History of the United States, v.1, by James Ford Rhodes, 1910 [c1892].

Chapter 3, Part 1: Clayton-Bulwer Treaty through Character of Pierce

CHAPTER III

For the sake of riveting the attention of the reader on the compromise measures, certain events have been passed over which, before leaving the year 1850, should receive mention.

The most important diplomatic achievement of the Taylor administration was the negotiation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. A ship-canal from the Atlantic to the Pacific was dreamed of as early as 1826, and is referred to by Clay in one of his diplomatic instructions. Should such a canal be constructed," the benefits of it," he wrote," ought not to be exclusively appropriated to any one nation, but should be extended to all parts of the globe." Nine years later the Senate and President Jackson assented to the same principle; and President Polk carried the idea into execution in the treaty with New Granada, by which the United States agreed to guarantee the neutrality of the Isthmus of Panama so that a canal or railroad might be constructed between the two seas, and the Panama route be " open to all nations on the same terms." 1 There were three passes from ocean to ocean—the Panama, the Nicaragua, and the Tehuantepec; and it was deemed practicable to build a railroad or canal by any one of them.

When Clayton entered upon the duties of the State Department, he found the Nicaragua route demanding immediate attention. Two companies of capitalists—one British, one American, the latter headed by Commodore Vanderbilt—
_____________
1 Message of President Polk in transmitting the treaty, CongressionalGlobe, vol. xxvii. p. 253.

were each endeavoring to get a grant from the government of Nicaragua for the purpose of constructing a ship-canal, the American company seeking the aid of their own government. The commercial question was complicated by a difference between Nicaragua and the British government. Long before our Revolution, England had a settlement at Balize, in the Bay of Honduras, and assumed a protectorate over the Mosquito Indians who occupied a strip of the coast along the Caribbean Sea. It was claimed by England that the port of San Juan fell within the limits of this protectorate, but this was denied by Nicaragua. In January, 1848, two British ships of war entered the San Juan River, stormed the fort, and gained possession of the town.

At this time, owing to the efforts which were made by the rival American and English companies, a jealous feeling existed on the part of both of " these great maritime powers," each being " desirous of obtaining some exclusive advantage to itself in reference to the opening of this route of interoceanic communication."1 It was absolutely necessary that there should be an understanding between the United States and Great Britain, and a treaty was concluded April 19th between Clayton and Henry Lytton Bulwer, the British Minister.

The purpose of the convention was stated to be "for facilitating and protecting the construction of a ship-canal between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans" by the Nicaragua route. Both governments pledged themselves never to obtain exclusive control over said canal; never to erect fortifications commanding the same; and not to colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion over, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast or any part of Central America. They agree to protect the company that shall undertake the work, and they will exert the influence which they possess with the Central American governments to facilitate its construction. The United States and Great Britain will guarantee
_____________
1 The words of Edward Everett, Senate, March 21st, 1853.

the neutrality and security of the canal when completed, so long as no unfair discriminations are made or unreasonable tolls exacted; and they invite all friendly States to enter into similar stipulations with them, as the great design of this convention was the construction and maintenance of a ship-communication between the two oceans "for the benefit of mankind on equal terms to all." By the eighth article of the treaty, the governments of the United States and Great Britain expressed the desire not only " to accomplish a particular object, but to establish a general principle, and they agree to extend their protection by treaty stipulations" to a canal or railway that may be constructed by the way of Tehuantepec or Panama.

Before the ratifications of the treaty were exchanged, Bulwer notified Clayton that he was instructed to insist on an explanatory declaration that the stipulations as to the neutral territory did not apply to Balize, or, as it was more frequently called, British Honduras. Before replying, the Secretary of State asked William R. King, who was chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, what was the understanding of the Senate when the treaty was confirmed. King wrote that" the Senate perfectly understood that the treaty did not include British Honduras."1 Clayton then answered Bulwer to that effect.

The treaty was ratified in the Senate by a vote of 42 to 10. In the affirmative may be found the names of Webster, Clay, Seward, and Cass, each of whom, at some portion of his life, occupied the State department, and three of whom are renowned for their diplomatic achievements. Seward and Edward Everett, another Secretary of State and accomplished diplomat, afterwards defended the treaty in the Senate.2

The treaty was favorable to unrestricted commercial intercourse, and was in line with our traditional policy. Yet it has given rise to many disputed questions, for the United
___________
1 Seward's Works, vol. i. p. 385.
2 January 10th and March 21st, 1853.

States and England drew a different meaning from several of the articles. Less than three years after its conclusion its provisions were severely criticised in the Senate; and under the Pierce and Buchanan administrations it became a subject of controversy with England. Although, after this, the question slept for a long time, it was revived by the discussion which grew out of the undertaking of the French company to construct a canal across the Isthmus of Panama, and the policy of our government in making such a treaty was then much questioned.1 The Galphin affair has been referred to, 2 and it is now time to give an account of it.

The Galphin claim dated back to a time before the Revolutionary War, and was originally on the colony and State of Georgia. George W. Crawford, the Secretary of War under President Taylor, became in 1835 attorney for the claimants, with a contingent fee of one-half of the claim, and he urged it before the Georgia legislature without success. It afterwards appears as a claim on the United States. On what ground it was turned over to the general government is irrelevant to my narrative; but in the hot August days towards the end of the Congressional session of 1848 it was carried through the House during an
_____________
1 Treaties and Conventions, Haswell, p. 440; International Law Digest, Wharton, §150 f. See the debate in the Senate, January and March, 1853, especially the speeches of Seward, Clayton, and Everett, defending the treaty; the speech of Douglas, criticising it; and the remarks of Cass, censuring Clayton severely for his "unprecedented error" in coming to an understanding with Bulwer, which changed the construction and "vital point" of the treaty without the knowledge of the Senate. Congressional Globe, vols. xxvi. and xxvii.; Seward's Works, vol. i. p. 376. See also article "British Honduras," Encyclopaedia Britannica. For the ambiguity in the construction of the treaty, see Curtis's Life of Webster, vol. ii., and Life of Buchanan, by same author; see Buchanan's message, December 3d, 1860. Appendix to Congressional Globe, p. 4; also article "Treaties," in Lalor's Cyclopaedia of Political Science, by J. Bancroft Davis; and diplomatic correspondence between Secretary Blaine and Lord Granville in 1881, and between Secretary Frelinghuysen and Granville in 1882 and 1883. 2 See p. 176.

exhausting night sitting, unnoticed and without a word of discussion. This order, which became a law, directed the Secretary of the Treasury " to examine and adjust the claim of the late George Galphin,. . . and to pay the amount which may be found due." In the closing days of the Polk administration, Crawford received $43,518.97, this being the principal of the claim; but no interest was allowed, although the demand for it had been made. After Crawford became Secretary of War, his client requested him to prosecute the claim for interest. Crawford's name now disappears from the record as attorney, but the affair was pressed with such vigor that the demand for back interest was submitted by the Secretary of the Treasury to the comptroller, a man of large business experience and sound judgment, by whom it was disallowed. The question was then put to the Attorney-General whether the law of 1848 did not require the payment of interest. The answer was yes; whereupon, although Congress was in session, the Secretary of the Treasury paid the claimant interest from May 2d, 1775, amounting to $191,352.89, of which the attorney of record received $3000, and George W. Crawford one half the remainder, or $94,176.44.

When this fact became known there was severe comment on it by the press, in which the New York Tribune, a Whig and administration journal, joined.1 This prompted Crawford to demand an investigation from the House, and a committee was appointed, who reported that the payment of interest was not "in conformity with law and precedent." From the evidence it appeared that Crawford had made a partial statement of the matter to the President, who saw nothing
_____________
1 "Thoughtlessness has brought the administration into a strait from which they cannot escape with honor and safety without the resignation of at least the Secretary of War and the Attorney-General, if not also of the Secretary of the Treasury; $192,000 of interest allowed contrary to settled custom, and nearly half of it going into the hands of the Secretary of War, makes a startling case!"—Seward to Weed, April 1st, 1850, Life of Seward, vol. ii. p. 130.

inconsistent between his cabinet position and his share in the claim. Crawford testified that he had never told the Secretary of the Treasury or the Attorney-General of his connection with the business, but that he had urged them to make a prompt disposition of the case. Meredith and Johnson 1 denied that they had any knowledge of Crawford's interest, thereby demonstrating that their examination of the papers on file was cursory, since these plainly showed that he was acting in the affair. Even from such a brief relation, it will be seen that this was an administration scandal of no mean proportions. It would have attracted much greater attention had the slavery question not so absorbed Congress, but, nevertheless, the relation of the cabinet ministers to the affair was a subject of severe animadversion in the House. On the day of General Taylor's death this body was considering a resolution which dissented from the opinion of the Attorney-General, disapproved of the action of the Secretary of the Treasury, reflected severely on the relation of the Secretary of War to the matter as being an improper and dangerous precedent, and implied a censure of the President for the opinion he had given Crawford; but during the discussion the news was received that the condition of the President was so critical that he could not survive an hour, and it therefore adjourned. After his death and the appointment of a new cabinet, the subject ceased to attract attention. The affair, however, was the greatest trouble General Taylor had during his short term of office. It was charged in the House that Crawford had plundered the public treasury, and that the President and other members of the cabinet had "connived at and sanctioned the enormous allowance." General Taylor, in money affairs, was strictly honest;2 in fact, he was very sensitive on that point, and it is not to be wondered at that his deathbed was disturbed by reflections on the indiscretion or
______________
1 The Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney-General.
2 Scott's Autobiography, vol. ii. p. 390.

dishonesty of his chosen advisers.1 General Taylor did not understand the matter fully: he either supposed that the claim for interest would come before Congress, or he was too confiding to suspect that Crawford suppressed a part of the story to obtain his approval. But before his death he comprehended the situation, and was on the point of making those changes in his cabinet which the affair imperatively demanded.2

The diplomatic history of this year would not be complete without a notice of the Hulsemann letter, the most striking of any of Webster's state papers while he was connected with the Fillmore administration. During the progress of the Hungarian revolution, under the leading of Louis Kossuth, President Taylor sent a special agent to Europe to watch and report upon the progress of events, with a possible view to the recognition of Hungary. This, coming to the knowledge of the Austrian government, caused offence, and there ensued between the two countries a correspondence which was still pending when Webster became Secretary of State. In September, Hulsemann, the Austrian charge" d'affaires sent a haughty and dictatorial letter. The reception of such a missive proved a lucky chance for an American Secretary of State gifted with rare command of language; it paved the way for a declaration of sentiments that have ever a zealous response from the American heart. Webster's reasoning was a complete refutation of the position Hulsemann had taken. He earnestly defended our right to view with great interest "the extraordinary events" which have occurred not only in Austria, but "in many other parts of Europe since February, 1848." But the Secretary goes further, "and freely admits that in proportion as these extraordinary events appeared to have their origin
__________
1 See p. 176.
2 Autobiography of Thurlow Weed, p. 589. I have made up this account from the three reports of the House committee, and the debate on them in the House.

in those great ideas of responsible and popular governments on which the American constitutions themselves are wholly founded, they could not but command the warm sympathy of the people of this country. . . . The power of this republic, at the present moment, is spread over a region, one of the richest and most fertile on the globe, and of an extent in comparison with which the possessions of the House of Hapsburg are but as a patch on the earth's surface." Then follow well-chosen words depicting our present and increasing population, our navigation and commerce, our protection to life, liberty, property, and personal rights. "Nevertheless, the United States have abstained, at all times, from acts of interference with the political changes of Europe. They cannot, however, fail to cherish always a lively interest in the fortunes of nations struggling for institutions like their own." The style, while not of the "spread-eagle" character, approaches it as closely as dignity and good taste would allow. Webster himself thought the letter " boastful and rough," but one of his excuses was that he wished to "touch the national pride and make a man feel sheepish and look silly who should speak of disunion." 1 The letter was received with great enthusiasm in the Senate, the sentiments being cordially endorsed by both parties; and although hardly more than a stump-speech under diplomatic guise, it received commendation among liberal circles in England.2

The President, in his message to Congress on their reassembling in December, praised highly the compromise. It was, however, true that the beneficent purpose of this series of measures had not yet been wholly realized. "It would be strange," he said, "if they had been received with immediate approbation by people and States prejudiced and heated by the exciting controversies of their representatives. I believe those measures to have been required by the circumstances and condition of the country. . . . They were adopted
_____________
1 Curtis, vol. ii. p. 537.
2 Westminster Review, January, 1853.

in the spirit of conciliation and for the purpose of conciliation. I believe that a great majority of our fellow-citizens sympathize in that spirit and purpose, and in the main approve, and are prepared, in all respects, to sustain, these enactments."

In January, 1851, a pledge was signed by several members of Congress which declared that they would not support for any office whatever any man " who is not known to be opposed to the disturbance of the settlement, and to the renewal, in any form, of agitation upon the subject of slavery." This had ten signatures from the free States and thirty-four from the slave States; among the latter were the names of Clay, Howell Cobb, the speaker of the House, Alexander H. Stephens, and Robert Toombs. The President in his message made a fair and intelligent statement of the public sentiment on the compromise prevailing at the North in the early months of the new year. The Northern Democrats, with the exception of a diminishing number of Free-soilers, unreservedly accepted the adjustment, and so did the Webster and Fillmore Whigs. The Seward Whigs took the position that these measures were the law of the land; that whatever in them was irrepealable no one would be mad enough "to attempt to repeal;"1 and that the Fugitive Slave law demanded obedience, but that it ought to be abrogated. The abolitionists, who may be defined as those who determined to agitate the question not only until the extension of slavery should be restricted, but until it was abolished in the States, did not accept the compromise, and sympathized with resistance to the Fugitive Slave law. The Concord philosopher, who was esteemed a moderate abolitionist, plainly expressed the sentiment of these people: "The act of Congress of September 18th, 1850, is a law which every one of you will break on the earliest occasion—a law which no man can obey, or abet the obeying, without loss of self-respect and forfeiture of the
____________
1 Letter of Seward, Works, vol. iii. p. 448.

name of a gentleman."1 Nothing better illustrates the difference between the position of the anti-slavery statesman and the agitator than certain corrections made by Sumner in an article on slavery written by Theodore Parker for the use of a Massachusetts legislative committee. The additions of Sumner are the words in brackets. "We regard the Fugitive Slave law as morally [not legally, but morally] invalid and void; and [though binding on the conduct] no more binding on the conscience of any man than a law would be which should command the people to enslave all the tall men or all the short men, and deliver them up on claims to be held in bondage forever."2

The Fugitive Slave law did not work as smoothly as its supporters wished; and while Clay maintained that it had been executed in Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, in New York City, and, in fact, everywhere except in Boston, other senators from the South declared that its operation left much to be desired. Not only had two runaway negroes been spirited away from Boston to England, but Mason, of Virginia, told of what happened to a neighbor who had pursued two slaves to Harrisburg, Pa., where he had had them arrested. The owner finally recovered his property, but only after a tedious delay of two months, during which time he and his
____________
1 Life of Emerson, Cabot, p. 578, Emerson's address at Concord, May 3d, 1851. "Cette loi [the Fugitive Slave law] est en ce moment la pierre d'achoppement contre laquelle le compromis est toujours pres de se briser."—Promenade en Amerique, Ampere, tome i. p. 408.
2 The book referred to, containing this essay, was Parker's own, and is in the Boston Public Library. In Parker's own pencil handwriting on the margin I find: "these in [ ] added by Sumner." The article was written March, 1851. I take this opportunity of saying that in the preparation of this work I have used freely the Boston Public Library, the Athenaeum, the College Library of Harvard University, the Astor Library of New York, the Congressional Library of Washington, the Case and Public Libraries and the library of the Historical Society of Cleveland. I desire to recognize the intelligent aid of Mr. Brett, the librarian of the Public Library of Cleveland, and to acknowledge my indebtedness to Mr. Frederic Bancroft, the librarian of the Department of State.

companions were put in prison and subjected to a trial for riot. The expenses of the Virginian in this affair were fourteen hundred and fifty dollars, and when he carried his slaves home he sold the two for fifteen hundred dollars.1 Only after litigation of ten days or a fortnight had a fugitive been reclaimed in New York City; the slave was carried home and sold, but the proceeds of the sale barely met the expenses, although Mason had heard it stated that a committee of citizens in New York had actually contributed five hundred dollars to the owner.2 In Ohio, the Senator had heard of one case where the fugitive was easily recovered, but that was a woman who confessed to being a slave, and of course sent back. In Detroit, Mich., a runaway negro was reclaimed, but a mob had gathered, and only after the military were called out had the undertaking succeed. Although, according to trustworthy estimates, there were fifteen thousand fugitives in the free States, another Southern senator complained that only four or five had been recaptured under the law of September, 1850.

This interesting discussion in the Senate was prompted by a noteworthy affair which had just taken place in Boston. On the 15th of February a negro by the name of Shadrach, employed in the Cornhill coffee-house, was arrested on the charge of having escaped the previous May. As the counsel of the fugitive, when he was brought before the commissioner, George Ticknor Curtis, were unprepared, the proceedings were adjourned for three days. Under the law of Massachusetts her jails could not be used for the imprisonment of fugitive slaves, and as Shadrach had been remanded to the custody of the deputy marshal,
___________
1 Clay mentioned to Mason that the comptroller had just passed an account in which twelve hundred or thirteen hundred dollars were allowed to the marshal for carrying back the fugitive slaves in that case.
2 Senator Dickinson, of New York, assured Mason that the expenses of the claimant in this case were entirely paid by the citizens of New York City.

he was detained in the United States court-room in the court-house, situated in the heart of the city. A mob of colored men broke into the room and carried off the alleged fugitive, who soon got to Canada, beyond the clutches of the United States law, and, owing to the time-honored decision of Lord Mansfield, became a freeman. When Theodore Parker heard of the arrest he went immediately down to Court Square, intending to help in the rescue, but the act had been accomplished before he arrived. He writes in his journal: "This Shadrach is delivered out of his burning, fiery furnace without the smell of fire on his garments. ... I think it is the most noble deed done in Boston since the destruction of the tea in 1773." This rescue created a great deal of excitement, and nowhere more than among the law-givers at Washington. The President immediately issued a proclamation which appealed in the usual terms to all good citizens, and commanded all civil and military officers to assist in putting down any combinations whose purpose was to resist the law, and to aid in the arrest of those who had set the law at defiance. No practical result came from the energetic action of the administration. Five of the rescuers were indicted and tried, but, as the jury could not agree, they were not convicted. The incident demonstrated that in Massachusetts the Fugitive Slave law would only be enforced with difficulty. Undoubtedly the vast majority of the citizens of Boston had a passive, if not an active, sympathy with the officers of the government; but every one well understood that back of this negro mob which rescued Shadrach was a vigilance committee composed of men of influence and good position. This committee had an efficient organization, and aimed to prevent the arrest of fugitives, or, when they were seized, to give them legal aid and interpose every lawful obstacle to their rendition.1
__________
1 This account I have made up from the debate in the Senate on the subject in February,1851; from the Life of Webster, by Curtis; Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, Wilson; and Life and Correspondence of Theodore Parker, Weiss. Parker and Phillips were members of this vigilance committee. For other members, and an account of it, see Life of Parker, Frothingham, p. 401.

Yet law in Boston was clothed with majesty, and the majority of the citizens felt that even an unjust law were better executed than resisted. The board of aldermen, with praiseworthy motives, directed that the mayor and city marshal should use the police force most energetically in support of the law and maintenance of the public peace. On the 3d of April the city police, on a warrant issued by commissioner Curtis, arrested Thomas Sims, a slave who had escaped from a Georgia owner, and confined him in the court-house. Fearing an attempt at rescue, a strong guard was set and the court-house surrounded with heavy chains. The fugitive had good volunteer counsel, but the case was plain. He was adjudged to the claimant, and the Shadrach affair had so excited apprehension that he was taken from his place of imprisonment at five o'clock in the morning, escorted by three hundred police disposed in hollow square around him. The militia were under arms in Faneuil Hall, but they were not needed, as the police met not the slightest resistance. The negro was safely put on board a vessel which took him to Savannah.1

Since the Revolutionary War not a slave had been sent back from Boston by legal process,' and this rendition caused intense feeling. On the day of the arrest a meeting was held on the Common, where Wendell Phillips spoke; in the evening Theodore Parker addressed a gathering at Tremont Temple. Five days later, a convention met at the latter place, presided over by Horace Mann, who alluded in scathing words to the fact that Faneuil Hall had been denied
_________________
1 Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, vol. ii.; Life of Theodore Parker, vol. ii. The placard given on following page, which was posted at all corners by the vigilance committee, is an illustration of their manner of work. See Life of Parker, Weiss, vol. ii. p. 104.
2 Life of Parker, vol. ii. p. 107.

them. "But then there is a melancholy propriety in this," he said; "when the court-house is in chains, Faneuil Hall may well be dumb." Among the speakers were Henry Wilson and Thomas W. Higginson, and another assemblage was addressed by William Lloyd Garrison. The burden of all these meetings was a protest against the Fugitive Slave law and severe denunciation of all who were concerned in the arrest

__________________________

PROCLAMATION!!
TO ALL
THE GOOD PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS!
Be it known that there are now
THREE SLAVE-HUNTERS OR KIDNAPPERS
IN BOSTON
Looking for their prey. One of them is called
"DAVIS."

He is an unusually ill-looking fellow, about five feet eight inches high, wide-shouldered. He has a big mouth, black hair, and a good deal of dirty bushy hair on the lower part of his face. He has a Roman nose; one of his eyes has been knocked out. He looks like a Pirate, and knows how to be a Stealer of Men.

The next is called
EDWARD BARRETT.

He is about five feet six inches high, thin and lank, is apparently about thirty years old. His nose turns up a little. He has a long mouth, long thin ears, and dark eyes. His hair is dark, and he has a bunch of fur on his chin. He had on a blue frock-coat, with a velvet collar, mixed pants, and a figured vest. He wears his shirt collar turned down, and has a black string—not of hemp—about his neck.

The third ruffian is named
ROBERT M. BACON, alias JOHN D. BACON.

He is about fifty years old, five feet and a half high. He has a red, intemperate-looking face, and a retreating forehead. His hair is dark, and a little gray. He wears a black coat, mixed pants, and a purplish vest. He looks sleepy, and yet malicious.
Given at Boston, this 4th day of April, in the year of our Lord, 1851, and of the Independence of the United States the fifty-fourth.

God save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts !

and surrender of Sims. On the day that the fugitive was delivered over to his claimant funeral bells were tolled.

But Faneuil Hall was not closed only against the abolitionists. In this same month of April, the board of aldermen refused the use of it to many Whig and Democratic citizens of Boston who wished to unite in a public reception to Webster, then at Marshfield. The excuse made was that since the hall had been denied to Wendell Phillips and his associates, it could not consistently be opened for a meeting on the other side which purposed approval of the compromise measures; but every one understood the action to be a reflection on Webster's course for the past year. This awoke a storm of indignation that was not lessened by the dignified and manly way in which the Secretary of State met the occasion. Afterwards the city council offered him the use of Faneuil Hall, but this he declined in a courteous manner, adding that he should not" enter Faneuil Hall till its gates shall be thrown open, wide open,' not with impetuous recoil, grating harsh thunder,' but with 'harmonious sound on golden hinges moving,' to let in freely and to overflowing ... all men of all parties who are true to the Union as well as to liberty."

Webster's path for the last year had indeed been among the thorns of the world. In February a brutal attack was made in the House upon his private character by Allen, a Free-soil member from the Worcester, Mass., district. While the slander was at bottom prompted by partisan motives, yet the bit of truth in it stung Webster to the very depth of his honest soul. The point under discussion was the appropriation of the money for the last instalment of the indemnity due Mexico under the treaty of 1848, amounting to more than $3,000,000, due in May, 1852. The Secretary of State had contracted with a syndicate of bankers of Boston, New York, and Washington for the payment and transfer of this, as well as the previous instalment, to Mexico. These bankers paid three and one half per cent, premium for the privilege. It was shown during the discussion that four per cent, premium might have been obtained from the Rothschilds, so that the government had not done as well by about $30,000 as it might have done. This gave Allen an opportunity to object decidedly to the Secretary of State having anything to do with the pecuniary concerns of the government, because he held his place " less as a servant and stipendiary of the government than a servant and stipendiary of bankers and brokers." Allen said there was undoubted authority for the statement that when the President offered Webster the position of Secretary of State he wrote to Boston to know what would be done for him in a financial way. An arrangement had then been made with the bankers and brokers of Boston and New York by which $25,000 should be raised for him in each city as a compensation for taking the position in the cabinet; that the amount was collected in New York, but that it fell somewhat short in Boston, for "gentlemen in Boston had bled so freely on former occasions of a similar character that it was difficult to raise the full amount." In fact, Allen continued, our Secretary of State was the pensioner of Wall Street and State Street, and this lucrative contract with these bankers gave them a chance to recoup themselves at the government's cost. This charge was baseless, and it was felt on all sides of the House to be a shameful one. Although neither Webster himself nor his friends interposed any obstacle to a full inquiry into the matter, the House, by the overwhelming vote of 119 to 35, refused to consider a resolution providing for the appointment of a committee of investigation, and passed the appropriation, which, however, for want of time, failed in the Senate. At the next session all amendments putting any limitations on the administration as to the manner of payment were rejected, and the appropriation pure and simple passed both Houses. This completely vindicated Webster. The bit of truth in the scandal was the fact that, some weeks after he had taken the position of Secretary of State, a gift of money for the extraordinary expenses of his table was presented him by some men from Boston; but most of those who joined in the subscription were gentlemen retired from affairs, only two of them being bankers, and Webster did not know the name or position of any one of the subscribers. Allen's charge, however, was so positive and direct that it lived in brass, while the denial was written in water.1 Any one who understood Webster knew that he was incapable of making a sordid bargain with his moneyed friends for accepting a cabinet position. In fact, lack of thrift and no knack at bargaining brought him into this and other trouble. This charge has here been baldly stated, for one who takes up the cudgels for Webster need not suppress any fact. Unquestionably many people will consider it a surprising naivete of judgment to assert that Webster was honest at heart. But if we can only view his failing with the same charity which we every day employ in judging our acquaintances and our friends, we shall have a complete key to his conduct in affairs. Do we not all know men—men in the noblest professions—who, morally sound, lack thrift, and who are continually in trouble on this account? But we make excuses for them; knowing them through and through, we do not say that their hearts are rotten. If we judge Webster with like charity, we shall arrive at a similar conclusion.

In the history of the decade between 1850 and 1860 the overpowering question is slavery, and to that must our attention chiefly be directed. Yet it is a gratification for the historian to record that though the public mind was so fully engrossed with this one idea, legislators still found time to enact measures that were in the line of true progress. There has been so much descant on the commercial, social, and intellectual benefits of cheap postage that in civilized
________________
1 For the charge of Allen, see Congressional Globe, vol. xxiii. pp. 686, 696, vol. xxiv. p. 371 et seq. For the defence, see Ashmun's remarks, vol. xxiii. pp. 687, 697; Davis's remarks, vol. xxiv. p. 373; Franklin Haven's letter to Boston Transcript of May 17th, 1851, ibid., p. 375; Curtis, vol. ii. p. 492 et seq. The salary of the Secretary of State was then $6000.

countries it has become a governmental axiom that the increase in the revenue of the post-office department and the decline of rates of postage is a true mark of growth in civilization. The Congress which adjourned March 3d, 1851, took a step in this direction. The rates of postage at the organization of the post-office department were, for a single letter (that is, a single piece of paper), from eight to twenty-five cents, according to the distance, with a minimum distance of forty miles and a maximum of five hundred. These charges had been twice reduced, and on the opening of this session of Congress the postage for a letter not exceeding one-half ounce in weight was five cents under three hundred miles; over three hundred miles, ten cents; and to the Pacific territories, via Panama, forty cents. The revenues of the Postmaster-General's department exceeding the expenditures, he therefore recommended a reduction in the inland letter postage to three cents. The President concurred in this recommendation, and the subject was soon taken up by Congress. That body appreciated that the rapid extension of steam transportation for the past two years, with the abundant promise of further progress in that direction, was certain to result in a great reduction in the cost of the service. It was stated during the discussion that, while ten cents was the postage on a letter from Detroit to Buffalo, a barrel of flour was carried between the two cities on the same conveyance for the same money.1 The bill which passed Congress made the rate for a prepaid letter, not weighing over half an ounce, three cents for under three thousand miles; six cents for over that distance.

The most exciting event of the summer was the expedition to Cuba under the lead of Lopez. This adventurer had engaged in two unsuccessful attempts to give freedom to his adopted country, and with dauntless spirit was ready to head another enterprise. He fell in with a clique of
_______________
1 That is, by steamboat. There was then no railroad between Buffalo and Detroit.

speculators at New Orleans, who cherished wild dreams of magnificence and wealth which the expected easy conquest of Cuba would realize. These men were willing to risk their money, though not their lives, and in Lopez they found a ready instrument. He, in fact, was only too glad to meet persons who would back with money his visionary schemes. Cuban bonds were issued, signed by General Narciso Lopez, "chief of the patriotic junta for the promotion of the political interests of Cuba, and the contemplated head of the provisional government, and commander-in-chief of the revolutionary movement about to be now undertaken through my agency and permissive authority for the liberation of Cuba." Everybody knew that the payment of the bonds was based on the success of the revolution, but those who invested large amounts of money in them at from three to twenty cents on the dollar thought the speculation one of great promise. Lopez and the schemers deluded themselves; it was easy for them to dupe others. The ways and means being provided, a man of ability and influence was desired as leader of the expedition. Lopez offered the command to Jefferson Davis, then a United States senator, who, deeming it inconsistent with his duty, declined it, at the same time recommending Robert E. Lee. Lee was then invited to take the leadership of the expedition, but, believing that his position in the United States army should prevent him from giving heed to such a proposal, he refused it.1 General Lopez was therefore left in sole command; but it was not difficult to get more followers than he could use, for the undertaking was called an easy one, and unusual inducements were held out to those who would enlist. It was said that not only were the Creoles anxious to rebel against Spain, but they had decided upon that step, and a well-planned revolution was already in progress. The Spanish army had been tampered with and would fraternize
________________
1 Memoir of Jefferson Davis, by his Wife, vol. i. p. 412; Life of Robert E. Lee, Long, p. 72.

with the invaders; all the officers of the Spanish navy in the West Indies were favorable to the patriotic cause. The landing of General Lopez and his followers would be the signal for a general uprising; an easy victory was assured; it would only remain for a congress to dictate terms. Those who were so fortunate as to share in this expedition as officers would receive confiscated sugar-plantations, well furnished with slaves; even the common soldiers were each to get the sum of five thousand dollars. Sympathy for the acquisition of Cuba was very strong at the South, and the promoters played upon this feeling. It was thought by the least sanguine of them that if a fairly successful demonstration were made, public sentiment would be so aroused that the United States would lend their assistance, or at any rate would not interfere with additional expeditions; for the object of the patriots was to establish a republic, or annex Cuba to our country on favorable terms. The Secretary of State, however, appreciated fully what honest neutrality meant; and, as he had stated in the Senate the year previous,1 Spain had well-grounded reasons to count on our friendship, for we had at different times given her assurances that if she would abstain from the voluntary surrender of Cuba to a European power, "she might be assured of the good offices and the good-will of the United States ... to maintain her in possession of the island." Nor did the President shrink from his duty. The invaders first purposed to start from Savannah, but this was prevented by the energetic action of the government. That the shipload of adventurers finally got away from New Orleans was not due to negligence at Washington, but to the dereliction in duty of the collector of the port from whence they set sail. On the early morning of August 3d, the steamer Pampero left New Orleans, with Lopez and nearly five hundred men; they were mostly ill-informed youths, and the majority of them were American citizens. When the
________________
1 May 21st, 1850.

steamer arrived off the coast of Cuba, she was badly piloted and ran aground, so that the invaders were forced to land at a place not of their choosing. They went ashore on the night between the 11th and 12th of August, at a spot about sixty miles from Havana. The force was divided, the main body proceeding into the interior under Lopez, while two hundred men, commanded by Colonel Crittenden, remained to guard the stores until transportation could be obtained. On the 13th, when marching to join Lopez, Crittenden was attacked by a superior force. The officers displayed bravery, but the men were dispirited from the first hours on shore. Instead of finding the whole island in revolution and fourteen towns in the hands of patriots, as they had been led to believe, they saw no evidence whatever of an uprising; instead of being received as friends, they found themselves in a hostile country. To fight disciplined troops with the odds against them was peril enough, yet, to add to the misery of the invaders, they had no artillery and no rifles; their arms were condemned muskets. Such a contest could only be of short duration. Colonel Crittenden and his men soon retreated to the place of disembarkation; about fifty of them took boat and were making for the United States, when they were captured by a Spanish ship of war which was cruising on the coast. They were carried to Havana, tried and sentenced by a military court, and were publicly shot. The men under Lopez were attacked at the same time as was Crittenden's detachment; many of them were killed or wounded, and they were forced to retreat; they went into the interior and sought refuge in the mountains, but they were pursued by the troops and, after two skirmishes, were dispersed on the 24th of August. Those who had not been killed, or who had not died of hunger or fatigue, were made prisoners. Some days afterwards Lopez was taken and garroted in the public square opposite the prison in Havana. Some of his followers were pardoned, and the rest, one hundred and sixty-two in number, most of them American citizens, were sent to Spain, where it was understood they would be put to work in the mines.1

In the meantime a crowd of adventurers had come to New Orleans and were anxiously awaiting news from Lopez; if the intelligence were favorable, another expedition would be fitted out, and this they intended to join. The Cuban question was the sole topic of discussion on the streets, in the cafes and bar-rooms, of this excitable Southern city, then at the zenith of its importance. Spurious despatches giving accounts of victories by Lopez appeared in the New Orleans Delta, whose editor was the chief promoter of the enterprise, and whose faith and money were alike engaged. There was enough opposition to the prevailing opinion to increase the earnestness with which the side of the filibusters was advocated. The newspaper La Union espoused with vigor the Spanish cause, and vehemently denounced the Americans. The excitement had risen to fever heat when the news arrived, on August 21st, of the shooting of Colonel Crittenden and fifty of his companions. It was at the same time learned that many of the unhappy victims had written letters to their friends, leaving them in the care of the Captain-General, who had forwarded them by the secretary of the Spanish consul at New Orleans. The letters arrived on the same steamer that brought the woful intelligence; and it was reported that they were detained and had not been given up when asked for. This stirred up a mob to
_____________________
1 My authorities, in addition to what have been cited, for this account are two letters of Colonel Crittenden—one to Dr. Lucien Hensley, the other to his uncle, the Attorney-General—both of them written just before he was shot; a letter from Philip Van Vechten, a lieutenant under Lopez, who was pardoned; the personal narrative of C. N. Howell, who accompanied the expedition; Commander C. T. Piatt's official despatch to the Navy Department from Havana, dated September 1st; Memorias sobre el Estado Politico, Gobierno y Administracion de la Isla de Cuba, por el Teniente-General Don Jose de la Concha, Madrid, 1853; Annual Message of President Fillmore, December 2d, 1851; Cincinnati Commercial, cited by nationalIntelligencer of October 4th; Life of Webster, Curtis.

gut the office of La Union and sack the cigar-store called La Carina, whose proprietor had been insulting in his talk about Americans. The rioters broke into the office of the Spanish consul; the portraits of the Queen of Spain and of the Captain-General of Cuba were defaced, and the Spanish flag was torn to pieces. Other buildings were attacked and more property was destroyed. At different times the rioters were addressed by the mayor, sheriff, and district attorney; finally, having wreaked their vengeance on the chief offenders, the violence of the mob came to an end; no one was killed and only one man was injured.

This occurrence gave rise to a nice diplomatic question. The Spanish minister at Washington demanded redress for the-insult to the flag and pecuniary indemnity for the personal losses. After a certain amount of correspondence, in which the provocation was duly pointed out as showing that the outrage " was committed in the heat of blood, and not in pursuance of any premeditated plan or purpose of injury or insult," the Secretary of State frankly acknowledged the wrong, expressed regret in the most handsome terms, and said that when a Spanish consul was again sent to New Orleans, instructions would be given to salute the flag of his ship " as a demonstration of respect, such as may signify to him and his government the sense entertained by the government of the United States of the gross injustice done to his predecessor by a lawless mob, as well as the indignity and insult offered by it to a foreign State with which the United States are, and wish ever to remain, on terms of the most respectful and pacific intercourse." The satisfactory manner in which Webster concluded the matter deserves much higher praise than the vigorous outburst of nationality in the Hulsemann letter. In our country, where every citizen holds pronounced opinions on the most delicate questions of diplomacy, the Secretary of State who desires political advancement is tempted to court an opportunity such as Hulsemann gave Webster, and to shun an occasion like the matter in hand. That he treated the Spaniard as justly as he did the Austrian added to the laurels he had already won in the State department. Enthusiastic meetings of sympathy with Cuban independence and the cause of the filibusters had been held in Nashville, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and New York City; the cotton States did not need to express their feeling, for every one knew that they were decidedly for Cuba. When the historian reflects that our State department has sometimes been influenced against its better judgment by strong popular sentiment, he writes a grateful page in recording that the astute and experienced Lord Palmerston unreservedly praised the note addressed by Webster to the Spanish Minister. He called it" highly creditable to the good faith and sense of justice of the United States government," and said that the Secretary "more rightly consulted the true dignity of the country by so handsome a communication than if the acknowledgment of wrong and the expression of regret had been made in more niggardly terms." When Congress met, an appropriation was made, on the recommendation of the President, to indemnify the Spanish consul and other Spanish subjects at New Orleans for their personal loss. 1

In the autumn of this year there were two important illustrations of the working of the Fugitive Slave law. Gorsuch, a resident of Maryland, with his son, several friends, and a United States officer, all well armed and bearing the warrant of the commissioner at Philadelphia, went to Christiana, Lancaster County, Pa., in search of two fugitives who had escaped three years previously. Arriving at a house about two miles from the village where they supposed the negroes were secreted, they demanded their
___________
1 Report of account of the riot by the District Attorney and Mayor of New Orleans to the State Department, Senate documents, 1st Session, 32d Congress, vol. i.; debate on the subject in Congress, CongressionalGlobe, vol. xxiv.; New Orleans Bee, cited by the New York Tribune, September 1st; Life of Webster, Curtis, vol. ii.

property, and broke into the lower part of the house. The colored inmates kept possession of the upper story, the fugitives saying they would rather die than go back to slavery, and their associates decisively refusing to give them up. Meanwhile, a horn was blown as a signal to the negroes in the neighborhood, with the result of bringing together from fifty to one hundred men armed with guns, axes, corn cutters, and clubs. The slave-hunters having left the house, an angry parley ensued, which was at length interrupted by the arrival of Castner Hanaway and another gentleman, both Quakers living in the neighborhood. The deputy marshal summoned them to aid him in making the arrest of the fugitives, which they indignantly refused to do; but they endeavored to calm the wrath of the negroes, and at the same time warned Gorsuch and his companions that it would be madness to persist, saying, " The sooner you leave the better, if you would prevent bloodshed." Gorsuch emphatically refused to quit his ground; words of irritation led to firing, and a general fight resulted. The slave-owner and his son fell — the one dead and the other wounded, while none of the negroes received more than slight wounds.

This affair caused great excitement throughout the whole country. The anti-slavery people did not defend the violence of the negro mob; but the moral which they drew from the affair was: "But for slavery such things would not be; but for the Fugitive Slave law, they would not be in the free States."1 The United States marshal, district attorney, and commissioner from Philadelphia, with forty-five United States marines from the navy-yard, repaired immediately, by the orders of the President, to the scene of the trouble. A posse of about forty of the city marshal's police, with the assistance of a large body of special constables, scoured the country, and made arrests of those who were supposed to have been engaged in the fight; the fugitive slaves, however, had escaped. Castner Hanaway and his
___________
1 New York Tribune.

associate, hearing that warrants were issued for them, voluntarily surrendered themselves. The prisoners were taken to Philadelphia and indicted for treason. Castner Hanaway was first tried; prominent among his counsel was Thaddeus Stevens, and Justice Grier, of the United States Supreme Court, presided. His charge was so clearly in favor of the prisoner that the jury speedily agreed upon a verdict of not guilty. One of the negroes was tried, but not convicted; the rest were not brought to trial.1

The other case is that of the "Jerry rescue," which took place at Syracuse, New York. On the first day of October, Jerry McHenry, an athletic mulatto and industrious mechanic, who had been living in that city for several years, was claimed as a fugitive slave by a man from Missouri. Jerry made one ineffectual attempt to escape, and the courage which he displayed, together with the one-sided character of the proceedings incident to a claim made under the Fugitive Slave law, aroused active sympathy for the negro from the citizens and sojourners of Syracuse. The city was full of people, for on that day were held a meeting of the county agricultural society and the Liberty party's annual convention. Jerry was imprisoned overnight in the police office to await the conclusion of the examination on the morrow. He had, unknown to himself, many ardent friends, among whom were the Rev. Samuel J. May and Gerrit Smith. May,' who had charge of the Unitarian Society of Syracuse, was a rare combination of perfect courage and gentleness of spirit. Gerrit Smith, a great-hearted man, and a deep
______________
1 The Underground Railroad, William Still, particularly the account cited from the Pennsylvania Freeman, a local newspaper, edited by a Quaker, p. 349. The New York Independent, September 18th and 25th; notably a letter from Rev. Mr. Gorsuch, a son of the man who was killed, which purports to be a reliable narrative of the bloody affray; also Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, vol. ii. p. 327. The fight took place Sept
2 See p. 65.

thinker on moral and religious subjects, had early espoused the cause of the slave. Shrewd in his investments, he had accumulated large wealth, which he devoted to the good of his kind; and later, as a noted worker in the Liberty party, he was elected to Congress as its candidate from one of the northern districts of New York.

Under the lead of these two gentlemen, twenty or thirty resolute men determined to rescue the negro. Early in the evening they made an attack upon the police-office, and beat down the prison door with a battering-ram; they encountered little resistance, and easily overpowered the police, without, however, inflicting any personal injury. They then led Jerry out, put him in a buggy drawn by a swift pair of horses, and took him to a place of refuge in the city, where he remained concealed for several days, being finally sent safely through to Canada. The anti-slavery people exulted greatly over this affair, and their elation was increased by the failure to convict any of the eighteen rescuers who were indicted. Several were tried, but the United States district attorney did not venture to bring to trial the leaders in the affair, although they defied him to do so; Samuel J. May, Gerrit Smith, and another gentleman, uniting in a published acknowledgment to the effect that they had done all they could in the rescue of Jerry; that they were ready for trial, and would give the court no trouble as to the fact, but would rest their defence upon the unconstitutionality and extreme wickedness of the Fugitive Slave law.1

Since the passage of this law one year had now elapsed. The fact was patent that in most Northern communities it could not be enforced without more trouble and expense than were worth the taking. This law violated the fundamental principle of democratic government,—that laws are futile unless upheld by public sentiment. It was a curious commentary on a statute that gentlemen of the very highest
________________
1 Recollections of Anti-slavery Conflict, Samuel J. May, p. 373 et seq.; Life of Gerrit Smith, Frothingham, p. 117.

character, like Samuel J. May and Gerrit Smith, should lead a mob of earnest, unarmed men to resist the execution of it. Most of the anti-slavery men would not advise resistance to the law; the law-abiding sentiment of the North was strong, and did not sympathize with forcible opposition to those invested with public authority; but to fair-minded men it was clear that the attempt to carry into effect the Fugitive Slave act in many parts of the North would simply be kicking against the pricks.

During the year the South had gained in union feeling. The compromise measures, as we have seen, were generally satisfactory outside of South Carolina and Mississippi. In May a convention of Southern Rights associations of South Carolina, held at Charleston, resolved in favor of secession, with or without the co-operation of other Southern States.1 This feeling was then apparently strong throughout the State, since of thirty newspapers, only two were opposed to secession.2 The election in October showed that the Southern Rights convention and the newspapers had not represented the sentiment of the people, or else that between May and October a great change had taken place in public opinion. The issue was made in the election of delegates to a State convention. One set of delegates opposed action by South Carolina alone; the other set were unconditionally in favor of secession. Two-thirds of the delegates chosen belonged to the former party, and in the country at large this was regarded as a Unionist victory; and well it might be, for to vote co-operation with the other Southern States meant to abide by the Union.3

In Mississippi a very exciting and significant canvass took place between Jefferson Davis and Senator Foote. One had been a strong opponent, and the other an ardent supporter, of the compromise measures in the Senate, and they now
___________
1 National Intelligencer, May 13th.
2 Von Hoist, vol. iv. p. 34.
3 Tribune Almanac, 1852, p. 43; New York Independent, October 23d, 1851.

went before the people of their State for vindication. Davis was the candidate for governor of the States-rights party, which believed in the right of secession and favored a Southern convention for action, while Foote was the candidate of the Unionists. The question was thoroughly discussed on the stump by both men, and the contest was exceedingly close, Foote having but 1009 majority over his competitor.1 The majority would have been larger had it not been for the personal popularity of Davis, who was stronger than his party. The State convention which had been elected previous to the gubernatorial contest declared that the people of Mississippi would abide by the compromise measures, and that the right of secession was utterly unsanctioned by the Federal Constitution.2

The Thirty-second Congress met on December 1st. There was little change in the relative strength of the political parties in the Senate; the Democrats had made a slight gain. Charles Sumner, of Massachusetts, and Benjamin F. Wade, of Ohio, took their seats in the Senate; they resembled each other in nothing but personal courage and hatred of slavery. Sumner was a graduate of Harvard, a representative of the culture of Boston, and the intimate friend of nearly every one of that brilliant set of scholars, poets, and literati to whose performances during the twenty years before the civil war we may point with a just feeling of pride. Himself a ripe scholar, he loved the classics; he was a profound student of history, delving into the past so earnestly that his desire to visit the old countries grew into a passion. He went abroad furnished with letters from the wise and influential of America to the men of distinction across the sea, and returned with a mind broadened by contact with the thinkers, writers, and politicians of Europe. He had charming manners and rare social accomplishments; he and Chase
___________
1 Tribune Almanac, 1852, p. 44; Rise and Pall of the Confederate Goverment, vol.. i. p. 20. The election took place in November.
2 Congressional Globe, vol. xxiv. p. 35.

were considered the handsomest men in the Senate. A favorite child of fortune, kind friends ever stood ready to give their help; opportunities were made for him. Sumner was not a great lawyer; the bent of his mind was towards politics rather than law. Possessed of strong moral feelings, politics especially attracted him on account of the moral element that now entered into public questions. From an early day he had hated slavery; the Liberator was the first paper he had ever subscribed for, having read it since 1835, yet he was opposed to Garrison's doctrines on the Constitution and the Union. A Whig until 1848, he then became a Free-Soiler, and by a well-managed coalition of the Free-Soiler’s and Democrats he was this year elected senator.1

Benjamin F. Wade, also a son of New England, was in character of the rugged heroic type. Born of poor parents, he worked on the western Massachusetts farm in the summer, and had only the common schooling of two or three months in the winter. His religious education was wholly under the guidance of his pious mother; he read the Bible with diligence, and knew the Westminster Catechism by heart. When twenty-one, he went to Ohio and took up his home on the Western Reserve. The problem then with him was how to get a living in this new rough country. He worked as a drover and as a common laborer; but finally deciding to adopt law as a profession, he studied in a lawyer's office, was admitted to the bar, and was fortunate in forming a partnership with Joshua R. Giddings, a leading lawyer in northeastern Ohio. Only by a strong effort of the will was Wade able to overcome his constitutional diffidence in public speaking, which at the outset threatened to defeat his intention of becoming an advocate; but he grew to be a vigorous speaker.
_________________
1 For a detailed account of this coalition, see relation of Henry Wilson, who was one of the prime movers. Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, chap, xxvii. This estimate of Sumner I have mainly derived from Edw. L. Pierce's Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner.

His second legal associate, Rufus P. Ranney, became the best lawyer and soundest judge of Ohio, taking rank with the most carefully trained legal minds of the country. The bar of the Western Reserve was an able body of men; they had but few law-books, and those they mastered; their literature was the Bible and Shakespeare, and their forensic contests were apt displays of logic, invective, and wit. In that community influence went for nothing; if a man rose to the top it was through ability and industry. In those days the best lawyers went to the legislature and sat on the bench. There they took great interest in the enactment of necessary measures, and were careful that the phraseology should be simple and exact, considering the deliberate yet positive expounding of the law a grave and solemn duty. It was an honor to be a member of the legislature, and an honor to be a judge.

Wade had been a State circuit judge, had served in the legislature, and was this year elected to the Senate as a Whig of well-known anti-slavery principles. He was thoroughly honest; his manners were rough, and his style of address was abrupt.1

There were now five men in the Senate who, though differing in party antecedents, were ready to work together in opposing the extension of slavery: Seward, of New York; Chase and Wade, of Ohio; Sumner, of Massachusetts; and Hale, of New Hampshire. Their ages were respectively fifty, forty-three, fifty-one, forty, and forty-five. The absence of Benton from this Senate was conspicuous; after thirty years of eminent service he had failed to secure a re-election because he would not abate his principles one jot at the dictation of the pro-slavery Democrats of Missouri.2

The members of the House of Representatives who assembled December 1st had all been elected since the passage
_______________
1 I have drawn this characterization of Wade largely from his biography, by A. G. Riddle.
2 Life of Benton, Roosevelt, p. 341.

of the compromise measures, and their political classification in contrast with that of the last Congress affords a good idea of public sentiment at the time. There were in this House one hundred and forty Democrats, eighty-eight Whigs, and five Free-soilers.1 There was almost no change in the delegation from the slave States; the Democrats had lost two seats, which the Whigs had gained. But at the North, the Whigs had lost twenty-four, while the Democrats had gained twenty-six members.2 Two causes had contributed to effect this result. In some districts the Democrats won because they had been more earnest than the Whigs in the advocacy of the compromise; in other districts Whigs lost their seats because they had supported the compromise or had failed to vote against the Fugitive Slave law. Of twenty-eight Northern Democrats who had voted for that act, fifteen were candidates for re-election, of whom twelve were returned. Only three Northern Whigs had voted for the bill; one of them was a member of the present House.

On the first day of the session a debate took place in the House as to which party was the more faithful to the compromise. The Democratic caucus had laid on the table a resolution endorsing those measures, while the Whig caucus, in a formal declaration, had approved them. Neither action had any significance; it was simply clever political fencing. This complexion, however, had the situation assumed: every article of the compromise was regarded as a finality at the North except the Fugitive Slave law, while the touchstone of fidelity to the settlement of 1850 was opposition to the repeal of the Fugitive Slave act and willingness to support the strict execution of it.

The President, in his annual message, reflected fairly the tendency of public opinion. "The agitation," said he,
_____________
1 This is the classification of the New York Tribune; that of the Congressional Globe is 142 Democrats, 91 Whigs. For the classification of the Thirty-first Congress, see p. 116 et seq.
2 The Democrats had gained the two members from California.

"which for a time threatened to disturb the fraternal relations which make us one people, is fast subsiding;" and " I congratulate you and the country upon the general acquiescence in these measures of peace which has been exhibited in all parts of the republic."

The concern about the general acceptance of the compromise and the execution of the Fugitive Slave law was now overshadowed by the interest taken in the visit of Kossuth. The Hungarian revolution had failed, owing largely to the fact that Russia had come to the assistance of Austria. Kossuth fled to Turkey, and had been there some time under detention, when the President was directed by Congress to offer one of the ships of our Mediterranean squadron to convey him and his associates to the United States. Austria pressed Turkey very vigorously not to release the refugees without her consent; but, through the exertions of the American minister and of the English and Sardinian representatives at the Porte, the government of Turkey was induced to consent to their departure, and they left in the summer of this year on the frigate Mississippi. Kossuth turned aside to visit England, in order to arouse enthusiasm for his cause and get help for down-trodden Hungary. He then came to America, arriving at New York quarantine on Friday, December 5th, at one o'clock in the morning. A salute of twenty-one guns, an address of welcome by the health officer, a hearty greeting on shore from people who had gathered at this unseasonable hour, showed that the country would receive the refugee as a conquering hero. When day came, the citizens of Staten Island turned out to congratulate Kossuth that he had set foot in the land of liberty. The morning was given up to callers; among those who paid their respects were Foresti, an Italian exile, and an Indian chief, who referred to himself as being also "one of the unfortunate." At noon there was a general procession, and a formal address of welcome, to which Kossuth made an appropriate reply. This was but the prologue; the play was on the morrow. On this Saturday, nature vied with the people. The deep-blue sky, the clear, brilliant atmosphere, the crisp yet mild air of the December day, seemed to set off fitly the enthusiasm of the multitude. Kossuth and his party left Staten Island at eleven o'clock on the steamer Vanderbilt, which had come for him in the charge of the reception committee of the New York Common Council. As the boat steamed by, Governor's Island fired a salute of thirty-one guns, New Jersey one hundred and twenty, and then guns were fired on every side. As the Vanderbilt passed the navy-yard, the war-ships North Carolina and Ohio saluted, and all the ferry-boats whistled. On nearly all the vessels—steamers and smaller craft—in the bay, Hungarian and United States flags floated together. New York had never seen a finer sight. One hundred thousand people were waiting on the Battery; Castle Garden was full to overflowing. When Kossuth could be seen, a tumultuous roar broke forth; when he landed, it seemed, said one reporter, as if the shout would raise the vast roof of the reception hail; the cheer continued uninterruptedly for fifteen minutes. The mayor, who was primed with a speech, in vain besought silence. At last, from sheer exhaustion of the crowd, the uproar ceased; the address of welcome was made; but when Kossuth rose to reply, the enthusiasm again burst out. Only those near him could hear a word, yet he went through the form of speaking, and written copies of this carefully prepared declaration of his self-imposed errand were furnished the reporters. The speech over, Kossuth, mounted on Black Warrior, a war-horse which had been in many battles of the Florida and Mexican wars, reviewed the troops that had turned out to escort him. Then the procession began to move, which, besides the military display, comprised a large number of civic bodies, and required an hour to pass a given point. When Kossuth's carriage entered Broadway an inspiring sight met his eyes. All the shops and houses were decorated, many of them with mottoes of sympathy for Hungary and welcome for her governor, as everybody called him. The street was jammed with people; every window was alive with human beings. There was, says the reporter," a continuous roar of cheers like waves on the shore." Every one agreed that, since the landing of Lafayette, no such enthusiasm had been seen in New York; and it is certain that no foreigner except the gallant Frenchman ever received a similar ovation. The greatest of Roman generals might have been proud of such a triumph.

This splendid testimonial was not so much to the man as to the principle of which he was the incarnation. The different manifestations of the revolutionary spirit which began in Europe in 1848 had been followed with deep interest in America. The readers of newspapers were fully informed of the progress of the events. Though European news came slower then than now, it was more trustworthy. The American correspondents abroad were almost always men of education and culture; many of them had attainments which gave them access to the best society of the countries to which they were sent. They knew what was taking place; they knew how to discriminate the true from the false, and they had time before mail-day to sift the rumors from the facts and to give an orderly arrangement to their narrative. Our countrymen, therefore, of this time had correct knowledge of contemporary events in Europe. These revolutionary movements seemed to them due to American example; the contemplation of the free, united, and happy country created a yearning, they thought, for the like, and this yearning stirred up the people on the European continent to rebel against their tyrants. Never had there been a more unquestioned faith in our institutions, a greater desire to propagate the principles underlying them, or a more sublime confidence in their virtue. This feeling found an official expression in the Hulsemann letter,1 and a popular expression in the triumph to Kossuth. The blows struck for Hungarian liberty had indeed been in vain; but the hero of
____________
1 See p. 205.

the revolution was here to tell us that the mighty movement had been not crushed, but only delayed. In his speech he frankly avowed his object. "I come here," he said," to invoke the aid of the great American republic to protect my people, peaceably, if they may, by the moral influence of their declarations, but forcibly if they must, by the physical power of their arm—to prevent any foreign interference in the struggle about to be renewed for the liberties of my country." He explained why it was that he had such hopes of the United States. "Your generous act of my liberation is taken by the world for the revelation of the fact that the United States are resolved not to allow the despots of the world to trample on oppressed humanity." It was soon well understood that he expected the United States and England would combine to prevent the interference of Russia in Austro-Hungarian affairs, and that he wanted to raise in this country one million dollars on Hungarian bonds, payable when the independence of the country should be achieved. It is quite certain that if, in these December days, a popular vote of New York City could have decided the foreign policy of the nation, it would have been in favor of intermeddling in European affairs, for the metropolitan people had seemingly lost their heads. On the evening of Kossuth's arrival, there was a torchlight procession in his honor; some of the banners had legends proposing intervention by the United States in behalf of oppressed liberty in Europe; others denoted regret for neglect in the past, and bore the inscription, "May our future atone for the past!"

On the Monday morning following his arrival the New York Tribune maintained that while non-intervention in European affairs was the correct principle, there might be circumstances when our own interests, as well as our duty in the family of States, would command us to step beyond the straight line of this policy. Most of the New York press were favorable to Kossuth, and the editor of the journal which was the most active in exposing the folly of the craze was denounced as "a mercenary and time-serving political parasite," and "the exorbitant and unblushing eulogist of the bloody house of Hapsburg." The friends of Kossuth delighted to compare him with Lafayette; his enemies said he rather called to mind another Frenchman, Genet, who, at first received with great enthusiasm, finally became a stench in the nostrils of the public. One extravagant journalist, wrought up to a high pitch of feeling by one of Kossuth's speeches, declared that the Washington of the eighteenth century was interpreted by the Washington of the nineteenth. Steady people in other parts of the country thought New York had run mad; they were amazed at the wild infatuation, and called it the folly of the day.

Kossuth showed wonderful tact in steering clear of anything that should excite partisan or sectional feeling. A delegation of the American and Foreign Anti-slavery Society called upon him and made an address. He replied: "I know you are just and generous, and will not endeavor to entangle me with questions of a party character while I am with you. I must attend to one straight course and not be found to connect myself with any principle but the one great principle of my country's liberation." A party of several thousand men who called themselves the European Democracy, composed of foreigners from Italy, Germany, Poland, Austria, and France, marched to his hotel and delivered an address revealing that they were socialists. Kossuth replied discreetly; he was not a socialist, and, indeed, that question was not the one at issue in Hungary. He received successively deputations from colored men, the presbytery of Brooklyn, the faculty and alumni of Columbia College, Cuban exiles, the students of Yale College, and the Whig Central Committee, to all of whom he made appropriate remarks. The city of New York gave him a banquet at the Irving House; four hundred guests sat down at table, and among them was George Bancroft. At the Astor House there was an editorial banquet in his honor, presided over by the poet-editor William Cullen Bryant, which every one considered it a high privilege to attend. The reading of a letter from Webster, coldly declining to attend on account of public duties, was received with hisses and groans. Toasts were responded to by Bancroft, Henry J. Raymond, Parke Godwin, Henry Ward Beecher, and Charles A. Dana. Two days after this banquet, the New York Democratic Central Committee presented Kossuth the resolutions which they had adopted. They declared that the time for American neutrality had ceased, and promised that" at the tap of the drum one hundred thousand armed men will rally around the American standard to be unfurled on the field when the issue between freedom and despotism is to be decided." A large meeting in Plymouth Church raised twelve thousand dollars for the Hungarian cause, and a dramatic benefit was given at Niblo's Garden for the fund. An imposing reception by the bar of New York, and an afternoon entertainment by the ladies at the Metropolitan Opera House were a fitting close of the honors which had been showered on the Hungarian hero in this hospitable city. It was, indeed, a curious spectacle to see the descendants of sober-blooded Englishmen and phlegmatic Dutchmen roused to such a pitch of enthusiasm over a man who was not the benefactor of their own country, and whose only title to fame was that he had fought bravely and acted wisely in an unsuccessful revolution. It is evident that we were even then an excitable people.1
_____________
1 J. J. Ampere, "The American is shrewd and keen; his passion seldom obscures his reason; he keeps his head in moments when a Frenchman, or an Italian, or even a German, would lose it. Yet he is also of an excitable temper, with emotions capable of being quickly and strongly stirred. . . . Moreover, the Americans like excitement. They like it for its own sake, and go wherever they can find it."—American Commonwealth, Bryce, vol. ii. p. 191.

Yet if we had gained vivacity in this electric air of ours, what was occurring at Washington demonstrated that we had not lost the habit of deliberating wisely before taking a resolve. On the first day of the session a resolution was introduced into the Senate providing a welcome from Congress to Kossuth on his arrival, and tendering, in the name of the whole American people, the hospitalities of the metropolis of the Union. But objection was made to taking action of any official character, and this gave rise to considerable discussion. Before a vote was reached Kossuth arrived at New York. The project of greeting him when he first set foot on our shores was then suspended by a proposition to welcome him at the capital of the country. Even this simple resolution provoked a four days' debate, for by this time the Senate had the report of his first speech. The notion that the fixed foreign policy of this government, exacting non-interference in European affairs, could, under any circumstances, be altered was entertained by only a few senators. Yet there was no lack of enthusiasm. "There has been but one Washington and there is but one Kossuth," Foote declared in eager tones. "The great Hungarian leader will live in the brightest pages of history," said Cass. The occasion prompted Sumner to make his maiden speech. Kossuth deserves our welcome, he exclaimed, " as the early, constant, and incorruptible champion of the liberal cause in Hungary." He is "a living Wallace—a living Tell— I had almost said a living Washington." Seward spoke of him as "the representative of the uprising liberties of Europe." Yet several senators were opposed to offering Kossuth the hospitalities of Congress, unless it should be expressly declared in the resolution that we did not intend to depart from the settled policy of our government. The discussion generated so much heat that one senator did not hesitate to say "that there have been more unpleasant and
hard things said of Kossuth in this Senate than have been said of him in all Europe, except by the bribed and hireling prints of some of the despots of the Old World." It was, however, resolved to give him a cordial welcome to the capital. There was anxiety in the State department in regard to his reception. "It requires great caution," wrote Webster, "so to conduct things here when Mr. Kossuth shall arrive as to keep clear both of Scylla and Charybdis;"1 and "his presence here will be quite embarrassing. ... I hope I may steer clear of trouble on both sides."2 Kossuth, after an enthusiastic reception at Philadelphia and Baltimore, arrived at Washington on the 30th of December; he was met at the station by Seward and Shields, of the Senate committee. A large crowd awaited his arrival and greeted him with demonstrations of respect. At noon the Secretary of State called upon him. Webster wrote that Kossuth was a gentleman "in appearance and demeanor; ... he is handsome enough in person, evidently intellectual and dignified, amiable and graceful in his manners. I shall treat him with all personal and individual respect; but if he should speak to me of the policy of 'intervention,' I shall 'have ears more deaf than adders.'"3 The next day Kossuth was presented to the President, and later in the week he dined at the White House.4
_____________
1 Letter to Haven, December 23d, Private Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 497.
2 Letter to Paige, December 25th, ibid., p. 499.
3 Letter to Blatchford, December 30th, ibid., p. 501. Page 239
4 Ampere assisted at this dinner, and writes: “La, j’ai ete temoin d’une nouvelle scene de ce drame de la venue de Kossuth en Amerique, dont j’avais vu a New York, il y a quelques semaines, l’exposition si brillante et en apparence si pleine de promesses; … ni avant, ni pendant, ni apres le diner, il n’a ete fait, a ma connaissance, aucune allusion a la cause de la Hongrie. Je n’ai vu que de la politesse pour l’homme, mais nulle expression a haute voix de sympathie pour sa cause… Kossuth, qui a le tort d’aimer les costumes de fantasie, portait une levite de velours noir, et m’a semble beaucoup moins imposant dans cette tenue que quand il haranguiat, appuye sur son grand sabre, dans la salle de Castle Garden, a New York.” - Promenade en Amerique, tome ii. p. 98.

Four days of the new year had gone by before the much canvassed reception of the Senate took place. The ceremony was the same as that which twenty-seven years before had governed the welcome to Lafayette. At one o'clock on the 5th of January the doors were opened, and Governor Kossuth, escorted by the committee—Shields, Seward, and Cass—entered and advanced within the bar, all the senators at the same time rising. The suite of the honored guest, in military uniforms, stood below the bar. Shields said: "Mr. President, we have the honor to introduce Louis Kossuth to the Senate of the United States." The presiding officer addressed him: "Louis Kossuth, I welcome you to the Senate of the United States. The committee will conduct you to the seat which I have caused to be prepared for you." He was then conducted to a chair in front of the President's desk; the Senate, in order to give the senators an opportunity of paying their respects to their guest, adjourned, and they were individually presented. General Houston attracted special notice. The presence of the hero of San Jacinto in the chief council of the nation could not fail to suggest to the Hungarian how much happier than his own lot had been that of the Texas liberator. Senator Houston said, in his rough, hearty way, " Sir, you are welcome to the Senate of the United States;" to which Kossuth replied, "I can only wish I had been as successful as you, sir." Houston with ready sympathy rejoined, "God grant that you may yet be so !"

Two days after this reception, a banquet was given to Kossuth by members of Congress of both parties, at which Webster made a noteworthy speech. His allusion to England was exceedingly felicitous, being possibly a delicate reference to remarks that had been made in the Senate, which seemed to assume that all the political virtue of the world was centred in the United States. "On the western coast of Europe," he said, "political light exists. There is a sun in the political firmament, and that sun sheds his light on those who are able to enjoy it." In the course of his speech he made a strong argument for the independence of Hungary, based on her distinctive nationality and the home rule principle.

The House had passed without debate the joint resolution to welcome Kossuth; but when a motion was made for the appointment of a committee to introduce him to the House, the different feelings in regard to the Hungarian hero were strikingly manifest. By the many instrumentalities which the rules of the House put in their power, members tried to prevent the consideration of the resolution, and it was not until the day of Kossuth's arrival at Washington that the subject was fairly brought before this body. Then for many days the representatives strove and wrangled over the question; amendments were offered, counter-motions were made, until finally, when the 5th of January had come, and it was stated that the Hungarian purposed leaving on the ninth, the majority rose in their might, suspended the rules and adopted the resolution. The form of reception was the same as in the Senate, and it took place without incident.

Soon after Kossuth left for the West, and visited several cities, where there was great curiosity to see the lion of the day; crowds turned out to greet him and showed some enthusiasm, but it was patent before he left Washington that his mission had failed. Indeed, from the moment that he avowed his expectations, it was apparent everywhere, except in New York City, that his hope for a pronunciamento in favor of intervention, should Russia take a hand hereafter in the affairs of Hungary, was utterly vain; and a very short time after his departure sufficed to bring the citizens of the metropolis around to the opinion of the rest of the country. By the middle of January a correspondent wrote that the excitement had wholly died down, and the name of Kossuth was rarely heard in New York. One vote taken in the House of Representatives had decided significance. An amendment to the resolution of welcome had been offered, providing that the committee on the reception of Kossuth should be instructed to inform him that the United States would not look with indifference on the intervention of Russia against Hungary in any struggle for liberty she might hereafter have with the despotic power of Austria. The mover of this amendment, seeing that it met with no favor, desired to withdraw it, but this was not permitted. A division was therefore taken, but the proposition received only seven votes.

Nor was Kossuth much more successful in his quest for sinews of war. At Pittsburgh he complained bitterly that while one hundred and sixty thousand dollars had been raised, only thirty thousand dollars remained for the purchase of muskets; the rest had been wasted in costly banquets and foolish parades. He appealed no longer for intervention, but for money, and urged that the salt-mines of Hungary would be ample security for the loan. Although he remained in the country until July, it is certain that the net amount of the contributions to his cause was less than one hundred thousand dollars.

The reason of the interest taken in Kossuth's visit is now plain enough to be seen, but at the time it was stated that the excitement had been worked up by politicians with an eye to the German vote in the approaching presidential election. This view was not correct. The movement was spontaneous, and the politicians took hold of it so as to keep in the popular current. In the honor done to this representative of European revolution there was the exultation of the young republic which rejoiced in the strength of a lusty giant. Two years previously the arrival of Kossuth would have stirred up but little enthusiasm, for then the unhappy sectional controversy which had threatened disaster engrossed the attention of the people; now, however, it was felt that the country was united and harmonious. With sweet forgetfulness the memory of past danger faded away, and a serene optimism would not anticipate evil. From the debate it was apparent that members of Congress generally thought we were quite a match for Austria and Russia combined, although at the present moment there was no desire to put forth our strength. But there was grim truth in the rebuke by Clemens, of Alabama, which reminded certain senators who were willing to fight, if necessary, for liberty in Europe that "but recently a bitter sectional conflict was raging in our midst, which threatened at one time to shatter our Confederacy into atoms; that the embers of that strife were still unquenched, and that it was the part of wisdom to secure internal peace before we engaged in external war."

Horace Mann and others of his persuasion were mainly wrong when they attributed to the influence of the slave power the opposition to Kossuth which came from the South.' No one was a more enthusiastic champion of the Hungarian than Senator Foote, a devoted supporter of Southern institutions. It was he who exclaimed: "At such a moment, does it behoove the American people to join the side of despotism, or to stand by the cause of freedom? We must do one or the other. We cannot avoid the solemn alternative presented. . . . Those who are not for freedom are for slavery." 2 Hale tried to drag the slavery question into the debate, but his political friends frowned upon his endeavor; for Seward and Cass, Sumner and Shields, went hand in hand in the affair. In the House, a member from North Carolina charged that the abolitionists had taken the lead in the matter, and, while this accusation added somewhat to the heat of the debate, there is no doubt that most of those who objected to conferring the proposed honor on Kossuth did so because he had assailed the non-intervention doctrine of Washington.

The heroic play which began in New York changed into a farce when Congress came to audit the hotel bill of the Hungarian governor and his suite. The bill, amounting to nearly four thousand six hundred dollars, was considered by the Senate enormous in its magnitude. The senators
________________
1 Life of Horace Mann, p. 356.
2 Remarks in Senate, December 3d, 1851.

did not pry into the items; but the House had no such reserve, and before passing it they examined narrowly the itemized statement; whence it appeared that the apartments had been large and luxurious, and that champagne, madeira, and sherry had flowed freely. Kossuth was defended from all participation in debauchery, it being asserted that he was abstemious in all his habits except smoking, and that, while he sometimes drank claret at dinner, he was moderate in the pleasures of the table.1

Early in the session a resolution was introduced into the Senate by Foote which declared that the compromise measures were a definite adjustment of the distracting questions growing out of slavery. This occasioned a rambling discussion, but the proposition was never brought to a vote. On the 5th day of April a division in the House was attained on a resolution similar in purport. One hundred and three members voted that the compromise should be regarded as a permanent settlement, and seventy-four voted against such a declaration. The nays were made up of twenty-six Northern Democrats,2 twenty-eight Northern Whigs, nineteen Southern Democrats, and one Southern Whig, viz., Clingman. It was noticeable that, while every representative present from South Carolina voted against the resolution, every representative from Mississippi but one voted for it; the delegation from both States were all Democrats. Twenty Southern and only seven Northern Whigs voted in the affirmative. Many of the latter were absent.

It is now my intention to narrate the proceedings of the national conventions of the Democratic and Whig parties,
________________
1 My authorities for this relation are the New York Tribune and the National Intelligencer. Both of these newspapers give copious extracts from contemporary journals; the debates in the Senate and House, vol. xxiv., Congressional Globe; Life of Webster, Curtis, vol. ii.; Webster's Private Correspondence, vol. ii. See also Promenade en Amerique, Ampere, tome i. p. 370. The curious may find the itemized bill in Congressional Globe, vol. xxiv. p. 1692.
2 In these are included Rantoul and Durkee, Free-soilers.

two bodies which assembled with a fresher mandate from the people than had the representatives in Congress. The Democratic convention was held on June 1st at Baltimore, and the prominent candidates were Cass, Douglas, Buchanan, and Marcy. Cass was now nearly seventy years old, but temperate habits and a regular life had preserved his constitutional vigor. A son of New England, his education had been mainly acquired in the academy of Exeter, N. H., his native place. In early life he came West, and as governor of Michigan territory from 1813 to 1831 his administration of affairs was marked with intelligence and energy.1 His experience during this term of office with the British stationed in Canada, who constantly incited the Indians to wage war on the settlers of the Northwest, caused him to imbibe a hatred of England which never left him, and whose influence is traceable throughout his public career. He held the war portfolio under Jackson, later was Minister to France, and had now for several years represented Michigan in the Senate. His anglophobia and his readiness to assert vigorous principles of American nationality made him popular in the Northwest. He tried a solution of the slavery question in the Nicholson letter, written a few months before he was selected as the candidate of the Democratic party in 1848. In this letter he invented the doctrine which afterwards became widely known as the doctrine of popular sovereignty. He maintained that Congress should let the people of the territories regulate their internal concerns in their own way; and that in regard to slavery the territories should be put upon the same basis as the States.

Douglas was only thirty-nine years old: remarkably young to aspire to the highest office in the State. Clay had reached the age of forty-seven when he became a candidate for the presidency, and Webster was forty-eight when he
_________________
1 See a paper read by Prof. A. C. McLaughlin before the American Historical Association, Dec, 1888, "The Influence of Governor Cass on the Development of the Northwest;" see also his Life of Cass.

began to dream that it might be his lot to reach the desired goal. Douglas was a son of New England, and, like many New England boys, worked on a farm in the summer and attended school in the winter. By the time he was twenty, he had wrought for two years at a trade, had completed the classical course at an academy, and had begun the study of law. He then went to Illinois, and before he had attained his majority was admitted to the bar; he became a member of the legislature at twenty three, a Supreme judge at twenty-eight, a representative in Congress at thirty, and a senator at thirty-three.

Douglas's first political speech gained him the title of the "Little Giant;" the name was intended to imply the union of small physical with great intellectual stature. Yet he was not a student of books, although a close observer of men. He lacked refinement of manner; was careless of his personal appearance, and had none of the art and grace that go to make up the cultivated orator. John Quincy Adams was shocked at his appearance in the House, where, as the celebrated diary records, in making a speech he raved, roared, and lashed himself into a heat with convulsed face and frantic gesticulation. "In the midst of his roaring, to save himself from choking, he stripped off and cast away his cravat, unbuttoned his waistcoat, and had the air and aspect of a half-naked pugilist." 1 But Douglas took on quickly the character of his surroundings, and in Washington society he soon learned the ease of a gentleman and acquired the bearing of a man of the world. He was a great friend to the material development of the West, and especially of his own State, having broad views of the future growth of his section of country.2 He vied with Cass in his dislike of
_______
1 Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, vol. xi. p. 510.

England. He believed in the manifest destiny of the United States. He thought that conditions might arise under which it would become our bounden duty to acquire Cuba, Mexico, and Central America. He was called the representative of young America, and his supporters antagonized Cass as the candidate of old-fogyism. His adherents were aggressive, and for months had made a vigorous canvass on his behalf. A Whig journal ventured to remind Douglas that vaulting ambition overleaps itself, but added, "Perhaps the little judge never read Shakespeare, and does not think of this."1

James Buchanan was born in Pennsylvania in 1791. He had a fair school and college education, studied law, soon acquired a taste for politics, was sent to the legislature, served as representative in Congress ten years, and was elected three times senator. In the Senate he distinguished himself as an ardent supporter of President Jackson. He was Secretary of State under Polk, but since the close of that administration had remained in private life. He was a gentleman of refinement and of courtly manners.2

Marcy was a shrewd New York politician, the author of the phrase "To the victors belong the spoils."3 He had been judge, United States senator, and three times governor. He held the war portfolio under Polk, but the conduct of this office had not added to his reputation, for it had galled the administration to have the signal victories of the Mexican war won by Whig generals, and it was currently believed that the War Minister had shared in the
_______________
1 Pike, in New York Tribune, cited by Von Hoist, vol. iv. p. 165. In this characterization of Douglas I have used the Lives of Douglas by Sheahan and by H. M. Flint.
3 See Life of Buchanan, Curtis.
2 For the speech in which Marcy used this expression, see The Lives of the Governors of New York, p. 564.

endeavor to thwart some of the plans of Scott and Taylor. Always an honored citizen of New York, it has seemed fitting that the highest mountain-peak in the State by bearing his name should serve as a monument to his memory.

The hall in which the convention met at Baltimore was one of the largest in the country; it could accommodate five thousand people. There was then nothing like the outside pressure on the delegates which is seen now at every one of these national conventions when the nomination is contested; but the city thronged with people, and it was apparent that the friends of Douglas had mustered in full force. On the evening of the first day an immense meeting took place in Monument Square, where an enthusiastic crowd listened to eloquent speakers. The first two days of the convention were occupied in organization and in confirmation of the two-thirds rule. It was decided to make the nomination before the adoption of the platform. This action did not by any means portend differences in agreeing upon a declaration of principles, but rather showed the desire of delegates to settle the important affair first. Owing to the confident feeling that this year's nomination was equivalent to an election, the contest became exceedingly animated.

A year previous Clay had serious doubts of the success of his own party, and, regarding it as nearly certain that a Democrat would be elected in 1852, he hoped that the nomination would fall to Cass, whom he considered quite as able as Buchanan, and much more honest and sincere.1

On the first ballot Cass had 116, Buchanan 93, Marcy 27, Douglas 20, and all the other candidates 25 votes. The number necessary to a choice was 188. Cass had 75 from the free, and 41 from the slave, States; Buchanan, 32 from the free, and 61 from the slave, States; while Douglas had only two votes from the South. The interest centred in these three candidates. Their names and the announcement of their votes never failed to bring prolonged
_________________
1 Private Correspondence, p. 619.

applause. The voting began on the third day of the convention, and seventeen ballots were that day taken. Douglas gained considerably at the expense of Cass, but it looked improbable that any of the three favorites could secure the nomination, which seemed likely to go to a dark horse. The merits of several others were canvassed, and among them Franklin Pierce. On the fourth day Douglas steadily increased until the twenty-ninth ballot, when the votes were: for Cass, 27; for Buchanan, 93; for Douglas, 91; and no other candidate more than 26. On the morning of the fifth day, on the call of the States for the thirty-fourth ballot, the Virginia delegation retired for consultation, and coming back cast the fifteen votes of their State for Daniel S. Dickinson, of New York. This was received with favor.

Dickinson was a delegate; he immediately took the floor and said: "I came here not with instructions, but with expectations stronger than instructions, that I would vote for and endeavor to procure the nomination of that distinguished citizen and statesman, General Lewis Cass." After saying he highly appreciated the compliment paid him by "the land of Presidents, the Ancient Dominion," he declared, emphatically: "I could not consent to a nomination here without incurring the imputation of unfaithfully executing the trust committed to me by my constituents—without turning my back on an old and valued friend. Nothing that could be offered me—not even the highest position in the government, the office of President of the United States—could compensate me for such a desertion of my trust."'

On the next ballot, Virginia cast her fifteen votes for Franklin Pierce, and at that time Cass reached his greatest strength, receiving 131. As the weary round of balloting continued, Pierce gained slowly, until, on the forty-eighth trial, he received 55, while Cass had 73, Buchanan 28, Douglas 33, and Marcy 90. On the forty-ninth ballot there was a stampede to Pierce, who received 282 votes to 6 for all others.
_________________
1 Letters and Speeches, Dickinson, vol. i. p. 370.

The convention nominated William R. King, of Alabama, for Vice-President, and then adopted a platform. Its vital declarations were : " The Democratic party of the Union . . . will abide by, and adhere to, a faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measures settled by the last Congress—the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor included; which act, being designed to carry out an express provision of the Constitution, cannot with fidelity thereto be repealed, nor so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency. The Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing in Congress, or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made."

The platform was adopted with but few dissenting voices. When the resolution endorsing the compromise measures was read, applause resounded from all sides; many delegates demanded its repetition; it was read over again, and a wild outburst of enthusiasm followed. There was no question that while the delegates had differed widely in regard to men, they were at one in desiring this resolution, a vital and popular article of Democratic faith.1
____________
1 New York Tribune; Presidential Elections, Stanwood; Life of Pierce, Hawthorne; Life of Pierce, Bartlett.


Source: Rhodes, James Ford. History of the United States; from the compromise of 1850 to the final restoration of home rule at the south in 1877, v.1. New York: Macmillan, 1910 [c1892].