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

Chapter 3, Part 2: Whig National Convention through Fillmore’s Administration

Franklin Pierce, of New Hampshire, was now in his forty-eighth year. He had in his boyhood drunk in patriotic principles from his father, an old Revolutionary soldier, at whose hearthstone the fellow-veterans were always welcome, and whose greatest joy was to revive in common with these the sentiments which had animated them in 1776. Pierce was graduated from Bowdoin College, Maine, and afterwards became a lawyer. The prominent position which his father occupied in the Democratic party in the State was a help to the son's political advancement. He served in the legislature four years, went to Congress as representative at twenty-nine, and became United States senator at thirty-three, being the youngest man in the Senate. He resigned
before the expiration of his term, and, coming home, devoted himself with diligence to the practice of his profession. He was a good lawyer and a persuasive advocate before a jury. He declined the position of Attorney-General offered him by Polk, the appointment of United States senator, and the nomination for governor by his own political party. He enlisted as a private soon after the outbreak of the Mexican war, but, before he went to Mexico, was commissioned as brigadier-general, and served under Scott with bravery and credit. He was a strong supporter of the compromise measures. An eloquent political speaker, graceful and attractive in manner, his integrity was above suspicion, and he was also deeply religious. He had not the knack of making money, and the fact received favorable mention that while long in public life, and later enjoying a good income from his profession, he had not accumulated ten thousand dollars.

Such was the man who had been chosen by the reunited Democratic party to lead it on to assured victory. It could only be said that he was a respectable lawyer, politician, and general, for he had tried all three callings, and in none of them had he reached distinction. There can be no better commentary on the fact that he was not a man of mark than the campaign biography written by his life-long friend, Nathaniel Hawthorne. The gifted author, who had woven entrancing tales out of airy nothings, failed, when he had his bosom friend and a future President for a subject, to make an interesting narrative. The most graceful pen in America, inspired by the truest friendship, labored painfully in the vain endeavor to show that his hero had a title to greatness; and the author, conscious that his book was not valuable, never consented to have the "Life of Pierce" included in a collected edition of his works.1

Yet the book, in truthfulness and sincerity, was a model for a campaign life. Hawthorne would not set down one word
________________
1 See the New York Critic, September 28th and November 23d, 1889.

that he did not believe absolutely true. Pierce evidently wished to appear before the public in his real character, for otherwise, knowing this quality of honesty in his friend, he would not have requested Hawthorne to write the biography, but would have been content with the fulsome panegyric that had already appeared. The author in his preface apologizes for coming before the public in a new occupation; but "when a friend, dear to him almost from boyish days, stands up before his country, misrepresented by indiscriminate abuse on the one hand, and by aimless praise on the other," it is quite proper "that he should be sketched by one who has had opportunities of knowing him well, and who is certainly inclined to tell the truth." The idea one gets of Pierce from the little book of one hundred and forty pages is that he was a gentleman of truth and honor, and warmly loved his family, his State, and his country. Having the inward feelings of a gentleman, he lacked not the external accomplishments; his fine physical appearance was graced by charming manners.' It is quite certain that Pierce did not desire the nomination; even if his sincerity in his letter of January 12th be doubted, the statement of Hawthorne is conclusive. It is possible he shrank from public life on account of an unfortunate weakness, or that he did not wish to expose the feeble health of his wife to the social demands entailed by the position.2

The nomination of Pierce was a complete surprise to the country. With the mass of the Democratic party, astonishment was mixed with indignation that the leaders who had borne the brunt of partisan conflict should be passed over for one whose history must be attentively studied, in order to know what he had done to merit the great honor. Yet the nomination was not the spontaneous affair which it
______________
1 See Life of Pierce, Hawthorne; Hawthorne and his Wife, Julian Hawthorne, vol. i.; Life of Pierce, Bartlett; Memoir of John Quincy Adams, vol. ix. p. 103; Memoir of Jefferson Davis, by his Wife, vol. i. p. 541.
2 See Memories of Many Men, M. B. Field, p. 158.

seemed, for the candidature of Pierce had been carefully nursed and his interests were in competent hands. The idea of putting him forward originated early in the year among the New England Democrats, who deemed it quite likely that Cass, Douglas, and Buchanan would fail to secure the coveted prize. The favorite son of New Hampshire was eligible, as the State had been steadfastly Democratic, and Pierce was undoubtedly the most available man in New England. Several conferences were held to decide upon a plan of action, and it was determined that New Hampshire should not present his name nor vote for him until some other State had started the movement.1 Pierce was privy to much of this negotiation, and it is said that the delicate matter of his excessive conviviality was talked over with him, and that he promised to walk circumspectly should he become President. At all events, a letter written by him a few days before the convention shows a change of feeling from his expression of January in regard to the nomination 2 and if his personal objections still remained, they were overruled in the interest of the New Hampshire and New England Democracy. Pierce promptly accepted the nomination, "upon the platform adopted by the convention, not because this is expected of me as a candidate, but because the principles it embraces command the approbation of my judgment, and with them I believe I can safely say there has been no word nor act of my life in conflict."3

The Whig convention met at Baltimore June 16th, in the same building that the Democrats had used, and it was noticed that greater taste had presided over the decoration of the hall than two weeks before. Among the delegates
_____________
1 Account of Edmund Burke, one of the editors of the Washington Union, of the events that led to the nomination of Pierce, cited by the New York Tribune of November 28th, 1853, from the National Era. The Boston Atlas said, June 7th, 1852, that, while Pierce's nomination would surprise the country, it was not wholly a surprise to many in the secrets of the Democratic party; also conversation with J. W. Bradbury.
2 Life of Pierce, Bartlett, p. 247.
3 Ibid., p. 258.

were many able and earnest men. Choate and Ashmun, of Massachusetts, Dayton, of New Jersey, and Clayton, of Delaware, were well known; and among those who afterwards gained distinction were Fessenden, of Maine, Dawes, of Massachusetts, Evarts, of New York, Sherman, of Ohio, and Baker, of Illinois.

The candidates for the presidential nomination were Webster, Fillmore, and General Scott; but the delegates differed in regard to the platform as well as in their preferences for men, and whether the Fugitive Slave law should be declared a finality was almost as important a question as who should be the nominee. There were more strangers in the city than at the time of the Democratic convention, and the outside pressure in favor of Webster was strong; but it was apparent to cool observers that the chances of success were for Scott. Fillmore had a large number of delegates pledged to him, for his friends had used unsparingly in his favor the patronage of the government, yet had effected little at the North; his supporters were almost entirely from the South, where he was, moreover, popular on account of his vigorous execution of the Fugitive Slave act. Clay, likewise, had declared for Fillmore.1 Constant demonstrations in favor of each of the three candidates were made in the form of processions headed by noisy bands, and evening meetings addressed by eulogistic orators. The leaders of the party and managers of the respective candidates were constantly in conference, seeking to win outside support for their man.

The platform which was submitted on Friday, the third day of the convention, had the approval of the delegates from the South, of Webster's friends, and of Webster himself.2 The important resolution declared that the compromise acts," the act known as the Fugitive Slave law included, are received and acquiesced in by the Whig party of
____________
1 Private Correspondence, p. 628.
2 See War between the States, A. H. Stephens, vol. ii. p. 237.

the United States as a settlement in principle and substance of the dangerous and exciting questions which they embrace. . . . We insist upon their strict enforcement . . . and we deprecate all further agitation of the question thus settled." Rufus Choate rose to advocate this resolution. His appearance was striking; tall, thin, of a rich olive complexion, his face was rather that of an Oriental than an American. Raven locks hanging over a broad forehead, and piercing dark eyes, complete the picture. He had represented Massachusetts in the Senate, but his greatest triumphs had been won in the forum. His speech this day was the first example of that brilliant convention-oratory which animates and excites the hearers, and its beauty and power may still be felt when the issue that inspired this impassioned oration is dead. He said: "Why should we not engage ourselves to the finality of the entire series of measures of compromise ? . . . The American people know, by every kind and degree of evidence by which such a truth ever can be known, that these measures, in the crisis of their time, saved this nation. I thank God for the civil courage which, at the hazard of all things dearest in life, dared to pass and defend them, and 1 has taken no step backward.' I rejoice that the healthy morality of the country, with an instructed conscience, void of offence towards God and man, has accepted them. Extremists denounce all compromises ever. Alas! do they remember such is the condition of humanity that the noblest politics are but a compromise, an approximation —a type—a shadow of good things—the buying of great blessings at great prices? Do they forget that the Union is a compromise, the Constitution—social life—that the harmony of the universe is but the music of compromise, by which the antagonisms of the infinite Nature are composed and reconciled? Let him who doubts—if such there be— whether it were wise to pass these measures, look back and recall with what instantaneous and mighty charm they calmed the madness and anxiety of the hour! How every countenance, everywhere, brightened and elevated itself! How, in a moment, the interrupted and parted currents of fraternal feeling reunited! Sir, the people came together again as when, in the old Roman history, the tribes descended from the mount of Secession—the great compromise of that Constitution achieved—and flowed together behind the eagle into one mighty host of reconciled races for the conquest of the world. Well, if it were necessary to adopt these measures, is it not necessary to continue them? ... Why not, then, declare the doctrine of their permanence? In the language of Daniel Webster,' Why delay the declaration? Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, I am for it.1

Few Americans have surpassed Choate in burning eloquence. He was a scholar, a student of words, and a master of language. The exuberance of his vocabulary was poured out through a voice of marvellous richness; dramatic gestures gave a point to his words, and he swayed that great audience as a reed is shaken with the wind. The enthusiastic and excited demonstrations of delight as Choate sat down displeased Botts, of Virginia, who was for Scott, and he took the orator to task for the attempt to excite enthusiasm for a particular candidate, when the ostensible object was to advocate the platform. This gave Choate the opportunity to name his candidate in a most felicitous way: "Ah, sir," he said," what a reputation that must be, what a patriotism that must be, what a long and brilliant series of public services that must be, when you cannot mention a measure of utility like this but every eye spontaneously turns to, and every voice spontaneously utters, that great name of Daniel Webster!"2 If a vivid and appropriate speech could have changed the tide of that convention, Choate would have been rewarded by the success of the man whom he venerated and loved. A delegate from Ohio objected to the crucial resolution, and he spoke for an influential body of delegates, but the platform as a
_______________
1 Memoir of Rufus Choate, Brown, p. 270.
2 Ibid., p. 277.

whole was adopted by a vote of 227 to 66. The nays were all from the North, and all were supporters of Scott.

The convention was now ready to ballot. Fillmore and Webster were of course in full sympathy with the platform, and it now became an important question—was Scott satisfied with the Fugitive Slave law? He was the candidate of the Seward Whigs, and many strong anti-slavery men were enthusiastic in his favor; yet to be nominated he must have Southern votes, and carry Southern States to be elected. Goaded to it by an insinuation of Choate, Botts, before the vote on the platform was taken, produced a letter from Scott which could be interpreted to mean that he was a strong friend of the compromise measures.

On the first ballot Fillmore had 133, Scott 131, and Webster 29 votes. Webster had votes from all the New England States except Maine, and six votes outside of New England; but from the South, none.1 Fillmore received all the votes from the South except one given to Scott by John Minor Botts, of Virginia. Scott had all the votes from the North except those given to Webster and sixteen to Fillmore.2 For fifty ballots there was no material change; thirty-two votes were the highest number Webster reached. On the fiftieth ballot, Southern votes began to go to Scott, and on the fifty-third he had enough of them to secure the nomination, the ballot standing: Scott, 159; Fillmore, 112; Webster, 21.3 In the Whig convention a majority nominated.

It is apparent that the conservative Whigs might have controlled the nomination, for the strength of Fillmore and Webster united on either one was sufficient. Fillmore was the second choice of Webster's friends, and, in the opinion
__________
1 New Hampshire four, Vermont three, Massachusetts eleven, Rhode Island two, Connecticut three, New York two, Wisconsin three, California one.
2 Twenty Years of Congress, Blaine, vol. i. p. 101.
3 On the last ballot Virginia gave Scott eight, Tennessee and Missouri each three votes.

of most of the Fillmore delegates, Webster was preferable to Scott. Considering the cordial relations existing between the President and Secretary of State, the fact that they were both in Washington, and that a Sunday intervened between the days of balloting, it may seem surprising that their friends did not get together and decide to concentrate their votes. The President had written a letter withdrawing his name from the consideration of the convention. This had been confided in secrecy to the delegate from Buffalo, New York, with instructions to present it whenever he should deem proper, but it was never laid before the convention.1 But, in truth, it was impossible to deliver over the whole Fillmore strength to Webster. A determined effort was made to nominate the Massachusetts statesman, and his chances were greater than the number of his votes would seem to indicate. He had strong supporters at the South, among whom were Robert Toombs and Alexander H. Stephens.2 Nearly all the Southern delegates, however, were instructed to vote for Fillmore, and this they felt bound to do, until it should be apparent that he could not be nominated. This point was seemingly reached on Saturday. The Southern friends of Webster made a careful canvass and found that of the one hundred and twenty-eight votes for Fillmore, which was his average number, twenty-two of them would probably go to Scott when the break came, but that one hundred and six could be relied upon for Webster. This number they promised if Webster would come to the line of Maryland forty strong. This would give him one hundred and forty-six, which, together with the one vote from California of which he was always sure, would make the one hundred and forty-seven necessary for a choice. The Northern managers worked industriously to bring this about. They endeavored to win over enough from the New York delegation, but that was controlled by
____________
1 The Republic, Ireland, vol. xiii. p. 314.
2 See The War between the States, A. H. Stephens, vol. i. p. 336; vol. ii. p. 239.

Seward and would not quit Scott. They plied the Maine delegates, who coldly refused their aid to the greatest son of New England, for the defeat of Webster was a consummation as devoutly wished for as the success of Scott. Powerful and almost tearful appeals were made to Dawes and Lee to give their votes for Webster, if only for one ballot, in order that the Massachusetts delegation might be unanimous; but they absolutely declined to do so, and voted for Scott to the end. It was then impossible to secure the requisite number of Northern votes, and the Southern delegates, unless they could be assured that their accession would nominate Webster, would not leave Fillmore.1

Either before the convention met or immediately on its assembling, the Northern managers for Scott and some Southern delegates had made a tacit bargain. It is evident from the debates in Congress that Scott had influential supporters at the South, many of whom did not scruple to declare their preference,2 and while the congressional politicians might have been willing to take him without platform or personal pledges, they knew it was idle to think of carrying a Southern State for him unless the convention should declare the Fugitive Slave law a finality. It was therefore arranged that in case the Scott men should
______________
1 See an article entitled " Doings of the Convention" in the Boston Courier, June 25th, of which the editor said this article was "furnished by a gentleman whose character and standing in this community are a guarantee for its fidelity and fairness." This article was attributed to Choate and to a Mr. Swan, but it was probably written by William Hayden, a delegate, and a former editor of the Boston Atlas. The Springfield Republican of June 28th copied the article entire, and said:" We are assured by another Massachusetts delegate that, so far as it goes, its statements are strictly true." See also Life of Choate, Brown, p. 279, and Reminiscences, Peter Harvey, p. 239. "It was stated by the chairman of the Mississippi delegation that nine-tenths of the Southern delegates were willing to leave Fillmore and go for Webster, although they were deterred from doing so for fear that when their phalanx was broken, enough delegates would go to Scott to nominate him."—Boston Daily Advertiser.
2 See Congressional Globe, vol. xxiv. p. 1077 et seq., also p. 1159.

support the declaration of principles agreeable to the South, the Southern delegates, on the breaking-up of the Fillmore vote, would go to Scott in numbers sufficient to nominate him. The vote at that time against the platform was by no means a representation of the entire Northern opposition, for many delegates sacrificed their cherished opinions in order to make sure the nomination of their candidate. The New York Tribune spoke for a large number of faithful Whigs when it said that while there was no probability that the Fugitive Slave law would be altered by Congress during the present generation, to declare it a finality was irritating and useless. Agitation will not be stopped by resolution, the editor argued, but if the hunting of fugitive slaves at the North should cease, it might be checked.1

Scott was a Virginian by birth, a gentleman of honorable character and conservative principles, but his claim to the nomination was solely on account of his brilliant campaign in the Mexican war. As one of his enthusiastic advocates said in the Senate, he was "greater than Cortez in his triumphant, glorious, and almost miraculous march from Vera Cruz to the old city of the Aztecs." 2 It would be unfair to judge the man from his autobiography, for it was written in a garrulous old age, and is the most egotistical of memoirs.3 At this time he was inflated with vanity and puffed up with his own importance. It should be the prayer of his friends that he may be estimated by his actions rather than by his words, for to his adversary it was a delight that he had written a book. Many of the Whig politicians had a superstition that only a general could lead them to victory, for they had never been successful except under Harrison and Taylor. If it were military glory which
_________________
1 The Tribune, June 22d. In addition to the authorities already cited I have used in this account of the Whig convention the New York Tribune; History of Presidential Elections, Stanwood; Memories of Rufus Choate, Neilson; Life of Webster, Curtis, vol. ii.
2 Mangum, of North Carolina, April 15th.
3 The autobiography of Lieutenant-General Scott was written in 1863.

won the populace, why was not Scott, a greater general than either, an eminently strong candidate?

Fillmore took his defeat with equanimity, but to "Webster the action of the convention was the eclipse of the bright hopes with which he had long deluded himself. The account given by his Boswell1 of the great man's interview with Choate immediately after the convention is inexpressibly sad. The deep grief exhibited on that handsome face, the studied avoidance of the subject of which his mind was too full for utterance, at the silent meal of which the three partook, and then the hour's private conversation, made the scene linger long afterwards in the memory of Choate as the most mournful experience of his life.2 The words of the Preacher," Vanity of vanities, all is vanity," must have come to the great statesman with a force felt only by deep and strong natures. Had he served the law or literature with half the zeal with which he served the public, he would not in his age have been left naked to his enemies. What a comment it is on the disappointments that hedge about political life that the author of the reply to Hayne and of the Bunker Hill and Plymouth orations should sigh in vain for the position to which so many mediocre men have been called! It is easy to censure ambition like Webster's, yet we know that unless, in a democracy, the best statesmen desire the highest office in the State, political dry rot has set in—a fact which it is our fashion to ignore when we moralize on the desire for the presidency that lays such strong hold of our public men. Many writers who believe that Webster sold himself to the South gloat over the fact that
______________
1 Peter Harvey, Lodge so calls him, p. 95.
2 Harvey, p. 195.
3 "I make no progress towards accomplishing an object which has engaged my contemplations for many years, A History of the Constitution of the United States and President Washington's Administration. This project has long had existence as an idea; and as an idea I fear it is likely to die."—Webster to Edward Everett, November 28th, 1848, Private Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 289.

he did not receive a single Southern vote in the convention, and, with reckless disregard of his physical condition, aver that the disappointment at not receiving the nomination actually killed him.1

The usual noisy rejoicings over the result of the convention disturbed the founder of the Whig party, Clay, as he lay upon his death-bed in the National Hotel at Washington. He had come to the capital at the opening of Congress, but had only been able to go once to the Senate. His disease was consumption, and death had now stared him in the face many months. He had a sincere Christian faith, and, retaining his mental faculties to the last, awaited with composure the inevitable summons which came on the 29th day of June. As he had been loved, so was he mourned by the people of the nation. The funeral progress was made through many cities on the way to Lexington. New York testified its grief by a most imposing demonstration. The city was draped in mourning, and appropriate inscriptions were everywhere displayed; the favorite one, "the man who would rather be right than President," seemed to sum up best the life of Clay. Minute-guns were fired from the forts in the bay, and bells tolled, as the long procession accompanied the funeral-car through the streets, marching to the dirge and the mournful measure of the muffled drums. Never had the city seen such a general manifestation of popular grief. Political differences were forgotten. A great countryman was dead, and he was mourned not as a Whig, but as an American.2 Everywhere those who had loved and admired him, those who had been swayed by his voice and influenced by his words, paid a last respectful tribute to his remains. The lament of the nation was loud and sincere, and Kentucky mourned for him as a mother sorrows for a son.'
_______________
1 "It was the fashion in certain quarters to declare that it killed him; but this was manifestly absurd."—Life of Webster, Lodge, p. 340; see what follows. 1 New York Herald, July 21st.
2 For an account of the obsequies, see Last Years of Henry Clay, Colton, p. 438 et ante.

Scott's letter of acceptance was published a few days after the adjournment of the convention. "I accept," he wrote, "the nomination with the resolutions annexed."1 The action of the convention was coldly received by the Whigs. Those who liked the platform did not like the candidate, and those who were warm for the candidate objected decidedly to the platform.2 Many thought: the voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau. Seward was the political juggler, or Mephistopheles, as some called him, and the result was regarded as his triumph. The notion prevailed that Scott, if he became President, would be controlled by Seward, and this was certain to hurt the candidate at the South. Seward therefore, five days after the nomination, took the unusual course of writing a public letter, in which he said he would not ask or accept " any public station or preferment whatever at the hands of the President of the United States, whether that President were Winfield Scott or any other man." 3

Some of the prominent Whig newspapers of Georgia declined to sustain Scott, because his election would mean Free soilism and Sewardism.4 An address was issued on the 3d of July by Alexander H. Stephens, Robert Toombs, and five other Whig representatives, in which they flatly refused to support Scott because he was " the favorite candidate of the Free-soil wing of the Whig party," and he had not clearly said that he regarded the compromise measures as a finality.5 The business men of New York city disliked the
______________
1 The letter was published in the National Intelligencer of June 29th. It is dated June 24th. He received his official notification the 22d.
2 The phrase "We accept the candidate, but spit upon the platform," became very common among Northern Whigs.
3 Seward's Works, vol. iii. p. 416. The letter is dated June 26th.
4 The Augusta Chronicle and the Savannah Republican. The Savannah News disliked the nomination exceedingly.
5 Von Hoist, vol. iv. p. 208; McCluskey's Political Text-book, p. 682. Three of the signers were from Georgia, two from Alabama, one each from Mississippi and Virginia.

nomination, as they were afraid of Seward's influence. There was no enthusiasm in Boston and Massachusetts; the State was Whig to the core, but the active people and most of the newspapers were disaffected because Webster had not been nominated. In other places, also, there was discontent at the turn affairs had taken.1

A Union convention of Georgia and a Native American convention, held at Trenton, N. J., nominated Webster for President; later, a Webster electoral ticket was put into the field in Massachusetts; but he neither accepted nor declined any of these nominations. The happiest day of this, the last year of Webster's life, was the 9th of July, when he received an enthusiastic reception and heart-felt greeting from the citizens of Boston. It was the fashion then to compare all demonstrations with the one made in honor of Lafayette in 1824 2 and those who took part in both declared Webster's reception much more imposing than that given to the gallant Frenchman.3 The estrangement between Massachusetts and her favorite son, which had existed since the speech of the 7th of March, had passed away. Webster's address was in exquisite taste. He did not touch the political questions of the day, but he paid an eloquent tribute to Boston and to Massachusetts, for he was as proud of Massachusetts as was she of her great statesman.4
________________
1 "The dissatisfaction in the early part of the summer took a somewhat active form in the States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Massachusetts."—Life of Webster,
2 Curtis, vol. ii. p. 650. 2 Those who are interested in these matters will find an entertaining account of this in Josiah Quincy's Figures of the Past.
3 Curtis, vol. ii. p. 628.
4 In Theodore Parker's Scrap-Book, in the Boston Public Library, is an account of this reception to Webster, taken from the Boston Atlas of July 10th. Among the men who rode in the carriages was George T. Curtis. Parker underscores his name, and writes in lead pencil: "N.B. That Nemesis is never asleep. Webster must be attended with the Kidnapper. The Sims brigade ought also to have been on parade. The court-house should have been festooned with chains."

While the candidacy of Scott repelled the most conservative Whigs, the platform made it impossible for the Free-soilers to come to his support. They held a convention in August and nominated Hale for President and Julian for Vice-President. They epigrammatized their principles in the words "Free soil, free speech, free labor, and free men." The drift of anti-slavery opinion, as well as its varying shades, is illustrated by the fact that Henry Wilson, Charles F. Adams, of Massachusetts, and Giddings supported Hale, while Wade, Seward, and Greeley advocated the election of Scott. All of these men were of Whig antecedents.

The Democrats soon recovered from the surprise of Pierce's nomination, and began to feel a genuine enthusiasm for their candidate, and for their declaration of principles. They were joyful to have the party reunited; they were certain that the platform represented the prevailing sentiment; and when they had read up about Pierce, they were satisfied that he was not a vulnerable candidate. The men who were prominent before the Baltimore convention did not delay the announcement that they would give Pierce their cordial support. The New York Evening Post, which upheld powerfully the Free-soil movement of 1848, and whose editor had strong anti slavery views, now advocated Pierce, and was followed by other journals which got their cue from the metropolitan organ.1 The argument of the Post, that the Democratic candidate and platform were really more favorable to liberty than the Whig, was somewhat strained; the editor failed to look the situation squarely in the face.2 He was, however, acting in perfect harmony with the prominent New York Democrats who had, four years previously, bolted the regular nomination. Van Buren himself had announced that he should vote for Pierce.3 Yet it was perfectly evident that anti-slavery men
______________
1 Life of William Cullen Bryant, Godwin, vol. ii. pp. 43, 62.
2 See especially an article cited in National Intelligencer of July 15th. 3 Letter of July 1st, Life of Pierce, Bartlett, p. 295.

had more to hope from the success of the Whigs than of the Democrats.1 Chase, although still a Democrat, would not support Pierce, but gave his adherence to the Free-soil nominations, and tried hard, though in vain, to bring to their support his former New York associates.2

Although the session of Congress lasted until August 31st, 1852, its proceedings are devoid of interest, as is apt to be the case in the year devoted to the making of a new President. "A politician," writes Horace Mann from Washington, "does not sneeze without reference to the next Presidency. All things are carried to that tribunal for decision." "Congress does little else but intrigue for the respective candidates." "Our debates lately are mostly on the presidential question." "Our political caldron is beginning to seethe vehemently." 3

But there was one senator who felt that he owed allegiance to neither political party, and who, with an entire disregard of the effect his words might have on the fortune of either candidate, was determined to have his say. In May, Sumner presented a memorial from the representatives of the Society of Friends in New England, asking the repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. In introducing it he made a few remarks, laying down this aphorism: "Freedom, and not slavery, is national; while slavery, and not freedom, is sectional." This sententious truth proclaimed by the independent senator was destined to be of greater worth, even as a party shibboleth, than the verbose declarations of the Democratic and Whig conventions. In July, Sumner wanted leave to introduce a resolution instructing the judiciary committee to consider the expediency of reporting a bill for the immediate repeal of the Fugitive Slave act; but permission was refused, only ten senators voting for it. The short
___________
1 This is well stated by Horace Mann, Letter of June 24th, Life, p. 370 2 Life of Chase, Schuckers, p. 130.
3 Letters of February 3d, March 27th, April 24th, May 8th, Life, pp. 358, 362, 363.

debate on the subject is interesting from the fact of one of the senators from Mississippi1 stating that a convention of his State had solemnly declared that the repeal of this law would be regarded as sufficient ground for the dissolution of the Union. This, he said, was no idle threat. While it was true that his people did not think this act of any essential benefit, as slaves from Mississippi seldom escaped, and when they did the cost and trouble of recapturing them amounted to more than their value, yet the repeal "would be an act of bad faith," and show that the North would not live up to any bargain. One of the senators from Georgia' followed in a similar strain. His State stood pledged to dissolve the ties which bound her to the Union the moment the Fugitive Slave law was repealed, and this interdependence he pointed impressively by quoting the prophetic saying of the pilgrims:

"While stands the Coliseum, Rome shall stand;
When falls the Coliseum, Rome shall fall."

Although Sumner failed to get a hearing this day, he was resolved to speak before the session came to an end. Five days before the final adjournment an amendment to one of the appropriation bills was under consideration, which provided for the payment of extraordinary expenses incurred in executing the laws of the United States. It was plain that the intent was to have the general government bear the cost of capturing runaway negroes; Sumner moved that the Fugitive Slave act be excepted from the operation of this amendment, and that the act itself be repealed; gave him the opportunity to speak on the question which in his view, far transcended the importance of the president "I could not," he said, "allow this session to close, without making or seizing an opportunity to declare myself openly against the usurpation, injustice, and cruelty of the late enactment by Congress for the recovery of fugitive
__________________
1 Brooke.
2 Charlton.

slaves." He made an elaborate argument in favor of his thesis that slavery was sectional, not national. He showed that this was true from a legal point of view; it was historically confirmed; the statesmen who made the nation bore witness to its truth; the church and the colleges supported the statesmen He asserted that the literature of the land condemned slavery; and it was abhorred by the "outspoken, unequivocal heart of the country" at the time the Constitution was adopted.

He examined the history of the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution, and pointed out that it was not one of the compromises; he averred that the Fugitive Slave act of 1793 "was not originally suggested by any difficulty or anxiety touching fugitives from labor." He argued that the act of 1850 was unconstitutional, dissecting it with severity, and exposing its merciless provisions in terse statements. Congress had no power to pass such a law, he maintained; but if it had, it was bound by a provision of the Constitution to give the fugitive a jury trial. "Even if this act could claim any validity or apology under the Constitution, which it cannot, it lacks that essential support in the public conscience of the States where it is to be enforced, which is the life of all law, and without which any law must become a dead letter."

As pertinent to the subject, he introduced an original historical document in the shape of a letter from Washington, which had never before seen the light. One of Washington's slaves had fled to New Hampshire. In a letter to the collector at Portsmouth, after describing the fugitive and expressing the desire of her mistress, Mrs. Washington, for her return, he says: "I do not mean, however, by this request that violent measures should be used, as would excite a mob or riot—which might be the case if she has adherents—or even uneasy sensations in the minds of well-disposed citizens. Rather than either of these should happen, I would forego her services altogether; and the example also, which is of infinite more importance."

The orator impressively added: "Sir, the existing slave act cannot be enforced without violating the precept of Washington. Not merely uneasy sensations among well-disposed persons, but rage, tumult, commotion, mob, riot, violence, death, gush from its fatal, overflowing fountains. Not a case occurs without endangering the public peace."

He closed with an application of the higher-law doctrine to the subject. "The slave act violates the Constitution and shocks the public conscience. With modesty, and yet with firmness, let me add, sir, it offends against the divine law. No such enactment can be entitled to support. As the throne of God is above every earthly throne, so are his laws and statutes above all the laws and statutes of man."1

This was Sumner's first elaborate oration in the Senate. He spoke for four hours in an elegant and finished manner.2 It was the speech of a lawyer, a scholar, an historian, and a moralist, for he had the equipment of them all. To intellectual strength and moral feeling was joined the physical courage that dared anything. Here was a new and dangerous foe of slavery. Clemens, of Alabama, with a levity certainly not shown by his Southern associates, thought the speech unworthy of notice; "the ravings of a maniac," he said, "may sometimes be dangerous, but the barking of a puppy never did any harm." Hale complimented the orator; he had placed himself "side by side with the first orators of antiquity, and as far ahead of any living American orator as freedom is ahead of slavery." Chase declared that the speech "will be received as an emphatic protest against the slavish doctrine of finality in legislation which two of the political conventions recently held have joined in forcing upon the country;" this speech " will mark an era in American history." Horace Mann wrote home: "The 26th of August, 1852, redeemed the 7th of March, 1850." 3

For Sumner's amendment there were only four votes, viz.:
_________________
1 These quotations are from vol. xxv. Congressional Globe.
2 Life of Horace Mann, p. 381.
3 Ibid., p. 381.

Chase, Hale, Sumner, and Wade. It was noted as significant that Seward was not present during this debate, but there was nothing inconsistent in his not caring at this time to make a record upon a question of no practical value, for it was clearly impossible to repeal the Fugitive Slave law, and in a political campaign, where report spoke of him as the exponent of the Whig candidate, it would have been impolitic for him to enter upon this question. He knew well enough that the anti-slavery cause had more to hope from Scott than from Pierce, and, in his view, it was a duty of anti-slavery men to work and vote for the success of the Whig party. William Cullen Bryant, a keen observer and, though supporting Pierce, a strong opponent of slavery, thought this effort of Sumner useless. Bryant undoubtedly expressed the best political wisdom of the time when he wrote: "I see not the least chance of a repeal or change of the Fugitive Slave law. Its fate is to fall into disuse. All political organizations to procure its repeal are attempts at an impracticability. We must make it odious, and prevent it from being enforced." 1

No presidential campaign is so hopeless that the weaker candidate and his friends do not at some time during its progress sincerely entertain anticipations of success.2 In a few weeks after the nomination of Scott, the bitter disappointment of Webster's and Fillmore's friends had, in some degree, subsided, and the faithful party-men began to rally to the support of the regular nominee. The Scott managers tried to work up enthusiasm for their candidate in the manner that had been so successful in 1840. Scott was a greater general than Harrison. It seemed possible that Lundy's Lane and Mexico might arouse as great enthusiasm as had been inspired by the watchword of Tippecanoe. As a beginning, a mass-meeting was held on the anniversary of the
______________
1 Life of Bryant, Godwin, vol. ii. p. 63.
2 Rufus Choate, as late as September 26th, " thought Scott's chances of an election were very good." See Reminiscences by Parker, p. 259.

battle as near as possible to the classic spot of Lundy's Lane. The gathering hosts could not assemble on the battle-field where Scott had so gallantly and successfully fought, for that was in Canada; they therefore came together at Niagara Falls. Delegations arrived from many States. Two hundred and twenty officers and soldiers of the war of 1812 were present, and some of them had also taken part in the battle which they were now glad to celebrate. The meeting lasted two days. The reports of the number present varied considerably as the count was Democratic or Whig, but no doubt remains that it was an imposing assemblage. Thos. Ewing, of Ohio, acted as president of the day, and among the speakers were Henry Winter Davis, Greeley, and William Schouler. The New York Tribune judged that it surpassed the most enthusiastic of the Harrison meetings of 1840.1

Nevertheless, this was a quiet campaign. There was no principle at stake. The New York Tribune, which could not accept the Whig platform, and yet in deference to its position as a party organ kept its anti-slavery views in the background, dragged into the canvass the tariff question. Elaborate articles constantly appeared in its columns, advocating the principle of protection, and endeavoring to prove that the economic interests of the people would be better cared for by the Whigs than by the Democrats. The Tribune quoted the approval of Pierce by the London Times, "as a valuable practical ally to the commercial policy" of England,2 and added, let Americans "choose between the British and American candidate." In another issue, with an eye to an important part of the foreign vote, the editor asks:
______________
1 July 29th. The meeting was July 27th and 28th.
2 Tribune, July 21st. "We greatly prefer General Pierce to either General Cass, Mr. Douglas, or Mr. Buchanan; ... to descend to minor particulars in his political creed, he is at once a man of New England and yet a decided champion of free trade."—London Times, June 24th, cited in New York Herald, July 9th.

"Will Irishmen support British policy ?"1 The New York Evening Post took up the gauntlet, arguing gravely that the cause of freedom of trade was a vital one, and that it demanded the election of Pierce. Yet everybody knew that Greeley and Bryant were stifling their honest convictions; that instead of combating one another's economic notions, they ought to have joined in denunciation of the Fugitive Slave law and of the platform that declared it a finality. The discussion of the tariff attracted no interest, and had no appreciable effect upon the result.2

The interest in the campaign soon sank to apathy. After the Lundy's Lane celebration, the Whig mass-meetings were small and lacked enthusiasm, while those of the Democrats were not much, if any, better.3 Evening meetings were held, and idle crowds were attracted by torchlight processions and amused by transparencies which paraded the virtues of one or set forth the failings of the other candidate. But the heart of the people was not in it. The cynical chronicler of the times wrote: "It is all a contest between the politicians for the spoils."4

As there could be no sober discussion of principles, the campaign degenerated into one where personal detraction of the candidates became the feature. Pierce was called a drunkard; he was said to be a coward; the story ran that on the field of Churubusco fear overcame him and he fainted. It did not matter that the charge of cowardice was effectually disproved by the official report of General Scott; 5 the partisan journals would not retract the slander, and a favorite doggerel ditty had for its burden the contrast between the bravery of Scott and the cowardice of Pierce.6 At the
________________
1 September 9th.
2 See New York Herald, August 31st.
3 Ibid., September 19th.
4 Ibid., August 21st.
5 See New York Herald, July 22d; Autobiography of General Scott, p. 494; Life of Pierce, Hawthorne, p. 102.

"Two generals are in the field,
Frank Pierce and Winfield Scott,
Some think that Frank's a fighting man,
And some think he is not.
'Tis said that when in Mexico,
While leading on his force,
He took a sudden fainting fit,
And tumbled off his horse.

"But gallant Scott has made his mark
On many a bloody plain,
And patriot hearts beat high to greet
The Chief of Lundy's Lane.
And Chippewa is classic ground,
Our British neighbors know,
And if you'd hear of later deeds,
Go ask in Mexico."

—From Theodore Parker's Scrap-book, Boston Public Library

South, strangely enough, Pierce was charged with being an abolitionist, though garbled extracts from an imperfect report of a speech were all that could give color to this imputation. He was also accused of being opposed to religious liberty. There had been until recently a provision in the New Hampshire constitution that certain State offices should be held only by Protestants. It was said that Pierce did not desire the removal of this religious test, while, in truth, he had made continued efforts for that very object.1 His utterances in general had not been of the kind to attract large attention, but it was evident from his public letter of May 27th that he was inclined to side with the South rather than with the North on the sectional question f and it is a perfect indication of public sentiment at the North that this most serious objection to Pierce was little used.

The charge against Scott which had the greatest influence on the result has been already alluded to: he was the Seward candidate and tinctured with Free-soilism. Accused of Nativism, the basis for the charge was a letter more than ten years old to the American party men of Philadelphia. "I now hesitate," the general had written, "between
_______________
1 Life of Pierce, Hawthorne, p. 123.
2 Life of Pierce, Bartlett, p. 24&

extending the period of residence before naturalization and a total repeal of all acts of Congress on the subject: my mind inclines to the latter."1 The large Irish and German immigration of the past few years had given the foreign vote an importance never before attached to it, and this is the first presidential campaign in which we light upon those now familiar efforts to cajole the German and Irish citizens. It is apparent that Scott's opinion was a dangerous expression for a presidential candidate.

Scott's vanity and egotism became a familiar subject of ridicule, and the nickname of " Fuss and Feathers," given him in the army, was circulated gleefully by the Democrats. An example of the inclination of Americans to look on the humorous side of things was shown in this campaign. At the beginning of the Mexican war, when Scott, the general of the army, was, as he relates, in the habit of spending fifteen to eighteen hours a day in his office, he happened one day to be absent at the moment when the Secretary of War called. In explanation, Scott wrote that regular meals being out of the question, he had only stepped out to take "a hasty plate of soup." On another occasion, when it was proposed to send him to the Rio Grande, he, appreciating the Democratic jealousy of Whig generals, represented to the administration that unless he could have their steady support for his plans, it would be useless to go," for soldiers had a far greater dread of a fire upon the rear than of the most formidable enemy in front." 2 It is not easy to perceive why "a hasty plate of soup" and "a fire upon the rear" should have seemed so ridiculous; but these words of the stately general had, nevertheless, their place among the materials of the canvass, and were the cause of great merriment to the Democrats.

It is pleasant to record some of the amenities of this
______________
1 Boston Post, June 30th; New York Herald, July 15th. The date of the letter was November 10th, 1841.
2 Autobiography of Lieutenant-General Scott, p. 385.

campaign. A scurrilous letter from Concord, charging Pierce with gross intemperance, having appeared in the New York Tribune, the editor the next day apologized for its insertion, and said that had he known its character, it would not have been printed; he added that while General Pierce was not "a temperance man in our sense of the term, we know nothing with regard to his habits that should subject him to public reprehension."1 Martin Van Buren wrote: "The Whig nominee, in that chivalrous spirit which belongs to his character, has commenced his first political campaign with a frank admission of the private worth and claims to public confidence of his opponent—a concession which I am very sure General Pierce will be at all times ready to reciprocate."2 Hawthorne, in his campaign life of Pierce, spoke of Scott as "an illustrious soldier, indeed, a patriot, and one indelibly stamped into the history of the past."3 The New York Herald, which supported Pierce, said: "For the private reputation of General Scott, as well as for his military character, we have always had the highest regard and deepest veneration. He is a hero—the pink of chivalry in his profession; and as a gentleman in social life, he is without stain or blemish."4

The elation of the Whigs at the success of their big Lundy's Lane meeting was of short duration, for the August State elections were favorable to the Democrats. The Free-soil convention followed hard upon and its nominations augured ill for the Whigs. While this party called itself the Free soil Democracy, it was patent that it would this year draw away more Whigs than Democrats in the doubtful States of New York and Ohio. The September elections afforded the Whigs no comfort. They cast about how the tide of public sentiment might be turned, and it was determined that General Scott should make a tour of the country and show himself to the people, in the hope that his
______________
1 New York Tribune, June 11th.
2 Life of Pierce, Bartlett, p. 294.
2 Life of Pierce, Hawthorne, p. 137.
4 September 26th.

magnificent martial presence might kindle enthusiasm. Although Harrison had made several speeches in 1840, it was considered beneath the dignity of a presidential candidate to take the stump; but a pretext was found for this proposed journey. An act of Congress had made the general of the army one of a board to examine Blue Lick Springs, Ky.; with a view to locate there the Western military asylum for sick and disabled soldiers; and, as Scott took with him two associates, this was the avowed object of his leaving the headquarters at Washington.' His first important stop was at Pittsburgh, where he made an off-hand speech, expressing his love for Pennsylvania on account of the patriotism and many great virtues of the people.

In 1852, the only rail route from Pittsburgh to Cincinnati, which were necessary points of the journey, was via Cleveland, and this fitted well the object of the political managers, for it gave their candidate the opportunity to traverse the State of Ohio, which the Free-soil nominations had put in the doubtful column. Scott was received at Cleveland in a drenching rain by crowds of people. "I was pained," he said in his harangue, "that while I was comfortably sheltered in a covered carriage, you should have been exposed to rain and mud." A voice in the crowd, bidding him welcome, with pronounced Hibernian accent, suggested the propriety of explaining that he had changed his notions about Nativism, upon which Scott warmly exclaimed: "I hear that rich brogue—I love to hear it; it makes me remember noble deeds of Irishmen, many of whom I have led to battle and to victory."

The country between Cleveland and Columbus was thickly settled, and crowds turned out at every station to greet the candidate and general. He repeated at Shelby what he had many times said: "I have not come to solicit your votes. I go on a mission of public charity." At Columbus he made
________________
1 See the indignant article in the New York Tribune of September 27th, denying that Scott had taken the stump.

a spirited and manly speech to a deputation of Germans, denying that he had hanged fifteen of their countrymen in Mexico.

In all of his many addresses, Scott steered clear of political questions; he thanked the people for their hearty greetings; he praised their cities and their States. Ohio was "the Empire State of the West;" Kentucky was "famous for the valor of her troops and for the beauty of her daughters;" Indiana was " one of the great Northwestern States— one of the States most devoted to the Union—one of its main props and supports." At Madison, Ind., he again had compliments for our adopted as well as our native-born citizens. "I have," he said, "heard several times since I landed on your shores the rich brogue of the Irish and the foreign accent of the German. They are welcome to my ear, for they remind me of many a well-fought and hard-won field on which I have been nobly supported by the sons of Germany and of Ireland." Remaining over Sunday in this city, he showed his liberality by attending mass at the Catholic church in the morning, and the service of the Episcopal church in the evening.

Scott left Ohio on his return trip just before the October State election. Pennsylvania and Indiana voted on the same day for State officers. All three went Democratic, and this indicated beyond doubt that Pierce would carry them in November, thereby making his election certain. The Whig cause was not helped by the stumping tour of their candidate. Scott was far from happy in his off-hand addresses; all but one were commonplace and some afforded fit subjects for ridicule. The New York Herald published them as a Democratic campaign document under the title of "The Modern Epic. Fifty-two Speeches by Major-General Winfield Scott, embracing a Narrative of a Trip to the Blue Licks and back to Washington in Search of a Site for a Military Hospital. The Iliad of the Nineteenth Century."1
______________
1 In this relation of the tour of General Scott, I have carefully compared the accounts and reports of speeches in the New York Tribune and New York Herald.

Instead of travelling around to be stared at by gaping crowds, Pierce spent the period of his candidacy in dignified retreat at his Concord home, varied only by a short visit to the Isles of Shoals, where he enjoyed the companionship and unrestrained talk of his intimate friend Hawthorne.1 He had occasion to write a few letters and make a few short speeches. His most important effort was when the news of Webster's death came: he paid a feeling tribute to the personal friend, the son of New Hampshire, and the American citizen.

That Pierce was elected in November surprised few; that his victory should be so overwhelming astounded Democrats as well as Whigs. Scott carried only four States— Vermont, Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Pierce had 254 electoral votes and Scott 42. It was the largest majority since the era of good feeling when every elector but one cast his vote for Monroe; and the majority in the popular vote of Pierce over Scott was more than 200,000— a larger majority than had been received since record was made of the popular vote. The Free-soil following showed a marked falling-off as compared with 1848.2

The reason of Democratic success was because that party unreservedly endorsed the compromise, and in its approval neither platform nor candidate halted. Other causes contributed to increase the majorities of Pierce, but the greater fidelity of the Democratic party to the settlement of 1850 was in itself sufficient for his election. The country was tired of slavery agitation. The people were convinced that the status of every foot of territory in the United States, with regard to slavery, was fixed; that it had ceased to be a political
______________
1 See Hawthorne and his Wife, vol. i. p. 466; Hawthorne's American Note-books, vol. ii.
2 History of Presidential Elections, Stanwood. Free-soil vote, 1848, 291,263; 1852,155,825.

question. It is true that a part of this settlement was a slave-catching bill, obnoxious to the North; but as it was a part of the bargain, it must be enforced in good faith. The benefit in politics, thought the majority, seldom comes unmixed. With the great good of forever settling the slavery question, it is surely only a small ill that the constitutional provision for the rendition of fugitive slaves shall be carried out. Thus thought, after the election, nearly everybody who voted for Pierce; and the majority of voters for Scott did not differ widely from this opinion.

The business interests of the country were on the side of the Democrats. The Tribune complained that the mercantile Whigs of New York City either kept away from the polls or voted for Pierce, because they would not endorse the Seward candidate.1 Trade was good, the country was very prosperous, and this state of affairs would likely continue under settled political conditions, of which there appeared to the commercial interests greater promise under Democratic than Whig rule.

The Democratic party seemed to have a noble mission confided to it. It had control of the Senate and the House, and the country had now given into its charge the executive department. It had gained the confidence of the people because it professed to be the party essentially opposed to the agitation of slavery; because it was the party of pacification; and because it insisted upon observing sacredly the compromises of the Constitution, and all other compromises.

For a proper understanding of our history, the events of the decade between 1850 and 1860 must be considered in their bearing on the success of the Republican party in the latter year. One of the most important causes that led to this result was the publication of " Uncle Tom's Cabin." Of the literary forces that aided in bringing about the immense revolution in public sentiment between 1852 and 1860, we
________________
1 New York Tribune, November 8th.

may affirm with confidence that by far the most weighty was the influence spread abroad by this book.

This story, when published as a serial in the National Era, an anti-slavery newspaper at Washington, attracted little attention, but after it was given to the world in book form in March, 1852, it proved the most successful novel ever written. The author felt deeply that the Fugitive Slave law was unjust, and that there was cruelty in its execution; this inspired her to pour out her soul in a protest against slavery. She thought that if she could only make the world see slavery as she saw it,1 her object would be accomplished; she would then have induced people to think right on the subject.

The book was composed under the most disheartening circumstances. Worn out with the care of many young children; overstrained by the domestic trials of a large household; worried because her husband's small income did not meet their frugal needs; eking out the poor professor's salary by her literary work in a house too small to afford a study for the author—under such conditions there came the inspiration of her life. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was an outburst of passion against the wrong done to a race, and it was written with an intensity of feeling that left no room for care in the artistic construction of the story. The style is commonplace, the language is often trite and inelegant, sometimes degenerating into slang, and the humor is strained. Yet Macaulay, a severe critic and lover of literary form, was so impressed by the powerful book that he considered it on the whole " the most valuable addition that America has made to English literature;" 2 and Lowell felt "that the secret of Mrs. Stowe's power lay in that same genius by which the great successes in creative literature have always been achieved." 3
______________
1 Mrs. Stowe lived in Cincinnati from 1832 to 1850.
2 Macaulay's Life and Letters, vol. ii. p. 271.
3 Life of H. B. Stowe, by C. E. Stowe, p. 328.

The author had been satisfied to gain four hundred dollars a year by her pen, but she had now written a book of which there were sold three thousand copies on the first day of publication, and in this country over three hundred thousand within a year. England received the story with like favor—the sale went on in the mother country and her colonies until it reached the number of one and a half million copies.1 The book was soon translated into twenty different languages.2 The author was now the most famous woman in America; she had gained a competence and secured undying glory.

The effect produced by the book was immense. Whittier offered up "thanks for the Fugitive Slave law; for it gave occasion for 'Uncle Tom's Cabin.'" Longfellow thought it was one of the greatest triumphs in literary history, but its moral effect was a higher triumph still. Lowell described the impression which the book made as a" whirl of excitement." 3 Choate is reported to have said: "That book will make two millions of abolitionists."4 Garrison wrote the author: "All the defenders of slavery have let me alone and are abusing you." 5 Sumner said in the Senate: "A woman, inspired by Christian genius, enters the lists, like another Joan of Arc, and with marvellous powers sweeps the chords of the popular heart. Now melting to tears, and now inspiring to rage, her work everywhere touches the conscience, and makes the slave-hunter more hateful."6
_______________
1 Life of H. B. Stowe, pp. 160 and 190. It is not known what has been the total sale in the United States since its publication. See Life-Work of the Author of Uncle Tom's Cabin, McCray, p. 120. "An immense edition of Uncle Tom, prepared for Sunday-schools, has been published in England."—Lieber to Hillard, April, 1853, Life and Letters of Lieber, p. 261.
2 Life of H. B. Stowe, p. 195.
3 Ibid., p.327.
4 New York Independent, August 26th, 1852.
5 Life of H. B. Stowe, p. 161.
6 Speech on the Fugitive Slave law, August 26th, 1852, Congressional Globe, vol. xxv. p. 1112. Emerson said, in 1858: "We have seen an American woman write a novel, of which a million copies were sold, in all languages, and which had one merit, of speaking to the universal heart, and was read with equal interest to three audiences—namely, in the parlor, in the kitchen, and in the nursery of every house."—Lecture on Success.

The story appealed particularly to the emotional nature of women. Tales are told of their sitting up all night absorbed in the work, touched to the heart at the recital of the death of little Eva, and weeping bitter tears at the cruel murder of Uncle Tom. One woman wrote that she could no more leave the story than she could have left a dying child. A cool-headed London printer took the book home at night to read, with the view of deciding whether it would be a paying publication. He was so affected, first by laughter and then by tears, that he ended with a distrust of his literary judgment, thinking that his emotion came from physical weakness; so he tried the story on his wife, a strong-minded woman, and got her approval before he deemed it wise to print the book.1

The novel was published as a serial in three daily newspapers of Paris; and one journal, noted for its excellent literary criticism, said that the intense interest awakened by "Uncle Tom" surpassed that which had been excited by the publication of "The Three Guardsmen" of Alexander Dumas, or Eugene Sue's "Mysteries of Paris." 2 In Italy the
________________
1 Life of H.B. Stowe, pp. 161 and 191.
2 Le Temps. Life-Work of the Author of Uncle Tom's Cabin, McCray, p. 110.
"Our most prominent and extraordinary representative abroad is really Uncle Tom. . . . Creameries, dry-goods and eating shops are named after his humble abode. . . . Four or five children's books are published in cheap form by societies of religious instruction, extracted from or built upon Mrs. Stowe's masterpiece, and bearing its title as their best recommendation. You have not forgotten George Sand's generous homage of admiration paid to Mrs. Stowe and her book; now we have Heinrich Heine, the greatest living wit of Europe, taking lessons in reading the Scriptures from the American slave, introducing him with honor and by name among the first creators and creatures of European literature."— Paris correspondence New York Tribune, September 28th, 1854. "Everybody in Germany has read Uncle Tom's Cabin."—Letter of Motley, December 23d, 1852,Motley's Letters, vol. i. p. 148.

book was received with such fervor that the pope felt obliged to prohibit its circulation in his dominions.1

Never but once before had a novel produced such an excitement. One cannot fail to be struck with the likeness between the impression occasioned by Rousseau's story and that made by "Uncle Tom." Kant became so engrossed in the perusal of the "Nouvelle Heloise" that he failed, for the only time in his life, to take his accustomed afternoon walk and Lord Palmerston, who had not read a novel for thirty years, read " Uncle Tom's Cabin" three times, and, instead of making a flippant criticism, which one might have expected from a statesman who shocked grave men by his levity, he admired the book," not only for the story but for the statesmanship of it." 3

The " Nouvelle Heloise" spoke for the liberty and dignity of the peasant, implying that he as well as the king was a man; while " Uncle Tom " pleaded for the liberty of the slave. The one had its part in the social revolution of 1789, and the other had an influence on the political revolution of 1860.

The dramatic strength of the story was not lost upon the theatrical managers. It soon appeared on the stage in Boston, and the first time that Mrs. Stowe, then a woman of forty-one, ever went to the theatre was when she saw a dramatization of her own immortal work. She was sensibly moved at the exquisite interpretation of Topsy by Mrs. Howard, and by the acting of little Cordelia Howard, who struck the audience with wonder, and drew tears from the most callous by a lifelike impersonation of little Eva.4 In New York the play proved the theatrical success of the season.
__________________
1 American Almanac, 1854, p. 348; New York Herald, May 31st, 1853.
2 Life of Rousseau, John Morley, vol. ii. p. 33.
3 Life-Work of the Author of Uncle Tom's Cabin, McCray, p. 109.
4 Ibid., p. 121.

The effect it produced on the frequenters of the Chatham Street and Bowery theatres—at both of which places "Uncle Tom's Cabin" remained long on the boards—was a most curious study. The men and boys who sought their amusement at those theatres belonged to the mobs that hooted and insulted abolitionists, and broke up anti-slavery conventions. But when they saw "abolition dramatized," as the play was cleverly called, they went wild at the escape of Eliza across the river; they were heartily in sympathy with the forcible resistance to the Fugitive Slave law made by George Harris and his friends; they applauded vociferously the allusions to human rights; they were disgusted with the professional tone of the auctioneer and the business-like action of the negro-buyers in the slave-market scene; and they wept sincerely at the death of Uncle Tom.1 Men and boys who never read a book were impressed and swayed by this dramatic performance. In the day when the fashion of even the metropolitan theatres was a nightly change of programme, the run of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was counted by more than a hundred performances;2 and when little Cordelia Howard had a benefit on her three hundred and twenty-fifth consecutive impersonation of Eva, it was spoken of as being without a parallel in the history of the stage.3 In every city north of Mason and Dixon's line where there was a theatre, the managers found it profitable, and even necessary, to comply with the popular demand for a representation of this powerful play.

It was, perhaps, not surprising that "Uncle Tom's Cabin" should be given at two theatres in London, for the philanthropic mind of England was exercised on the subject of slavery in America; but it was remarkable that the gay Parisians should have filled two theatres nightly to laugh
____________
1 New York Tribune, August 8th and September 19th, 1858.
2 Life-Work of the Author of Uncle Tom's Cabin, McCray, p. 132.
3 New York Tribune, May 13th, 1854.

at Topsy and weep at the hard fate of Uncle Tom.' Certainly the inhabitants of this brilliant city knew less and cared less for the oppressed black than did their neighbors across the Channel, and the interest which they took in this portrayal of life among the lowly is an earnest tribute to the dramatic character of the work.2

Some writers have depreciated the political effect of " Uncle Tom's Cabin " because the results were not immediate. "It deepens the horror of servitude," wrote George Ticknor, "but it does not affect a single vote."3 In reviewing the election of 1852 one could not then have written otherwise.4 It is probably true that the seed sown by works of fiction germinates slowly. The " Nouvelle Heloise" and "ifimile" were published nearly a generation before the French Revolution began. Because many people of France applauded the democratic sentiment implied by the words in the "Nouvelle Heloise"—"I would rather be the wife of a charcoal-burner than the mistress of a king" — they did not hurl Pompadour from her seat of power; and although "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was directed against the Fugitive Slave law, it did not effect its repeal.

The great influence of Mrs. Stowe's book, however, was shown in bringing home to the hearts of the people the conviction that slavery is an injustice; and, indeed, the impression it made upon bearded men was not so powerful as its appeal to women and boys. The mother's opinion was a potent educator in politics between 1852 and 1860, and boys in their teens in the one year were voters in the
_______________
1 Life of H. B. Stowe, p. 192; Bibliographical Account of Uncle Tom's Cabin, prefaced to edition of 1887, p. xlvi.
2 The hold it still has (in 1890) on the American stage is similar evidence. It is one of those plays that each generation must see. The book is still widely read, as every bookseller and librarian knows. In 1888 and 1889 it headed the list in fiction in greatest demand at the New York free circulating library. The Critic, vol. xii. p. 156; The Nation, vol. L p. 222.
3 December 20th, 1852. Life of George Ticknor, vol. i. p. 286.
4 See p. 278.

other. It is often remarked that previous to the war the Republican party attracted the great majority of schoolboys, and that the first voters were an important factor in its final success. The bright boys of France, who in their youth read the "Nouvelle Heloise" and "Smile" became revolutionists in 1789, and the youth of America whose first ideas on slavery were formed by reading "Uncle Tom's Cabin" were ready to vote with the party whose existence was based on opposition to an extension of the great evil.

It is quite true that the moral and literary causes which aided in bringing about the abolition of slavery needed political events to give them force and to shape their action. Had it not been for the fatuity of the one party and the wisdom of the other in forcing an issue that was broad enough to include many shades of opinion, "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and other anti-slavery literature might have made many abolitionists, but would not have made enough Republicans to elect Lincoln in 1860. The Republican party, however, could not have succeeded without the backing of a multitude of men and women who were Republicans because they believed slavery to be a cruel wrong, opposed to the law of God and to the best interests of humanity.

The election of 1852 gave the death-blow to the Whig party; it never entered another presidential contest.1 Webster, as well as Clay, died before his party received this crushing defeat, which, indeed, he had predicted.2 His physical frame worn out, he went early in September home to Marshfield to die. The story of his last days, as told with loving detail by his friend and biographer, is of intense interest to the hero-worshipper, and has likewise pointed the moral of many a Christian sermon. The conversations of great minds that, unimpaired, deliver themselves at the approach of death to introspection are, like the most famous
_________________
1 That is, with an independent nomination. See Chap. VIH.
2 New York Herald, November 3d; Harvey's Reminiscences, p. 199.

of all, the discourse of Socrates in the Phaedo, a boon to humankind. The mind of Webster was perfectly clear, and when all earthly striving was over, his true nature shone out in the expression of thoughts that filled his soul. Speaking of the love of nature growing stronger with time, he said: "The man who has not abandoned himself to sensuality feels, as years advance and old age comes on, a greater love of mother Earth, a greater willingness and even desire to return to her bosom and mingle again with this universal frame of things from which he sprang."1 Two weeks before he died, he wrote what he wished inscribed on his monument: "Philosophical argument, especially that drawn from the vastness of the universe in comparison with the apparent insignificance of this globe, has sometimes shaken my reason for the faith that is within me; but my heart has assured and reassured me that the Gospel of Jesus Christ must be a divine reality." The day before his death, he said with perfect calmness to his physician: "Doctor, you have carried me through the night, I think you will get me through to-day; I shall die to-night." The doctor honestly replied: "You are right, sir."2

His family, friends, and servants, having assembled in his room, he spoke to them "in a strong, full voice, and with his usual modulation and emphasis: 'No man who is not a brute can say that he is not afraid of death. No man can come back from that bourn; no man can comprehend the will or works of God. That there is a God, all must acknowledge. I see him in all these wondrous works, himself how wondrous!'"3

Eloquent in life, Webster was sublime in death. He took leave of his household one by one, addressing to each fitting words of consolation. He wanted to know the gradual steps towards dissolution, and calmly discussed them with his physician. At one time, awaking from a partial stupor which preceded death, he heard repeated the words of the psalm
______________
1 Curtis, vol. ii. p. 668.
2 Ibid., p. 696.
3 Ibid., p. 697.

which has smoothed the death-pillow of many a Christian: "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me." The dying statesman exclaimed: "' Yes, thy rod—thy staff—but the fact, the fact I want,'... for he was not certain whether the words that had been repeated to him were intended as an intimation that he was already in the dark valley."1 Waking up again past midnight, and conscious that he was living, he uttered the well-known words, "I still live." Later he said something about poetry, and his son repeated one of the verses of Gray's Elegy. He heard it and smiled. In the early morning Webster's soul went out with the tide.2

It was a beautiful Sunday morning of an Indian summer's day when the sad tidings reached Boston, which came home to nearly all of her citizens as a personal sorrow. In all the cities of the land mourning emblems were displayed and minute-guns were fired. New York City and Washington grieved for him as for a friend. During the week there were the usual manifestations of mourning by the government at Washington; the various departments were closed, and the public buildings were draped with emblems of woe. Festal scenes and celebrations were postponed, and on the day of his funeral business was suspended in nearly all the cities during the hours when he was borne to his last resting place. "From east to west," said Edward Everett, "and from north to south, a voice of lamentation has already gone forth, such as has not echoed through the land since the death of him who was first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen." 3

By Webster's own request, he had a modest country funeral. The services were conducted in his Marshfield home.
____________
1 Curtis, vol. ii. p. 700.
2 Ibid., p. 701. Webster died October 24th; he was in his seventy-first year.
3 Speech at Faneuil Hall, October 27th, Works, vol. iii. p. 158. See also diary of R. H. Dana, Life, by C. F. Adams, vol. i. p. 222.

The coffin was borne to the tomb by six of the neighboring farmers, and the multitude followed slowly and reverently. To the Marshfield farmers and Green Harbor fishermen Webster was a companion and a friend; by them he was mourned sincerely as one of their own fellowship. It could not be said of him that a prophet is not without honor save in his own country. One man in a plain and rustic garb paid the most eloquent of all tributes to the mighty dead: "Daniel Webster, the world without you will seem lonesome." 1 A Massachusetts orator of our day has truly said: "Massachusetts smote and broke the heart of Webster, her idol, and then broke her own above his grave." 2

On Sunday, the 31st of October, one week after his death, nearly all the preachers of the North delivered sermons on the life and death of Daniel Webster.3 In the main, they were highly eulogistic. If, indeed, a preacher permitted himself to speak of the failings of the great man, it was in such a manner as one might in all gentleness speak of the frailty of a dear departed friend. To this there was one notable exception—the sermon of Theodore Parker, delivered in the Boston Melodeon. The preacher appeared to want the good which Webster did interred with his bones and the evil to live after him. Even had the discourse been true, it was, considering the occasion, indecent. But in it there was much of error. The current gossip of Boston and the pungent tales of Washington correspondents were crystallized into a serious utterance and given the stamp of a scholar.
__________________
1 Curtis, vol. ii. p. 704. "As for thinking of America without Webster, it seems like thinking of her without Niagara, or the Mississippi, or any other of the magnificent natural features which had belonged to her since I grew up, and seemed likely to endure forever."—Letter of J. L. Motley, from Dresden, December 23d, 1852, Motley's Correspondence, vol. i. p. 149.
2 J. D. Long, Webster Centennial, vol. i. p. 165.
3 There were more than one hundred and fifty sermons on the death of Webster printed in pamphlet form. Memorandum of Theo. Parker on bound collection of them in Boston Public Library.

He, who felt competent to separate the fable from the truth in the Old and New Testaments, showed great credulity in estimating the history of his own day. Apparently Parker had misgivings about his facts, for a few months later we find him writing Sumner and Giddings in the endeavor to get evidence concerning Webster's recreancy to the antislavery cause and acceptance of money gifts.1 A teacher of young men, for it was to them that this discourse was addressed, should have made sure of his facts before he gave vent to such vituperative and vindictive words.2

Yet we may not utterly condemn Parker. He was sincere, and meant to be truthful; but he had that mental constitution which can see only its side of any question, and he thought himself a second Luther, commissioned to rebuke sin in high places.3 He was, however, a scholar; he knew many languages; his books were his friends and companions.4 While not so profound a student of philosophy and theology as his German contemporaries, he illuminated transcendentalism by a practical knowledge of man; and had he not enlisted in the anti-slavery cause he would undoubtedly have left behind him a theological work of merit, for he was the exponent of radical Unitarianism. "Suppose," he writes in his diary, "I could have given all the attention to theology that I have been forced to pay to politics and slavery, how much I might have done! I was meant for a philosopher, and the times call for a stump orator."5
__________________
1 See letters from Giddings and Sumner of January, 1853, to Parker, furnished by F. B. Sanborn to the Springfield Republican, copied into the Boston Transcript, January 25th, 1882. I am indebted to Mr. Lodge for this reference. See also Parker's preface to this sermon, written March 7th, 1853.
2 The important statements in this sermon are carefully examined, and many of them refuted, by George T. Curtis in his monologue on Last Days of Daniel Webster, written in 1877. Frothingham says the sermon was prepared with care. Life of Parker, pp. 339,420.
2 Recollections and Impressions, O. B. Frothingham, p. 54.
3 His library of 13,000 volumes was left the Boston Public Library.
4 Life and Correspondence of Theo. Parker, Weiss, vol. ii. p. 115.

Parker was, said Emerson, "a man of study fit for a man of the world."1 Though sympathizing for many years with the abolitionists, it was not until after the passage of the Fugitive Slave law that he devoted himself heartily to their work. He was the pastor, the especial friend and counsel, of runaway negroes. His efforts in their behalf were untiring. At the time of the Shadrach rescue he wrote in his diary: "These are sad times to live in, but I should be sorry not to have lived in them. It will seem a little strange one or two hundred years hence that a plain humble scholar of Boston was continually interrupted in his studies, and could not write his book, for stopping to look after fugitive slaves —his own parishioners!"2 Parker was bitter and harsh towards his opponents, for years of religious contention fitted him for the part of the iconoclastic reformer of politics. Deeming Webster responsible for the Fugitive Slave law, he could not do otherwise than magnify the vices and belittle the virtues of this great statesman.

Parker spoke every Sunday to two or three thousand people in the Melodeon or the Music Hall, and exercised great influence. He lacked many graces of oratory; it was the pregnant matter of his discourse that held his large audience captive. His sermon on Webster moulded many opinions. Of all indictments it is the most severe. It would, indeed, be deplorable if it presented the true character of the man who had received so much honor from his countrymen, and it is gratifying that fewer men now believe the charges than when the sermon was delivered; that instead of acknowledging "its analytical justice, its fidelity,"3 it is regarded as the raving of an honest fanatic.

Parker and Wendell Phillips may be said to be the exponents of abolitionism in the decade of 1850-60. They do
__________________
1 Life of Parker, Frothingham, p. 549.
2 February 21st, 1851, Life and Correspondence of Theo. Parker, Weiss, vol. ii. p. 105.
3 Expressions of the New Hampshire Independent (Dem.), 1852.

not fill the period as Garrison did that of 1830-40; for the reformer who begins the agitation has the hardest work and receives the greatest honor. It had now become respectable to be an abolitionist; his political power was not to be despised. The abolitionists shed no tears over the defeat of Scott; they had no more regard for the Whig than for the Democratic party.1 Most of them were dismayed at the falling-off of the Free-soil vote; but Garrison, who did not believe in political action, had even for this no regret.2

The President graced his administration by the appointment of Edward Everett, of Massachusetts, as Secretary of State to succeed Webster. Everett graduated from Harvard at the age of seventeen, taking the first college honors of his class; two years later he became a Unitarian preacher, and then gave promise of that eloquence for which in after years he was so famed. When twenty-one, he was appointed professor of Greek literature at Harvard College, and to fit himself for the place he went abroad and studied four years, two of which were passed at the University of Gottingen. Victor Cousin, the philosopher and the translator of Plato, who met Everett in Germany, said he was one of the best of Greek scholars. In 1820, when twenty-six, he preached a sermon in the hall of the House of Representatives at Washington on the text, "Brethren, the time is short," delighting the orators, the jurists, and the men of state who went to hear him. Justice Story wrote: "The sermon was truly splendid, and was heard with breathless silence." Rufus King, much affected, said that he "had never heard a discourse so full of unction, eloquence, and good taste."3 John Quincy Adams, who was nothing if not critical, confided to his diary that" it was without comparison the most splendid
_______________
1 See Life of Garrison, vol. iii. p. 370; also letter of Theo. Parker to Sumner, December 20th, 1852. "In the Senate of the United States there is but one party; it is the party of slavery. It has two divisions—the cote droit and the cote gauche, the Democrat and the Whig."—Life and Correspondence, Weiss, vol. ii. p. 216.
2 Life of Garrison, vol. iii. p. 371.
3 Life and Letters of Joseph Story, vol. i. p. 382.

composition as a sermon that I ever heard delivered."1 In this same year Everett became editor of the North American Review; he was then and afterwards a frequent contributor, and shared with many other gifted minds the honor of making this quarterly a monument of American scholarship and fair-minded criticism. He was elected representative and served ten years in Congress. He made a diligent and conscientious member, for he knew thoroughly what it was his business to know; his name is connected with many important measures, but his service was rather useful than brilliant. Afterwards the people chose him governor of his commonwealth for four terms, and for a fifth he was only defeated by a few votes. He did not grieve, however, at quitting active politics, for he had again the yearning of a scholar for Europe. Webster, writing to him in Italy, spoke of the enjoyment" that Italy tenders to the taste of the cultivated," and especially "to you, so full and fresh with history and the classics."2 This same year Webster became Secretary of State, and was able to secure for his friend the appointment of minister to England.

No American ever divined or appreciated Europe better than Everett, yet he was as intensely national in feeling and expression as were those Western politicians who paraded their contempt of Europe on the stump and in Congress. His friend Hillard even criticised his orations for their vaunting strain in regard to our country and institutions. Knowing thoroughly many tongues, this true patriot still could say: "The sound of my native language beyond the sea is a music to my ear beyond the richest strains of Tuscan softness or Castilian majesty."

Everett returned to the United States in 1845, and one year later was chosen president of Harvard College. He retained the position three years, until obliged to resign it on account of ill-health.
______________
1 Memoir of John Quincy Adams, vol. It. p. 52.
2 Private Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 101.

In this hurrying country and this hurrying age of ours, what a delight there is in the review of the life of such a ripe scholar, accomplished diplomat, and finished orator! As we view the constant strife for wealth and political power and reflect that Everett might well have aspired to either, how impressive is his choice of the better part— that of laboring his whole life for accurate learning and aiming at the highest eloquence! In a time when so much superficial work is done, how worthy of admiration are the consummate art and the painstaking care, in the study and on the platform, of Everett, whose very stuff of conscience would not let him do aught but perfect work! His orations, wrote Hillard, are "nearly faultless as literary productions. He is as careful to select the right word as a workman in mosaic is to pick out the exact shade of color which he requires."

The unalloyed friendship that existed between Webster and Everett is a beautiful trait, ennobling them both. Jealousy did not exist on the part of the one, nor envy on the part of the other. "When I entered public life," Everett said, "it was with his encouragement."1 Webster wrote Everett: "I feel that you are among the foremost of those who, in the course of the last thirty years, have helped me along, by favor, by good advice, and by large contributions to my stock of knowledge." Everett, by the choice of his friend, edited Webster's works, and wrote the chaste and temperate biographical memoir prefixed to the first volume. Three months before his death, Webster penned to Everett these words of deep feeling: "We now and then see, stretching across the heavens, a long streak of clear, blue, cerulean sky, without cloud or mist or haze. And such appears to me our acquaintance, from the time when I heard you for a week recite your lessons in the little school-house in Short Street to the date hereof."2
______________
1 Speech on the death of Daniel Webster, October 27th, 1852.
2 Letter of July 21st, 1852. In addition to authorities already cited, I have, in this characterization of Everett, drawn from Everett's Works, vol. i. and iii.; article by George S. Hillard, North American Review, January, 1837; article by C. C. Felton, North American Review, October, 1850; article on Edward Everett, in Appletons' Cyclopaedia of Biography, by S. A. Allibone; article in Encyclopaedia Britannica, by Rev. E. E. Hale; Forney's Anecdotes of Public Men, vol. ii. "X ceux qui douteraient qu'on pflt rencontrer aux Etats-Unis le type parfait du scholar et du gentleman, je citerais M. Ed. Everett, qui vit & Cambridge." — Promenade en Amerique, Ampere, tome i. p. 45.

While Everett's greatest triumphs were gained on the platform before the cultivated people who naturally assembled to hear him, and with whom he felt in perfect accord, yet when called to more active duty he acquitted himself with credit. Entering upon his brief service in the State department, he was immediately obliged to take up the Cuban question and give an answer to official notes from England and France. These two nations had proposed a tripartite convention with the United States, by virtue of which the three powers should guarantee the possession of Cuba to Spain and jointly and severally disclaim, now and forever, all intention to obtain possession of that island. In his reply Everett's endeavor was, "to assert a line of principle and of policy which would be generally approved by the country; which would show that it was possible to reconcile the progressive spirit and tendency of the country and of the age with the preservation of the public faith, with the sanctity of the public honor, and with the dictates of an enlightened and liberal conservatism."1

Never had the success of a Secretary of State been more complete; and yet the Cuban question was an extremely delicate one to handle. The South had for years been anxious to acquire Cuba, and this desire was now increased by the disappointment at the outcome of the Mexican conquests, for slavery, on both economical and political grounds, needed expansion. On the other hand, the majority of the Northern people were opposed to the acquisition of more slave
____________________
1 Statement by Everett, speech in the Senate, March 21st, 1853.

territory, although a portion of the Democratic party, of which Cass and Douglas were the exponents, had heartily embraced the doctrine of manifest destiny, which meant that this government, when it honorably could, should acquire territory by conquest and purchase, ignoring the fact whether it was slave or free soil.

The Secretary respectfully declined the proposition of England and France. One strong objection to the proposed agreement was, " Among the oldest traditions of the federal government is an aversion to political alliances with European powers." This was a policy counselled by Washington and by Jefferson. There is, moreover, a great difference between the interest, in regard to Cuba, of France and England on the one side and the United States on the other. "Cuba lies at our doors. It commands the approach to the Gulf of Mexico, which washes the shores of five of our States. It bars the entrance to that great river which drains half the North American continent."

To understand our position, England and France must suppose an island like Cuba, a Spanish possession, guarding the entrance of the Thames or the Seine, and consider what, in that case, their answer would be should we propose to them a similar tripartite convention.

"Territorially and commercially, Cuba would, in our hands, be an extremely valuable possession. Under certain contingencies, it might be almost essential to our safety. Still, for domestic reasons the President thinks that the incorporation of the island into the Union at the present time, although effected with the consent of Spain, would be a hazardous measure; and he would consider its acquisition by force, except in a just war with Spain (should an event so greatly to be deprecated take place), as a disgrace to the civilization of the age."

Before closing, the Secretary went into a history of our territorial acquisitions, defending them all, although he limped in attempting to justify the annexation of Texas. He then vindicated the doctrine of manifest destiny as applied to the past, calling it "the undoubted operation of the law of our political existence," as being a name less harsh than the other to European ears; and then, in a burst of national enthusiasm, he said: "Every addition to the territory of the American Union has given homes to European destitution, and gardens to European want." 1

The commendation of this letter was general, and from both parties.2 Cass said in the Senate: "It is marked by a lofty, patriotic, American feeling. I have seldom seen a document more conclusive in its argument, or more beautiful in its style or illustrations;"3 and Douglas testified that it was "applauded by the almost unanimous voice of the American people." 4

When Fillmore, in his last message, said that he had discharged the arduous duties of his high trust "with a single eye to the public good," he was believed by everybody except by the abolitionists and some of the Seward Whigs. The slavery question and the sectional differences weighed heavily on his mind, and he felt that it was a duty of his high office to attempt their adjustment. He proposed in his last message to Congress a scheme of negro colonization, and advocated its adoption; there, he believed, lay the path to the solution of the difficulties which were raised by slavery and the antagonism of race. This part of his message was suppressed by the advice of his cabinet; but even had this not been done, there is no reason to suppose that the plan would have been adopted by Congress.
_____________
1 Everett to the Comte de Sartiges, December 1st, 1852, Senate Documents, 2d Session, 32d Congress, Doc. 13.
2 "Mr. Everett's letter has been received by Congress and the country as a very able exposition of the American sentiment in regard to Cuba." —Harper's Magazine, February, 1853. See also New York Herald, January 7th, 1853.
3 January 15th, 1853. The letter was written December 1st, 1852, but was not given to Congress and the public till January 5th, 1853.
4 Senate, March 16th, 1853.

Yet in after-life it was a satisfaction to Fillmore that he had thought out a plan which might have produced satisfactory results.1

Fillmore was a man of imposing physical presence; he looked like a ruler, and graced the White House.2 He was strictly temperate, industrious, orderly, and of an integrity above suspicion.

Besides the charge against Webster, already mentioned,3 there were two attempts to implicate members of the cabinet in unworthy transactions. One was the affair of the Lobos Islands, in which the Secretary of State was concerned. Webster had, indeed, acted with precipitancy in this matter, but there is no evidence of corrupt motive or action.4

The other charge was against the Secretary of the Treasury
_________________
1 See Address of James Grant Wilson on Fillmore before the Buffalo Historical Society, January 7th, 1878. I am indebted to Mr. Barnum, corresponding secretary of that society, for the portion of the address which referred to the colonization plan. General Wilson informs me that the suppressed portion of the message never appeared in print, but that ex-President Fillmore once permitted him to peruse the proof-slip, which at the time was submitted to the cabinet. "Previous to his retirement from office, some friends of President Fillmore contributed one thousand dollars to make him a life member of the Colonization Society. In his letter of acknowledgment, he took occasion to express his decided approval of the objects of the society, and to say that it appeared to him to have pointed out the only rational mode of ameliorating the condition of the colored race in this country."—Harper's Magazine, April, 1853.
2 "M. Fillmore avait un cachet de simplicity digne et bienveillante, qui me semble faire de lui le type de ce que doit 8tre un president Aniericain."—J. J. Ampere, Promenade en Amerique, tome ii. p. 100.
3 See p. 213.
4 See Curtis, vol. ii. The President's Message, December 6th, 1852; Boston Courier and New York Tribune, August 13th and 20th; New York Tribune, November 8th. Per contra, see editorials in New York Evening Post, November 9th and 12th; for the correspondence, see Senate Document 109, 32d Congress, 1st Session The letter of Webster to Captain Jewett, authorizing him to take guano from the Lobos Islands, has written on the last sheet of the letter "Approved. June 5th. M. F." See MSS. State department archives.

While a senator, Corwin had become attorney for Dr. Gardiner, who had a claim against Mexico. It was one of those claims that, by the treaty of 1848, were to be adjudicated and paid by the United States. Less than a year after being employed as attorney, Corwin, in conjunction with his brother, bought an interest in the claim for which they actually gave $22,000. On the accession of Fillmore he was offered the Secretaryship of the Treasury, but he would not accept it until he had disposed of his interest in this and other claims. He therefore made in good faith an unconditional transfer of his share. The matter would probably have never been noticed had not the Gardiner claim turned out to be "a naked fraud upon the treasury of the United States,"1 and had not Corwin realized for his share in the transaction a handsome profit. A personal and political enemy charged that the transfer of this interest was a blind, and the inference followed that Corwin had used his influence as Secretary of the Treasury with the board of commissioners, which had the adjustment of these claims, to have passed a fraudulent claim in which he was directly interested. The matter attracted considerable attention in Congress and in the country. Committees of investigation were appointed both by the Senate and the House. The House committee, a majority of whom were Democrats, reported that there was no evidence to show that Corwin knew that the claim was fraudulent; they virtually said that his transfer was unconditional and made in good faith. The subject gave rise to an animated debate in the House, in which the defenders of the Secretary of the Treasury had altogether the better of the argument.2 The reputation which Corwin
_____________
1 Report of the House Committee of Investigation.
2 See especially speeches of Andrew Johnson and Olds of Ohio attacking Corwin, and those of Barrere of Ohio, Chapman of Connecticut, and A. H. Stephens in his defence, vol. xxvii. Congressional Globe, January, 1853; for the report of the House committee and a large amount of testimony, see Reports of Committees, 2d Session 32d Congress, Rep. No. 1.

had always borne as an honest man was an efficient factor towards causing the explanation of his friends to be accepted as true, and in making up public sentiment in his favor.1 Indeed, in his own home he was not less esteemed for his moral purity than he was celebrated for his wit and eloquence.

It would have been an ungrateful task to write down Corwin as having prostituted his high office to the purpose of private gain, for he is one of the characteristic men of the ante-bellum period. A son of Western soil, his speeches have a flavor of the wild surroundings of his youth. He was a born orator, exactly fitted for the rollicking campaign of 1840, when he made the reputation of being the best stump-orator of Ohio, and that before audiences who were wont to listen attentively to public speakers and weigh carefully their merits.

People went to hear Corwin to be entertained as well as instructed. His fine head, sparkling hazel eyes, cheery, pleasing manners, together with the facial expression of an actor, set off his abundant humor, his knack at telling stories, and his skill at repartee.

The survivors of the generation who listened to Corwin were never weary of telling of his marvellous eloquence, apt replies, and fitting anecdotes;2 though it is true that his wit
______________
1 For a view of the case, criticising Corwin, see editorials in the New York Evening Post, March 4th and 6th, 1854.
2 Corwin's complexion was very dark. He was on several occasions supposed to be of African descent, and he was fond of relating these ludicrous mistakes. One of his keen retorts was made when addressing a Whig mass-meeting at Marietta, O. He had then great anxiety not to offend the abolitionists, who were beginning to cast a large vote. A sharp-witted opponent, to draw him out, asked: "Shouldn't niggers be permitted to sit at the table with white folks, on steamboats and at hotels?" "Fellow citizens," exclaimed Corwin, his swarthy features beaming with suppressed fun, "I ask you whether it is proper to ask such a question of a gentleman of my color?" The crowd cheered, and the questioner was silenced. Ben: Perley Poore's Reminiscences, vol. i. p. 209.

sometimes degenerated into coarseness. He was the best-known man in Ohio; everybody called him Tom. A formal resolution of a Whig State convention proclaimed him "a man of the people, and a champion of their rights," and declared, amid the enthusiastic acclaim of the multitude," we esteem him, and we love him."

But Corwin was more than a witty stump-speaker. He was a good lawyer, who thought deeply on the principles of government and political questions. His friends had hopes that he might even reach the presidency; but he destroyed his political prospects by an indiscreet though brave speech in the Senate in February, 1847, on the Mexican war.1

It was a scathing arraignment of the policy of conquest, a severe invective against the "destiny doctrine," and a fierce retort to the statement of Cass, "We want room." "If I were a Mexican," said Corwin, " I would tell you, 1 Have you not room in your own country to bury your dead men? If you come into mine, we will greet you with bloody hands and welcome you to hospitable graves.”2 It is inconsistent, but it is the inconsistency of a vigorous nationality, to condemn this utterance of Corwin as an unpatriotic expression to utter during a war in which his country was engaged, while we praise the parallel saying of Chatham during our Revolution, and print it in every schoolboy's book of oratory.3

Corwin's position on the compromise of 1850 was the same as that of Clay and Webster, and he suffered, as did
_______________
1 Corwin "is a truly kind, benevolent, and gifted man. He seems to forego all hope of the presidency, just now at least."—Seward to his wife, from Washington, January 23d, 1848, Life of Seward, F. W. Seward, vol. ii. p. 62.
2 See Corwin's Speeches; also memoir prefixed to them; Public Men and Events, Sargent; Reminiscences, Ben: Perley Poore.
3 " If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country I never would lay down my arms—never— never—never !"

the Massachusetts statesman, from the alienation of friends who thought that his opposition to slavery had weakened. "I did agree that Mr. Fillmore should approve" the Fugitive Slave law, he said in 1859, " though I did not like it; I thought it was constitutional, and that Congress were the best judges of its policy."1

The President, influenced by the attempt to bring home the charge of corruption to his administration, suggested in his last message new legislation to protect the government against mischief and corruption, although he bore testimony to the efficiency and integrity with which the several executive departments were conducted.

In the debate in Congress on the Gardiner claim, few found fault with Corwin for being, while a senator, the attorney of the claimant, since there were many precedents to justify such a position; but it was nevertheless felt that it ought to be made improper for a senator, a representative, or any officer of the United States to act as attorney for a claim against the country, or to be interested in any way in the prosecution of it. This feeling found expression in a law passed at this session of Congress;2 the offence was made a misdemeanor, punishable with fine and imprisonment.

When Fillmore withdrew from the presidential office, the general sentiment proclaimed that he had filled the place with ability and honor.3 The country abounded with prosperity; the administration was identified with the compromise, and the compromise had now become very popular. If Northern people did not approve the Fugitive Slave law, they at least looked upon it with toleration. It is quite true, however, that after-opinion has been unkind to Fill
_______________
1 House of Representatives, December 8th, 1859.
2 Approved February 26th, 1853.
3 Public Men and Events, Sargent, vol. ii. p. 394. "There was at that time but one voice heard from one end of the country to the other—that of “Well done, good and faithful servant.'"

more. The judgment on him was made up at a time when the Fugitive Slave law had become detestable, and he was remembered only for his signature and vigorous execution of it. After Johnson had been President, it was asserted, with the taste for generalization that obtains in politics, that all of our Vice-Presidents who succeeded to the presidential office turned out badly. This was maintained until the wise administration of President Arthur became confessedly an exception to the rule; yet the plaudits for Arthur were not more general than were those for Fillmore at the close of his administration. Fillmore retained as strong a hold on his party as did the other; both were candidates for renomination, and showed great strength in their party conventions.

In a just estimate, therefore, of our Vice-Presidents who have become Presidents, we should class Fillmore with Arthur, and not with Tyler and Johnson.


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].