its modern form. For many centuries prior to the discovery of America the Mohammedans and Christians had been arrayed against each other in western Europe, and the struggles for the mastery had aroused the most implacable hatred between the foes, and the almost inevitable fate of the captives, whether taken by Christian or Mohammedan, was slavery for life. Fifty-one years before the discovery of America some Portuguese sailors, coasting along the shores of Morocco, took captive a few Moors and brought them to Portugal. This event led to the beginning of modern slavery, for in the following year, 1442, these captive Moors, at their own request, were exchanged for negroes, which they procured from Africa. It appears that Prince Henry of Portugal had made many ineffectual attempts to convert these Moors, and their obstinate refusal made acceptable an exchange for negroes, "for whatever number he should get he would gain souls, because they might be converted to the Faith, which could not be done with the Moors," said the Prince. With what sincerity this argument was advanced cannot be known, but it is certain that the beginning of modern slavery was justified by this crafty philanthropy, not only in Portugal but later in the Spanish Colonies, where the same argument was advanced by Columbus and accepted by the Spanish Monarchs to ease their minds while it filled their treasuries. It is also certain that in a very short time, whether to be Christianized or not, shipload after shipload of the unfortunate Africans were brought to Portugal and a regular slave trade, with all its sickening horrors, was established, the Crown receiving one-fifth of the proceeds as its royal share. Soon Spain engaged in the traffic, and then the event happened, the discovery of America, which startled Europe, and opened up a vast new country to whatever good or evil its conquerors might choose to plant.
Strangely enough the very events which led to the discovery of the New World operated to firmly establish the beginning of what was to be its greatest curse. With the capture of Constantinople in 1453 by the Turks and the cutting off of that way to the Indies, increased efforts were made to discover a new route, and the first attempts were down the west coast of Africa. The Portuguese were the most active mariners at that time and took the most prominent part in these new voyages, and while they did not meet with complete success, they discovered a country thronged with the people, who, by the circumstances already related, were practically doomed to slavery. So promising was this base of supplies that about the year 1485 the Portuguese established a Colony at Benin, on the west coast of Africa, for the purpose of more actively carrying on the slave trade, and this was the first of those permanent fortified places established in Africa by the Christian countries of the world as stations where, by the blackest of cruelties and crimes, they might obtain large and immediate supplies of this new article of commerce. From the time of the establishment of this first Colony to the year 1807, when Great Britain and the United States prohibited the slave trade (a period of 322 years), Africa was desolated and her people abducted, sold and murdered by the Christian people of the earth; and indeed for many years after its prohibition the slave trade was carried on, notwithstanding that it became piracy to do so, punishable by death, so profitable had the business become and so rapacious and insensate those who engaged in it.
Thus was the slave monster, a gigantic and hideous Frankenstein, created by the Christian nations, and long after, when it obtained its full growth, it was to fright them, retard their progress and result in dreadful retribution. The slave district began with the River Senegal on the west coast of Africa and continued a distance of fully 3000 miles to Cape Negro. The enormous sum of cruelty and wickedness which attended the slave trade throughout this vast territory can never be known, but may be partially imagined when we know that at its height fully 80,000 persons were torn from their homes annually, with all the attendant horrors of rapine, murder and the worst crimes of mankind.
The evil thus begun and fostered in Europe needed only a new impetus to make it grow beyond all bounds; owing to economical conditions, it would probably have died out in western Europe had it not been for the discovery of America, which almost immediately opened up a new and enormous market for slaves. The first Spanish settlement in the West Indies was called Hispaniola, now the Island of Haiti, and this Colony became the scene of the first use of negro slaves in the New World. A cruel fate seemed to be working out the enslavement of the African, for it is almost certain that Columbus in his first voyages did not take with him any slaves, and there seemed to be no thought of using them in this new Colony during the first few years after the discovery. The first negroes were brought to Hispaniola about eight years after Columbus landed, but they were few in number, and it was probably not contemplated to use them in the fields and mines, for the Spaniards had an immense and almost inexhaustible supply of free labor at hand in the native population, who, by the avarice of the Spaniards, were almost immediately enslaved and compelled to work in the mines and on the farms. So greedy were the Spaniards to acquire sudden wealth, and so numerous the natives, that their lives were reckoned of no value, and so heartlessly cruel and inhuman was their treatment that the population of the island, which is given as about 800,000 in 1492, had decreased, it is estimated, one-third four years later, and twenty years later the native population is given as only 14,000. These figures are probably greatly exaggerated, but making all allowances they tell a frightful story.
The benevolent Las Casas, aroused by the frightful cruelties to the natives and their rapid destruction, began his successful opposition to Indian slavery; but, without knowing or intending it, his success was at the fearful cost of the Africans, who now began to be imported in large numbers to take the place of Indian slaves, and it was shortly discovered that one negro could do the work of four or five natives. Thus a new and growing market opened for slaves, and the slave trade of the New World became so profitable that Charles V. of Spain, desiring to reap the greatest benefit from it, granted, for a consideration, an exclusive right for eight years of supplying four thousand slaves per year to the Spanish Colonies. This seems to have been the first monopoly on the slave trade, but soon other nations were attracted by the ease and profit of the business, and the Dutch and English began early to engage their energies in the trade, and the latter, with their superior methods, greatly increased its profit and popularity. William Hawkins was the first Englishman to begin the slave trade, and made a trip to Guinea in 1530. In 1562 his son, John Hawkins, who was knighted later for his services by Queen Elizabeth, followed in his father's steps and carried away three hundred slaves to San Domingo. This voyage was repeated in 1564 and 1567 with great profit, and soon England had entered and was committed fully to the business. One hundred and fifty years later the traffic in negro slaves was considered the most profitable branch of British commerce.
Thus it is seen that prior to the discovery of America negro slavery had begun in western Europe, and, like some dread scourge, lay in wait for new fields in which to operate; and we have seen how it was permitted to enter so early into the history of the New World. From the islands of the West Indies the Spaniards went to the mainland, and with them went slavery; and as more territory was discovered the use of slaves was more in demand and they were brought over in almost incredible numbers. This history is not further concerned with the development of slavery in other countries, or with the horrifying details of the slave trade which grew up to supply the enormous demand of the New World, except as it affected this country.
How slavery became established in the United States, how it dominated the first attempts of the Colonies to organize a strong Federal Government, and how, after a series of compromises, seeking to settle a question which could only be settled by its abolition, it resulted in the organization of a great opposition political party, the first success of which was followed by the bloodiest civil war in all history, will now be the direct subject of our inquiry.
CHAPTER III.
BEGINNING OF SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES.
"I do not say who was guilty of this … but there was the evil, and no man could see how we were to be delivered from it."
Frelinghuysen.
Ayllon, a Spaniard, who attempted to find the northwest passage, landed in Virginia as early as 1526, near the same place where the English eighty-one years later founded their colony, and began to build a town, using negro slaves in the work, but this settlement was abandoned. Negro slaves were also used in Florida prior to the Jamestown settlement. These appear to be the first use of negro slaves in territory subsequently a part of the United States. But we are not concerned with these events except as curious historical facts, because they had no influence on the history of the country, and are of no more importance or interest than the discovery of America by the Norsemen before Columbus. But toward the end of August, 1620, an event occurred of the greatest moment to the history and welfare of the country, and which was to have a far-reaching and lasting effect upon the political and social life of the United States. In that month, about thirteen years after the English founded their settlement, a Dutch ship, in great distress for food, entered the James River, and after some negotiation with the settlers, exchanged twenty negroes for a supply of food. This was the beginning of negro slavery in the United States, and thus was the disturbing element planted which was to distract the nation for so many weary years, and the opposition to which was finally to culminate in the founding of the Republican Party.
Not many months after these slaves were landed the Pilgrims established their settlement on the New England shores and began that political and social life whose subsequent development made them an enemy to slavery. If there is one scene or period in American history representing the very genesis of the Republican Party, it is the landing of the Pilgrims in December, 1620; just as the settlement at Jamestown, Virginia, was the point from which radiated, by subsequent economical and social developments, the principles of the Democratic Party. Thus it is seen at this early period that slavery and freedom were planted almost side by side to progress along unconsciously until economical conditions and demands were to make them openly antagonistic; and here began that remarkable balancing of power between slavery and freedom, which was to be maintained in later years, after the Union had been formed, by a series of compromises, and indeed also by a balancing of progress along economical lines.
The Virginians at first neither sought nor needed negro slaves; this is proven by the circumstances under which the first slaves were landed, and also by the fact that slavery grew very slowly. In 1622 there were only twenty-two negro slaves in the Colony, and in 1648, twenty-eight years after the first acquisition, there were only three hundred in Virginia; not that the settlers were averse to using them, but because another class of cheap labor was obtainable in the great number of criminals which were sent from England to work out their freedom in the New World, and by other white persons who voluntarily sold themselves and became indented or bond servants for a period of years in payment of their passage to America, or for other considerations. The use of this class of labor began very shortly after the first settlement, but toward the close of the seventeenth century the use of indented servants became less as negro slaves became more numerous.
Negro slaves were introduced into every one of the other Colonies when they were founded, or a short time afterwards, and to the close of the Revolution negro slaves were used in every Colony. The North was for slavery as long as it was necessary and profitable, and the early settlers in New England found no scruple in using as slaves the Indians captured in war; and when negro slavery appeared later, the shrewd Yankees made money in the slave trade along the coast to the South and to the West Indies. The modern Newport, R. I., was the great slave mart of New England, and it is said that the first slave ship used by American colonists was fitted up in a New England port.
Prior to 1715 the number of slaves in America was not so great, but after that year they increased in large numbers, not only by an active demand which sprang up for them, but also by the infamous Asiento Clause in the Treaty of Utrecht between England and Spain, whereby the former for a period of thirty years, from 1713 to 1743, took the exclusive right of importing and selling 144,000 negroes into the Spanish Colonies at the rate of 4,800 per year, and more could be brought in on the payment of a small tax. This made England the greatest slave nation in the world, and her interest demanded, and Parliament saw to it, that nothing adverse to the use of slaves should happen in the American Colonies. The growth of slavery in America from 1715 to 1775, and the slave population in the Colonies at these two periods, were as follows:
1715 1775
New Hampshire …….. 150 629
Massachusetts …….. 2,000 3,500
Rhode Island ……… 500 4,373
Connecticut ………. 1,500 5,000
New York …………. 4,000 15,000
New Jersey ……….. 1,500 7,600
Pennsylvania ……..} 2,500 10,000
Delaware …………} 9,000
Maryland …………. 9,500 80,000
Virginia …………. 23,000 165,000
North Carolina ……. 3,700 75,000
South Carolina ……. 10,500 110,000
Georgia ………….. 16,000
——— ———-
58,850 501,102
Of the half million slaves in this country at the opening of the Revolution, 450,000 were in the Southern Colonies. The reasons for this are found in the difference in economical conditions and political and social customs which separated the Northern and Southern Colonies before the Revolution. The Northern group devoted themselves mainly to fishing, commerce and farming. The soil, especially in New England, was unpromising for the production of great staples, and the result in the North was concentration of the people, growth of town life, distribution of political power, great freedom of speech and press, and a wide discussion of political principles. The South devoted herself wholly to the production of three great staples, rice, indigo and tobacco, and the result in the South was just the reverse of that in the North. Great plantations were established, few cities of any importance sprang up, manufacturing did not thrive, the South importing almost every article of use or luxury. Political power was in the hands of a few, and the three great staples demanded cheap labor, working under the most destructive conditions. Thus, influenced almost entirely by environment and economical and political development, the North became the scene of freedom to individuals and protection to industries, because these things were absolutely essential to the existence and happiness of the people; and the South, by the same necessity, was dedicated to slavery and free trade.
It must not be thought that the colonial period was without any development of opposition to slavery. The German Quakers of Pennsylvania in 1688 took a stand against the use of slaves in their community, and they subsequently became the most active opponents to slavery and the slave trade. Their efforts, however, had little effect except in Pennsylvania, but it is important to mark their action as the beginning of the abolition movement in this country. There are records in the Southern Colonies of taxes placed upon the importation of slaves prior to the decade before the Revolution, but it would appear that these taxes were more for revenue than as prohibitive means, and that they were of no value in diminishing the demand and the number of negroes imported. However, in 1769, a distinct sentiment crystallized in Virginia against the further importation of slaves, and the Legislature passed a law prohibiting it, but this was vetoed by the Royal Governor, acting under orders from the Crown; the same thing occurred in Massachusetts two years later. In 1772 Lord Mansfield proclaimed the law, "As soon as a slave sets foot on the soil of the British isles he becomes free." This decision had a marked influence on the anti-slavery sentiment, which was now strong in the Colonies, and the approach of the Revolution, with its spirit of national independence and of individual right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, seemed to promise freedom to a people who had already suffered three centuries of terrible bondage.
CHAPTER IV.
THE EARLY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
"The policy to sustain which Mr. Lincoln was elected President in 1860 was first definitely outlined by Jefferson in 1784. It was the policy of forbidding slavery in the National Territory."
John Fiske.
The history of slavery from the opening scenes of the Revolution to the meeting of the First Congress affords a curious example of the direct influence of self-interest upon the opinions of mankind. The opening of the Revolution saw an emphatic and unanimous expression against slavery and the slave trade, and a general spirit of emancipation was abroad. Two years later this had changed, for when the Declaration was promulgated there was no mention of anti-slavery sentiments in it, and as Independence became more and more assured, the feeling against slavery seems to have weakened, and finally, when a serious attempt to perfect the Union was made, the slave question was decided by expediency and not by principle.
In 1773 and 1774, when the colonists spoke their final defiance against Great Britain, and the latter launched her retaliatory measures, the climax was reached. It is to be kept in mind that at this time slavery existed in every one of the Colonies. The First Continental Congress, representing all the Colonies except Georgia (who agreed to concur), met at Philadelphia in September, 1774, to determine what should be done in this grave crisis. It turned out to be largely a Peace Congress, but a protest, several addresses and a non-importation and non-consumption agreement was signed. One of the Articles of this agreement provided that "We will neither import nor purchase any slave imported after the first day of December next, after which time we will wholly discontinue the slave trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels or sell our commodities or manufactures to those who are concerned in it." This important and far-reaching resolution received the unanimous support of all the Colonies. Would that its spirit had been kept alive!
[Illustration: The White House, Washington, D. C.]
Almost two years after the First Continental Congress met (the Revolution having been started in the meantime) the Declaration of Independence was adopted, but there was no expression in it against slavery or the slave trade. The original draft of that instrument contained a fierce denunciation of England's part in the slave trade:
"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him; capturing and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur a miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of Infidel Powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where men could be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative by suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce."
These burning words were from the pen of Jefferson, who had been the most active in his opposition to slavery. They were omitted from the Declaration, out of compliance to South Carolina and Georgia, but they voiced unquestionably the sentiment of a large majority of the Continental Congress. This was the first fatal concession to South Carolina and Georgia, and we shall find them again united and influencing the other Southern Colonies to maintain a bold stand for slavery at the most critical period in the nation's history.
On the same day in June, 1776, that the Committee was appointed to draft the Declaration of Independence, Congress resolved that "A Committee be appointed to prepare and digest the form of a Confederation to be entered into between the Colonies." The work of this Committee was the Articles of Confederation, which were presented in November, 1777, for ratification by the States. These Articles contained no anti-slavery sentiments, and we are only concerned with them in noting the unexpected and most important results which came up before the ratification was completed. Several of the States claimed a right to the territory west of the Alleghanies to the Mississippi under their original charter. Their claims were conflicting, and Maryland refused to ratify the Articles of Confederation until the land-claiming States should relinquish all their rights to Congress. For a number of years these States were obdurate, but Maryland held out resolutely and bravely, and finally, by her firm action and the magnanimity of New York and Virginia, the question was settled by the cession of the disputed lands to Congress. The acquisition of the Northwest Territory is one of the great turning points in American history, for we shall see that the subsequent development of this territory was of no less importance than the saving of the Union from annihilation by the slave power.
Thomas Jefferson was the most urgent against slavery of all the founders of the nation. His statesmanship foresaw the evils negro slavery would bring upon the nation's social and political development, and his nature was stirred by the great moral wrong. Long before the Declaration of Independence he worked untiringly in Virginia to bring about a sentiment against the slave trade, and his efforts met with success. His fierce denunciation of England's part in the slave trade was stricken from the Declaration, but he did not give up the fight, although the material interests of the South thwarted his plans for the moment. When, by the unforeseen results attendant upon the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, that imperial domain reaching from Pennsylvania to the Mississippi and from the Ohio to the Lakes became national territory, Jefferson, with the prescience of a mighty genius, saw an opportunity to deal a death blow to slavery. This magnificent public domain, subsequently to be divided into the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan, was given to the nation on condition that it should be cut up into States, to be admitted when they had a certain population, and that the land should be sold to pay the debts of the United States. Throughout this vast region there were very few people, and there had been no social, political or economical development, and so the only opposition which could come in Congress to any measure for the future government of the Territory would be from the original States. No sooner had the cession been fully made than Jefferson suggested a plan which, if it had succeeded, would have confined slavery North and South to the mountain boundaries of the original States. His plan for the government of this new territory, among other things, provided that after the year 1800 slavery should be prohibited in it. He went beyond this and advocated and urgently solicited Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia to cede their rights in the land west of the Mountains, and he would have had slavery prohibited in this territory also after the year 1800. His plan was no more or less than to prohibit slavery after the year 1800 in all land between the Alleghanies and the Mississippi, from the Lakes to Florida.
On April 19, 1784, Jefferson's Ordinance came up for consideration. North Carolina moved that the clause prohibiting slavery after 1800 be stricken out; South Carolina seconded the motion, which was put in the form, "Shall the words moved to be stricken out stand?" Six States voted that the clause should stand, three were opposed to it, but as the Articles of Confederation required the votes of nine States, the motion was lost and the Ordinance, with the slavery clause taken out, was then adopted.
The following year Congress made inducements so attractive that in a short time several companies were organized and bought large tracts in the new National Territory; and as they purposed settling on their purchases at once, Congress agreed upon a more elaborate plan of government and laws than those set forth in the Ordinance of 1784. The famous Ordinance of 1787 was the result of this agreement. Mr. Jefferson was not present at the time of its adoption, having been sent as Minister to France, but the influence of his work and sentiments were felt, and his ideas were adopted in a new form. The new Ordinance repealed the old one, and among other things provided that the Territory should be cut up into not less than three nor more than five States, all of which were to be admitted into the Union when they had a population of 60,000 free inhabitants. The States which might be formed were forever to remain a part of the United States, and it was declared that the Ordinance was to be considered as a compact between the original States and the people and States of the new territory, and forever to remain unalterable unless by common consent. Most important and far-reaching of all was the Article,
"There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; Provided always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service, as aforesaid."
With slavery forever prohibited in such a large territory, with the Ordinance beyond repeal, and secession condemned, the Ordinance of 1787 stands out as one of the most remarkable and most important enactments in American history. What the Declaration of Independence and the War had obtained, and the Constitution was to make more perfect—the Union —the development of the country under the Ordinance of 1787 was to preserve. The South yielded to the strong anti-slavery clause in this ordinance because a fugitive slave clause was added to it, and because she had a plan of making the territory west of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia slave territory. This was done shortly afterwards, when two years later South Carolina and North Carolina, and Georgia in 1802, ceded their western claims to Congress on the express condition that it should be slave soil, and Congress accepted the territory on that condition; Kentucky being admitted as a slave State in 1792.
While the national greatness and safety were being worked out in the West, affairs were in a miserable condition in the East, owing to the radical defects in the Articles of Confederation which had been in operation since 1781. The cup of bitter national humiliation was being drained to the dregs, but fortunately the best men of the country finally succeeded in calling a Convention to revise the Articles. The Convention met at Philadelphia in May, 1787, and by September had adopted a new Constitution.
The great struggle between the North and the South began in the Constitutional Convention. Slavery and the conflicting commercial interests were the difficult questions which divided the country and resulted in the first of the Compromises that held off the Civil War for so many years. It was decided to have an equal representation of States in the Senate and an unequal representation in the House, based upon population; but should slaves be counted as population? This and the other slavery questions which came up in the Convention threatened to disrupt the proceedings entirely. There were at this time about 675,000 slaves in the country, of which number fully 625,000 were in the South. South Carolina, henceforth to be so active for the interests of the South, immediately claimed that these slaves should be considered as population to be counted in fixing the representation in the House. The North argued that the slaves were chattels and should not be counted, for it was seen at a glance that if this enormous number of slaves were to be counted on any basis, the political power of the South would be greatly increased. South Carolina made open and repeated threats to withdraw from the Confederacy, and the situation was serious, because, without her and the other Southern Colonies, who would unquestionably be influenced by her, the work of the Convention would not be ratified, and there would be no Union. The inexorable necessity of the hour demanded a compromise, and it was decided that in apportioning the Representatives there should be added to the whole number of free persons three-fifths of all other persons. This was equivalent to saying that five slaves in the South should be counted the same as three white persons in the North.
In regard to the slave trade there was a sentiment in all the States except Georgia and South Carolina against it, because five slaves counted as three whites, and because almost all of the eminent men North and South were at this time opposed to Slavery itself as not only a moral wrong, but as something which would injure the development of the country. The Southern planters insisted upon a continuation of the slave trade, but at the same time they were fearful that the North might tax their exports. The second great Compromise was affected, and it was agreed that the importation of such persons as any of the States might think proper to admit should not be prohibited by Congress prior to 1808, but a tax on each person so admitted might be imposed, not exceeding $10, and that no tax or duty should be laid on articles exported from any State. A Fugitive Slave Clause very similar to that contained in the Ordinance of 1787 was also added.
By these Compromises, especially the one giving representation for slaves, the South was given that tremendous political power which she wielded so long to threaten and coerce the North to her bidding. The Slave Power was politically enthroned, not to be finally dislodged until the election of Mr. Lincoln. At this early period, however, it was firmly and honestly believed that in a very short time slavery would disappear in all of the Colonies, as it was already dying out rapidly in the North, and it was fully believed that after 1808, when the slave trade should be prohibited, slavery would become extinct. It must be remembered that at this time cotton was not a staple of the South, and there was nothing seriously present or threatened, in the social or economical development of the South, which made slavery absolutely necessary. Nobody foresaw how greatly cotton was to add to the wealth and standing of the South, and nobody foresaw the great injury which the Constitution was to do the North.
When Washington was inaugurated, April 30, 1789, the United States reached from the Atlantic to the Mississippi, and from the Lake of the Woods, the Great Lakes, the St. Lawrence and St. Croix Rivers southward to Florida, which then extended to the Mississippi and was owned by Spain.
All of the threatening phases of the slave question had been compromised by the various provisions in the Constitution, and the common territory of the nation had been practically partitioned between Freedom and Slavery, with the Ohio River as the dividing line. With some exceptions the Northern States still possessed a large number of slaves, New York and New Jersey having the greatest number (33,000 out of the 40,000 still in the North), but not only in these States, but throughout the North, emancipation was making rapid progress.
The population of the country was scattered along the Atlantic seaboard, but the migration to the west of the Alleghanies had set in strongly both north and south of the Ohio River; the settlers from Virginia and the States south of her carrying with them, westward, the prejudices and customs of their mother States, while the settlers north of the Ohio River took with them into the wilderness the energy and thrift of the East, and its spirit of freedom and emancipation for all individuals, laying the foundation of those great States which, in later years, untrammeled by the commercial conservatism of the East, were so outspoken and sturdy in their expressions against slavery. The first census, taken in 1790, showed a population of 3,929,827, classed and divided between the North and South as follows:
Free
White. Negroes. Slave.
North ………. 1,900,976 27,109 40,370
South ………. 1,271,488 32,357 657,527
These figures are interesting because of the political effect that the population of the two sections had upon the representation in the House.
The South was still devoting herself to the raising of tobacco, rice, indigo, and several lesser staples, but since the close of the Revolution, owing to the dying out of the indigo plant, a new staple had received considerable attention. Cotton had been cultivated in Virginia by the early settlers, but little attention had been paid to it, and only enough was produced for domestic use; but after the close of the Revolution it gradually came to be cultivated in all the Southern States, and it was quickly discovered that being an indigenous plant it grew very rapidly, and the climate, soil and the great number of slaves at hand were favorable toward making it, with some attention, a most promising and valuable product.
The development of cotton manufacture had been gradual but certain to this period, which saw the triumph and use of the mechanical inventions of Hargreave, Arkwright, Crompton and Cartwright. The steam engine was introduced to supply motive power, and only one thing stood in the way of an enormous production of the new staple. The separation of the seed from the cotton fibre was a tedious and time-consuming task; one negro could only remove the seeds from about two pounds of cotton a day, and consequently only a small amount could be sent to market.
In 1790 not a pound of cotton was exported from the United States. In 1793, Eli Whitney, of Massachusetts, who was temporarily in Georgia, invented his Cotton Gin, one of the earliest and most remarkable of the many great inventions of Americans. This invention was productive of most important and far-reaching consequences. It caused an industrial revolution in the South by making cotton the great staple. The production increased by leaps and bounds, bringing great wealth and increasing social and political power to the South. With the earlier form of the new invention the seeds could be removed from about one hundred pounds of cotton a day. In 1792, 192,000 pounds were exported to Europe; in 1795, after Whitney's invention, nearly six million pounds were exported. The value of the export in 1800 was $5,700,000; in 1820, it was $20,000,000. These figures represented enormous wealth in those days.
Whatever sentiment in the South against slavery had survived the Constitutional period now disappeared completely. Cotton brought about a new view, and from being an evil to be eradicated in some way in the course of time, it was now regarded as absolutely necessary to the social and political welfare of the South. The strongest of human passions, avarice, ambition and worldly interest now bound the South closer than ever to slavery. The slaves produced cotton—which was wealth—and wealth brought independence and social distinction; besides the slave was a political advantage of great importance, because five of them, without any voice in the matter themselves, counted as three white persons. Under these auspices grew the Slave Power, soon to be a bold, threatening and overbearing faction in the nation.
While the South and the Slave Power were thus being prepared for great wealth and political standing, circumstances were working in the North to counteract and balance, in a way, this development. New England was beginning to feel the first impulses of a great industrial development; interest in commerce and manufacturing was awakening, and inventive genius, called into action by economical necessity, was at work, and the use of machinery and mechanical inventions was increasing. New England was shortly to be covered with cotton and other factories.
The war between France and England opened to the United States almost a monopoly on the West Indies trade in 1793, and it was the North that received the greatest benefit from this trade. Congress in 1791 had established the United States Bank at Philadelphia, with branches in all of the important cities, and this aided the North more than the South. In short, the North was developing that capital, energy, ingenuity and thrift and use of mechanical inventions, the lack of which was the greatest weakness of the South. The settlement of the Northwest Territory by pioneers from the northern States is also to be kept in mind.
This great manufacturing and commercial development, and the movement of the population westward, also awakened in the North a lively interest in internal improvements, and the steamboat, railroad and telegraph were soon to add their tremendous influences and advantages to this section of the country. The various pursuits and the development of the North increased and attracted population, and the balance between the North and the South, which was so nearly even in 1790, grew steadily in favor of the North, until at the opening of the Civil War the North had nineteen million free people against eight and one-quarter million in the South, the South at that time having four million slaves.
CHAPTER V.
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.
"The Missouri question marked a distinct era in the political thought of the country … suddenly and without warning the North and the South, the free States and the slave States, found themselves arrayed against each other in violent and absorbing conflict."
James G. Blaine.
Shall there be Slave States other than Louisiana west of the Mississippi River? This question coming suddenly before the people in 1818, laying bare the inherent antagonisms of the North and South, aroused the entire country to a white heat of excitement; and only after a most bitter and alarming struggle resulted in the third great Compromise on the slavery question.
From the time of Whitney's invention to the Missouri Compromise, three
important events happened in the history of slavery: The first Fugitive
Slave Law passed in January, 1793; the acquisition of the Louisiana
Territory in 1803, and the abolition of the slave trade in 1807.
The call for legislation to enforce the Fugitive Slave provision in the Constitution came, strangely enough, from the North. A free negro had been kidnapped in Pennsylvania in 1791 and taken to Virginia. The Governor of Virginia refused to surrender the kidnappers, claiming there was no law on the subject. Upon the matter being brought to the attention of Congress by the Governor of Pennsylvania, a Fugitive Slave Law and also an Extradition Law for fugitives from justice were enacted. While the fugitive from justice was surrounded by the safeguards of a requisition accompanied by a certified copy of an indictment or affidavit charging the crime, these safeguards were not given to the slave, but he could be forcibly seized by the owner or his agent and taken before a magistrate. There was no trial by jury, and the only requisite for conviction was an affidavit that he had escaped. The harshness of this procedure was resisted from the very first by the northern people, but this law was on the statute books until the second and last law on the subject was passed as a part of the Compromise of 1850.
When the time came at which Congress could abolish the slave trade, a law was promptly passed, after considerable angry debate as to its terms, prohibiting the slave trade after December 31, 1807. In fact, it was necessary to even effect a compromise on this subject on the point as to what should be done with any slaves that might be imported contrary to the law; and it was decided that they should belong neither to the importer nor any purchaser, but should be subject to the regulations of the State in which they might be brought. As far as it restrained the South, the law abolishing the slave trade proved to be more of a dead letter than the Fugitive Slave Law did in the North, because the slave trade was carried on with more or less openness until the Civil War, it being estimated that about fifteen thousand slaves were brought into the country annually. The abolition of the slave trade caused several of the border States to devote their attention to slave breeding, which, with the increased demand and the large advance in prices, became a profitable industry in Virginia, Maryland and Kentucky.
The acquisition in 1803 of the Louisiana Territory, the wonderful and romantic exploration of it by Lewis and Clark in 1804-5, the closing of the Indian Wars and the second war with England, and hard times in the East, caused that tremendous rush of population to the West, which resulted in the admission of so many new States prior to 1820, and opened anew the slavery question. Vermont, admitted in 1791, Kentucky 1792, Tennessee 1796, Ohio 1803, Louisiana 1812, Indiana 1816, Mississippi 1817, Illinois 1818, and Alabama 1819, had raised the number of States to twenty-two; eleven free and eleven slave; the early custom of admitting a free and slave State together having been strictly followed. The admission of these States effectively partitioned all of the territory east of the Mississippi between Freedom and Slavery, with the exception of the Michigan Territory (subsequently divided into Michigan and Wisconsin), and the new Territory of Florida, purchased from Spain in 1819. West of the Mississippi only one State had been admitted, and the rest of the land was known as the Missouri Territory. The tide of population passing down the Ohio, or through the States, had crossed the Mississippi into the Missouri country, and Missouri, in 1818, petitioned Congress for permission to form a Constitution and enter the Union. Nothing was said about slavery, but it was known that the great majority of the Missouri settlers were slave owners or sympathizers, as those who held anti-slavery opinions were content to remain in the States formed out of the Northwest Territory, and it was therefore certain that Missouri would be a slave State.
[Illustration: The Capitol, Washington, D. C.]
The Bill authorizing Missouri to act was taken up in the House on February 13, 1819, and immediately Mr. Tallmadge, of New York, moved that the further introduction of slavery in Missouri be prohibited, and that children born in the State after its admission should be free at the age of twenty-five years. Instantly and unexpectedly an exciting, violent debate took place between the North and South. Neither professed to understand the position of the other, but the North was more sincerely astonished, because for the first time she realized what the South had intended for many years, that slavery should be made a permanent institution in the original States, and that it should be forced into the Missouri Territory as a matter of political necessity; because the extension of slave area had by this time become absolutely necessary for the interests of the South.
It was a plain proposition that if the South lost control of the legislative reins at Washington, slavery would eventually be doomed by adverse legislation and by the admission of free States. At the time the Missouri question came up, the North, by reason of her larger population, controlled the House, but the Senate was controlled by the South. The censuses taken in 1800 and 1810 had shown that the North was increasing two to one in population over the South, and the coming census, it was feared, would show a much larger increase in favor of the North; in fact, when the census for 1820 was published the division of the population was as follows:
Free
White. Negroes. Slaves.
North ………. 5,030,371 99,281 19,108
South ………. 2,831,560 134,223 1,519,017
With a great moral weakness to justify, the South now knew herself to be growing physically weaker, and her skillful leaders, always alert on every phase of slavery, saw quickly that the South must insist upon more slave territory, not only to maintain the equilibrium in the Senate, but to counteract the growing population in the North. Therefore the Missouri question was pressed with violence, threat and strategy. The South was determined that Missouri should come in as a slave State or the South would secede from the Union; the North not only argued that slavery was a great wrong, not to be encouraged by its extension, but was equally determined that the South should have no more political advantage because of her slaves. "This momentous question," wrote Jefferson, "like a fire-bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror."
With the two Sections dead-locked, nothing could take place but the most acrimonious debates, accompanied by threats and defiances. The House adopted the Tallmadge Amendment, but it was rejected by the Senate. Neither branch would recede from its position, and amid scenes of the greatest excitement in Washington and throughout the country, the Fifteenth Congress adjourned.
The Sixteenth Congress met on December 6, 1819, and the Missouri question came up immediately. A compromise that the territory west of the Mississippi should be divided in the same manner as that east of the river was rejected by the North. Fortunately or unfortunately, there is some difficulty in deciding which, Maine applied at this time for admission, and the South in the Senate refused to admit Maine unless the North would admit Missouri, and out of the situation rose the Missouri Compromise. By a close majority the Senate joined Maine and Missouri in the same Bill, and then Senator Jesse B. Thomas, of Illinois, moved that, excepting Missouri, slavery should forever be prohibited in all the Louisiana Territory north of 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude, this being the southern boundary of Missouri. The Bill was taken to the House toward the end of January, 1820, but it refused to concur. The Senate stood fast, and after some further angry debate the House yielded early in March, 1820; Maine came into the Union, and Missouri was permitted to draft a Constitution, which, if acceptable, would admit her to statehood.
But the difficulty was not over, for when Missouri presented her Constitution it was found to contain a provision that the Legislature should pass a law preventing free negroes from settling in the State. The North violently opposed this provision and refused to admit Missouri, and the situation was even more serious than when the original subject was considered. The intense excitement spread from Washington throughout the country, and many felt that the Union would be dissolved. The debate continued until the middle of February, 1821, without solution, and Congress was to adjourn early in March. Maine had already been admitted, and her representatives were in Congress. The South felt that she had been betrayed. Finally a second compromise on the Missouri question was reached, through the efforts of Henry Clay, and Missouri was admitted upon condition that no law should ever be passed by her to enforce the objectionable provision in her Constitution.
While it was true that the North received in area decidedly the best of the bargain, the Missouri Compromise was a distinct victory and gain for the South, because she obtained a present, tangible and important advantage in the admission of a slave State and the establishment of slavery in the heart of the Louisiana Territory. The North obtained nothing but a hazy, speculative advantage, and as the subsequent history of this Compromise proved, the South intended to keep it only as long as it served her interests.
On the subject of the sacredness of the various Compromises on slavery, it is interesting to note that a strong attempt was made to set aside the Ordinance of 1787. After Ohio had been admitted the rest of the Northwest Territory was organized under the name of the Indiana Territory, and as many of the settlers were slavery sympathizers, they very early (1802), under the lead of William Henry Harrison, asked Congress to at least temporarily suspend the operation of the Ordinance of 1787. This was refused, but Governor Harrison and a large number of the settlers persisted until 1807 in their efforts; fortunately Congress took no action, and in 1816 Indiana came in as a free State. There was a struggle to make Illinois a slave State, by amending her Constitution, which continued until 1824.
The Compromise of 1820 practically settled the slavery question for twenty-five years, for the question only came up in a serious form when new territory was acquired and the manner of its division arose. No more States were admitted until 1836, when Arkansas became a State, to be balanced by the admission of Michigan in 1837. From 1820 to 1845 the main issues before the people were those relating to the Tariff, Re-chartering the Bank of the United States, and Internal improvements.
The greatest political excitement, having an important bearing upon the feeling between the North and South, was the opposition of the South to the protective Tariffs of 1824 and 1828, and to the question of Internal improvements. As a culmination of her opposition, South Carolina passed a Nullification Ordinance in 1832, based upon the doctrine of State rights as advocated by John C. Calhoun, but the difficulty was settled by Clay's Compromise Tariff Bill of 1833. The opprobrium of nullification and secession, however, does not rest entirely with the South; the Federal Press of New England and many Federal leaders in Congress deliberately discussed and planned a Secession Movement in 1803-4 because they thought that the purchase of the Louisiana Territory was unconstitutional and that it would give the South an advantage which the North would never overcome. This movement, however, never gained strength enough to be serious.
One result of the Missouri Compromise, most important in its political effect, was that it created a solid South, and divided the North into various opinions as to what should exactly be done to meet the evil. It was this uncertainty on the part of the North and the lack of organization on the direct subject of slavery opposition that permitted the South to hold out so long after she had been greatly outnumbered in population and left far behind in material progress.
CHAPTER VI.
THE ABOLITIONISTS.
"If we have whispered Truth,
Whisper no longer;
Speak as the tempest does,
Sterner and stronger."
"Song of the Free," Whittier, 1836.
Great changes in the political and economical life of a nation seldom take place abruptly. The forces responsible for a change or modification of conditions are generally at work long before the final result. Nations, like individuals, grope for the truth, forming different opinions, trying different plans—now radical, now conservative—often failing to see and grasp the solution when it is at hand, but all the while bringing about conditions which, when the crisis comes, form a solid and decisive basis for action. Such is the history of this country with reference to slavery for the three decades prior to the Civil War. From 1833 to the organization of the Republican Party, and after that event to the promulgation of the Emancipation Proclamation, public opinion was incessantly agitated by the organized efforts of the Abolitionists, although they differed among themselves and divided as to the best plan under which to act.
While the Northerners grouped into the Whig and Democratic Parties, and condemned the constant agitation of the slavery question as disturbing the public peace and jeopardizing party success, still they could not help recognizing the cogency of the abolition argument; and as year after year went by, and the aggressions of the slave power continued, a steady change went on in the North and the anti-slavery sentiment became more and more pronounced. When active political opposition to slavery finally began it found the North not exactly unanimous as to what should be done, but with her mind almost made up on one point, that slavery should at least be restricted to the territory it then occupied; it required a great political shock, such as came in 1854, to amalgamate this sentiment. From this standpoint the opinions in the North reached out to the extreme views of Garrison and his followers, that slavery should be stamped out regardless of all consequences.
The Quakers, who, from the early colonial days, had been strongest in their expressions against slavery, formed the first Anti-Slavery Society in the United States at Philadelphia in 1775. The Revolution interrupted their work, but at its conclusion they resumed their efforts patiently and incessantly, year after year, in their attempts to arouse the public mind to the enormity and dangerousness of the slave evil. Although other States organized anti-slavery societies immediately after the Revolution, the Pennsylvania Society took the leading part, and was comparatively alone for many years in the work. In the First Congress this Society presented a Memorial, asking Congress to exercise its utmost powers for the abolition of slavery. The subject was the occasion of a heated debate, and Congress decided that under the Constitution it could not, prior to 1808, abolish the slave trade; but that it had authority to prevent citizens of the United States from carrying on the African slave trade with other nations (a law to this effect was subsequently passed); and that it had no authority to interfere with the emancipation of slaves or their treatment in any of the States. The Pennsylvania Society watched Congress closely and worked along patiently year after year, meeting with failure after failure. This early Abolition movement had among its supporters the foremost men of the day —Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Jay and Henry are some of the illustrious names connected with the movement, just as in England the names of Burke, Fox and Pitt are recorded against the iniquity. When the purchase of the Louisiana Territory came before Congress, the Pennsylvania Society petitioned that measures should be taken to prevent slavery in the new territory, but the Federalists were more engrossed with a discussion of Constitutional questions, and the opportune moment went by without any action on the matter.
The agitation connected with the Missouri question brought about the formation of a stronger anti-slavery sentiment in the North, and a group of fearless men sprang up to devote their lives and energies to an Abolition movement. They were radical in their views, progressive in their methods and absolutely fearless in their denunciations. Benjamin Lundy, a Quaker, may be said to be the father of the Abolition movement. In 1821 he began the publication of The Genius of Universal Emancipation, the first Abolition paper; he was joined at Baltimore in 1829 by William Lloyd Garrison, henceforth to be the most zealous, unceasing and uncompromising of all the Abolitionists. Garrison, extreme in his views, left Lundy, and in January, 1831, at Boston, without capital and with little help, started The Liberator, and placed at its head, "The Constitution of the United States is a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell," which declaration was printed in every edition of the paper until President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect, when it was changed to "Proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof."
As a result of Mr. Garrison's activity many new abolition societies were formed, and on December 4, 1833, a National Convention of them was held at Philadelphia, and the American Anti-Slavery Society was organized, with Beriah Green as President and Lewis Tappan and John G. Whittier as Secretaries. This Convention decided to petition Congress to suppress the domestic slave trade between the States, and to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia and in every place over which Congress had exclusive jurisdiction. It admitted that Congress had no right to interfere with slavery in any State, but its plan was to circulate extensively anti-slavery tracts and periodicals, not only in the North but throughout all of the slave-holding States, and to organize anti-slavery societies in every city and village where possible, and to send forth its agents to lift their voices against slavery. It frowned on the work of the American Colonization Society, which had been organized in 1816, for the purpose of colonizing parts of Africa with American negroes, as tending to deaden the public conscience on the question.
With this energetic organization the anti-slavery movement now gained rapidly in strength, but its political work for many years was confined to a fruitless interrogation of candidates and to sending hundreds of petitions and memorials to Congress. Anti-slavery pamphlets and papers were also sent broadcast North and South. On seeing The Liberator, with its extreme views, and on reading the anti-slavery pamphlets, the South was enraged beyond all bounds. A North Carolina Grand Jury indicted Garrison, and Georgia offered a large reward for his arrest and conviction. On July 29, 1835, all anti-slavery papers were taken from the postoffice at Charleston, S. C., by a mob and destroyed. The following year Mr. Calhoun, in the Senate, demanded the suppression of the right of petition on any matter connected with slavery, and in 1838 the House adopted the infamous Atherton Gag-Rule, "Every Petition, Memorial, Resolution, Proposition or Paper touching or relating in any way or to any extent whatever to slavery or the abolition thereof, shall, on presentation and without further action thereon, be laid upon the table without being debated, printed or referred." This remarkable rule was adopted year after year in the House until 1844, when it was repealed through the efforts of John Quincy Adams, who for ten years fought nobly for the Right of Petition, although he was not entirely in sympathy with the Abolitionists.
During this period the sentiment against the Abolitionists was very strong in the North. In many places mobs seized upon and destroyed their papers and printing presses, and broke up their meetings and mobbed the speakers. James G. Birney's paper, The Philanthropist, was twice mobbed in Cincinnati. On November 7, 1837, the Abolition cause was baptized in blood by the murder of Elijah P. Lovejoy, who was shot while defending his paper and press from the attack of a pro-slavery mob at Alton, Illinois. The following month Wendell Phillips delivered his first abolition speech against the aggressions of the Slave Power and the murder of Lovejoy. The continued despotism of the Slave Power, its attempts to muzzle the freedom of speech and press, to deny the Right of Petition, to obstruct the mails, and to obtain an Extradition Law for the trial of citizens in slave States on charges of circulating anti-slavery documents, and the use of violence against all who dared raise their voices against the slavery dogmas, aroused the abolition societies to more radical action, and a group of Abolitionists now formed, determined on political action. This was one of the causes of the disruption of the American Anti-Slavery Society and the withdrawal of Garrison and his followers, who refused to take part in any election held under the pro-slavery Constitution.
The great leaders of the Whigs and Democrats in the North, who were aspirants to the presidency, dared not take any active stand against the growing demands of the Slave Power, and both parties bowed abjectly to the monster and passed in silence these gross violations of constitutional rights. Both parties deprecated the slavery agitation, especially the Whigs, who were highly incensed because it jeopardized their candidates more than it did those of the Democrats. The failure of the two great political parties to act led to the first political organization of the anti-slavery sentiment. At Warsaw, New York, on November 13, 1839, the Abolitionists held a convention and nominated James G. Birney, of New York, for President, and Thomas Earl, of Pennsylvania, for Vice-President. This was subsequently called the "Liberty Party," and was the first of the three anti-slavery parties to appear in national politics. Its platform demanded the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia and in the territories; stoppage of the interstate slave trade, and opposition to slavery to the fullest extent of Constitutional powers. Mr. Birney did not desire the nomination, and in the election of 1840, that resulted in the defeat of Van Buren by Harrison, the Abolitionists received only 7069 votes out of a total of two and one-half millions. The membership of the abolition societies at this time was about 200,000; the failure to show strength at the polls may be accounted for by reason of the refusal of many to vote at any election held under the Constitution, and also that many feared the dissolution of the Union, and preferred, if they voted at all, to remain with the Democratic or Whig Parties in the hope that their party would take some decisive action on the question.
While the Slave Power in the United States was making violent efforts to perpetuate itself and stifle all opposition, all the other civilized countries of the world were abolishing slavery. Great Britain abolished it in all her colonies in the year 1833 at a cost of one hundred millions of dollars; but the United States, already showing itself to be the most progressive nation in the world, could not throw off the evil, and it remained a cause of bitter distraction until overthrown politically by the success of the Republican Party and removed by Secession, War, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the amendments to the Constitution.
Although the Abolition cause seemed hopeless after the election of 1840, they persisted in their work, and soon a series of events happened— Texas Annexation, the Mexican War, and the Wilmot Proviso, which, independent of their efforts, brought about a direct issue between the North and South on the great question—an issue to be finally decided only by the Civil War. The work of the early Abolitionists, however, had an influence of inestimable value and weight on the immediate success of the Republican Party when it was organized.
CHAPTER VII.
COMPROMISE OF 1850.
"That, as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory."
Wilmot Proviso, August 8, 1846.
From the campaign of 1844 to the Civil War the slavery question dominated all others in politics, North and South. During this period almost every legislative question was decided with reference to its effect on slavery. Press, Pulpit and Platform felt the baleful influence of its presence, and aspirants to the presidency and to lesser political honors sacrificed principle, conscience, and the support of their friends to obtain the favor of the aggressive and dominating Slave Power. The Democratic Party during this entire period took a bold stand on the question; an anti-slavery wing of the party appeared in the North, but at no time was it successful in changing the party platforms. The Whig Party, with its strong pro-slavery wing in the South, and with its northern members desirous of party success, omitted entirely any mention of slavery in its platforms, and although the anti-slavery members of the party were outspoken in their private views of slavery, they attended the party conventions and acquiesced in the platforms until 1852, when there was a general desertion of the Whig platform and candidate. The refusal of the Whig Party to make a direct issue of the slavery question doomed it, sooner or later, to dissolution; and although the party was successful in 1840 and in 1848, its disintegration really began after the election of 1840.
To say that the result of the "Log Cabin and Hard Cider" campaign was a bitter disappointment to both Democrats and Whigs is putting it mildly. The Democrats were deeply chagrined at the defeat of their candidate by a "clap-trap" campaign, and the disappointment of the Whigs came with the death of President Harrison and the succession of Tyler, who played directly into the hands of the Democrats and the Slave Power, bitterly antagonizing the party that elected him.
The Texas question now came up to disturb politics and again bring slavery directly before the people. Texas had gained her independence from Mexico, and had applied, in 1837, to be received into the Union, but the offer was declined by President Van Buren. The tragic death of Mr. Upshur, Secretary of State, on February 28, 1844, and the appointment of Mr. Calhoun to that office, made possible the completion of a long conspiracy to admit Texas, and to further extend the slave area by a war with Mexico. A Treaty of Annexation was immediately prepared (April 12, 1844) and presented to the Senate, but was subsequently rejected. It then became apparent that the South intended to make a political issue of the Texas question, and there was great alarm in the North, for the admission of Texas meant a slave area capable of being divided into five or six slave States. In addition, it meant war with Mexico over disputed boundaries, and the fact that Mexico had not fully recognized the independence of Texas, and the result of that war would unquestionably be the acquisition of more area contiguous to the South.
Mr. Clay and Mr. Van Buren at this time were the only ones prominently mentioned as possibilities for the Whig and Democratic nominations for the presidency; both published letters in which they opposed the annexation of Texas. Mr. Van Buren's letter cost him the Democratic nomination, for when the Convention met at Baltimore on May 27, 1844, he was unable to obtain a sufficient vote under the two-thirds rule, and the South forced the nomination of James K. Polk of Tennessee. This division on the slavery question in a Democratic Convention is of great historical importance as a link in the chain of events which led to the final great political division between the North and South. The Democratic Platform was emphatic in its support of slavery and the condemnation of the Abolitionists; it advocated the annexation of Texas and the occupation of Oregon, and the Democrats went into the campaign with the rallying cry of "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight," in the North—a promise of more free soil—and in the South the "Annexation of Texas."
Mr. Clay's letter had made him stronger than ever with his party and he was nominated unanimously. The Whig Platform, however, was absolutely silent about the Texas question, and there was absolutely no mention of any opposition to slavery; the whole question was totally ignored. Mr. Clay would have defeated Polk had he not been led into the blunder of writing another letter on the Texas question, in which he largely withdrew from his earlier position; this alienated great numbers of the Northern Whigs and threw thousands of votes to the candidate of the Liberty Party. This party, in a convention at Buffalo the preceding year, had again nominated James G. Birney for President. Its platform was long and elaborate, and contained strong denunciations of slavery and pledged the party to work for its abolition. The Liberty Party polled a total of 62,300 votes, defeating Clay, who lost New York, the pivotal State, with its thirty-six electoral votes, by 5,106, the Liberty Party casting 15,812 votes in that State. Texas annexation followed the election, but the pledge in regard to Oregon was cast aside. "Fifty-four Forty or Fight" was nothing more than a campaign cry, never intended to be followed up, and, in truth, could not have been without a war with England.
With the great Texas victory achieved, the South now turned herself to the acquisition of more territory, and war with Mexico was declared May 11, 1846. The Whig Party in the North was strongly against the Mexican War, and a strong element also expressed itself in the northern Democratic ranks as against it; the opposition became so threatening that, as a new House was to be elected in the Fall of 1846, the Administration decided to end the War, if possible, and Congress was asked to give $2,000,000 to be used in negotiating a Treaty with Mexico, fixing the disputed boundaries. Immediately David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, introduced a Proviso, which had been prepared by Jacob Brinkerhoff, of Ohio (both Democrats, and both afterwards members of the Republican Party), to the effect that slavery should be prohibited in any territory acquired from Mexico. This Proviso carried in the House, but the Senate adjourned its session without coming to a vote on it. The Proviso appeared again often in Congress, but was never adopted; it caused more excited debate between the North and South than anything that had ever been introduced by the anti-slavery element in Congress. Although defeated, it served to amalgamate the anti-slavery forces, and from that day they rallied around it as representing the fixed and unalterable sentiment of the North; on it the Free-Soil Party entered the Campaign of 1848 and it was the underlying principle in the organization of the Republican Party in 1854. As a counter-balancing action to the Wilmot Proviso, Mr. Calhoun, in February, 1847, introduced in the Senate a long resolution to the effect that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in any territory, and that any attempt to do so would be a violation of constitutional rights and lead to a dissolution of the Union. No vote was ever taken on this resolution, and it was nothing more than a deliberate attempt to force the issue with the North.
The Thirtieth Congress met December 6, 1847, and had among its members Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois, and Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, the former elected as a Whig and the latter as a Democrat; in the Senate Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, took his seat for the first time in that body. Opposition to the war was strong, and it was finally closed by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed February 2, 1848; by its terms vast stretches of new territory were acquired by the United States. This land had been free soil by the Laws of Mexico since 1827, but the South, as a matter of course, expected, and had planned, to make it slave soil, and she was determined to oppose to the utmost any attempt to keep slavery out of this new territory; the North was equally determined that it should remain free. The campaign of 1848 came on with the question undecided. The Democratic Convention nominated Lewis Cass, of Michigan, and adopted a platform similar to those of 1840 and 1844, but nothing was said about slavery in the new territory. The Whigs nominated Major-General Zachary Taylor, of Louisiana, for President, and Millard Fillmore, of New York, for Vice-President, and their Convention adjourned without adopting any platform at all.
The failure of the two great parties to take up the prohibition of slavery in the new territory was regarded with great indignation by many members of both parties in the North, especially so by the Whigs; in addition, an element of political revenge crept into the situation to help the anti-slavery sentiment. The defeat of Van Buren in the Democratic Convention of '44, and the anti-slavery sentiment in the Democratic Party, had divided it, in New York, into two factions known as "Barnburners" and "Hunkers"; the former being those who were opposed to the extension of the slave area, and were likened to the Dutchman who burned his barn to rid it of rats; and the latter were "Administration Democrats"—"Northern men with Southern principles," who "hankered" after office. Samuel J. Tilden and Benjamin F. Butler were two of the leading "Barnburner" leaders. When the Democratic National Convention convened in 1848, both "Barnburners" and "Hunkers" applied for admission; the Convention offered to permit the New York vote to be cast between them. This was refused by the "Barnburners," and they withdrew and held an enthusiastic meeting in New York, and soon became known as "Free-Soil Democrats." A National Convention was called to meet at Buffalo, August 9, 1848. The old Liberty Party had already held their Convention in November, 1847, and had nominated John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, for President, but Mr. Hale withdrew and the Liberty Party joined in the new movement and attended the Free-Soil Convention. Mr. Van Buren was nominated for President, and Charles Francis Adams, of Massachusetts, for Vice-President. The Free-Soil Platform was, of course, strongly antagonistic to the Slave Power, and concluded with the stirring words, "We inscribe on our banner, 'Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor and Free Men,' and under it will fight on and fight ever, until a triumphant victory shall reward our exertions."
The Free-Soil Party was the second predecessor of the Republican Party, and it was a curious circumstance that in this campaign it was to have at its head a man who had been a Democratic President. The Free-Soilers of New York later nominated Senator John A. Dix for Governor, and the split in the Democratic Party in that State was complete, and lost the election for the National ticket. Many Whigs hesitated between Taylor and Van Buren, but Horace Greeley, in the New York Tribune, advocated the election of Taylor. The vote in New York, which was again the pivotal State, was: Taylor, 218,603; Cass, 114,318; Van Buren, 120,510. The total Free-Soil vote was 291,263. It was a strange and fateful effect that made the Liberty Party in 1844 divide the Whigs and give the victory to the Democrats; and in 1848 the Free-Soil Party, a successor of the Liberty Party, divided the Democrats and gave the Whigs the victory.
The Campaign of '48 assumes another important aspect, in that Mr. Lincoln took an active part in it; it fixed his ideas on slavery, and impressed him with the utter hopelessness of reconciling the North and South on this question. Mr. Lincoln had made his debut in the House in December, 1847, with the famous "Spot Resolutions." In the Spring of '48 he urged his Illinois friends to give up Clay and support Gen. Taylor. He attended the Whig Convention at Philadelphia and was well satisfied with the nominations and the prospects of victory. Late in July he made a strong speech for Taylor on the floor of the House, attracting the attention of the campaign managers to such an extent that he was sent to New England where he delivered a number of speeches, pleading with the New Englanders not to join the Free-Soil movement, but to vote with the Whig Party. Here he saw the strength of the anti-slavery movement, and what he heard made him think deeper on the great question of the hour. After listening to one of Governor Seward's speeches at Boston, in September, he said, "Governor Seward, I have been thinking about what you said in your speech; I reckon you are right. We have got to deal with this slavery question, and got to give more attention to it than we have been doing." Later in the campaign Mr. Lincoln stumped Illinois for Taylor.
When the Thirty-first Congress convened for its first session, on December 3, 1849, all was confusion and uncertainty in regard to the situation. A great many felt that the crisis had been reached at last, and that nothing but a civil war could result. The South feared that its long cherished plan of more slave territory was to be frustrated, and the anxiety in the North that the territory acquired from Mexico might be made slave was equally great. An event now occurred that brought matters directly to an acute crisis and necessitated a settlement or a war. Gold had been discovered in California early in 1848, and instantly there was a tremendous influx of population, with the result that late in 1849 California was ready for admission into the Union, not as a slave State, as the South fondly hoped, but as free soil. With the convening of Congress came the President's message, and it was a severe blow to the South, for it advocated the admission of California as a free State. The South now indeed saw its plan rapidly weakening. Violent opposition was at once made to the admission of California as disturbing the equal balance between the two sections, and in addition the South complained bitterly of the difficulty of capturing slaves who escaped into the free States. She also complained of the constant agitation of the slave question, and now demanded that the territories should be open to slavery, and asserted that any attempt to enforce the Wilmot Proviso or to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia would lead to an immediate dissolution of the Union.
Such was the acute situation in December, 1849, and the men, scenes and debates which attended the solution of this grave crisis present a remarkable and dramatic picture. All eyes now turned to Mr. Clay, the great Compromisor, then in his seventy-third year. In January, 1850, he began his efforts to bring about what proved to be the last compromise between the North and the South. Four great speeches were delivered on the resolutions introduced by him. Mr. Clay, so feeble that he had to be assisted up the Capitol steps, spoke early in February. On March 4th Mr. Calhoun, too weak to speak himself, had his speech, full of antagonism and foreboding, read by a colleague. Three days after Calhoun's speech, Webster delivered his famous "Seventh of March" speech, in which he sacrificed the support of thousands of friends, and demoralized the entire North by condemning the Abolitionists and advocating the passage of the Compromise measures. On March 11th Mr. Seward delivered his "Higher Law" speech, denouncing the Compromise. The great triumvirate, Clay, Calhoun and Webster, appeared in this debate for the last time before the American public. Calhoun died on the last day of March. Late in '51 Clay resigned his seat in the Senate and died at Washington, June 29, 1852. Webster took the office of Secretary of State, received a few votes in the Whig Convention and refused to support General Scott in the election of 1852, and died broken-hearted October 24, 1852.
The Compromise of 1850, as finally agreed on, provided that Utah and New Mexico should be organized into territories without reference to slavery; California to be admitted as a free State; $10,000,000.00 to be paid Texas for her claim to New Mexico; a new Fugitive Slave Law; and the slave trade to be abolished in the District of Columbia. The compromise was viewed with great indignation by the North, and was in many respects extremely unsatisfactory to the South, who was now certain that her plan of extension of slave area was lost. The political leaders of both parties now argued and pretended that the slavery question was absolutely settled, inasmuch as there was no further territory to be partitioned, and that Clay's Compromise had included all possible phases of the subject. But it was apparent to those who looked beneath the surface that the situation was not settled at all; nobody in the North, however, looked for such a startling and rash course as was adopted by the South in 1854, and which resulted, in that year, in the formation of the Republican Party.
CHAPTER VIII.
BIRTH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
"Resolved, That of all outrages hitherto perpetrated or attempted upon the North and freedom by the slave leaders, and their natural allies, not one compares in bold and impudent audacity, treachery and meanness with this, the Nebraska Bill, as to the sum of all its villainies it adds the repudiation of a solemn compact, held as sacred as the Constitution itself for a period of thirty-four years."
Adopted at First Meeting, Ripon, Wis., February 28, 1854.
The new Fugitive Slave Law (passed as a part of the Compromise) was unreasonable and extremely harsh in its terms, and did more than anything else to continue the bitterness between the North and the South. Opposition to it appeared in the North almost immediately after its passage, and it was clear that, because of its terms, it would prove to be more of a dead letter than the original law of 1793. The fact of the matter was that the South forced its passage in the harshest terms conceivable, with the sinister plan of compelling the North to violate it so that bad faith could be charged; and the North did not hesitate to violate a law so repugnant to constitutional and natural rights and human sympathy. Personal Liberty Laws were passed in many Northern States, practically nullifying the Act; and as a result of it, the Underground Railroad, which had been organized about 1839 by the Quakers, did its most effective work. This mysterious organization had a chain of stations, leading from the slave across the free States into Canada, to assist in the escape of fugitive slaves. Mrs. Stowe, moved by the wrongs and sufferings of the fugitives, published "Uncle Tom's Cabin" in the summer of 1852, and it had a telling effect in creating and solidifying the anti-slavery sentiment in the North.
The campaign of 1852 found the Democrats united; but the Whigs had no promising candidate, and were sorely disorganized, with a stronger anti-slavery element than ever before in its midst. The Democrats nominated Franklin Pierce, of New Hampshire, for President, and their platform contained the following emphatic promise: "The Democratic Party will resist all attempts at renewing in Congress, or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question in whatever shape or color the attempt may be made." The Whig Party nominated General Winfield Scott, of Virginia, for President, and their platform also contained a resolution pledging the party to the Compromise Measures as a settlement in principle and substance of the slavery question. The Free-Soil Party, though it had received little support at the polls, still retained a strong organization, and nominated John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, for President, and George W. Julian, of Indiana, for Vice-President, and denounced both the Whig and Democratic Parties as "hopelessly corrupt and utterly unworthy of confidence." The electoral vote gave Pierce 254 and Scott only 42, but the popular vote was much closer: Pierce, 1,601,474; Scott, 1,386,580; Hale, 156,667.
President Pierce's first message went to Congress December 5, 1853, and he congratulated the country on the settlement of the slavery question; but in the following month, notwithstanding the express promises made in both the party platforms of the preceding election, the event came that stunned the North, and as the realization of its enormity grew, aroused her to the wildest excitement and the most bitter denunciation, finally resulting in direct and emphatic political action in the organization of the Republican Party.
On January 4, 1854, Senator Douglas introduced a Bill organizing the Territory of Nebraska. Twelve days later Senator Dixon, of Kentucky, gave notice that he would move an Amendment, repealing the Missouri Compromise, thereby permitting slavery in the new Territory. Senator Douglas then reported (January 23d) a new Bill, making two territories out of the same territory of the first Bill, the southern part to be called Kansas and the northern part to be called Nebraska, and the Missouri Compromise, "being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly called Compromise Measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of the Act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way." The Bill passed the Senate March 3d, but the South was not certain of its success in the House, and final action was postponed until May 24th, and this iniquity became a law on May 30, 1854. While setting forth the doctrine of non-intervention and popular sovereignty the Bill was in effect the forcing of slavery into the Territories, and that this was the plan became practically assured when it was discovered that throughout the summer and fall of 1853 the people of western Missouri had been deliberately planning to settle in the territory west of them (now called Kansas) and to make it slave soil. The whole plot, as revealed by the legislation to which Douglas gave his support, was to force Kansas into the Union as a slave State, thereby counterbalancing the admission of California, which had destroyed the equilibrium between the two sections.
A storm of indignation swept over the North in the opening months of 1854, gaining in intensity and fury as the baseness of the new scheme of the Slave Power was fully realized. Thousands of letters poured in on Congressmen protesting against the passage of the Act, and hundreds of memorials and petitions were presented to the Senate and the House. The newspapers all over the North, beginning late in January, contained constant articles calling on the people to hold meetings and protest against the Nebraska outrage, and hundreds of these meetings were held in churches, schoolhouses and public halls, and the anti-Nebraska sentiment dominated everything. Douglas received the brunt of all this opprobrium, and was compared to Benedict Arnold. The foreign element was the strongest in opposition to the Nebraska measure, and the German newspapers and the Germans, North and South, were the most emphatic in their denunciation, and the success which the new political party was to have must be attributed largely to them. The Western States, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, were the leaders in the anti-Nebraska movement, and also in the organization of political opposition. The election of 1852 had badly demoralized the Whig Party, and now the Kansas-Nebraska measures swept it away almost entirely in the Western States, but the Eastern States, while condemning the Douglas Bill and adopting resolutions similar to the Republican platforms of the West, were loath to give up their party organization, and the Whig Party continued in several of them until after the election of 1856. During the period between 1852 and 1854 it probably occurred to many in the North, who watched and analyzed the popular sentiment and vote, that the Whig Party would soon be swept away, and that the dissatisfied masses of Abolitionists, Free-Soilers, Anti-Nebraska Whigs, Anti-Nebraska Democrats and Know-Nothings must and would unite into a party under a new name with a platform acceptable to the anti-slavery elements in politics. The Douglas Bill demanded political action in the North, but how was a new party to be formed? Who would lead it, and what would be the success of the new movement?
We come now to the organization and first meetings of the Republican Party. Alvan E. Bovay was the founder of the Republican Party. Not only were the name and early principles of the party clearly outlined and decided on in his mind, and talked about by him long before any action was taken by any other person, but he took the first practical steps looking to the dissolution of existing parties, and with patience and much difficult work brought about the first meeting and pointed out clearly and unanswerably the course to be taken.
[Illustration: Alvan E. Bovay, Founder of the Republican Party.]
Mr. Bovay was born in July, 1818, at Adams, New York; graduated from Norwich University, Vermont, and was Professor in several eastern schools and colleges, and later was admitted to the New York bar. In October, 1850, he went West with his family, and settled at Ripon, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin, and soon became the recognized leader of the Whig Party. He studied the political situation carefully, and with his liberal education and the principles of freedom taught by life in the West, he imbibed a hatred for the institution of Slavery, and saw clearly that, at least, its extension must be opposed to the utmost. He remained with the Whig Party, "following its banners, fighting its battles faithfully, at the same time praying for its death," as he expressed it in later years. He was fortunate in numbering among his close friends Horace Greeley, the editor of the New York Tribune, the greatest exponent of the northern views of slavery. The Tribune in 1854 had a circulation of about 150,000 per week, and therefore wielded a vast influence on public sentiment in the North. In 1852, while the Whig Convention was in session, Mr. Bovay dined with Mr. Greeley in New York City, and the conversation turned to the prospects of General Scott, the Whig nominee. Mr. Bovay predicted his overwhelming defeat, and that the Whig Party would be utterly demoralized in the North, and that it would become necessary to organize a new party out of the debris. He there suggested to Greeley the name "Republican" for the new party, but Greeley received the proposition with little enthusiasm because he not only believed that Scott would be elected but that the Whig Party should not be dissolved. Mr. Bovay says that he advocated the name Republican because it expressed equality—representing the principle of the good of all the people; that it would be attractive to the strong foreign element in the country because of their familiarity with the name in their native lands, and that in addition the name possessed charm and magnetism. After the defeat of General Scott, Mr. Bovay corresponded with Mr. Greeley often in regard to the political situation. He was fully determined to do his utmost to organize a new party and call it Republican, and he talked over the matter persistently with all his neighbors in the little village of Ripon, and waited for the time to act. That time came with the violent agitation caused by the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and Mr. Bovay achieved the result he had planned so long. After talking over the matter with two friends, Jehdeiah Bowen, a Free-Soil Democrat, and Amos Loper, a call was issued for a mass meeting to be held in the Congregational church in Ripon, February 28, 1854, with the object of ascertaining the public sentiment. This little frontier village had a small population, and the country around it was sparsely settled, but so earnest was the political thought of the time that the meeting was a great success, and the church was crowded with men and women, and even some children, who were attracted by the seriousness of their elders. Deacon William Dunham, of the church, acted as Chairman of this meeting, and there was a full and free discussion of the situation and the best action to be taken. Mr. Bovay pointed out that the only hope of defeating the extension of slavery was to disband the old parties and unite under a new name. Before the meeting had progressed very far the sentiment was practically unanimous. Those who hesitated were overcome by the enthusiasm and logical arguments of the speakers. The name Republican was suggested at this meeting, but no action was taken on it for the reason that this was looked upon as merely a preliminary meeting to be followed by a later one. As the Kansas-Nebraska Bill had not yet passed the Senate nothing further could be done at this meeting, and after adopting the following well-worded and prophetic resolutions, the meeting adjourned to await the action of Congress:
"WHEREAS, The Senate of the United States is entertaining, and from present indications is likely to pass, Bills organizing governments for the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, in which is embodied a clause repealing the Missouri Compromise Act, and so admit into these Territories the slave system with all its evils, and
"WHEREAS, We deem that compact repealable as the Constitution itself; therefore
"Resolved, That of all outrages hitherto perpetrated or attempted upon the North and freedom by the slave leaders and their natural allies, not one compares in bold and impudent audacity, treachery and meanness with this, the Nebraska Bill, as to the sum of all its other villainies it adds the repudiation of a solemn compact, held as sacred as the Constitution itself for a period of thirty-four years;
"Resolved, That the northern man who can aid and abet in the commission of so stupendous a crime is none too good to become an accomplice in renewing the African slave trade, the services which, doubtless, will next be required of him by his Southern masters, should the Nebraska treason succeed;
"Resolved, That the attempt to withdraw the Missouri Compromise, whether successful or not, admonishes the North to adopt the maxim for all time to come, 'No more Compromises with Slavery';
"Resolved, That the passage of this Bill, if pass it should, will be a call to arms of a great Northern Party, such an one as the country has not hitherto seen, composed of Whigs, Democrats and Free-Soilers, every man with a heart in him united under the single banner cry of 'Repeal! Repeal!'
"Resolved, That the small but compact phalanx of true men who oppose the mad scheme upon the broadest principle of humanity, as well as their unflinching efforts to uphold the public faith, deserve not only our applause but our profound esteem;
"Resolved, That the heroic attitude of General Houston, amidst a host of degenerate men in the United States Senate, is worthy of honor and applause."
The Senate, as we have already seen, passed the Kansas-Nebraska Bill on March 3d. Mr. Bovay and his co-workers lost no time in signing and publishing the following call for a second meeting:
"A Bill expressly intended to extend and strengthen the institution of Slavery has passed the Senate by a large majority, many Northern Senators voting for it, and many more sitting in their seats and not voting at all, and it is evidently destined to pass the House and become a law unless its progress is arrested by a general uprising of the North against it;
"Therefore, we, the undersigned, believing the community to be nearly unanimous in opposition to the nefarious scheme, would call a public meeting of the citizens of all parties to be held in the schoolhouse at Ripon, on Monday evening, March 20th, at 6:30 o'clock, to resolve, to petition and to organize against it."
Through the efforts of Mr. Bovay, the meeting on the night of March 20th was largely attended, and the little schoolhouse on the prairie was filled with men, all voters. "We went in," wrote Mr. Bovay, "Whigs, Free-Soilers and Democrats; we came out Republicans, and we were the first Republicans in the Union." It is true, however, that this meeting did not formally adopt the name Republican, but it was discussed, as it had been for months in the village, and was practically agreed upon, but the meeting felt that it would be better not to use the name until a more pretentious movement of a national character was made. The meeting lasted well into the night, and the "cold March wind blew around the little building and the tallow candles burned low" as these pioneers in this frontier town made history. A motion was duly made and carried that the Town Committees of Whigs, Free-Soilers and Democrats be dissolved and a new Committee to represent the new party be appointed. The first Republican Committee was composed of Alvan E. Bovay, Jehdeiah Bowen, Amos A. Loper, Jacob Woodruff and Abraham Thomas, all courageous, outspoken and fearless men of the West, whose very names seem towers of strength, speaking the unalterable purpose of the new party.
These preliminary meetings of the new party having been held and a plan of action outlined, Mr. Bovay directed all his efforts toward having some National recognition of the name of the party. Two days before the first meeting at Ripon he wrote Mr. Greeley a strong letter, urging him to publish an editorial and adopt the name. Mr. Greeley gave the matter but little attention, and several months went by before he took any notice of the suggestion, and then it was only taken up in a half-hearted way, but what he said was enough to settle the matter. In the Tribune of June 24, 1854, appeared an article expressing indifference as to what name should be chosen to represent the Anti-Nebraska sentiment in the North, but the article concluded, "We think some simple name like Republican would more fitly designate those who have united to restore the Union to its true mission, the champion and promulgator of liberty rather than the propagandist of slavery."
Another event had occurred to strengthen the adoption of the name Republican for the new party. On the morning after the final passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, a meeting of the Anti-Nebraska members of Congress was held in Washington, and the general political situation and its hopelessness was fully discussed. At this meeting the feasibility of the new party was talked over, and the members present decided to lend their aid to such a movement, and the name Republican was discussed and adopted.
In point of time, Michigan has the honor of being the first State to hold a Convention and formally adopt a platform containing the principles of the new party and using the name Republican. Late in May, and throughout June, 1854, a call was published and copies circulated for signing among the voters of Michigan, in which all citizens, "without reference to former political association," were called to assemble in Mass Convention on Thursday, July 6th, at 1 p. m., at Jackson, Michigan, "there to take such measures as shall be thought best to concentrate the popular sentiment in this State against the aggressions of the Slave Power." The meeting was overflowing in numbers and most enthusiastic and earnest in sentiment. A long and outspoken platform was unanimously adopted, setting forth something of the history of slavery, and denouncing it as a great moral, social and political wrong. The platform condemned the repeal of the Missouri Compromise; pledged the party to opposition to slavery extension; demanded the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law, and demanded an Act to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; spoke words of cheer to those who might settle in Kansas, and concluded:
"Resolved, That, in view of the necessity of battling for the first principles of Republican Government and against the schemes of aristocracy, the most revolting and oppressive with which the earth was ever cursed or man debased, we will co-operate and be known as Republicans until the contest be terminated."
The State Central Committee was chosen and the first Republican State Ticket in the United States was nominated, headed by Kinsley S. Bingham for Governor. One week later, on July 13th, chosen as the anniversary of the day on which the Ordinance of 1787 was adopted, State Conventions of the Anti-Nebraska members of all parties were held in Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana and Vermont. In Wisconsin and Vermont the name Republican was distinctly adopted, and in these two States, as well as in the others mentioned, platforms similar in sentiment to that of Michigan were agreed on. In Massachusetts the Convention met on July 20th and adopted the name Republican and an Anti-Nebraska platform, and nominated Henry Wilson for Governor, but the peculiar political situation in this State led to the election of the Know-Nothing candidates, but as far as opposition to slavery was concerned, the Know-Nothings in Massachusetts were Republican in sentiment, for they selected Henry Wilson for United States Senator.
Ohio was the first State to suggest a State Convention of the Anti-Nebraska sentiment; a preliminary meeting was held at Columbus March 22d, and was attended by Whigs, Free-Soilers and Democrats. The political situation was thoroughly discussed, and afterwards, as the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill became assured, a call was issued for a State Convention to be held on July 13th. At this Convention the name Republican was not formally adopted, but throughout the State in the Congressional Districts that name was common. In New York the Whigs refused to give up their party organization, but an Anti-Nebraska platform was adopted and the Whig candidate was elected on it. New York joined the Republican party in 1855, and Mr. Seward took his place as a leader of the party in that State. Maine was engrossed with local issues, and did not adopt the Republican organization in 1854, but returned Anti-Nebraska Congressmen. Pennsylvania also held to her old organizations, but returned Anti-Nebraska Congressmen, and the same situation occurred in Illinois. In Iowa the situation was peculiar, but nevertheless emphatic for the new organization. The Whigs held their Convention in that State on February 22d, before the Nebraska Bill had passed the Senate, and before the sentiment in the North had reached an acute stage. But before the election in August the Whig candidate, John W. Grimes, declared himself in favor of the Republican platform and name, and he was practically elected as a Republican Governor, the first in the United States. The South, of course, was solid for the Democratic Party, and no attempt at a Republican organization was made in the Southern States. In the other Northern States not already mentioned the sentiment gradually, but with some slowness, solidified in favor of the new party.
The presence of the American, or Know-Nothing Party, which had come into politics in 1852 as a secret organization, with the prevailing principle of "America for Americans," and which obtained its popular name of "Know-Nothing" because of the invariable answer of its members that they "knew nothing" of the organization, confused the political situation in 1854 and 1855, and makes it difficult to correctly analyze and state the political situation.
It is seen that the Republican Party was strong in the States which had been organized out of the Northwest Territory, but that the East and New England, while fully endorsing the platforms of the new party, entered reluctantly into the movement to adopt its name and organization. In the East there were four distinct parties, the Whigs, Democrats, Know-Nothings and Republicans, but in the West there were but two, the Democratic and Republican. There can be no question, however, that the sentiment of the Know-Nothing Party, which controlled many of the elections in the East during 1854 and 1855, was strongly Anti-Nebraska, and the success of that party in the North may safely be counted as expressing the sentiment of the new party.
The close of 1855 found the Republican Party well organized in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Vermont, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Iowa, Maine, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New York and Indiana. In the several other States not mentioned it was rapidly gaining strength, and the prospects for the presidential campaign of 1856 looked fairly bright, and if the remnants of the Whig Party would retire from the field, and if the Anti-Nebraska Know-Nothings would vote with the new party, the chances for victory were exceedingly good. The struggle in Kansas between the free settlers from the North and the pro-slavery citizens from Missouri was now growing in bitterness, and reports of violence and blood-shed, which came from the scene of the conflict, set the North on fire with indignation and tended materially to solidify sentiment in favor of the Republican Party.
[Illustration: Schoolhouse at Ripon, Wisconsin, where the Republican Party was born.]
The Thirty-fourth Congress, which had been elected the preceding year, convened December 3, 1855, and the extent of the great political revolution which had taken place in the North was seen more clearly. The proud Democratic majority of 89 in the preceding House had been swept away, and the Thirty-fourth Congress, as near as it could be classified, which was indeed difficult, was made up of one hundred and seventeen Anti-Nebraska members, seventy-nine Democrats, and thirty-seven Pro-Slavery Whigs and Know-Nothings. After a contest of nine weeks, Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, was chosen Speaker over the Southern candidate, and although during this first session of the Thirty-fourth Congress the opponents of slavery were without a party name or organization, the election of Banks was clearly a victory for the young party. Altogether the progress of the party in a period of less than two years had been most satisfactory, and if a strong presidential candidate could be obtained, and if great party leaders would appear, it was evident that the new party would stand an even chance of succeeding in the presidential election of 1856, and early preparations were made for the first great national political contest over the slavery question; a contest certain to be exciting and bitter in its events and portentous in results.
CHAPTER IX.
FIRST REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION.
"Free Soil, Free Men, Free Speech, Fremont."
Republican Rallying Cry, 1856.
The opening of 1856 found the country in a turmoil of political excitement and anxiety. Late in January, President Pierce, in a special message, recognized the pro-slavery Legislature of Kansas, and called the attempt to establish a Free-state Government in that Territory an act of rebellion. This continued subserviency of the Administration to the Slave Power so aroused the North that two days later the Anti-Nebraska members in the House forced through a resolution by a vote of one hundred and one to one hundred, declaring that the Missouri Compromise ought to be restored, but nothing further could be done with the resolution. The House at this time was dead-locked over the election of a Speaker, which was not settled, as we have seen, until February 2d. The situation in Kansas was daily growing more acute, and had the natural effect of creating great bitterness both in the North and the South, and this general unsettled and threatening state of affairs and public opinion confronted the political parties on the eve of another presidential campaign.
The Republican State leaders had decided on an attempt at a National Organization and Convention, and on January 17, 1856, the following call was issued:
"To the Republicans of the United States:
"In accordance with what appears to be a general desire of the Republican party, and at the suggestion of a large portion of the Republican Press, the undersigned, Chairmen of the State Republican Committees of Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana and Wisconsin, hereby invite the Republicans of the Union to meet in informal Convention at Pittsburg on the 22d of February, 1856, for the purpose of perfecting the National Organization, and providing for a National Delegate Convention of the Republican Party at some subsequent day, to nominate candidates for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, to be supported at the election in November, 1856.
"A. P. STONE, of Ohio,
"J. Z. GOODRICH, of Massachusetts,
"DAVID WILMOT, of Pennsylvania,
"LAWRENCE BRAINARD, of Vermont,
"WILLIAM A. WHITE, of Wisconsin."
Because of lack of time the names of the other State Chairmen mentioned in the body of the call were not obtained, but they all approved it by letter. The Pittsburg Convention was to be merely preliminary to the National Convention, but it developed unexpected enthusiasm, and it was seen by the friends of freedom that at last a great National Party was in the field, determined to oppose slavery to the utmost, and to remain until the victory should be won.
Twenty-four States, sixteen free and eight slave, sent their representatives to the Pittsburg meeting. Lawrence Brainard, of Vermont, called the Convention to order, and the delegates chose John A. King, of New York, for temporary Chairman. After a prayer by Owen Lovejoy, brother of the murdered Abolitionist, the Committee on Permanent Organization reported the venerable Francis P. Blair, of Maryland, for President of the Convention, who accepted the honor and read an elaborate paper on the situation, which was listened to with marked attention. The names of eighteen prominent Republicans were presented for Vice-Presidents and five for Secretaries. A Committee was appointed to draft an address to the people of the country. Earnest, hopeful and enthusiastic speeches were made by Horace Greeley, Zachariah Chandler, Preston King, David Wilmot, Joshua R. Giddings, George W. Julian, and others, and a strong Freedom letter was read from Cassius M. Clay. The Committee on Resolutions reported a lengthy address to the people of the United States, setting forth the crimes and continued aggressions of the Slave Power, and closing with three Resolutions, demanding the repeal, and pledging the party to labor for the repeal, of all laws which allowed the introduction of slavery into territory once consecrated to freedom, and declared its purpose to resist by all constitutional means the existence of slavery in any of the Territories of the United States; pledging the Republicans to the support, by every lawful means, of the brethren in Kansas, and to use every political power to obtain the immediate admission of Kansas as a free State; and denounced the National Administration and pledged the party to oppose and overthrow it. A National Committee, headed by Edwin D. Morgan, of New York, was then chosen and the preliminary Convention adjourned on February 23d to await the call of the National Committee.
From Washington, on March 29, 1856, the National Committee issued this call for the First National Convention:
"The people of the United States, without regard to past political differences or divisions, who are opposed to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, to the policy of the present Administration, to the extension of slavery into the Territories, in favor of the admission of Kansas as a free State, and restoring the action of the Federal Government to the principles of Washington and Jefferson, are invited by the National Committee, appointed by the Pittsburg Convention on the 22d of February, 1856, to send from each State three delegates from every Congressional District, and six delegates at large, to meet at Philadelphia on the 17th day of June next, for the purpose of recommending candidates to be supported for the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States."
Pursuant to this call, the first Republican National Convention convened at Philadelphia, in the Musical Fund Hall, on June 17, 1856, the anniversary of the battle of Bunker Hill, and was called to order by Edwin D. Morgan, Chairman of the National Committee. Every Northern State, and also Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Virginia, and the Territories of Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, and the District of Columbia, were represented by full delegations, and there were probably between eight hundred and one thousand delegates in attendance. Robert Emmet, of New York, formerly a Democrat, was made temporary chairman, and accepted the honor in an eloquent and stirring speech. After prayer, Committees on Credentials, Resolutions and Permanent Organization were then appointed. The latter committee reported Henry S. Lane, of Indiana, as President of the Convention, and the names of twenty-four Vice-Presidents and a number of Secretaries. The first National Platform of the Republican Party was then reported by David Wilmot and was adopted with thunders of applause and amid scenes of the highest enthusiasm.
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL PLATFORM, 1856.
This convention of delegates, assembled in pursuance of a call addressed to the people of the United States, without regard to past political differences or divisions, who are opposed to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, to the policy of the present administration, to the extension of slavery into free territory; in favor of admitting Kansas as a free State, of restoring the action of the Federal government to the principles of Washington and Jefferson; and who purpose to unite in presenting candidates for the offices of President and Vice-President, do resolve as follows:
Resolved, That the maintenance or the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions, and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and the union of the States, shall be preserved.
Resolved, That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior designs of our federal government were to secure these rights to all persons within its exclusive jurisdiction; that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no person should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing slavery in any Territory of the United States, by positive legislation prohibiting its extension therein; that we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, of any individual or association of individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States while the present Constitution shall be maintained.
Resolved, That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign power over the territories of the United States for their government, and that in the exercise of this power it is both the right and the duty of Congress to prohibit in the territories those twin relics of barbarism— polygamy and slavery.
Resolved, That while the Constitution of the United States was ordained and established by the people in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty, and contains ample provisions for the protection of life, liberty and property of every citizen, the dearest Constitutional rights of the people of Kansas have been fraudulently and violently taken from them; their territory has been invaded by an armed force; spurious and pretended legislative, judicial and executive officers have been set over them, by whose usurped authority, sustained by the military power of the government, tyrannical and unconstitutional laws have been enacted and enforced; the right of the people to keep and bear arms has been infringed; test oaths of an extraordinary and entangling nature have been imposed as a condition of exercising the right of suffrage and holding office; the right of an accused person to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury has been denied; the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, has been violated; they have been deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law; the freedom of speech and of the press has been abridged; the right to choose their representatives has been made of no effect; murders, robberies and arsons have been instigated and encouraged, and the offenders have been allowed to go unpunished; that all these things have been done with the knowledge, sanction and procurement of the present administration; and that for this high crime against the Constitution, the Union and humanity, we arraign the administration, the President, his advisers, agents, supporters, apologists and accessories, either before or after the fact, before the country and before the world; and that it is our fixed purpose to bring the actual perpetrators of these atrocious outrages and their accomplices to a sure and condign punishment hereafter.
Resolved, That Kansas should immediately be admitted as a State of the Union, with her present free constitution, as at once the most effectual way of securing to her citizens the enjoyment of the rights and privileges to which they are entitled, and of ending the civil strife now raging in her territory.
Resolved, That the highwayman's plea that "Might makes right," embodied in the Ostend circular, was in every respect unworthy of American diplomacy, and would bring shame and dishonor upon any government or people that gave it their sanction.
Resolved, That a railroad to the Pacific Ocean, by the most central and practicable route, is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country, and that the Federal government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction; and, as an auxiliary thereto, to the immediate construction of an emigrant route on the line of the railroad.
Resolved, That appropriations by Congress for the improvement of rivers and harbors of a national character, required for the accommodation and security of our existing commerce, are authorized by the Constitution and justified by the obligation of government to protect the lives and property of its citizens.
Resolved, That we invite the affiliation and co-operation of freemen of all parties, however differing from us in other respects, in support of the principles herein declared, and believing that the spirit of our institutions, as well as the Constitution of our country, guarantees liberty of conscience and equality of rights among citizens, we oppose all legislation impairing their security.
The time now came to ballot for a candidate for President, but he had been practically decided on some time before the Convention met. The merits of four men had been thoroughly discussed in connection with this honor—Salmon P. Chase and Judge John McLean of Ohio, William H. Seward, of New York, and John C. Fremont of California. Senator Chase had been too open in his opposition to slavery to be available, and his name was withdrawn; Mr. Seward, influenced by Thurlow Weed, did not wish the nomination, and this fact became known several months before the Convention. McLean, of the United States Supreme Court, was strongly favored by many, because it was felt that he alone of the candidates mentioned could carry Pennsylvania, which had already been figured as the pivotal State. The candidate deemed most available was John C. Fremont, whose political experience had been brief, a term from California in the United States Senate, and he would therefore arouse no bitter personal antagonism by reason of his political record. He had been a Democrat, but was in accord with the principles of the Republican Party; in addition, he had a good record in the Army, and was widely known for his explorations in the Rockies. His wife was the daughter of Senator Thomas C. Benton, of Missouri, and altogether he was an attractive and, it appeared at the time, a shrewdly selected candidate.
[Illustration: John C. Fremont, First Republican Candidate for President.]
There were no formal nominating speeches, but the names of all who had been discussed as candidates had been mentioned in the many enthusiastic speeches which were made during the Convention. An informal ballot gave Fremont 359; McLean 190; Sumner 2; Seward 1. A formal ballot was then immediately taken and Fremont received the entire vote of the Convention except 37 for McLean, 1 for Seward, and the Virginia vote, which was not cast because its delegation was not organized; the nomination was then made unanimous. The next day an informal ballot was taken for Vice-President. William L. Dayton, of New Jersey, received 253 votes; Abraham Lincoln, 110; N. P. Banks, 46; David Wilmot, 43; Charles Sumner, 35, and some votes each for Henry Wilson, Jacob Collamer, Joshua R. Giddings, Cassius M. Clay, Henry C. Carey, John A. King, Thomas Ford, Whitefield S. Johnson, Aaron S. Pennington and Samuel C. Pomeroy. Mr. Lincoln was not a candidate for the office, and was named without his knowledge, and he was greatly surprised, several days later, when he learned of it. When his name was put in nomination—the second mentioned—inquiries as to who he was came from all parts of the hall. Mr. Lincoln's speech before the Bloomington Convention, in Illinois, had turned the eyes of the Republican Party in that State to him as its leader, and the Illinois Delegation to the National Convention knew well enough who he was, but his time had not yet come. Mr. Dayton received the nomination for Vice-President on the formal ballot and it was made unanimous. After appointing a committee, headed by Henry S. Lane, of Indiana, to notify the candidates of their nominations, and listening to a number of enthusiastic speeches, the Convention adjourned on June 19th. In one of the speeches reference was made to "Free Speech, Free Press, Free Soil, Free Kansas," when one of the delegates interrupted, "and Fremont"; the utterance and its amendment, with some abridgment, became one of the rallying cries of the campaign.
The selection of Mr. Fremont had also been influenced by the fact that he was looked upon with favor by those delegates who withdrew from the American or Know-Nothing Convention. The Know-Nothings had held their Convention on February 22d, and had nominated Millard Fillmore for President and A. J. Donelson for Vice-President. The delegates from New England, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Iowa, being unable to secure an Anti-Slavery Extension Plank in the Platform, seceded and soon afterwards nominated Fremont for President, and William F. Johnston, of Pennsylvania, for Vice-President.
On September 17th the remnant of the Whig Party met at Philadelphia and adopted the nominees of the American Party, Fillmore and Donelson. This Convention and their votes in the ensuing election marked the last appearance of the Whig Party in politics.
The Democrats held their Convention in Cincinnati on June 3d, before the Republican Convention was held, and nominated James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, for President, and John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, for Vice-President. President Pierce and Senator Douglas were both candidates for the presidential nomination, but were withdrawn on the fifteenth and sixteenth ballots because the South had already selected a candidate. Mr. Buchanan had been absent as Minister to England during the turmoil over the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. In addition, he came from a Northern State, and was therefore doubly attractive as a candidate; for the South, with its 112 electoral votes, needed 37 more votes to elect their candidate, and Pennsylvania, with 27 votes, was looked on as the pivotal State.
The Democratic Platform, as usual, denounced the Abolitionists, and repeated its hollow promise of 1852, that the party would resist all attempts at renewing the agitation of the slavery question. It denounced the Republican Party as "sectional, and subsisting exclusively on slavery agitation," and it contained the following remarkable and artfully worded plank:
"Resolved, That we recognize the right of the people of all the Territories, including Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the legally and fairly expressed will of a majority of actual residents, and whenever the number of their inhabitants justifies it, to form a Constitution, with or without domestic slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with other States." The ambiguous part of this plank was the insertion of the right of the inhabitants to form a Constitution with or without domestic slavery. Mr. Douglas and the other Democratic speakers argued in the North that this meant that the people of the Territory had the right to decide for or against slavery, but the South looked upon it as fully protecting slavery in any Territory until a Constitution could be formed. In the North and South the plank obtained votes for the party, but the votes were cast in the respective sections on diametrically opposed grounds.
The political situation in this campaign was somewhat complicated at first by the presentation of so many candidates, for, in addition to the candidates already named, the Abolitionists presented a ticket, as did also a number of Americans, who seceded from the second convention of that party, but the situation gradually resolved itself into a contest between Buchanan, Fremont and Fillmore. No electoral tickets were presented for Fremont in the slave States, and the fact that Fillmore could not carry any of the free States weakened him in the South, and it was seen that Buchanan would receive the solid electoral vote of the South, and that the contest would therefore be between Buchanan and Fremont for the Northern electoral votes.
The struggle in Kansas was inseparably connected with the campaign of 1856. That struggle was virtually the opening of the Civil War, and while the North and South fought out the issue with bullets in Kansas, in the other States of the two sections the contest was no less bitter, although the means were less destructive. Before either of the great political conventions were held, Lawrence, Kansas, was captured and sacked by the Pro-Slavery Party, and on the following day (May 22d) Charles Sumner was struck down in the Senate by Preston S. Brooks, of South Carolina, because of his speech, "The Crime against Kansas." These events picture the feeling between the North and South which existed during this campaign. The South had probably already felt that if they went into the campaign solely on their cause they would be defeated, hence the nomination of a Northern Democrat from a necessary State, and the artful construction of their platform. The enthusiasm of the Republicans was probably more for their cause than for the candidate. The Democrats in the North evaded the issue of slavery as much as possible, and denounced the candidacy of Fremont as sectional, and that his success would mean the dissolution of the Union, a weighty argument with thousands of voters, especially those who were attached to the South by financial and commercial bonds. The speeches of the Southern leaders and the press of the South abounded in threats of disunion in the event of Fremont's election. The Republicans, unhampered by a southern wing and advocating the restriction of a great moral wrong, went into the campaign with the earnestness and enthusiasm of a religious crusade. They carried on a clean campaign of education, and tons of political literature were scattered broadcast over the country.
The young men of the North were especially attracted to the Republican Cause, and it was recognized that their vote would be a great aid; and the influence of the women of the country was distinctly with the new party. The clergy, the religious press and most of the eminent professors and educated men of the North also lent their potent forces to the new party.
The issues presented in the campaign of 1856, like those of 1860, were the most remarkable in our political history, and a canvass attended by such circumstances and so portentous in results could not but be exciting in the highest degree, and the bitterness of the situation grew in intensity as the days of the fall elections approached. All eyes now turned with anxiety on the few State elections which were to be held in the North prior to the presidential election in November, because they would unquestionably foreshadow the final result. Iowa came first, and, in August, went Republican, and was joined in September by Maine and Vermont, both overwhelmingly Republican. These successes were to the highest gratification of the members of the new party, and now came the final test, the October elections in Pennsylvania, Indiana and Ohio. The first of these States, with its twenty-seven electoral votes, was the most important. Thousands of dollars were poured into the campaign funds of the State by both sides, the Democratic Committee having the greater amount to spend and having the better organization. Several hundred speakers, representing both sides, traversed the State in all directions. The Democrats used the disunion argument with great effect, and added to it the campaign cry of "Buck, Breck and Free Kansas," and on October 14th Pennsylvania went Democratic by a very narrow majority. Ohio, as was expected, went Republican, but Indiana was lost, and the result of the presidential issue was thus practically known before the election, on November 4th. Fremont received the electoral votes of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa and Wisconsin, one hundred and fourteen in all. Buchanan received the vote of all the slave States and Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Indiana, Illinois and California, a total of one hundred and seventy-four votes; the eight votes of Maryland going to Fillmore, the only State won by the Know-Nothings. The popular vote gave Buchanan 1,838,169; Fremont 1,341,264; Fillmore 874,534. The popular vote of South Carolina is not included, as the electors in that State were chosen by her Legislature.
When the first wave of bitter disappointment passed away, the Republicans saw the enormous headway that had been made and they immediately began to prepare for the national contest four years hence. The Democrats had lost ten States which they carried in 1852, and their electoral vote of 254 in 1852 had shrunken to 174. The South elected Buchanan, and he became the tool of the Slave Power, and, as subsequent events developed, it was fortunate that the Republicans were not successful in the campaign.
[Illustration: William H. Seward.]
CHAPTER X.
THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES.
"Can the people of a United States territory in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution?"
Lincoln to Douglas, Freeport Debate, August 27, 1858.
The Buchanan Administration began on March 4, 1857, and the Slave Power, through the Democratic Party, found itself in complete and absolute control of every branch of the Government, legislative, executive and judicial. Two days after the inauguration came the famous Dred Scott decision. The arguments in this case had been heard before the election, but the court adjourned until after the election. The decision, delivered by Chief Justice Taney, fixed the legal status of the negro in the United States, and declared that he could not claim any of the rights and privileges of a citizen, and "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit." Then, traveling out of the record, the Court declared that the Missouri Compromise was unauthorized by the Constitution, and was null and void, and that Congress had no right to keep slavery out of any Territory. It was apparent at once that this decision completely nullified Douglas' doctrine of popular sovereignty, and the South lost no time in abandoning that doctrine, and declaring that she would insist as a Constitutional right that slaves taken into any Territory must be protected like any other property. The North was stunned for the moment by this sweeping decision; the South was jubilant beyond all bounds, and instantly prepared to take advantage of the new dogma to the utmost. While under this decision the Slave Power seemed all triumphant, it was, in fact, to produce its destruction, and slavery was to lose its power by the very thing which seemed to strengthen it. The Dred Scott decision was bound to produce a split in the Democratic Party and the moment that occurred the success of the Republican Party was assured. The South spread thousands of copies of the decision throughout the country, and when the North recovered from the shock and saw what a revolution the decision would cause in the Democratic Party, it joined in giving it the utmost publicity.
The attempt to force Kansas into the Union as a slave State under the infamous Lecompton Constitution now began. In that Territory the Free-State settlers had rapidly been gaining in strength, and the Slave Power, in desperate straits, resorted to trickery. Several attempts of the Free-State Legislature to meet were prevented by the Federal troops, but finally, in 1857, the Free-State men voted at the regular election and obtained control of the Territorial Legislature; but before they could act, a pro-slavery Convention, previously chosen, concluded its work at Lecompton and submitted the Lecompton Constitution to the people, not permitting them, however, to vote for or against the Constitution, but "For the Constitution with Slavery," or "For the Constitution without Slavery." The Free-State men refused to vote at this election, and the Lecompton Constitution was adopted, with Slavery.
When Congress assembled, on December 7, 1859, President Buchanan, in his message, approved the Lecompton Constitution, and recommended the admission of Kansas under it. It had been rumored for some time that Senator Douglas would oppose the Administration in its attempt to force the Lecompton Constitution upon the people of Kansas, and this, indeed, proved to be true, when, on December 9th, Douglas announced his opposition to the action of the Administration as contrary to his doctrine of popular sovereignty. It is unnecessary to go into the motives that actuated Senator Douglas, but it may be stated that his re-election to the Senate was to depend on the election in Illinois in 1858, and unless he did something to counteract the feeling against him he was almost certain of defeat. The apostasy of Douglas was as a thunderbolt to the South, but the North received it with great delight, and in the early months of 1858 Douglas was easily the most popular man in the North. The new Legislature in Kansas met in December and ordered another election at which the people of the Territory could vote for or against the Lecompton Constitution, and on January 9, 1858, that Constitution was rejected by ten thousand majority. Notwithstanding this emphatic condemnation by the people of the Territory, the Administration persisted in its course to force Kansas in under the Lecompton Constitution. The Senate was for the admission of Kansas, but the House opposed it, and in a joint conference the infamous English Bill was agreed on, in which the people of Kansas were offered a bribe in the form of large land grants if they would accept the Lecompton Constitution. This they subsequently refused to do by a large majority, and Kansas remained a Territory until 1861. The Dred Scott decision and the attempt to force in Kansas under the Lecompton Constitution helped the Republican Party greatly, and its prospects were brighter in 1858 than they had been in 1857, in which year there was a reaction from the enthusiasm created by the presidential campaign of the preceding year.
A legislature was to be chosen in Illinois in 1858 which would select the successor to Senator Douglas. Douglas' action in opposing the Administration had aroused public interest in him in the North, and many of the Republican leaders desired that he should have no opposition in Illinois, but the Republicans of that State were not of that opinion. The Democratic Convention in Illinois met in April and endorsed Douglas; the Republican Convention, on June 16th, resolved "That Abraham Lincoln is the first and only choice of the Republicans of Illinois for the United States Senate, as the successor of Stephen A. Douglas." In his speech that evening to the Convention Mr. Lincoln made the remarkable and daring statement, "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other."
Senator Douglas reached Chicago on July 9th, and, amid the plaudits of his friends, delivered an elaborate speech, which was listened to with great interest by Mr. Lincoln, who was present; on the next evening Mr. Lincoln answered in the presence of a large and enthusiastic audience. Senator Douglas then spoke at Bloomington, and was answered by Mr. Lincoln at Springfield, and the public interest that had been aroused, not only in Illinois but throughout the country, caused the Republican leaders to induce Mr. Lincoln to challenge Senator Douglas to a series of debates on the great question of the hour. Privately Senator Douglas was averse to meeting Mr. Lincoln in this manner, but publicly he promptly accepted the challenge and named seven places in different Congressional Districts in which neither had spoken, as the places where the debates were to be held. These great debates began at Ottawa on August 21, 1858, and were followed by meetings at Freeport, Jonesboro, Charleston, Galesburg, Quincy, and concluded on October 15th at Alton, the entire State having been traversed.
As they read and pondered on the arguments of Mr. Lincoln, it gradually dawned upon the people of the North that a great leader had been found, for it was early seen and felt that Senator Douglas was not holding his own. No greater or clearer exposition of the Northern views of slavery and the questions connected with it had ever been pronounced than Mr. Lincoln's, and the great contest in Illinois was watched with eagerness and interest by the entire North, and Mr. Lincoln, from a comparatively unknown State leader, became a great national character.
At Freeport, Mr. Lincoln, contrary to the advice of all his friends, asked the question which forced Douglas into a labored attempt to reconcile his doctrine of popular sovereignty with the Dred Scott decision. It was plain that the question, "Can the people of a United States Territory in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution?" could not be answered without antagonizing either the North or the South. There was absolutely no middle ground on which Senator Douglas could stand for any length of time.
Mr. Lincoln was willing to lose the Senatorial contest if Douglas could be defeated for the Presidency, and he gained his point, although his friends did not immediately see the strength of it. Senator Douglas, in an artful reply to this searching question, put forward his doctrine of Popular Sovereignty by asserting that the people could, by "unfriendly legislation," effectually prevent the introduction of slavery into their midst. When the South read this declaration, so contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court, Douglas' fate was sealed as a presidential candidate. Owing to a totally unfair apportionment of the Senatorial Districts, which had been made by a Democratic Legislature, Mr. Lincoln lost the contest with Senator Douglas, who had a majority of eight on the joint ballot in the new Legislature, but the Republican Ticket won in the popular vote by 4000.
Mr. Lincoln was forty-nine years old and Senator Douglas forty-five when they met in these memorable debates. They had been thrown together for more than twenty years by a most remarkable combination of circumstances. They had both wooed the same woman, Mary Todd, and Lincoln won; both craved for success in politics, and as Douglas belonged to the dominant party in Illinois, he met with early success, and ran the gamut of political honors and was a great national figure before Lincoln was known. Douglas had been Attorney-General, Secretary of State and Judge of the Supreme Court of Illinois; in 1843 he was elected to the National House of Representatives and served until 1847, when he was sent to the Senate, where he served until 1861; his name had been presented for the presidential nomination to the Democratic Conventions of 1852 and 1856. Compared to this series of political successes those of Lincoln were indeed meagre. He had served in the Illinois Legislature; in 1847 was sent to Congress, but served only one term, and from 1849 to 1854 he had devoted himself, with the exception of some canvassing done for Scott in the Campaign of 1852, almost exclusively to his law practice. It was Senator Douglas' Kansas-Nebraska Bill that brought Lincoln again into politics, with emphatic protests and strong arguments against the outrage. When Mr. Douglas returned to Illinois in 1854, he attempted, with much difficulty, to justify his action, and the debates between him and Mr. Lincoln really began in that year. Lincoln met his arguments, and after a few speeches Mr. Douglas was ready to quit, and made an agreement with Mr. Lincoln that neither of them should speak again in the campaign. In 1854 Mr. Lincoln was the choice for United States Senator, but yielded his place to Lyman Trumbull. He took an active part in the formation of the Republican Party in Illinois, and at the Bloomington Convention in 1856, which chose delegates to the first Republican National Convention, he made a strong speech that attracted the attention of the Republicans of Illinois to him and made him the State leader. He labored earnestly in Illinois for the success of Fremont and Dayton. Throughout 1857 he grew stronger with the party, with the result that he was the unanimous and only choice in 1858 as the successor to Douglas.
Douglas secured the shadow of a victory, but Mr. Lincoln, and the Republican Party throughout the North, had the substance, and the fall elections in 1858 were decidedly in favor of the Republicans. The Autumn campaigns of 1859 were of the utmost importance, and the Democrats made great efforts in the North, especially in Ohio. Senator Douglas went personally into that State, and at the earnest invitation of the Republican Committee, Mr. Lincoln spoke at Columbus on September 16th and at Cincinnati on September 17th. Mr. Dennison, the Republican candidate in Ohio, was elected, and the Republicans were successful in Pennsylvania and Iowa.
A few days after the October elections the entire country was thrown into a state of great excitement by John Brown's invasion of Virginia and his capture of the United States arsenal at Harper's Ferry. He had hoped for a general uprising of the slaves, but it did not occur, and Brown was captured by Robert E. Lee, then a Colonel in the United States Army, and after a trial on a charge of murder and treason against the State of Virginia, was found guilty and hanged December 2, 1859. This affair aroused the Slave Power to a frenzy of excitement, and they immediately demanded an investigation, and strong attempts were made to fix the conspiracy on members of the Republican Party, but it signally failed.
Three days after John Brown's execution, the Thirty-sixth Congress assembled. In the Senate there were thirty-eight Democrats, twenty-five Republicans, and two Americans; the Republicans had gained five Senators. In the House there were one hundred and nine Republicans, eighty-eight administration Democrats, thirteen anti-Lecompton Democrats, and twenty-seven Americans, all of the latter, except four, from the South. The contest for the Speakership developed the deep animosity felt by the South, and threats of disunion and personal violence abounded throughout the session. The Republicans generally remained silent, only taking part in the debates when absolutely necessary. On the first ballots the Republicans divided their votes between Galusha A. Grow, of Pennsylvania, and John Sherman, of Ohio; Mr. Grow having received the fewer number of votes, withdrew, under an agreement, and the contest continued between Mr. Sherman and Mr. Bocock, of Virginia. On January 4, 1860, Sherman was within three votes of an election, but he finally withdrew in favor of William Pennington, a Republican, of New Jersey, who was elected on February 1, 1860, and the House secured a Republican organization. During the debate attendant upon this election, Mr. Crawford, of Georgia, declared, "We will never submit to the inauguration of a black Republican President," and this remark, with others of a like nature, was often repeated. Many of the members of Congress attended the session fully armed, and it often appeared that the Civil War would probably begin in the House of Representatives.
In the decade between 1840 and 1850, the number of slaves in the South increased 800,000; and in the decade between 1850 and 1860, 700,000. The increase of white population in the South was very small compared to that of the North. The census of 1850 showed the population of the country to be 23,191,876, divided as follows:
White. Free Black. Slave.
North ……… 13,269,149 196,262 262
South ……… 6,283,965 238,187 3,204,051
The tremendous increase of slave population and the rapid gain of the North over the South in free population is shown by a comparison of the census of 1850 with that of 1860, when the total population was 31,443,322, divided between the two sections as follows:
White. Free Black. Slave.
North ……… 18,791,159 225,967 64
South ……… 8,182,684 262,003 3,953,696
Owing to the large crops in the South the demand for slaves exceeded the supply, and the market price of negroes in the decade between 1850 and 1860 was very high. Three results followed the increased demand and the high prices—the Domestic Slave Trade between the States was largely increased; attempts to smuggle in slaves contrary to the Slave Trade Laws were numerous and often successful, and the South began, in Buchanan's administration, to consider the re-establishment of the African slave trade.
During the last years of Buchanan's administration politics were dominated by virtually three parties: the Republicans with their opposition to slavery extension—the leaders being Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward; the Northern Democrats, led by Senator Douglas, with his idea of Popular Sovereignty; and the Southern Democrats, with their purpose of slavery extension and protection under the decision of the Supreme Court and the Acts of Congress, their leader being Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi. The schism in the Democratic Party was seen more clearly late in February, 1859, when Senators Douglas and Davis, representing the opposite principles advocated by the Democratic Party, engaged in a bitter debate, which forecasted clearly a division in the Democratic Party in 1860, and the probable election of a Republican President, but who would he be, and what would be the course of the South on his election?
CHAPTER XI.
LINCOLN.
"Since the November of 1860 his horizon has been black with storms. By day and by night, he trod a way of danger and darkness. On his shoulders rested a government dearer to him than his own life … Even he who now sleeps has, by this event, been clothed with new influence. Dead, he speaks to men who now willingly hear what before they refused to listen to … Four years ago, O Illinois, we took from your midst an untried man and from among the people. We return him to you a mighty conqueror. Not thine any more, but the nation's; not ours, but the world's."
Henry Ward Beecher, April 16, 1865.
In 1860 the curtain rolled up on the beginning of the last act in the great drama of the struggle between Freedom and Slavery. Because of the events already narrated, a division in the Democratic Party was almost certain if Douglas persisted in being a candidate, and that division would mean the success of the Republican Party. A greater anxiety and fear than perhaps ever before or since in the history of the country pervaded the political situation in the early months of 1860. What would transpire at the Conventions of the great parties? All eyes turned to the first Convention, that of the Democratic Party, which assembled at Charleston, S. C., April 23, 1860. Senator Douglas was a candidate. There was almost an immediate disagreement on the slavery question, and a group of extreme Southern Democrats, unable to agree with their Northern brethren who adopted a Douglas platform, withdrew from the Convention. This first group of seceders held a separate meeting, and after adopting a Platform, adjourned to meet at Richmond, Va., on June 11th. In the main Convention opposition to Douglas was still strong, and after fifty-seven ballots, without being able to nominate any candidate, the main Convention adjourned to meet at Baltimore on June 18th. The bolters from the Charleston Convention met in Richmond on June 11th, but immediately adjourned again until June 28th, which was to be ten days after the adjourned meeting of the main Convention. The main Convention duly assembled at Baltimore on June 18th, and as it was apparent that Douglas would be nominated, there was another withdrawal of Southern Democrats accompanied by some of their Northern brethren. Those who remained nominated Stephen A. Douglas for President and Benjamin Fitzpatrick of Alabama for Vice-President. Mr. Fitzpatrick afterwards declined, and the National Democratic Committee named Herschel V. Johnson, of Georgia, for Vice-President. The second group of bolters unanimously nominated John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, for President, and Joseph Lane, of Oregon, for Vice-President, and adopted the platform which had been agreed upon by the bolters from the Charleston Convention. The Charleston bolters, when they met again on June 28th, ratified the nominations of Breckinridge and Lane. The Douglas Democratic platform affirmed the Cincinnati platform of 1856, and stated that the party would abide by the decision of the Supreme Court on questions of Constitutional Law, and it denounced the Personal Liberty Laws as revolutionary. The Breckinridge Democratic platform also adopted the Cincinnati platform, but with explanatory resolutions to the effect that neither Congress or any Territorial Legislature had a right to interfere with slavery, pending the formation of a State Constitution, and that it was the duty of the Federal Government to protect slavery at all times. This platform also denounced the Personal Liberty Laws. The Democratic Party had won in 1856 on an ambiguous plank in their platform, relating to slavery in the Territories, that enabled them to secure votes in the North and South by arguments irreconcilable with the political thought of the two sections, and now, in 1860, they were dissipating their strength by disagreeing on an explanation among themselves of that ambiguous plank; it was a just political retribution.
A temporary political party appeared in 1860, known as the Constitutional Union Party; their convention was held at Baltimore on May 9th, and John Bell, of Tennessee, was named for President, and Edward Everett, of Massachusetts, for Vice-President. The Platform of this party declared for "The Constitution of the country, the Union of the States and the enforcement of the Laws." It was an attempt to divert the voters from the geographical and sectional parties, and polled a large popular vote.
The second Republican National Convention convened at Chicago on Wednesday, May 16, 1860, in the "Wigwam," a vast pine board structure specially built for the occasion by the Chicago Republican Club. The split in the Democratic Party, although the adjourned sessions of that Party had not yet been held, gave increased hope of Republican success this year, and it was felt by a great majority of the delegates and spectators that the Convention would name the next President of the United States. This strong probability added an importance and dignity, not unmingled with awe, to the work of the Convention. Edwin D. Morgan, of New York, called the Convention to order and faced an audience of about ten thousand people, only four hundred and sixty-six of whom were delegates. All of the free States were represented, as well as Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Texas and Virginia, and the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska and the District of Columbia. Mr. Morgan named David Wilmot for Temporary Chairman, and committees on Permanent Organization, on Credentials, and on Rules were then severally appointed. George Ashmun, of Massachusetts, was reported a Chairman of the Convention, and one Vice-President and one Secretary from each State and Territory were named. A Platform Committee was then appointed, after which the Convention decided, after some debate over the admission of "delegates" from the Slave States, some of whom had never seen their States, to admit all delegates, and this included Horace Greeley, "of Oregon," who had not desired and had not been sent with the New York delegation. A virtual attempt to fasten the two-thirds nominating rule on the Convention was defeated, and it was decided that a majority of the whole number of votes should nominate. Judge William Jessup, of Pennsylvania, reported the platform, and it was adopted with the utmost enthusiasm. The platform on which Mr. Lincoln was elected should be read by every Republican and every citizen interested in the history and development of the nation.
REPUBLICAN PLATFORM, 1860.
Resolved, That we, the delegated representatives of the Republican electors of the United States, in convention assembled, in discharge of the duty we owe to our constituents and our country, unite in the following declarations:
1. That the history of the nation during the last four years has fully established the propriety and necessity of the organization and perpetuation of the Republican party, and that the causes which called it into existence are permanent in their nature, and now, more than ever before, demand its peaceful and constitutional triumph.
2. That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," is essential to the preservation of our republican institutions; and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the states, and the union of the states must and shall be preserved.
3. That to the union of the states this nation owes its unprecedented increase in population, its surprising development of material resources, its rapid augmentation of wealth, its happiness at home and its honor abroad; and we hold in abhorrence all schemes for disunion, come from whatever source they may; and we congratulate the country that no Republican member of Congress has uttered or countenanced the threats of disunion so often made by Democratic members, without rebuke and with applause from their political associates; and we denounce those threats of disunion, in case of a popular overthrow of their ascendancy, as denying the vital principles of free government, and as an avowal of contemplated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant people sternly to rebuke and forever silence.
4. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
5. That the present Democratic administration has far exceeded our worst apprehensions, in its measureless subserviency to the exactions of a sectional interest, as especially evinced in its desperate exertions to force the infamous Lecompton constitution upon the protesting people of Kansas; in construing the personal relations between master and servant to involve an unqualified property in persons; in its attempted enforcement everywhere, on land and sea, through the intervention of Congress and of the federal courts, of the extreme pretensions of a purely local interest; and in its general and unvarying abuse of the power intrusted to it by a confiding people.
6. That the people justly view with alarm the reckless extravagance which pervades every department of the federal government; that a return to rigid economy and accountability is indispensable to arrest the systematic plunder of the public treasury by favored partisans, while the recent startling developments of frauds and corruptions at the federal metropolis show that an entire change of administration is imperatively demanded.
7. That the new dogma—that the Constitution, of its own force, carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States—is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit provisions of that instrument itself, with contemporaneous exposition, and with legislative and judicial precedent; is revolutionary in its tendency and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country.
8. That the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom; that, as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that "no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," it becomes our duty, by legislation, whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it; and we deny the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or of any individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States.
9. That we brand the recent reopening of the African slave trade, under the cover of our national flag, aided by perversions of judicial power, as a crime against humanity and a burning shame to our country and age; and we call upon Congress to take prompt and efficient measures for the total and final suppression of that execrable traffic.
10. That in the recent vetoes, by their federal governors, of the acts of the legislatures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting slavery in those territories, we find a practical illustration of the boasted Democratic principle of non-intervention and popular sovereignity, embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and a demonstration of the deception and fraud involved therein.
11. That Kansas should of right be immediately admitted as a state under the constitution recently formed and adopted by her people and accepted by the House of Representatives.
12. That, while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerative prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.
13. That we protest against any sale or alienation to others of the public lands held by actual settlers, and against any view of the free-homestead policy which regards the settlers as paupers or suppliants for public bounty; and we demand the passage by Congress of the complete and satisfactory homestead measure which has already passed the House.
14. That the Republican party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws, or any state legislation by which the rights of citizens hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.
15. That appropriations by Congress for river and harbor improvements of a national character, required for the accommodation and security of an existing commerce, are authorized by the Constitution and justified by the obligation of government to protect the lives and property of its citizens.
16. That a railroad to the Pacific Ocean is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country; that the federal government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction; and that, as preliminary thereto, a daily overland mail should be promptly established.
17. Finally having set forth our distinctive principles and views, we invite the co-operation of all citizens, however differing on other questions, who substantially agree with us in their affirmance and support.
An exciting incident occurred when Joshua R. Giddings moved to embrace the principles of the Declaration of Independence in the platform, and, when voted down, withdrew from the Convention; but what he proposed was afterwards accomplished by George William Curtis, of New York, and became the second plank of the platform, and Mr. Giddings returned to the Convention.
Two days were consumed in organizing and adopting the platform. The second night of the Convention, that which intervened between Thursday and Friday, was given up to remarkable exertions in behalf of the several candidates. William H. Seward, of New York, was the most prominent candidate before the Convention, and would probably have been named had the nominations been made on the first or second day of the Convention. The other candidates were Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois; Simon Cameron, of Pennsylvania; Salmon P. Chase and John McLean, of Ohio; Edward Bates, of Missouri; William L. Dayton, of New Jersey, and Jacob Collamer, of Vermont. There was a strong opposition to Mr. Seward, based on the ground of his availability, as it was felt by Henry S. Lane, of Indiana, and A. G. Curtin, of Pennsylvania, who were the candidates for Governor in their respective States, that Mr. Seward could not carry those States. Mr. Greeley was also doing his utmost to defeat Mr. Seward, but was advocating the nomination of Edward Bates, of Missouri. The Illinois delegation had been instructed for Mr. Lincoln, and soon added Indiana to his support, and they also obtained promises of a majority vote of the New Hampshire, Virginia and Kentucky delegations on the first ballot, with some scattering votes from other States. Mr. Lincoln's candidacy was very promising, but not entirely certain of success, as, to many, the strength of Mr. Seward appeared invincible; but Mr. Lincoln's supporters were certain that if he could obtain a good vote on the first ballot it would be largely increased on the second ballot by votes from Pennsylvania, Ohio and Vermont. On the third day of the Convention, Friday morning, May 18th, the nominations were made. William M. Evarts presented the name of William H. Seward, and was immediately followed by Norman B. Judd, of Illinois, who nominated Mr. Lincoln. Others were named, and a number of seconding speeches were made, Mr. Lincoln's name being seconded by Caleb B. Smith, of Indiana, and Columbus Delano, of Ohio. The cheers and noisy enthusiasm which attended the various speeches were terrifying in volume, and it was apparent that the Lincoln shouters had the advantage in volume of sound, and the influence of the vast assemblage and the great pressure of environment unquestionably increased Mr. Lincoln's chances for the nomination. The balloting began and proceeded amid intense excitement; two hundred and thirty-three votes were necessary to a choice, and three ballots were taken, with the following result:
1st 2d 3d
Ballot. Ballot. Ballot.
Seward ……… 173½ 184½ 180
Lincoln …….. 102 181 231½
Cameron …….. 50½ 2
Chase ………. 49 42½ 24½
Bates ………. 48 35 22
Dayton ……… 14 10
McLean ……… 12 8 5
Collamer ……. 10
Scattering votes were also cast for Benjamin F. Wade, John M. Reed,
Charles Sumner, John C. Fremont, and Cassius M. Clay.
At the completion of the third ballot, Mr. Lincoln lacked one and one-half votes of the nomination. There was a momentary lull, and then David K. Cartter, of Ohio, mounted his seat, caught the attention of the Chairman, and, in the breathless excitement, announced that Ohio changed four votes from Mr. Chase to Mr. Lincoln. There was a moment's silence until it could all be appreciated, and then pandemonium for more than twenty minutes. The immense crowd outside the "Wigwam" was soon apprised of the result and the news spread like wildfire. Mr. Evarts moved the nomination be made unanimous.
There were two prominent candidates for Vice-President, Hannibal Hamlin, of Maine, and Cassius M. Clay, of Kentucky. Others mentioned for this honor were John Hickman and Andrew H. Reeder, of Pennsylvania, and Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts. Two ballots were taken, and Mr. Hamlin was nominated on the second:
1st Ballot. 2d Ballot.
Hamlin ….. 194 367
Clay ……. 101½ 86
Hickman …. 58 13
Reeder ….. 51
Banks …… 38
Others who received complimentary votes on the first ballot were
Samuel Houston, William L. Dayton, Henry W. Davis, John M. Reed,
Andrew H. Reeder and John Hickman.
During the entire Convention Mr. Lincoln remained at Springfield; there he received the telegraphic news of his nomination, and thither went the Notification Committee, composed of many brilliant men, most of whom had never met him. On May 23d Mr. Lincoln wrote an admirable letter of acceptance, and the campaign was on in earnest, notwithstanding that the Democrats had not yet presented their ticket. In the Western States, where his name and history appealed to the people, Mr. Lincoln's nomination was received with the utmost delight; but in the Eastern States the first feeling over the defeat of Mr. Seward was one of bitter disappointment, but Mr. Seward and the other great leaders promptly and manfully gave their whole support to Mr. Lincoln, and there was never any question that the party would not be united in his support. The Democratic press vented its snobbishness by constant articles calling attention to Mr. Lincoln's poverty, and asserting that he was not a gentleman, and had "never traveled and had no pedigree."
The Republican Campaign of 1860 consisted of a liberal use of political literature and of a systematic stumping of the country by the great men of the party, prominent among whom were Seward, Schurz, Clay, Greeley, Stevens, and many others, and hundreds of other Republican speakers of less prominence who traversed the Northern States. Bands of "Wide-Awakes" were organized everywhere in the North and participated in the parades with torches and a simple uniform. There were many great State rallies for the Republican ticket. In the North it was apparent that the vote would be cast for either Lincoln, Douglas or Bell, and in the slave States for Breckinridge. From the end of May to November the work went on and the Republicans gained rapidly in strength, notwithstanding the threats of the South to secede if the Federal Government should ever pass into the "treacherous hands of the Black Republican Party." Mr. Lincoln remained at Springfield during the entire campaign, going about his usual affairs, and meeting the hundreds of curious and otherwise who came to see him. He maintained a strict silence on the great problem of the hour, but watched the campaign closely, and often gave sound advice to the managers. On August 8th the greatest State rally held in the North took place at Springfield, and it was estimated that fully 75,000 people were present.
After some desperate campaigning Senator Douglas gave up all hope of success, and announced that he would go South to urge upon all the duty of submitting to the result of the election, and he steadfastly asserted his intention of standing by the Union.
The only danger was that Mr. Lincoln might not receive a majority of the electoral vote, which would throw the election into the House of Representatives, but this was dispelled when Pennsylvania and Indiana went Republican in October, and the result of the election on November 6th was conceded. Mr. Lincoln received the electoral votes of California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin, all Northern States, and casting 180 out of 303 electoral votes. Breckinridge carried Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas, all slave States, and casting seventy-two electoral votes. Bell carried Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia, thirty-nine votes; and Douglas only carried one State, Missouri, with nine votes, but also received three of the seven votes of New Jersey, the remainder going to Mr. Lincoln. The popular vote was as follows:
Lincoln ……….. 1,866,352 Breckinridge …….. 847,514
Douglas ……….. 1,375,157 Bell ……………. 587,830