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

Chapter 5, Part 1: Inauguration of Pierce through Appeal of the Independent Democrats

CHAPTER V

Franklin Pierce, the youngest man who up to this time had taken the presidential oath, was inaugurated March 4th, 1853. The ceremony was more imposing than usual, and was witnessed by the largest number of strangers who had ever gathered in Washington to assist at the installation of a new chief magistrate. When he took the oath he did not, as is ordinary, use the word "swear," but accepted the constitutional alternative which permitted him to affirm that he would faithfully execute the office of President of the United States. Nor did he kiss the book, after the Southern fashion, but laid his left hand upon the Bible and held his right hand aloft, having previously bared his head to the falling snow. He did not read the address, but spoke without manuscript or notes in a clear and distinct voice, with a graceful manner. The inaugural was a well-turned literary composition, delivered by an effective speaker, and made a striking impression upon the many auditors.1 He began: "My countrymen! It is a relief to feel that no heart but my own can know the personal regret and bitter sorrow over which I have been borne to a position so suitable for others rather than desirable for myself." This was an allusion to the sudden taking-away of his only living child, a bright boy of thirteen, by a railroad accident which happened in the early part of January. The boy, to whom Pierce was devotedly attached, was travelling with his father and mother, when his brains were dashed out before their eyes. Some Whig journals criticised this allusion as being a trick of the orator
___________
1 New York Herald, March 5th, 1853; National Intelligencer.

to awaken personal interest before proceeding to unfold his public policy; but the people who heard the words felt only sympathy for the handsome young President who thus frankly disclosed his private grief, knowing that he would gladly resign the most glittering of earthly prizes if only his son might have been restored to him.

The President hinted strongly that during his term of office it might be his part to add Cuba to the common country. "The policy of my administration," he said, "will not be controlled by any timid forebodings of evil from expansion. Indeed, it is not to be disguised that our attitude as a nation, and our position on the globe, render the acquisition of certain possessions, not within our jurisdiction, eminently important for our protection."

He affirmed the principle of the Monroe doctrine. He intimated that the Whigs should be turned out of the offices to make room for Democrats. Yet he was not hampered by promises made before nomination or election; he had no "implied engagements to ratify," so that in the disposal of patronage he should not be subject to the dictation of the politicians. "I acknowledge," he declared, "my obligations to the masses of my countrymen, and to them alone."

He made a vigorous appeal for the Union, holding that the compromise measures of 1850 were strictly constitutional, and should be "unhesitatingly carried into effect." While the Fugitive Slave act was not mentioned by name, everybody knew that this expression meant that the President would vigorously enforce that law, as it was the only part of the compromise on which executive action was now needed.

The enthusiastic cheers and noise of the cannon which greeted the President when he closed his address was typical of the joy of Democrats all over the country on their restoration to power. In truth, they had always felt, since the first election of Jackson, that the duty of administering the government belonged rightfully to them, and that in their hands only were the interests of the whole people properly
protected. Aristocratic cabals and money combinations certainly fared better at the hands of the Whigs, but a party whose support was largely derived from those elements did not, the Democrats thought, deserve popular success. The Whigs had twice elected a President, but it was by means of the trick of playing upon the universal fancy for military prestige. It was now the general Democratic feeling that the installation of Pierce into office was a restoration simply of the power and patronage justly due the Democrats.

The inaugural was well received; it was generally satisfactory to the business interests. The disposition always exists on the part of the successful party to hail their new chief as a paragon of wisdom or virtue; nor, in the first days of the administration, do the defeated party bear rancor, but are willing to look on with charity, feeling that the new President deserves a fair chance. Especially was this the case when Franklin Pierce took the reins of government. He was very popular on election day, and so overpowering had been his success that he was still more popular on the day of his inauguration. If the general acclaim augured well for the prosperity of the new administration, few Presidents have started with auspices so favorable. Yet the anti-slavery Whigs, and a few anti-slavery Democrats whose principles were stronger than their desire to see the old party cemented, could not but tremble for their country when they saw in this cautious exposition of principle and announcement of programme that the President, whose hold on the people was apparently so powerful, did not regard human slavery as an evil, but was anxious to acquire more slave territory. It did not allay their apprehensions when he said that the new territory should be obtained " with a view to obvious national interest and security, and in a manner entirely consistent with the strictest observance of national faith;" for the intrigue by which Texas was annexed was too fresh in their minds. It was patent that the Southern men who composed the slavery propaganda, while strictly honorable in private life, were ready to use any means to extend the influence of their dear institution. It was a prime article of Southern faith that Texas had been honorably acquired; and if one were a true Democrat, he must believe the war with Mexico to have been just and holy.

A mere reading of the inaugural was sufficient to give rise to a suspicion that in President Pierce the Southern leaders had found a man who would do their bidding; but had one known what was going on in the inner councils of the party, the feeling would have been more than a suspicion. In the month following the election, Pierce had written a letter to Buchanan asking suggestions and advice, to which the Pennsylvania statesman was glad to respond fully and freely. He pointed out where lay the path of glory. "The foreign affairs of the government," he wrote, "and especially the question of Cuba, will occupy the most conspicuous place in your administration. I believe that Cuba can be acquired by cession upon honorable terms, and I should not desire to acquire it in any other manner. The President who shall accomplish this object will render his name illustrious, and place it on the same level with that of his great predecessor, who gave Louisiana to the Union."1

Pierce, shortly after his election, sent a message to John A. Dix, of New York, requesting a personal interview. When Dix repaired to Concord he was offered, in the most cordial manner, the position of Secretary of State under the new administration, the President-elect assuring him that he was the man of all others whose presence in the cabinet would be especially desirable and gratifying. But when this became known to the party leaders, the extreme Southern politicians and the pro-slavery New York Democrats protested earnestly against the appointment, on account of Dix's connection with the Free-soil party in 1848, when he had been their candidate for governor. Thereupon a second
______________
1 Life of Buchanan, G. T. Curtis, vol. ii. p. 72.

interview between Pierce and Dix took place, and as it was quite evident that the President-elect desired to be relieved from his obligation, Dix at once released him.1

Far different was the treatment of Jefferson Davis, who early received an offer of the position of Secretary of War. He at first declined the appointment,2 but Pierce was so earnest in his solicitations that Davis came to Washington the day after the inauguration, and was finally prevailed upon to accept the position.3 This appointment, highly satisfactory to the Southern states-rights men, and in the main agreeable to the South, was particularly distasteful to the Union party in Mississippi.4 One frequently heard the remark at the North that Davis was the only member of the cabinet who had opposed the compromise measures of 1850. The difference in the treatment of Dix and of Davis, both of whom had similar personal claims on Pierce, was evidence that the extreme Southern faction of the party would receive more consideration than the Northern Democrats who were tinctured with Free-soilism.

The cabinet nominations were not sent to the Senate until three days after the inauguration. The President appointed William L. Marcy, of New York, Secretary of State; James Guthrie, of Kentucky, Secretary of the Treasury; Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, Secretary of War; James C. Dobbin, of North Carolina, Secretary of the Navy; Robert McClelland, of Michigan, Secretary of the Interior; James Campbell, of Pennsylvania, Postmaster-General; and Caleb Gushing, of Massachusetts, Attorney-General.

The courteous action of Dix in permitting Pierce to retract the offer of the State portfolio did not relieve him from all embarrassment in regard to the leading position in
_________________
1 Life of J. A. Dix, by Morgan Dix, vol. i. p. 271.
2 Davis's wife urged him to decline the offer. Memoir of Jefferson Davis, by his wife, vol. i. p. 476.
3 Life of Jefferson Davis, Alfriend, p. 89.
4 Casket of Reminiscences, Foote, p. 90,

the cabinet. Desirous of giving this place to a New York man, he was perplexed by the bitter factional contest among the Democrats of that State. Although all differences had been sunk during the Presidential canvass, the split which began in 1848 opened again as soon as the party gained the signal victory, and, while no principle seemed to be at stake, the fight was earnest for proper recognition in the distribution of the offices. It is undeniable that a few among those who were called Free-soilers remained true to their former declarations; but most of them were becoming merged in the faction called "Softs," whose endeavor was to unite the jarring elements of the party in order to control elections, and who after 1848 became the link of connection between the Free-soilers and the "Hunkers" or "Hards," as the regular Democrats were called.1 Dix was a "Soft," with Free-soil antecedents; while Marcy, though the chief of the "Softs," had been decidedly opposed to the Free-soil movement. To satisfy the greatest number was the aim of the President, to whom this problem became the subject of serious thought and many councils; and although the whole cabinet, as finally announced, was published in the newspapers one week before the inauguration,2 Pierce did not really decide who should be his Secretary of State until he had actually been one day in office, for up to the morning of March 5th that portfolio had not been offered to Marcy.3 Marcy was the best-known man in the cabinet; he was an adroit politician; his intellectual qualities were solid rather than brilliant, but he had a strong mind and honest purposes. Jefferson Davis and Caleb Cushing also brought to the council board talents of a high order.

The first appearance of Davis in national public life was
_______________
1 The distinction is well described in Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, vol. ii. p. 141; see also Dickinson's Letters and Speeches, vol. i. p. 394.
2 New York Herald, February 25th.
3 See Letter of Marcy to Buchanan, Washington, March 5th, 1853, Life of Buchanan, Curtis, vol. ii. p. 75.

in the House of Representatives at the age ot thirty-seven. He was fortunate in having a liberal training that made him well fitted for the political arena. A graduate of West Point, he had served as lieutenant in the Blackhawk and other Indian wars. He then resigned his commission and for eight years, from the age of twenty-seven to thirty-five, he lived in retirement on his cotton plantation, superintending the work in the manner common to the Southern planter, but for the most part devoting himself to a systematic course of reading and study, for which his taste amounted to a passion. When he quitted the life of a recluse to engage in the affairs of State he was a man of culture, well read in the classical writers of England, and deeply versed in political history and economy.

His maiden speech in the House of Representatives attracted the attention of John Quincy Adams, who said: "That young man is no ordinary man. He will make his mark yet, mind me."

Davis served as colonel in the Mexican war. His admirers asserted that his brilliant movement at Buena Vista carried the day, and that his tactical conception was worthy of a Caesar or a Napoleon. He was afterwards United States senator for four years, resigning the position in 1851 to make the contest for governor of Mississippi as state-rights candidate against Foote, who led the Union party.1 After his defeat he remained in private life until called forth by Pierce, with whom he held friendly personal relations. He was now in his forty-fifth year, and one could see that he was gradually reaching the position to which he aspired—a position which by 1860 he attained—that of leader of the Southern people, and successor of John C. Calhoun.2

Cushing owed his appointment primarily to the fact that
___________
1 See p. 226.
2 In this characterization of Davis I have used Life of Davis, by Alfriend; Life of Davis, by Pollard; Our Living Representative Men, by John Savage.

he was one of the New England politicians who had striven to bring about the nomination of Pierce; moreover, the President-elect, himself an educated man, was not unwilling to make known to the country that all the scholars did not belong to the Whig party. That steadfast Whig State, Massachusetts, furnished the scholar of the cabinet for Pierce, as she had likewise done for Polk.

Cushing was one of those men who seem to have taken all knowledge for their province. Scholar, author, lawyer, statesman, diplomatist, general, and judge, in at least four of these callings he achieved distinction. "I started from the same point," he once wrote, "so far as regards education, atmosphere, and mental culture, with Everett and Bancroft. Their lives have been of a more learned and meditative cast than mine, and mine of a more adventurous and active complexion than theirs."1 Born in 1800, he graduated from Harvard when he was seventeen, became a tutor of natural philosophy and mathematics at that college, then studied law, and at twenty-five entered the legislature of his State. In 1829 he went to Europe, remained there two years, and, like many other Americans of culture, finding Spain the most interesting of countries, stayed there long enough to get the spirit and material for an interesting book which he wrote upon his return. During a three years' term in Congress he acquired the reputation of being a fascinating public speaker; his utterances smacked of the study, for he quoted from the Iliad with the same facility as did other members from the Bible. President Tyler sent him as minister to China, where he was successful in negotiating a treaty which for the first time opened up diplomatic relations with the celestial empire. He served as general in the Mexican war, and, when appointed a member of the cabinet, was Justice of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts.

Cushing was one of the most indefatigable of workers.
__________________
1 Private letter of Cushing to C. E. Lester, February 19th, 1853, published in the New York Times, October 17th, 1853.

While well versed in the ancient languages, he could also speak fluently several modern tongues, and it was noted that at diplomatic dinners, while the Secretary of State could converse only in his own vernacular, the Attorney-general carried on conversation with all the ambassadors in their proper languages. Thoroughly acquainted with the best English literature, he also read every new book, and remembered what he read.1 A writer of books and an honored contributor to the stately North American Review, he wrote, while Attorney-general, an editorial nearly every day for the Washington Union, the organ of the administration. His habits were temperate, his health robust, he had wealth both inherited and earned, and he was altogether an agreeable member of society.

It is, indeed, a pity to mar the portrait of such a man, but it cannot be denied that he lacked moral sense. Admired by everybody for bis learning and ability, he was trusted by few. Nor was it due alone to his political inconsistency that he forfeited the confidence of his fellow-men. Starting in public life a Whig, he apostatized with Tyler, and remained a Democrat. Other men have changed their politics, yet have retained their reputation for sincerity. But it was the general opinion that personal interest and not principle accounted for Cushing's political unsteadiness. When he was a candidate for governor of Massachusetts, James Russell Lowell struck the popular note in the following verses:

"Gineral C. is a dreffle smart man:
He's been on all sides that give places and pelf;
But consistency still wuz a part of his plan,
He's been true to one party—and that is himself."2
________________
1 When living at Newburyport, it was his custom to look over all books that came to the bookseller before they were exposed for sale. He was also known as the man who had read Webster's Dictionary through twice.—Story told by the Boston Herald, cited by the New York Tribune, January 7th, 1879.
2 Biglow Papers. This was written in 1847.

Pierce, it was said, believed Cushing's fickleness was intellectual, not moral, and that he only needed the influence of a man of stable judgment to keep him straight. His advice was well esteemed by the President-elect, and it is more than probable that he confirmed Pierce in the design, if he did not originally make the suggestion, of offering a cabinet position to Jefferson Davis.1

Next in importance to the cabinet appointments was the selection of men for the principal diplomatic posts. "Should you desire to acquire Cuba," Buchanan had written the President-elect, " the choice of suitable ministers to Spain, Naples, England, and France will be very important."2 Buchanan was appointed minister to England; which gave notice to the country and to the European powers concerned that a leading object of the administration would be the acquisition of Cuba. While Secretary of State under Polk, Buchanan had offered one hundred million dollars for it. His political position, however, was so high, and his diplomatic experience so useful, that no criticism could be fairly made of his selection by Pierce.
_____________
1 In this characterization of Cushing, I have consulted Forney's Anecdotes of Public Men, vol. i.; Our Living Representative Men, Savage; the New York Herald, 1853; Letters and Times of the Tylers, vol. ii.; North American Review, vol. xxxvii.; Public Men and Events, Sargent, vol. ii.; New York Nation, vol. xviii.; Twenty Years in Congress, Blaine; Casket of Reminiscences, Foote; Men and Measures of Half a Century, McCulloch; Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, vol. ix.; Reminiscences by Ben: Perley Poore; History of Journalism, Hudson. Thos. Benton's opinion, expressed in a speech delivered in 1856, will be of interest: "Of all these [the members of the cabinet] the Attorney-General is the master spirit. He is a man of talent, of learning, of industry — unscrupulous, double sexed, double-gendered, and hermaphroditic in politics, with a hinge in his knee, which he often crooks, that thrift may follow fawning. He governs by subserviency; and to him is deferred the master's place in Mr. Pierce's cabinet. When I heard that he was to come into the cabinet I set down Mr. Pierce for a doomed man, and foresaw the swift and full destruction which was to fall upon him."—Quoted by Von Holet, vol. iv. p. 263, note.
2 December 11th, 1852, Life of James Buchanan, Curtis, vol. ii. p. 73.

The case was far otherwise in regard to the appointment of Soule, of Louisiana, as minister to Spain. This could be construed in no other way than that President Pierce meant to carry out as well as he was able the desires of the Southern propaganda who were bent on getting Cuba by hook or by crook. The opinion of Soule was no secret; he had declared it in open Senate in the January preceding his appointment. He took occasion then to speak enthusiastically of the followers of Lopez and Crittenden, who joined in the expedition to Cuba. Their heroic devotion and "the morality of their aspirations," he said, "deserve the praise that is freely accorded to Lafayette and Kosciusko." Soule was opposed to purchasing Cuba. It could be acquired in a better way, he thought. It was useless for Spain to ignore the fact that Cuba could not much longer remain a Spanish dependency; that she was certain to secure her independence; and if the Cuban people revolted against Spain, we should sympathize with them, because the independence of the island would be as desirable as its annexation to this country. Cannot Southern senators see, he asked, that they ought to long for the annexation of Cuba on account of weighty domestic reasons, and cannot they understand that the intrigues of England are directed towards the abolition of slavery in that island? As Lord Palmerston avows, "if the negro population of Cuba were rendered free, that fact would create a most powerful element of resistance to any scheme for annexing Cuba to the United States, where slavery exists."1

If the object had been to bully Spain into giving up the possession she held so dear, something might be said in favor of this appointment; but if the object were to gain the island by patient, careful, and wise negotiation, a more unfortunate appointment could not have been made. It gave much annoyance to the Spanish court, and the government
_____________
1 This speech of Soule's was made January 25th, 1853. See Congressional Globe, vol. xxvii. p. 118.

organ contended in a carefully prepared article that Soule ought not to be received. The London Times called it an extraordinary choice, and it would have been no surprise had the Spanish government absolutely refused to hold relations with one who extolled rebellion against Spain, diplomatic precedents being ample to warrant such a course.'

On his way to Europe, Soule received a deputation of Cuban exiles, to whom he made a speech, assuring them that when a man became a minister abroad he did not cease to be an American citizen; "and as such he has a right to carry wherever he goes the throbbings of that people that speak out such tremendous truths to the tyrants of the old continent."2

The French mission was offered to Dix, but, though accepted, the appointment in form was never made. Southern politicians objected strenuously on the ground that Dix was an abolitionist. He was certainly no friend to the extension of slavery; and although sufficiently affected by the manifest destiny doctrine of his party not to oppose the honorable annexation of Cuba, he could not be depended upon to play the part which was assigned to the minister at Paris in the scheme already brewing.3

John Y. Mason, a Virginian of the old school, received the appointment. Hawthorne described him as "a fat-brained, good-hearted, sensible old man."4 He hated an abolitionist, as is shown by the fact that when Sumner was in Paris, seeking advice for the injury sustained by the assault of Brooks in the Senate chamber, Mason declared emphatically that he would not treat the Massachusetts senator with any politeness or consideration.5 There was no reason to
_________________
1 See New York Herald, May 30th and 31st, 1853.
2 Harper's Magazine, October, 1853, p. 693.
3 Life of John A. Dix, vol. i. p. 273, also vol. ii. p. 328.
4 Hawthorne and his Wife, vol. ii. p. 174.
5 Memories of Many Men, Field, p. 63.

doubt that Mason would favor zealously the plan of the Southern propaganda, or at least be as clay in the hands of the astute Buchanan and the impetuous Soule.

Of the consular appointments, one deserves mention on account of being at once a graceful bestowal by the President and an honor to the country. Nathaniel Hawthorne was named for the lucrative position of consul at Liverpool. He at first shrank from accepting office from his friend, as it seemed too much like receiving pay for his campaign biography out of the public purse, and argument was needed to vanquish his scruples.

It is agreeable to record an instance where the bonds among the members of the republic of letters proved stronger than the alienation which might have arisen from political differences. "'Good! good!' I exclaimed aloud on the floor of the Senate as your nomination was announced," wrote Sumner to Hawthorne from the Senate chamber. "1 Good! good!' I now write you on its confirmation." 1 Hawthorne was a man of such fine honor that he called forth the truest attachments and noblest friendships. So much has been published about him; his daily life has been presented to our view with detail so minute; every scrap which would show his mental processes being so fully divulged, that it is given us to know Hawthorne as he was known to his intimate friends and devoted family. That with this knowledge our respect for him remains undiminished is perhaps the highest tribute to his character.

In after-years, in the midst of the war, when Pierce, on account of his undisguised Southern sympathies, had lost the favor of the Northern people, and Hawthorne had reached that point of a successful writer's career where the most trivial productions of his pen were awaited with eagerness, the popular author dedicated to the unpopular ex-President, in the most complimentary of inscriptions, his work, "Our
_________________
1 Study of Hawthorne, Lathrop, p. 248.

Old Home." For the most part, the men who read books were earnest for the prosecution of the war and the destruction of slavery, and Hawthorne's publishers remonstrated with him for the dedication of the book. His reply, absolutely refusing to withdraw either the dedication or dedicatory epistle, displays a manliness of temper which it is a pleasure to record. "If," wrote Hawthorne, "Pierce is so exceedingly unpopular that his name is enough to sink the volume, there is so much the more need that an old friend should stand by him. I cannot, merely on account of pecuniary profit or literary reputation, go back from what I have deliberately felt and thought it right to do; and if I were to tear out the dedication, I should never look at the volume again without remorse or shame."1

It is a curious fact that an unobtrusive politician like Hawthorne should have owed to his connection with politics the necessary prompting and opportunity for his two greatest works.' The loss of his place in the custom-house impelled him to write "The Scarlet Letter;" the consulship gave him the opportunity of visiting Europe, which enabled him to write "The Marble Faun." It is the contrast between these two romances, together with their similarities, which make the deepest impression on the minds of those who admire this literary artist. The one portrays the manners of the narrow-minded Puritan community, making us enter into the inmost thoughts and feelings of those men who founded a State; the other takes us among the gay, lighthearted Italians. We enjoy for the moment their sensuous existence, and share with them the feeling that life is one long holiday. Both are tales of sin and remorse, yet so marked is the power of the artist in the setting of his pictures that to us it seems the New England sky must be
_____________
1 Study of Hawthorne, p. 321. The Old Home was published in 1863. 2 But Hawthorne wrote, March 15, 1851: "The House of the SevenGables, in my opinion, is better than The Scarlet Letter."—Letter to Horatio Bridge, Harper's Magazine, February, 1892, p. 371.

always gray, nature ever taking on a sombre hue to be in keeping with the gloomy story.1

In the tale of Italy everything is bright. A flood of sunshine pours upon the remorseful souls in their most bitter moments. One can scarce believe, such is the powerful physical impression made by these stories, that the sun shines as brightly, and that the clear blue sky is as common, in New England as in Italy. The criticism has sometimes been made that as Hawthorne did not know Italian he could not penetrate into the inner life of the people, and seize upon their essential characteristics. Yet, in truth, he seemed to know Rome better than his birthplace, and to have known it longer. "Rome certainly does draw into itself my heart," he wrote, "as I think even London, or even little Concord itself, or old sleepy Salem, never did and never will." 2 Rome does not belong to Italy, but to the western world. One must indeed be an Aryan to appreciate its worth, but every one who speaks a language of the European branch of that race has a part in the historic and artistic possessions of the imperial city. This view powerfully influenced Hawthorne, and the elaboration of it in the descriptive portions of "The Marble Faun" has made it the best of Roman guide-books. As long as these romances are read, people fond of metaphysical subtleties will interpret variously the meaning of the author, argue about the motive, and seek the underlying meaning of these tales of sin, suffering, and remorse. But if the merit of his books had lain solely in the plot and the moral, they would have been forgotten by the generation who first read them. It is because Hawthorne wrote the best English prose of the century that he may be reckoned among the immortals. "Where," asked Motley
_______________
1 Hawthorne wrote, February 4, 1850: "The Scarlet Letter lacks sunshine. . . . It is . . . a story, into which I found it almost impossible to throw any cheering light."—Ibid., p. 369.
2 See articles in New York Nation, vol. xlix. pp. 32,48, and references to Italian Note Books, vol. ii. pp. 189, 216.

of him, after reading "The Marble Faun," "oh, where is the godmother who gave you to talk pearls and diamonds?'"

While the diplomatic appointments were under consideration, the parcelling-out of offices which brought profit rather than honor was also going on. It has been noted above that the crowd of people at the inauguration was unusually great. A large number remained at Washington after the ceremonies to seek reward for their exertions in bringing back again to power the Democratic party. During the canvass it had been openly proclaimed that if the Democrats were successful, a clean sweep of offices would be made. The President stated in his inaugural, in courtly terms, that the general expectation would be realized. Everybody was agreed about the policy; but when it came to the division of the spoils there were ten applicants for nearly every important office, and the disappointment of the many was more noticeable than the complacency of the few.

The importunate begging for official positions in a republic where it was so easy to earn a living was nothing less than disgraceful. Office-seekers crowded the public receptions of the President, and while greeting him in the usual way, attempted at the same time to urge their claims, actually thrusting their petitions into his hands. "There never was a fiercer time than this among the office-seekers," wrote Hawthorne to a friend.'

The usual trouble about the New York City offices existed, and the factional fight in the party made it extremely difficult to decide between the conflicting interests. The President and his cabinet applied themselves diligently to the work, and in less than two months after the inauguration it could be said that practically all the fat places in the
____________
1 A Study of Hawthorne, p. 262.
2 To R. H. Stoddard, who had applied for his influence. The letter is worth reading, as a commentary on the spoils system in 1853. Hawthorne and his Wife, vol. i. p. 461.

gift of the administration at home and abroad had been filled.1

In this proscription, Fillmore Whigs received no more consideration than the followers of Seward. The fact that they had fought side by side with the Northern Democrats for the compromise and had counselled submission to the Fugitive Slave law counted for nothing. The popular verdict was interpreted as a demand that all the Whigs should be turned out of office, and it is the most noteworthy feature of the situation that the Whigs tamely acquiesced in this wholesale proscription, surrendering their positions without a murmur. Nor did the opposition press teem with articles censuring the administration for its course. None of those journals were violent in denunciation, some even approved the policy, and all appeared to regard it as a matter of course. From the time when Jackson began the practice of making party fealty the test for appointment to the civil service, the opposition press had denounced vigorously the removal of political opponents at every partisan change of administration. The acquiescence in the practice now may have arisen in some degree from the crushing defeat which the Whigs had sustained; but a more powerful reason for this silent submission lay in the fact that the constant practice and advocacy of the policy by party leaders had so debauched public opinion that a change of officers in the civil service had come to be regarded as a necessary accompaniment of a change of party control. From the year 1853 we must date the cordial recognition by politicians and people of the principle " To the victors belong the spoils."

The summer of 1853 was one of political quiet and business prosperity, but many Southern cities were afflicted by a scourge more terrible than political turmoil or financial disaster. The dreaded yellow fever made its appearance. In New Orleans its ravages were the greatest. Never had
_______________
1 See New York Herald, April 22d, 1853. I have, in this account of office-seeking, consulted that newspaper carefully from March 4th.

New Orleans been so prosperous and gay as during the winter season of 1853; never had the city been so full of people.' The largest cotton crop ever produced in the United States up to that time was being marketed at favorable prices. Never had the sugar plantations yielded such rich returns. One hundred and thirty million dollars' worth of produce of all kinds had been landed upon the levees of New Orleans. The Jackson railroad was building, and a great system of iron roads was projected. Real estate was active. Louisiana had not indulged in threats of secession or in dreams of a Southern confederacy, such as were common in the sister States of South Carolina and Mississippi; for her citizens were aware that her prosperity was bound up in the Union, and the triumphant election of Pierce was interpreted as being favorable to the allaying of sectional controversies.

If the smiling material conditions of New Orleans were a tribute to the energy of the American population, the many places of amusement, nightly open, denoted that the desire of distraction, so characteristic of the French, prevailed in this cosmopolitan city. At one theatre the elder Booth astonished the audience by his intensely natural impersonation of Richard III.; at another, Anna Cora Mowatt delighted the old-fashioned play-goers; at another, Lola Montez, who had not yet outlived the notoriety of causing a revolution in Munich and the abdication of a king, fascinated crowds of gay and frivolous people by representing on the mimic stage a story of her disorderly adventures in Bavaria,2 and by dancing in voluptuous measure the swift, whirling tarantella. One place of amusement was devoted to French opera, which had become a necessity of the winter to the lovers of music; Dan Rice had a hippodrome; Ole Bull with the violin, and Gottschalk with the piano, enchanted their hearers by their brilliant execution; Adelina Patti was
_____________
1 New Orleans Picayune, January 9th, 1853.
2 The play was called Lola Montez in Bavaria: a Drama in Five Eras.

just beginning in the concert hall that career which has entitled her to the name of the queen of song. Those who loved science were gratified by a course of lectures from Louis Agassiz on his favorite subjects. The Southern people heard him gladly, for his theory of the origin of man denied emphatically that the Caucasian and negro had a common ancestor, and this hypothesis was construed to justify the enslaving of the inferior race.

Every Sunday those who were fond of the sport could choose between the attractions offered at three rival racecourses. Private hospitality was lavishly dispensed, and to those whose social position was high, and who were able to take part in all the gayeties of the season, life seemed a carnival.1 The public balls were numerous. When Mardi-gras came, although many bewailed that the usual street parade was given up, and regretted the glories of bygone days, it was acknowledged by every one that the brilliant fancy-dress parties and balls were a compensation.

Isolated cases of yellow fever began to occur in the early part of May, and although during the month there were deaths from the disease, no alarm whatever was felt, for this was but a repetition of the experience of every year since the epidemic of 1847. Those who intimated that the vile condition of the streets was such as to augment a pestilence, if not to invite it, were frowned upon as detainers of the city. It was pleasanter to discuss magnificent future schemes of improved drainage than to take immediate and practical steps towards setting the city in order. The travel to the North and Europe during the spring and early summer was larger than usual; not, however, because the rich and the fashionable had any forebodings of the dismal fate in store for their beloved city, but because the spring, being warmer than common, prompted an earlier
________________
1 "At the time of my first visit, in the winter of 1856-57, New Orleans was socially the most delightful city in the Union."—Episodes in a Life of Adventure, Laurence Oliphant, p. 91.

departure from the Southern climate; and, as money was abundant, the desire for travel could be gratified as soon as born.

By the latter part of June the situation looked ominous. For the week ending June 25th there were nine deaths from yellow fever, and for that ending July 2d twenty-five. Yet if one had depended upon the newspapers for knowledge of passing events, he would never have dreamed that the dreaded epidemic had begun, since the journals made no mention whatever of the startling fact. The commercial interest of the city insisted strenuously that the state of affairs should not be made public, and the real-estate speculators were wild with alarm lest the truth should be told. The next week, when the deaths had more than doubled, there were editorial expressions of fear that the present season would be a sickly one; but when July 16th arrived and two hundred and four deaths by yellow fever for the week were reported, it was felt that concealment was no longer possible, and the newspapers became again the chronicles of the time. The jaunty air with which a serious condition had been treated now gave place to panic-stricken fear. All who were able, and who were not detained by duty, fled. The city government failed completely to grasp the situation; the board of aldermen resolved, the last week in July, that the yellow fever in the city had not become epidemic, and adjourned till October; the cowardly went North, the brave remained, and as citizens did duty which their associates would not let them do officially.

As frequently happens, however, in American cities, when the constituted authorities have broken down, the best men of the community came to the front and went to work with discretion and heroism. Chief among the agencies of good was the Howard Association, composed of active, energetic men, whose mission during an epidemic was to take care of the poor and destitute sick, and provide them with proper medical attendance and nursing. A record of the work of this noble body during the fatal summer was written by
one of their number, and, while it vies in interest with any romance, it is simply the truthful tale of an unassuming "Samaritan;"1 but the fascination of the book lies in the accounts of the conversation and action of the men and women whom the approach of death made sincere.

The premonitory symptoms of yellow fever were not unmistakable, nor such as to cause intense anxiety; they were the same that precede the most ordinary diseases. It began with a cold, a hardly perceptible chill, an aching in the head, an apparently insignificant fever, and, a little later, pains in the back ensue. These warnings were made light of by the laboring poor. Those who lived from hand to mouth could not afford to lie by on account of ill feelings, which strong men living in a malarious climate learn to slight. In such cases, the poison of the insidious disease had coursed through the veins of the body before the man took to his bed or called a physician. Only about one-half of those attacked with yellow fever recovered; an apparent cessation of the ravages of the disease was with many but a premonition of a fatal issue.

The weather was unfavorable, being characterized by sudden changes; there was much rain, and for ten days July seemed like January. Woollens were worn, people slept under blankets, windows were kept shut, and the thin blooded lighted their fires. The death-rate increased. On the last day of July there were one hundred and thirty-seven deaths from yellow fever, and in August the number of victims became constantly greater until the 21st, which, by common consent, was called the black day of the plague. Two hundred and thirty deaths from yellow fever were reported that day, but the actual number was nearer three hundred—a daily mortality more than double the ordinary weekly death-rate of New Orleans.
_________________
1 Diary of a Samaritan, by a Member of the Howard Association of New Orleans. The writer was W. L. Robison, a gentleman of good social and business position and high character. (Harper & Brothers, 1860.)

The weather now became intensely hot, but the atmosphere was full of humidity, and the analytical chemists said there was a lack of ozone in the air. To purify the atmosphere, the Board of Health ordered that four hundred discharges should be fired from several six-pound cannons; but the thunder of the artillery had a fatal effect on many of the sick, throwing them into convulsions. Then another mode of clearing the air was tried. Barrels filled with tar were burned all over the city. "At sunset," wrote the "Samaritan" in his diary, "when all were simultaneously fired, a pandemonium glare lighted up our city. Not a breath of air disturbed the dense smoke, which slowly ascended in curling columns until it reached the height of about five hundred feet. Here it seemed equipoised, festooning over our doomed city like a funeral pall, and there remaining until the shades of night disputed with it the reign of darkness."1

In the latter part of August there were new developments in the disease, and greater difficulty in treating it. After a few days of convalescence, the patient failed to gain appetite or strength, distressing boils appeared on the body, and a fatal relapse was not uncommon. Another characteristic appeared in some patients on the second day of their attack. "Bound purple spots, the size of a dime, with the edges darker than the centre," were discovered on their bodies. "If they survived the third day, the side on which they lay for a few hours became of the same color, as if mortification had set in from interruption to a free circulation through the laggard veins."2 These symptoms suggested to physicians who had not forgotten their classical reading the descriptions of Thucydides and Lucretius, and gave rise to the conjecture that the spots indicated a modified type of the most famous of plagues.

When the historian writes that the physicians were faithful,
______________
1 Diary of a Samaritan, p. 153.
2 Ibid., p. 208.

brave, and untiring, he simply adds another to the many tributes to the character of the American medical profession. The yellow fever of 1853 was the most aggravated type ever known. The doctors early recognized this fact, and appreciated that different treatment was required from that which had hitherto been in vogue. Cupping, which in former epidemics had been deemed indispensable, was now only employed in rare cases, and even then with the greatest caution. The differences in treatment among the native physicians were not material except on one point; and this was whether quinine should be administered, and if so, whether in large or small quantities. The physicians not only worked nobly, but with rare good sense. In the presence of the appalling scourge, they felt that petty wrangles were unworthy of their profession, and adjourned their disputes until the epidemic was over, when they carried them on in the columns of newspapers and magazines instead of in the sick-chamber or hospital.

The "Samaritan," who seems to have been a man of discernment and good judgment, made some curious observations. The only quarrel he reported was the case of two German doctors who, by a mistake, were asked to visit the same patient. Both prescribed; each condemned the treatment of the other; and each, at every visit, threw the medicine of his rival into the street. The poor patient could not venture to decide between the two, and therefore took the physic of neither, but drank copiously of ice-water. He was soon beyond danger and convalesced rapidly.

Two patients in a hospital had their cots changed by some accident, and as the doctor prescribed by number, the convalescent got the medicine of the one who had been sick but thirty-six hours, while he in turn took physic which, according to the directions of the faculty, was neither proper nor useful until the disease had been eight days in progress. Both patients finally recovered.

A physician who had a diploma from the college of medicine at Paris came to the hospital stricken with the disease,

and claimed the right of prescribing for himself. He was a friend to the heroic treatment, had himself cupped and bled frequently and freely, and swallowed the strongest of drugs; his strength failed him, he had no power to resist the disease, and fell its victim.

A circumstance worthy of note is the difference of treatment among physicians of different nationalities. It was the aim of the Howard Association to send respectively to sick Frenchmen, Spaniards, and Germans doctors of their own country. The Spanish physician would give to his patients on the first day of convalescence the juice of fresh oysters; the German, at the height of the disease, advised strong fluid nourishment, and in convalescence hard-boiled eggs; the French physicians would give hot drinks or cold drinks, and enjoin close covering or no covering at all. Each treatment seemed to be equally successful.

The doctors, recognizing that careful nursing was as important as skilful medical attendance, made many visits simply of counsel and suggestion to their assistants. Nurses were plentiful, and good ones easily obtained. The fever did not attack negroes or quadroons, and white persons once having the disease rarely suffered from it again. Thus there was a large class of people available for ministering to the sick. The Sisters of Charity received a special tribute from the " Samaritan," though he was not of their religion. "Chief above all," he writes, "do I record the praise of the Sisters of Charity. . . . They do good by stealth. ... I have seen them in the silent rounds of duty, in the infirmaries, hospitals, and rickety tenements of the poor, comforting their own sex of all religions, castes, and conditions, fearless of contamination, dressing loathsome wounds and inhaling the most nauseating odors. . . . The world may be bad in the main, but a redeeming feature is this institution, which is as a golden connecting link between heaven and earth."1

Many strange experiences does this observer record.
____________
1 Diary of a Samaritan, p. 196.

His walk led him among the poor, but he found people of education and refinement; he gave succor to a woman from France whom he thought more beautiful than the Venus of Praxiteles; he witnessed among destitute families the strongest attachments, the most bitter grief at separations, and the most heroic self-sacrifice; he saw Christians die with heroism, and infidels without fear. The "Samaritan" was especially struck with the carelessness of an Italian soldier who, though sick unto death and perfectly conscious, remained in gay spirits, and attempted to cheer his companions in the hospital by his philosophy. He spoke of quitting life as losing "a thing which none but fools would keep," and when enjoined to sleep, replied, " Sleep! have we not all eternity to sleep in?"

The most incongruous circumstance which came under the "Samaritan's" observation was the case of an old man who was employed as a hospital nurse. The sick who were past recovery had for him a serpent-like fascination: when there was agony in the face or when the body writhed in contortions, he would chuckle; when the fatal symptom of the black vomit manifested itself, he grinned with a strange delight; and the death-rattle was music to his ear. It turned out that the man had suffered from misfortune, deceit, and ingratitude, and had become a hater of his kind, to whom remained no joy but that of seeing his fellow-man in trouble and in pain.

When all attempt to conceal the truth became useless, and the full horror of the situation broke upon the people of New Orleans, dismay and despair succeeded for a while levity and hope. The newspapers, as if to atone for their first silence, now spoke of nothing but the epidemic; the editors studied the history of former plagues, and in their articles imitated the many graphic accounts found in literature, which are remembered, not so much for their historical and scientific value, as for the thrilling interest which the writers have transfused into their narratives. The one item of news anxiously awaited was the daily bulletin of the Board of Health giving the interments of the day previous, which was posted up in many frequented places. As the number of deaths by the epidemic mounted up to an alarming degree, this intelligence caused blanched cheeks and sinking hearts. Business was suspended; the levee was a desert; pleasure was hardly thought of; the bar-room and club-houses were scarcely visited. Vice was cowed; the haunts of the libertine were deserted. One passion alone proved too strong for the prevailing fear to overcome: gambling held its votaries, the excitement of high play making them forget that the pestilence stalked through their city.

But the lawlessness, the bold and illicit indulgence in the pleasure of the moment, of which Thucydides speaks; the disregard of human laws and religious vows, the voluptuous riot which Boccaccio has related of the plague of Florence; the work of thieves and the excesses of blasphemers which augmented the horrors of the great plague of London, if De Foe's account be true—from all these New Orleans was spared. Mention is made, however, of hilarious parties who drove along the shell road to the lake to escape for a while the deadly atmosphere that hung over the doomed city. There, in a fine hotel, might gentlemen and ladies partake of dainty food and generous wines. Yet revelry which in ordinary times would be counted innocent jarred harshly on the ears in this season of distress. The streets of the city were given up to doctor's gigs, to cabs conveying the sick to the hospital and hearses carrying the dead to the grave. "The morning train of funerals," wrote the " Samaritan," "as was the evening's, crowded the road to the cemeteries. It was an unbroken line of carriages and omnibuses for two miles and a half."1

When the number of deaths grew rapidly, it was for a while impossible to bury the dead. The situation of the city below the level of the river, and the nature of the soil
________________
1 Diary of a Samaritan, p. 152.

which is almost semi-fluid at the depth of two or three feet, added to the difficulty. The living brought the remains of their relatives and friends to the cemeteries, but men could not be had to dig the graves. The white laborers seemed to have disappeared; they were either dead, sick, or tending the sick. In some cases the mourners dug the graves for their own dead, and when the task was completed threw aside the spades, dropped on their knees, and solemnly repeated a funeral prayer. At times a dozen or more processions would meet at the cemetery; abuse of the authorities and strife for precedence marred sadly the impressiveness of the place and occasion. Quarrels became so frequent that it was necessary to detail a strong police force to preserve order at the graveyards.

But most horrible of all were the cases of the poor who had no friends, or of families who were all victims of the pestilence and were buried by the city authorities. The dead coming faster than they could be interred, seventy coffins were at one time left on the ground exposed to the powerful action of the August sun. The bodies swelled, the roughly constructed board coffins of the corporation burst open, and the poisonous effluvia were wafted by breezes from the lake over the stricken city. The attention of the public was drawn to this hideous scene; it called forth notices from the journals; the turgid style of the editors in describing this cumulation of horrors shows the excitement under which they labored. Order, however, was soon restored and a system adopted which prevented the recurrence of such dreadful incidents. The chain-gang was ordered to the work by the mayor; negroes were hired at five dollars per hour and a liberal supply of strong liquor to bury the dead. Trenches, seven feet wide and one hundred feet long, were dug, into which the coffins were closely packed three to four feet deep, without intermediate earth.1 The pits made by the corporation were not more than two feet
_______________
1 Diary of a Samaritan, p. 151.

in depth. Custom soon reconciled the laborers to their work, and moved them to ribald jokes more unseemly than the jesting of the grave-diggers at Ophelia's grave. It was strange that in this time of dire distress the poor should have thought to object to the name of Potter's Field as the place of interment for their relatives and friends, but in the very height of the epidemic the designation of that cemetery was officially changed to "Cypress Grove, Number 2."

"As we passed the cemeteries," wrote the "Samaritan," "we saw coffins piled up beside the gate and in the walks, and laborers at work digging trenches in preparation for the morrow's dead. ... A fog, which hung over the moss enveloped oaks, prevented the egress of the dense and putrid exhalations. The atmosphere was nauseating to a degree that I have never noticed in a sick-room."1 The experiences of this month of August were the most awful in the eventful history of New Orleans. The city " was one vast charnel house.”2 Men now went around with carts, knocking at every door and crying out, "Who have dead to bury?" The atmosphere in the streets was stifling and fetid. Emigrants just landed were nearly all attacked by the plague. Whole families died, leaving not a trace behind them; parents left young children who grew up, not only in ignorance of a father or mother, but who never knew their own proper names, or from what country they came. When the suburbs and country were blasted with the fell disease, "the poultry, horses, and mules fell dead in the fields."3

New Orleans was a field for heroism, nor was heroism lacking. The rich gave money freely for the relief of the destitute, the energetic devoted their time and ability for the general good, and brave, hopeful souls cheered those who were on the brink of despair. All accounts agree that, with rare exceptions, the clergy of all denominations remained at their posts, ministering to the sick, smoothing
_____________
1 Diary of a Samaritan, p. 187.
2 Ibid., p. 209.
3 Ibid., p. 186.

the pillow of the dying, and speaking words of comfort to the mourners. An excess of zeal led many to overwork, and these became an easy prey to the epidemic. Those who received aid from the Howard Association were nearly all Catholics, so that the " Samaritan" saw much of the labor and devotion of the priest, who was on duty from early morn until late at night; caring nothing for comforts, and seemingly above fatigue; working for the glory of his church and the relief of those in her communion; holding the crucifix before the eyes of the dying, and always on hand in the hospital to administer the rite of extreme unction. "The sympathy of the priest and the dying penitent was complete."

Thus wrote the " Samaritan," who felt deep gratitude for the assistance he received from ministers of a religion not his own. On one occasion, in response to an urgent request, he visited one of those unhappy women whom the more favored of their sex call the scourge, and whom philosophers have called the safeguard, of society. She had fallen a victim to the plague, but worse than the rage of the fever was her bitter remorse as she thought of the life she had quitted to become an inmate of a house of sin. She felt that her peace could not be made with Heaven until she had confessed and received absolution from a priest of the church, and she begged that such a one might be brought to her. The "Samaritan" went in search of a priest, and stated to him clearly who the woman was and in what manner of house she lived, expecting that objection would be made; but the good father quickly responded: "Such as you speak of have my readiest service, for truly do they stand in need of the consolations of religion." The priest shrived the patient, feeling rewarded that he had given peace to the soul of another Magdalene, and he could not murmur that, while the Angelus was ringing, she passed away.

When September came the weather changed and the fever was more successfully treated. But this epidemic lasted longer than its predecessors; sixty days was the usual term, but this did not cease its ravages until after three months. The 2d of September was observed as a day of fasting in response to a proclamation of the mayor calling upon all citizens to keep it" as a day of special prayer for the repose of the souls of the dead, for the stay of the epidemic, for the well-being of the survivors, and for gratitude that the hearts of so many have been led to share of their abundance with this afflicted city." The North had contributed money liberally for the work of the Howard Association. The board of health officially declared the city free of the epidemic on the 13th of October. The number of deaths from this visitation is variously stated, but no doubt remains that they exceeded eight thousand. Never before or since has New Orleans suffered so severely from the yellow fever. In making a comparison with other plagues, confusion arises from the fact that the actual population of the city and the number of unacclimated persons who remained during the epidemic are matters only of estimate; but it is not a rash assertion to make, that, reckoning the proportion of deaths to the probable number of people subject to the disease, the mortality of the yellow fever at New Orleans in 1853 was equal to that of the great plague of London or the yellow fever epidemic at Philadelphia in 1798.1
___________________
1 My authorities for this account of the yellow fever are, first and foremost, The Diary of a Samaritan (see p. 404, note); article by Dr. A. W. Ely, of New Orleans, De Bow's Review, December 1853; an article in Harper's Magazine, November, 1853, by one who was present during the epidemic; the New Orleans Picayune; the New York Times, September, 1853, and March 3d, 1854; Dr. McFarlane in De Bow's Review, May, 1854; Dr. E. D. Fenner in De Bow's Review, July, 1854. I have derived valuable information on the yellow fever in general from vol. ii. of Principal Diseases of North America, by Dr. Daniel Drake. The New Orleans epidemic bears no comparison in severity with the great plague of the fourteenth century. "The plague [of 1348] raged in Florence from April to September. . . . The deaths in Florence averaged 600 a day; and three-fifths of the population are recorded to have perished." —History of Florence, T. A. Trollope, vol. ii. p. 90. "The memorable plague, described with so much eloquence by Giovanni Boccaccio, and by which Florence lost 96,000 souls." — History of Florence, Machiavelli. "In Florence there died of the black plague 60,000; in Venice, 100,000; in Paris, 50,000; in London, at least 100,000. ... In all Germany, according to a probable calculation, there seem to have died only 1,244,434 inhabitants; this country was, however, more spared than others. Italy, on the contrary, was most severely visited. It is said to have lost half of its inhabitants.. . . The whole period during which the black death raged with destructive violence in Europe was, with the exception of Russia, from the year 1347 to 1350. ... Of all the estimates of the number of lives lost in Europe, the most probable is that altogether a fourth part of the inhabitants were carried off. It may be assumed without exaggeration that Europe lost during the black death 25,000,000 of inhabitants." — Hecker on the Black Death, Buckle's Commonplace Book, p. 557. The plague of 1349 "probably killed a third of the population " of England. The Economic Interpretation of History, Thorold Rogers, p. 22. See also article of Andrew D. White, Popular Science Monthly, September, 1891.

The prevalence of the yellow fever in the Southern cities excited much sympathy at the North, but it was not mixed with apprehension, for every one felt confident that the epidemic would be confined to the South. Political repose and signal activity in trade characterized the year. One of the victories of peace was the Industrial exhibition in the Crystal Palace at New York. It was a private enterprise, suggested by the London exhibition of 1851, and called by the high-sounding name of a World's Fair. The edifice was admirable. George William Curtis called it Aladdin's palace because of the light elegance in its architectural lines, which were "worthily surmounted and crowned by the dome." "It is," he adds, "a dome of Oriental characteristics. But there is nothing in architecture more pleasing. It seems to have been borne in upon a zephyr, and the slightest breath would lift it away. Blown like a bubble in some happy moment of a Jinn's inspiration, it floats over the whole, imparting an aerial grace, not to be comprehended without being seen."1

Rarely has there been a more creditable result to a speculative
___________________
1 Harper'sMagazine, November, 1853, p. 844.

enterprise. No sooner was the building begun than a furious speculation took place in the stock of the company. The shares steadily advanced until they reached eighty per cent. above par. The President opened the exhibition; distinguished people from the country and Europe were present. It was not asserted that the fair would equal its London predecessor; the head of the enterprise said that the attempt was made to do on a smaller scale what had been done so magnificently in London.1 The exhibition commenced in midsummer, but at first the number of visitors was small. The summer was hot, and in August there occurred a heated spell which put a stop to business and pleasure. Nearly everywhere at the North the mercury for several days was at 100° in the shade; in New York City two hundred and thirty deaths were in one day caused by the heat, and the mortality for a week was great.2 When the cooler days of September came, people began to attend the exhibition and appreciate its value. Those who had sneered at the enterprise now admired the display. The most graceful commenter on passing events wrote that beneath the dome of the Crystal Palace, "in cheerful rivalry meet all the nations, as of old kings met upon a field of cloth of gold. But this is a tournament of friendship; this is a joust of justice. Denmark sends the solemn group of Thorwaldsen, and France her rarest and most delicate tapestries and porcelains, and England her solid silver and earthen ware, and hydra-headed Germany a hundred varieties in every kind, and Italy, Belgium, and Holland each their best. While America, like a host of infinitely various hospitality, receives each with a kindred welcome, meeting the useful and beautiful of every art and of every country upon its
________________
1 See article "Our Crystal Palace," by Parke Godwin, Putnam's Magazine, August, 1853.
2 New York Tribune, Harper's Magazine, and American Almanac. Official reports from the Smithsonian Institution show 1853 to be the hottest summer since 1798. New Orleans Picayune, August 23d, 1853.

own ground. . . . The true success of the exhibition lies in its justification of the American pride. We have grown tired of hearing that we were such a great nation; but the Crystal Palace inclines us to tolerate the boast. It will teach us the high-minded humility we want, by showing us what actual and undeniable successes we have achieved. Lyons and Manchester and Paris and Vienna must look to their laurels."1

The material progress of the country was, indeed, great. Railroads were building everywhere. The extension of the system was bringing the rich grain-fields of the prairies into easy communication with the seaboard; and as the iron rails were laid westward, the comforts and luxuries of civilization were brought within the reach of the pioneers. But the operation of the railroads left much to be desired. Travelling was attended with danger. In the first eight months of the year sixty-five fatal railroad accidents occurred, one hundred and seventy-seven persons were killed, and three hundred and thirty-three injured.2 These accidents were for the most part charged against the carelessness of the officials, the greed of the directors, and the desire of the public for high speed. "Our fast age is growing rapidly faster," wrote the moralist of the time;3 and while the journals and magazines inveighed against the railroad management, and each casualty caused a fresh outburst of indignation, this was succeeded by indifference, and nothing was done to remedy the evil. It could hardly be denied, therefore, that a disregard of human life characterized the nation.

Contemporaneous with the glorification of our industries by the Crystal Palace exhibition came a vigorous assertion from the Secretary of State of the power and protection afforded by American nationality, which caused deep exultation. Martin Koszta, a Hungarian, took part in the
_____________
1 Editor's Easy Chair, Harper's Magazine, November, 1853, p. 844.
2 New York Herald, quoted by De Bow's Review, October, 1853, p. 429.
3 Harper's Magazine, July, 1853, p. 272.

unsuccessful revolution of 1848, escaped to Turkey, was confined there for a while, and then came to the United States, where he declared, under oath and before a proper officer, his intention to become a citizen of this country. After residing here nearly two years he returned to Smyrna, Turkey, upon business of a temporary nature, and placed himself under the protection of the American consul. The Austrian consul-general tried to get authority from the Turkish governor for his arrest, but, failing in this, instigated some desperadoes to kidnap him. He was taken on board the Austrian brig-of-war the Huszar, and put in irons. The American representatives made the proper protests, but the demand for his release was unsuccessful. Meanwhile there arrived in the harbor of Smyrna the United States sloop-of-war Saint Louis, under the command of Captain Ingraham, who, becoming convinced that a design was set on foot by the Austrian officials to remove Koszta clandestinely to Trieste, an Austrian port, demanded his release, and to enforce it brought the guns of the Saint Lends to bear upon the Huszar. A compromise, however, was effected, by virtue of which the prisoner was delivered to the custody of the French consul-general until the two governments should agree in regard to his disposal. The Austrian government addressed to various courts a protest against the action of Captain Ingraham, and instructed Hulsemann, the imperial charge d'affaires at Washington, to ask the government of the United States "not to interpose any obstacle to the extradition of Koszta to Austria," "to disavow the conduct of its agents," and "to call them to a severe account and tender to Austria a satisfaction proportionate to the magnitude of the outrage." Such an opportunity could make Marcy well believe that the stars were in his favor. Ardently desiring the next Democratic nomination for President, he set himself to write a diplomatic paper that should gain the good-will of the people. He acquitted himself, however, with credit and dignity, equal to that of Webster and Everett on similar occasions. His reply to Hulsemann
is a state-paper carefully considered and clearly expressed; and while it may be criticised as raising too many questions, the main reason for refusing Austria's request is cogently argued, and, to an American, his position seems irrefutable. This manifesto had a remarkable reception, not confined to section or party, and for the moment Marcy was certainly the most popular man in the United States.

From a careful and precise statement of the facts, the Secretary of State shows that "Koszta was seized without any rightful authority." And although he had not yet become a naturalized citizen, he had established his domicile in the United States and become thereby clothed with the national character; "he retained that character when he was seized at Smyrna; ... he acquired the right to claim protection from the United States, and they had the right to extend it to him." The course of Captain Ingraham was fully justified, the disavowal of the acts of American agents refused, the satisfaction asked for by Austria respectfully declined, and the request to put no obstacles in the way of the delivery of Koszta to the Austrian consul-general at Smyrna was denied. Marcy made one declaration which, though savoring of the stump-speech, was of a nature to thrill the American heart with delight, for never had the national aggressiveness been so strong as at this time. "Whenever," he wrote, "by the operation of the law of nations, an individual becomes clothed with our national character, be he a native-born or naturalized citizen, an exile driven from his early home by political oppression, or an emigrant enticed from it by the hopes of a better fortune for himself and his posterity, he can claim the protection of this government, and it may respond to that claim without being obliged to explain its conduct to any foreign power; for it is its duty to make its nationality respected by other nations and respectable in every quarter of the globe." Yet there was little of buncombe about Marcy's paper. His important point was well taken and has been sustained by eminent American authorities on international law; and his successors in the State department have followed the principle he laid down. In the end Koszta was allowed to return to the United States. Congress showed its satisfaction by a joint resolution thanking Captain Ingraham and conferring on him a medal.1

The President needed all the glory he could get from the State department to prevent his administration from sinking into contempt. Undoubtedly the most popular man in the country when he delivered his inaugural address, he was, by the time that he sent his first message to Congress, regarded by most of the leaders of his own party as incompetent for his position. To distribute the offices in a manner that should subserve the best interests of the party
_______________
1 See Executive Documents, 1st Session 33d Congress, vol. i. part 1, House Document 1. Marcy's doctrine is approved by Woolsey, International Law, § 81, and in a qualified way by G. B. Davis, Outlines of International Law, p. 105. Calvo, the eminent South American authority, sustains Marcy. See Wharton, § 198. Halleck's International Law, edited by Sir Sherston Baker, Bart., an English barrister, thoroughly supports Marcy's position, and says the allegations of the Austrian government "were most clearly and satisfactorily disproved in the masterly despatch of Mr. Marcy," vol. i. p. 202. See also Boyd's edition of Wheaton; also Woolsey's International Law, sixth edition (1891), Appendix III. Hall, however, an English authority, says, "Marcy's contention was wholly destitute of legal foundation," International Law, § 72. Marcy's position is questioned by Von Hoist, vol. iv. p. 280, who adds: "The question is permissible, too, whether both Ingraham and the President would not have proceeded more gently if they had had to do with England instead of Austria." This statement leads me to emphasize what I have already alluded to in the text. The fact is, that the American of 1853 feared no nation, and thought his country fully able to cope with any European power. Marcy was too good a lawyer and too just a man to take an untenable attitude towards a weak nation, and too brave not to maintain the rights of his country against a strong nation. Moreover, nothing pleased one section of the Democratic party better than to defy England; and as the Crimean war was already looming in the distance, no Democratic Secretary of State would have bated a jot of a just demand on England. For public opinion in the matter, see Harper'sMagazine, November, 1853, p. 834, and Dec, 1853, p. 130; also the debate in Congress.

would have been an herculean task for a wise man, but the inherent difficulty of the situation was increased by the President's lack of executive ability. He would make up his mind in the morning and change it in the afternoon. He would receive an applicant for office effusively, put on his most urbane manner, listen to the claim with attention, giving the aspirant for public place every reason to feel that the position was surely his. For Franklin Pierce could not say no; and when he was not able to give a direct promise, he would give an implied one. This failing caused him trouble without end. In more than one case the same important office was promised to two different men, and indirect assurances of executive favor were almost as numerous as visitors at the White House.

It was a common saying that Pierce treated everybody with the same marked kindness and seeming confidence.1 People soon perceived that the President lacked firmness, and by the time that Congress assembled there had arisen general distrust of his capacity. No one could deny that he had grown less by his elevation, like a little statue on a great pedestal.

In New York State, Pierce was accused of being tinctured with Free-soilism, because in the distribution of the patronage his personal affiliations had led him to lean to the faction of Softs. Marcy's influence, moreover, was very apparent and was exercised in a manner to take care of the faction of which he was the admitted chief. But in Massachusetts the liberty-loving Democrats were alienated; for Cushing, who unquestionably had the ear of the President, had written a letter which gave no uncertain sound on the slavery question. "If," wrote the Attorney-General," there be any purpose more fixed than another in the mind of the President and those with whom he is accustomed to consult, it is that that dangerous element of abolitionism, under whatever
____________
1 "The President has a very winning way in his manners."—Seward to his wife, March 80th, 1853, Life of Seward, vol. ii. p. 202.

guise or form it may present itself, shall be crushed out so far as this administration is concerned."1

In one part of the South, however, Pierce was regarded as an abolitionist, for it was believed that John Van Buren, the soul of the Democratic Free-soil movement, was closeted daily with him and had undisguised influence with the administration; while in Mississippi, where the contest between the Union and the secession faction had been bitter, it was thought that Pierce had thrown himself into the arms of the states-rights men, from his avowed political and personal friendship with Jefferson Davis.2 But in spite of factional disaffection, the position of the President and the Democratic party was apparently an enviable one when Congress came together on the first Monday of December. In the Senate there were thirty-seven Democrats, twenty-one Whigs, and two Free-soilers; in the House there were one hundred and fifty-nine Democrats, seventy-one Whigs, and four Free-soilers. Moreover, the unpopularity of the administration with the leaders and politicians of the party had not spread to the mass of voters. Indeed, it would not have been surprising had the Democrats lost ground in the elections of 1853 as compared with their remarkable success one year earlier. After such an astounding victory, under ordinary circumstances even, a reaction might have been expected. It is now a maxim in American politics that the first year of a new administration is the trying one; and it was undeniable that the difficulties of the unfavorable year had been increased by many unwise acts on the part of the President. Yet with one notable exception, there was no evidence of this in the State elections of the year, for where they occurred every State that had voted for Pierce but New York went Democratic. Here the Hards and Softs each nominated a State ticket, which resulted in a plurality
_____________
1 This letter was published in the New York Tribune of November 3d.
2 See Foote's speech at a public dinner at Washington, Richmond Whig, January 24th, 1854.

for the Whigs, but the combined Democratic vote was thirty thousand in excess of that received by the Whig candidates. As a partial set-off, Tennessee, which Scott had carried, now elected a Democratic governor, and some States gave increased Democratic majorities as compared with the presidential year. Thus, the Democrats had not only the executive and a large majority in Congress, but they had the governors and the legislatures of nearly every State.

The President in his message to Congress mentioned that negotiations were on foot with Great Britain to settle a dispute about the fisheries and certain embarrassing questions which had arisen between the two governments regarding Central America. The relations with Spain were touched upon lightly, and no inkling was given of the scheme of which the minds of the President and his Southern advisers were full. There being a surplus of revenue over expenditures, it was Pierce's opinion that the reduction of the tariff was a matter of great importance, and he asked a careful and candid consideration of the plan of the Secretary of the Treasury, which was "to reduce the duties on certain articles, and to add to the free list many articles now taxed, and especially such as enter into manufactures, and are not largely, or at all, produced in this country." He also recommended to Congress that it should aid by all constitutional means the construction of a railroad to the Pacific coast.

This Congress would have been notable for a reduction of the tariff, and still more notable for giving a start to a railroad across the continent, had there not been in the Senate a man powerful enough to change the course of history.

The Democratic party now occupied high vantage-ground. It certainly never entered the heads of that party's magnates that anything could endanger its supremacy in the government for many years; and he would have been indeed a rash Whig who cast a doubt on the prediction that the Democrats had secured for themselves a long lease of power. The nearly unanimous opinion of the country was that he who should receive the Democratic nomination for President in 1856 would be elected, and that without a formidable opposition. Never in the history of the party, when the nomination had been open to active competition, had it seemed so glittering and sure a prize. Pierce had tasted the sweets of office and wanted to succeed himself.1 Puffed up with the vanity of power, looking on everything with an optimistic eye, full of good humor with himself and the world, he little dreamed of the attacks on him which were whispered in corners or talked openly on the streets.2 If he saw, or heard of, the criticisms in the newspapers of his own party, he could ascribe them in the main to ungratified desires; and before Democratic members, on the floor of the House, called in question his motives and policy, a public measure engrossed his attention and made this factional contest seem like a petty quarrel.

The four prominent candidates of 1852 still cast longing eyes on the next Democratic nomination for President. Marcy3 felt that he had gained an advantage in the Koszta affair; but if Cuba could be honorably acquired, he was certain that the people would call him, instead of the President, the second Jefferson.

Buchanan had accepted the English mission with reluctance, because the negotiations in regard to all the disputed questions between this country and Great Britain had not been put in his hands. The Central American affair was
________________
1 As early as May, 1853, this was noted by Buchanan: "I had not been in Washington many days before I clearly discovered that the President and his cabinet were intent upon his renomination and re-election."— Life of Buchanan, Curtis, vol. ii. p. 80.
2 An occasional correspondent of the New York Evening Post, who knew Pierce well, gives a noteworthy account of the impression he got on seeing the President at about this time. See the Post, February 13th, 1854.
3 Buchanan thought in May, 1853, that Governor Marcy would "probably cherish until the day of his death the anxious desire to become President."—Curtis, vol. ii. p. 80.

confided to him, but out of that little glory was to be had.1 He had written a public letter stating his intention to retire from active politics on the completion of his mission,' but his rivals regarded those expressions as conventional rather than sincere. A private letter written by Buchanan soon after his arrival in England is evidence that he mentally reserved a loop-hole through which he might evade this positive declaration. "I have neither the desire nor the intention," he wrote," again to become a candidate for the presidency. On the contrary, this mission is tolerable to me alone because it will enable me gracefully and gradually to retire from an active participation in party politics. . . . But while these are the genuine sentiments of my heart, I do not think I ought to say that in no imaginable state of circumstances would I consent to be nominated as a candidate."2

General Cass had not yet given up all hope of the presidency, and there was considerable rivalry between him and Douglas, as they were both representatives of the Northwest. Douglas was the boldest of all the aspirants, and on the 1st day of January, 1854, of the five candidates for the Democratic succession he was the least popular with the South. He had not grown in favor since 1852, when he had the smallest following from that section in the convention which nominated Pierce. Although Douglas had married a Southern lady and had agreeable personal relations at the South, the politicians did not trust him. It may be that they thought he was too practical a champion of free labor, for he liked to boast of his early poverty and the fact that when a boy he had worked at a trade. The result of the previous convention, however, had taught Douglas that he could not be nominated without the aid of Southern votes. He might get nearly the whole support of the West and he might hope for assistance from New York, but he could
_______________
1 Life of Buchanan, Curtis, vol. ii. p. 92 et ante. 5 Ibid., p. 93.
2 Letter to Ben: Perley Poore, Reminiscences, vol. i. p. 437.

expect nothing from New England and Pennsylvania. While the term "the solid South" had not come into use, politicians were beginning to think what a force there might be in the fact. The South would have one hundred and seventeen votes in the next convention, and, it being pretty well understood that there was no chance of the nomination of a Southern man, it was evident that if this strength could be concentrated on a favorite son of the North, it would, added to his home support, assure him the nomination. Thoughts and calculations like these must have passed through Douglas's mind during his trip of recreation to Europe the preceding summer; and when he came to Washington to survey the ground, one way was manifest in which he might commend himself to Southern favor. The acquisition of Cuba was out of his province. While free trade was popular at the South, the senator had no taste for economical questions, and the Pacific railroad was a Western measure. But the organization of the new territories might be handled in a satisfactory manner; this, moreover, was the favorite field of Douglas, and he was chairman of the committee on territories. A bill for the organization of the territory of Nebraska had passed the House at the previous session and was reported to the Senate. This bill was in the usual form, but made no reference whatever to slavery. It encountered opposition in the Senate, as involving bad faith with the Indians; and as it came up late in the session, there was not sufficient time for its consideration, so it failed to become a law. The same bill was introduced into the Senate in December, 1853, and referred to the committee on territories." On the 4th of January, 1854, Douglas made a report which was the introduction to a project whose importance cannot
___________________
1 It is well to bear in mind that so far as any affirmative legislation was concerned, the committee on territories was Douglas. It was composed of Douglas, Johnson of Arkansas, Jones of Iowa, Houston, Democrats, and Bell and Everett, Whigs. The last three named are well-known men, but were all opposed to the Nebraska bill.

be overestimated. The territory of Nebraska comprised what is now1 the States of Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Montana, part of Colorado, and Wyoming. It was part of the Louisiana purchase, and contained four hundred and eighty-five thousand square miles, a territory more than ten times as large as New York, and larger by thirty-three thousand square miles than all the free States then in the Union east of the Rocky Mountains. In this magnificent domain were less than one thousand white inhabitants; but as soon as it should be opened to settlement by proper legislation, there was certain to be a large immediate increase of population.2

This report of Douglas began with the announcement of the discovery of a great principle which had been established by the compromise measures of 1850. They "were intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere adjustment of difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of Mexican territory. They were designed to establish certain great principles, which would not only furnish adequate remedies for existing evils, but, in all time to come, avoid the perils of similar agitation by withdrawing the question of slavery from the halls of Congress and the political arena, committing it to the arbitration of those who were immediately interested in, and alone responsible for, its consequences. ... A question has arisen in regard to the right to hold slaves in the territory of Nebraska, when the Indian laws shall be withdrawn and the country thrown open to emigration and settlement. ... It is a disputed point whether slavery is prohibited in the Nebraska country by valid enactment. ... In the opinion of those
_______________
1 In 1890.
2 One of the objections made to the organization of the territory was on account of insufficient population, but it was not well taken. Douglas was well informed on this point, and showed clearly that if the restrictions in favor of the Indians were removed, there would be a large influx of settlers. Benton, who opposed the Nebraska bill of Douglas, was positive that a territorial government ought to be at once established for Nebraska. See Harper's Magazine, Dec, 1853, p. 121.

eminent statesmen who hold that Congress is invested with no rightful authority to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the territories, the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri is null and void." The reader may be reminded that the gist of the Missouri Compromise lay in this eighth section, which provided that slavery should be prohibited in all the Louisiana territory lying north of 36° 30, north latitude, not included within the limits of the State of Missouri. Douglas's report continued: "The prevailing sentiment in large portions of the Union sustains the doctrine that the Constitution of the United States secures to every citizen an inalienable right to move into any of the territories with his property, of whatever kind and description, and to hold and enjoy the same under the sanction of law." Yet the committee did not propose to recommend the affirmation or the repeal of the eighth section of the Missouri act. The report concluded with the statement, "The compromise measures of 1850 affirm and rest upon the following propositions:

"First—That all questions pertaining to slavery in the territories, and the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen by them for that purpose.

"Second—That 1 all cases involving title to slaves' and 1 questions of personal freedom' are to be referred to the jurisdiction of the local tribunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

"Third—That the provision of the Constitution of the United States in respect to fugitives from service is to be carried into faithful execution in all 1the organized territories,' the same as in the States."

The bill reported by the committee as first printed contained the provision that the territory of Nebraska, or any portion of the same, when admitted as a State or States, "shall be received into the Union with or without slavery, as their Constitution may prescribe at the time
of their admission." This language was borrowed from the Utah and New Mexico bills, which were a part of the compromise of 1850. Three days after the bill was first printed another section was added, which incorporated into the bill these closing propositions of the committee's report.

Douglas professed to have discovered a way by which the slavery question might be put to rest. But everybody North and South, as well as Douglas himself, knew that this report would certainly open up again the agitation. The country was at peace. Business was good; evidences of smiling prosperity were everywhere to be seen. The spirit of enterprise was rampant; great works were in progress, others were projected. Political repose was a marked feature of the situation. The slavery question seemed settled, and the dream of the great compromisers of 1850 seemed to be realized. Every foot of land in the States or in the territories seemed to have, so far as slavery was concerned, a fixed and settled character. The obnoxious part of the compromise to the North, the Fugitive Slave law, was no longer resisted. Another era of good feeling appeared to have set in. The earnest hope of Clay, that the work in which he had so large a share would give the country rest from slavery agitation for a generation, did not seem vain. There has been restored, said the President in his message, "a sense of repose and security to the public mind throughout the confederacy." This quiet was ruthlessly disturbed by Douglas's report, which, though professing in one part not to repeal the Missouri Compromise, closed with a proposition which certainly set it aside. The Missouri Compromise forever prohibited slavery in what was now the territory of Nebraska. Douglas proposed to leave to the inhabitants of Nebraska the decision as to whether or not they would have slavery. From the circumstances under which the Missouri Compromise was enacted, from the fact that it received the seal of constitutionality from an impartial President and a thoroughly representative cabinet, it had been looked upon as having the moral force of an article of the Constitution itself. For what purpose was the repose of the country disturbed by throwing a doubt on the constitutionality and application of an act which had been acquiesced in and observed by both parties to the compact for thirty-four years?

The motives which actuate men who alter the current of their time are ever an interesting study; and in this case no confidential letters or conversations need be unearthed to arrive at a satisfactory explanation. We may use the expression of the Independent Democrats in Congress and say that the dearest interests of the people were made "the mere hazards of a presidential game;" or we may employ the words of John Van Buren, an astute politician who was in the secrets of the party, and ask, " Could anything but a desire to buy the South at the presidential shambles dictate such an outrage ?"1 And this true statement and the inference from this trenchant question explain the motives prompting Douglas to this action. Even those who were very friendly to the measure did not scruple openly to express this opinion. One wrote that Douglas had betrayed "an indiscreet and hasty ambition;"2 another granted that the object of Douglas " was to get the inside track in the South."3 The defences made by Douglas and his friends at the time and in the succeeding years, when his political prospects depended upon the justification of his course, are shuffling and delusive. None are satisfactory, and it may
_______________
1 Private letter of John Van Buren to ex-Senator Clemens, February 3d, 1854, published in the New York Evening Post, February 11th, 1854.
2 Washington correspondence Richmond Enquirer, quoted by Richmond Whig, January 31st, 1854. I am indebted to the New York Historical Society for permission to examine their file of the Richmond Whig.
3 New York Herald, February 21st. I am indebted to the Society Library of New York for permission to examine their file of the New York Herald and the New York Courier and Enquirer. These expressions were used after the formal repeal of the Missouri Compromise had been incorporated into the Kansas-Nebraska bill.

with confidence be affirmed that the action of the Illinois senator was a bid for Southern support in the next Democratic convention. In truth, Douglas might have used the words of Frederick the Great when he began the unjust war against Austria for the conquest of Silesia: "Ambition, interest, the desire of making people talk about me, carried the day, and I decided" to renew the agitation of slavery.

Douglas could veil his own ambition under the wish to promote the interests of the Democratic party and, historians appreciating this, have readily believed that he said, that his party, in the election of Pierce, had consumed all its powder, and therefore, without a deep-reaching agitation, it would have no more ammunition for its artillery.1 Yet it was patent to every one—and none knew it better than Douglas, for he was the ablest politician of the party—that the Democrats needed to make no fresh issue; that to let things drift along and not turn them into new channels was the safest course, and that appeals to past history were the best of arguments. An economical administration, a reduction of the tariff, a vigorous and just foreign policy, were certain to keep the Democrats in power as long as man could foresee. There was, it is true, one element of uncertainty. The factious quarrel in New York had led to defeat at the last State election; but the party was so strong that even without the Empire State it could retain its ascendency in the nation, and there was, moreover, good reason to hope that this trouble would be patched up before another presidential election.

To become the acknowledged and dominating leader of so strong a party seemed to an ardent partisan an object worthy of any exertion and any sacrifice. It was the ambition of Douglas to hold the same position among the Democrats that Clay had held among the Whigs. Clay attained that position by being the originator of important legislative
_________________
1 Kapp, Geschichte der Sklaverei, quoted by Von Hoist, vol. iv. p. 313. This was in the fall of 1855.

measures and by carrying them to a successful issue. The ability of Douglas lay in this direction, and he, like Clay, was a natural leader of men. Indeed, they were men of similar parts, strong natures whose private vices were hardly hidden. But Clay had profound moral convictions which, although sometimes set at naught in the heat of partisan conflict, were of powerful influence in his political career; in the view of Douglas, moral ideas had no place in politics.

Douglas prepared the bill without consultation with any Southern men. It was submitted first to two Western senators, after their approval was given, was shown to their Southern friends.1 It became the object of some of those opposed to the Nebraska bill to show that the project was dictated by the South. Much credence was given to a boast of senator Atchison, made under the inspiration of the invisible spirit of wine, that he had forced Douglas to bring in such a bill.2 It was also charged that Toombs and Stephens had been the potent influence which had brought about the
_______________
1 This was the statement of Douglas in the Senate in 1856, Congressional Globe, vol. xxxiii. p. 393. I have never seen any well-attested evidence which contradicts this statement. Butler, of South Carolina, said in the Senate during the debate: "I have had very little to do with this bill, and I believe the South has had very little to do with the provisions of the bill." At the time of the greatest unpopularity of this legislation, Douglas said in the Senate (February 23d, 1855): "The Nebraska bill was not concocted in any conclave, night or day. It was written by myself, at my own house, with no man present. Whatever odium there is attached to it, I assume it. Whatever of credit there may be, let the public award it where they think it belongs." The earliest premonition of the report which I have found is in the New York Herald of January 2d, 1854: "It is understood that the territory of Nebraska is to be admitted into the confederacy upon such terms as will leave it at the option of her people to make it either a slave or free territory."
2 This speech was made at Atchison, Kan., September 26th, 1854, reported in the Parkville Luminary September 26th, copied in the New York Tribune October 10th; see also the New York Tribune, June 4th, 1855, and see Wilson's remarks in the Senate, April 14th, 1856.

action. The Illinois senator, in April, 1856, denied both of these imputations,1 and all the circumstances support the truth of this denial.2 Douglas was a man of too much independence to suffer the dictation of Atchison, Toombs, or Stephens. He always wanted to lead, and was never content to follow.

Immediately on the publication of the report the antislavery people of the North took alarm. The newspapers which were devoted to freedom saw the point at once and made clear the scheme which was in progress. One journal said it was a "proposition to turn the Missouri Compromise into a juggle and a cheat;" it was "presented in so bold and barefaced shape that it is quite as much an insult as it is a fraud.3 Another called it an overt attempt to override the Missouri Compromise.4 Another termed the project low trickery, which deluded the South with the idea that it would legalize slavery in Nebraska, and at the same time cheated the North "with a thin pretence of not repealing the existing prohibition. 5 The anti-slavery press responded more quickly than the people whose sentiment they both represented and led. The people of the South were as much surprised at the report as those of the North. Not counting upon Douglas as one of their adherents through thick and thin, they at first viewed the proposition with distrust,
_____________
1 Congressional Globe, vol. xxxiii. p. 393.
2 In 1886, Jefferson Davis, in a letter to a friend, said: "So far as I know and believe, Douglas and Atchison never were in such relation to each other as would have caused Douglas to ask Atchison's help in preparing the bill, and I think the whole discussion shows that Douglas originated the bill, and for a year or two vaunted himself on its paternity."—Memoir of Jefferson Davis, by his wife, vol. i. p. 671.
3 New York Evening Post, January 7th, 1854.
4 New York Tribune, January 11th, 1854.
5 New York Independent, January 7th. The Herald, which approved of the report of Douglas, said: "Senator Douglas's report has created a great sensation among the abolitionists and their aiders and abettors in this city. Already the Post and Tribune—and the Times will soon follow with the other abolitionist organs—are out in full swoop against the report."

and some even regarded it as "a snare set for the South."1 Bat the senators and representatives from the slave-holding States understood the matter better than the people and the press, and knew that Douglas had taken a long stride in their direction. As he could not retrace his steps, he could therefore be easily influenced to alter his bill in a manner that should make it conform pretty nearly to their cherished wish.

On Monday, the 16th of January, Dixon, a Whig senator from Kentucky, who was filling the unexpired term of Henry Clay, offered an amendment to the Nebraska act, which provided in set terms for the repeal of the slavery-restriction feature of the Missouri Compromise. The Senate was astonished and Douglas was startled. He went at once to Dixon's seat and remonstrated courteously against the amendment. He said that in his bill he had used almost the same words which were employed in the Utah and New Mexico acts; and as they were a part of the compromise measures of 1850, he hoped that Dixon, who had been a zealous friend of that adjustment, would do nothing to interfere with it or weaken it before the country. Dixon replied that it was precisely because he was a zealous friend of the compromise of 1850 that he had introduced the amendment; in his view, the Missouri Compromise, unless expressly repealed, would continue to operate in the Territory of Nebraska; and while the bill of Douglas affirmed the principle of non-intervention, this amendment was necessary to carry it legitimately into effect. That being the well-considered opinion of Dixon, he was determined to insist upon his amendment.2

On the 17th of January, Sumner offered an amendment to
______________
1 Richmond Whig, January 20th; also see Cullom's speech, Congressional Globe, vol. xxix. p. 54.
2 Letter of Dixon to Henry 8. Foote, September 30th, 1858, Spring's Kansas, p. 3; Life of Douglas, by a Member of the Western Bar, New York, 1860. Dixon's letter is referred to by Nicolay and Hay, in History of Lincoln, as having been published in the Louisville Democrat, October 3d, 1858.

the Nebraska act which expressly affirmed the slavery restriction of the Missouri Compromise.

A few days after Dixon had surprised the Senate, Douglas called to see him and invited him to take a drive. The conversation turned upon the subject which was uppermost in their minds, and, to the great delight of Dixon, the Illinois senator proposed to take charge of his amendment and incorporate it in the Nebraska bill. As Dixon reports the familiar talk, Douglas in substance said: "I have become perfectly satisfied that it is my duty, as a fair-minded national statesman, to co-operate with you as proposed in securing the repeal of the Missouri Compromise restriction. It is due to the South; it is due to the Constitution, heretofore palpably infracted; it is due to that character for consistency which I have heretofore labored to maintain. The repeal, if we can effect it, will produce much stir and commotion in the free States of the Union for a season. I shall be assailed by demagogues and fanatics there, without stint or moderation. Every opprobrious epithet will be applied to me. I shall probably be hung in effigy in many places. It is more than probable that I may become permanently odious among those whose friendship and esteem I have heretofore possessed. This proceeding may end my political career. But, acting under the sense of duty which animates me, I am prepared to make the sacrifice; I will do it." Dixon relates that Douglas spoke in an earnest and touching manner; the Kentucky senator was deeply affected and showed emotion in the reply that he made. "Sir," he said, "I once recognized you as a demagogue, a mere party manager, selfish, and intriguing. I now find you a warm-hearted and sterling patriot. Go forward in the pathway of duty as you propose, and though all the world desert you, I never will"1

It was a pretty comedy. The words of Douglas are those of a self-denying patriot, and not those of a man who was
_________________
1 Letter of Dixon, Life of Douglas, p. 172.

sacrificing the peace of his country, and, as it turned out, the success of his party, to his own personal ambition. Between the Monday on which the amendment repealing the Missouri Compromise was introduced, and the day of the drive with Dixon, Douglas resolved to take a further step in the path on which he had entered. Of course, all sorts of influences were brought to bear upon him by Southern men, and there was one powerful argument from the Democratic point of view. While the difference between Democrats and Whigs at the South was no longer essential, the party organizations remained intact, and each endeavored to win an advantage over the other by taking more pronounced ground in the interest of slavery. It would not do, therefore, to have a measure of so obvious advantage to the South fathered by a Whig, even by one who truly felt, as he afterwards stated in the Senate: "Upon the question of slavery, I know no Whiggery and I know no Democracy." This argument and others undoubtedly had their influence on Douglas; but, in truth, he had laid out his course when he made the report of the 4th of January. He had then crossed the Rubicon; he was now preparing to burn his bridges behind him.

Unquestionably Douglas would have preferred to stand on the proposition as at first introduced. It is the testimony of two personal and political friends that he was reluctant to incorporate in his bill a clause virtually repealing the Missouri Compromise.1 The ambiguous character of the first project was not without design, and suited his purpose exactly. At the South it could be paraded as a measure in her interest, while at the North there might be honest differences of opinion whether or not the slavery restriction was set aside; and in the inception of this movement it is probable that Douglas thought that, no matter what legislation was had, none but free States would be formed out of
________________
1 Cox, Three Decades of Federal Legislation, p. 49; Foote, Casket of Reminiscences, p. 93.

this territory. This was certainly his opinion in 1850, when he maintained that "the Missouri Compromise had no practical bearing upon the question of slavery—it neither curtailed nor extended it an inch. Like the ordinance of 1787, it did the South no harm, the North no good."1 And in the same speech he expressed the opinion that the Nebraska territory would be forever free, and out of it would be formed at least six free States. It was rumored at the time, and was always believed by many of the friends of Douglas, that what finally decided him to shape the bill in accordance with Dixon's views was because he had reason to believe that if he did not take that step Cass would forestall him, support the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and thereby gain an important advantage in the race for the Democratic nomination.2

Douglas had written his report and prepared his first bill without any consultation with the President, but the rising tide of Northern sentiment against the measure, and the certainty that the murmur would become a roar, admonished him that nothing could be safely omitted which would aid the passage of the act through both houses of Congress. He felt confident that success in the Senate was certain, but the power and influence of the administration might be necessary to insure a majority in the House. He sought, therefore, the assistance of the President. Pierce, through his own organ, the Washington Union, which faithfully represented his opinions,3 had approved the report of
___________________
1 Speech on the compromise measures, March 13th, 1850.
2 This was a view presented to me by ex-Senator Bradbury, of Maine. Cass regarded the rumor of enough importance to deny it in open Senate. "I am aware," he said, "it was reported that I intended to propose the repeal of the Missouri Compromise; but it was an error. My intentions were wholly misunderstood."—Congressional Globe, vol. xx\x. p. 270. See also the St. Louis Democrat, quoted in the New York Tribune of January 30th; also Washington Union, January 19th, referred to in Nicolay and Hay's History of Lincoln, Century Magazine, vol. xi. p. 699.
3 " While I was one of the editors of the National Democratic organ during Pierce's administration, Attorney-General Cushing, although deeply immersed in the business of his department, hardly let a day pass without sending me an editorial on some subject."—Forney, Anecdotes of Public Men, vol. i. p. 229.

the committee on territories;1 but he did not regard with favor the amendment of Dixon, and on January 20th the Union argued against it.2

On Sunday morning, January 22d, Douglas, in company with other gentlemen, members of Congress, called on Jefferson Davis, and stated to him the proposed change in the Nebraska bill. They further desired that he would procure them on that day an interview with the President, who, as they knew, was strictly opposed to receiving visits or discussing political affairs on Sunday; but it was highly important to introduce the substitute on the following day, and Douglas would not do so without consulting the President. Davis went with them to the White House. He stood on such friendly footing with Pierce that the door was always open to him, and, leaving his companions in the reception-room, he proceeded at once to the private apartments of the President and unfolded the object of their visit. Afterwards the President met the gentlemen, listened
_______
1 Douglas "has arrived at conclusions which seem to us unassailable. . . . We commend Mr. Douglas's report not only for the ability with which it is prepared, but for the sound, national, Union-loving sentiments with which it abounds."—Washington Union, January 5th. "The Nebraska bill is drawn upon the same principles [i.those of 1850] and presents an opportunity for a practical vindication of the policy of the administration."—Ibid., January 6th.
2 "To repeal the Missouri Compromise might, and according to our view would, clear the principle of congressional non-intervention of all embarrassment; but we doubt whether the good thus promised is so important that it would be wise to seek it through the agitation which necessarily stands in our path. Upon a calm review of the whole ground, we yet see no such reasons for disturbing the compromise of 1850 as could induce us to advocate either of the amendments proposed to Mr. Douglas's bill." — Washington Union, January 20th. The amendments referred to are Dixon's and Sumner's.

to the reading of the bill, gave attention to the arguments of Douglas explanatory of the proposed alteration, and in the end promised the support of the administration.1 We may feel certain, however, that it was the persuasion of Davis at the private interview which induced the President to give his approval. He could not have forgotten that, less than two months previously, when in his message he mentioned that in regard to the slavery and sectional question there had been "restored a sense of repose and security to the public mind throughout the confederacy," he had added, "That this repose is to suffer no shock during my official term, if I have power to avert it, those who placed me here may be assured." On this Sunday he had the power to fulfil the solemn pledge he had given the nation and its representatives; but his hankering after a renomination made him easily susceptible to the influences which were brought to bear upon him.

Douglas had reckoned wisely when he applied to Davis for help in gaining the President. There were two opposing influences in the administration, one represented by the Secretary of State and the other by the Secretary of War, and Douglas knew that in this affair it was Davis that he should call upon. Pierce loved and trusted Davis,2 who had, moreover, the backing of the Southern Democracy, which the President was now anxious to conciliate in order to effectually contradict reports current in the South that the administration was tinctured with Free-soilism. Yet Pierce was also solicitous for the support of Marcy in this
______________
1 The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Jefferson Davis, vol. i. p. 28; Life of Davis, Alfriend, p. 94; Life of Davis, Pollard, p. 49; Memoir of Jefferson Davis, by his wife, vol. i. p. 669. See also Washington correspondence of the New York Courier and Enquirer, March 25th; New York Herald, January 24th.
2 At the end of his term of office, Pierce said to Davis: "I can scarcely bear the parting from you, who have been strength and solace to me for four anxious years, and never failed me."—Memoir of Jefferson Davis, by his wife, vol. i. p. 530.

affair, and requested Douglas and his companions to call upon him for consultation. This wish was, of course, complied with, but the Secretary of State was not found at home.1

On Monday, January 23d, Douglas offered a substitute for his preceding bill. It differed from the other in two particulars. It affirmed that the slavery restriction of the Missouri Compromise " was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and is hereby declared inoperative;" and it divided the great territory into two parts, calling the northern portion Nebraska, and the southern Kansas. The northern and southern boundaries of Kansas were the same as those of the present State, but the western limit was the Rocky Mountains, and the total area one hundred and twenty-six thousand square miles.2

We cannot clearly trace the ways leading up to this division of Nebraska, which apparently formed no part of the original plan. Nor is the explanation of Senator Douglas sufficient.3 It is almost certain that if there had been no question of slavery, this change would not have been made. A steadfast Northern follower of Douglas has acknowledged that the purpose which he had in view by this division was to make one slave and one free State;4 and there is much in the contemporaneous evidence to lead one to this conclusion. In the summer and fall of 1853, a movement began
___________
1 Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, Wilson, vol. ii. p. 383.
2 Spring's Kansas, p. 17. The present State of Kansas has 81,700 square miles.
3 See Congressional Globe, vol. xxviii. p. 221.
4 Three Decades of Federal Legislation, S. S. Cox, p. 49. Of the close relation of Cox to Douglas, see his eulogy on the death of Douglas, House of Representatives, July, 1861, when he said: "It may not be improper to refer to the fact that I was among the many young men of the West who were bound to him by a tie of friendship and a spell of enthusiasm which death has no power to break;" and he also speaks of the "unbroken association of friendship with him from the first year of my political life."

in western Missouri with the avowed object of making Nebraska slave territory.1 In that portion of the State there were fifty thousand slaves, worth perhaps twenty-five millions of dollars, and the interests of their owners seemed to demand that the contiguous country should be devoted to slavery. Senator Atchison urged this view warmly, showing that the only obstacle to their wishes lay in the Missouri Compromise. Coming to Washington on the opening of Congress, he felt that he had an aggressive sentiment behind him which demanded the repeal of the slavery restriction.2 His eyes, and those of his constituents, were cast longingly on the country which is now Kansas, and in which they hoped slavery might gain the foothold it had in Missouri. The Missouri border abounded in adventurous spirits who were ready for any enterprise; Atchison and his fellow slave-holders were confident that if the restriction were removed, these men could be used to advantage in establishing a slave State. Kansas was all they wanted, and the territory, if divided, would be easier to manage. That all this was known to the Southern Democrats and Whigs in Congress and to Senator Douglas is indisputable. The supporters of the Nebraska bill came together so frequently in caucus and conference 3 that, if all the features of the situation were not discussed, they must certainly have been well understood. Indeed, the expectation that Kansas would become a slave State was openly expressed on the floor of the House.4 It follows plainly enough, therefore, that the division of the territory was in the interest of slavery; and if Douglas had not been brought to the point of actually
_______________
1 Spring's Kansas, p. 24. See a very noteworthy article in the New York Tribune of November 12th, 1853.
2 Spring's Kansas, p. 24.
3 See speech of Senator Benjamin, May 8th, 1860.
4 " I will not now detail my reasons, but I have a strong faith that Kansas will become a slave State."—Zollicoffer, Whig representative from Tennessee, May 9th, quoted by Von Hoist

conceding that Kansas should be a slave State, he at least knew that there was a well-devised scheme in progress to make it one.

Tuesday, the 24th of January, was a notable day in the history of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. Dixon stated in the Senate that he was entirely satisfied with the amendment Douglas had incorporated in his bill; and the Washington Union had a carefully written editorial which was the fruit of the conference of the preceding Sunday. After endorsing the substitute of the committee on territories, the organ of the President went on to say: "We cannot but regard the policy of the administration as directly involved in the question. That policy looks to fidelity to the compromise of 1850 as an essential requisite in Democratic orthodoxy. The proposition of Mr. Douglas is a practical execution of the principles of that compromise, and, therefore, cannot but be regarded by the administration as a test of Democratic orthodoxy. The union of the Democracy on this proposition will dissipate forever the charge of Free-soil sympathies so recklessly and pertinaciously urged against the administration by our Whig opponents; while it will take from disaffection in our ranks the last vestige of a pretext for its opposition."

On this same day (January 24th) was published the "Appeal of the Independent Democrats in Congress to the People of the United States."1 Chase wrote the paper from a draft made by Giddings, and it received some verbal corrections
____________
1 There was considerable confusion about the date of this address. As published in the New York Times and National Era of the 24th, it was dated the 22d, which was Sunday. Douglas made a great point of the date, charging that the abolition confederates had assembled in secret conclave on the holy Sabbath. The date was an error. The New York Tribune, when it copied the address from the Times, changed the date to the 23d. It appears in the Congressional Globe as of January 19th, but a postscript is added which could not possibly have been written until the 23d.

from Sumner and Gerrit Smith.1 These men signed it, as did also Edward Wade and Alexander De Witt, representatives from Ohio and Massachusetts. All of the signers were Free-soilers. Like so many political manifestoes, composed in the midst of agitating events and under the influence of powerful emotion, the Appeal of the Independent Democrats is strong in expression; but few partisan documents will stand so well the test of time. It expresses earnest feeling, but it relates truthful history. The historical argument is incontrovertible. The reasoning is earnest, but the writers felt that, having history and justice on their side, they needed only to make fair statements, and that the straining of any point was unnecessary. Viewing it in the calm light of the present, criticism is silent. Had the language been less strong, the writers would not have shown themselves equal to the occasion. It is a brave, truthful, earnest exposition.

It should be remarked that all of the address except the postscript was written before Douglas introduced his substitute of January 23d, and has reference to the report and first bill of the committee on territories. The Appeal states at the outset that, should the project receive the sanction of Congress, it "will open all the unorganized territory of the Union to the ingress of slavery." Therefore, "We arraign this bill as a gross violation of a sacred pledge; as a criminal betrayal of precious rights; as part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from a vast unoccupied region immigrants from the Old World and free laborers from our own States, and convert it into a dreary region of despotism inhabited by masters and slaves." The history of the Missouri Compromise is then related,2 and the truthful statement is made: "For more than thirty years—during more than half the period of our national Constitution—this compact
______________
1 Life of Chase, Schuckers, p. 140; History of the Rebellion, Giddings, p. 300; Life of Wade, Riddle, p. 225.
2 See Chap. L

[i. e., the Missouri Compromise] has been universally regarded and acted upon as inviolable American law." And now it is proposed to cancel this compact. "Language fails to express the sentiments of indignation and abhorrence" which the Nebraska act inspires. "It is a bold scheme against American liberty worthy of an accomplished architect of ruin. . . . Shall a plot against humanity and democracy so monstrous, and so dangerous to the interest of liberty throughout the world, be permitted to succeed? We appeal to the people. We warn you that the dearest interests of freedom and the Union are in imminent peril. . . . Let all protest, earnestly and emphatically, by correspondence, through the press, by memorials, by resolutions of public meetings and legislative bodies, and in whatever other mode may seem expedient, against this enormous crime."

The postscript, which was written just before the Appeal was given to the press, relates to the substitute of January 23d. The truth of the emphatic statements with which it closes has never been successfully impugned, and they may justly receive the seal of impartial history. "This amendment," the Appeal says, "is a manifest falsification of the truth of history. . . . Not a man in Congress, or out of Congress, in 1850 pretended that the compromise measures would repeal the Missouri prohibition.' Mr. Douglas himself never advanced such a pretence until this session. His own Nebraska bill, of last session, rejected it. It is a sheer afterthought. To declare the prohibition inoperative may, indeed, have effect in law as a repeal, but it is a most discreditable way of reaching the object. Will the people permit their dearest interests to be thus made the mere hazards of a presidential game, and destroyed by false facts and false inferences ?" 2

This appeal was published in nearly all the newspapers of
________________
1 There may possibly be one exception to this statement.
2 Congressional Globe, vol. xxviii. p. 281. It will be considered later.

the free States. The field had been well prepared for the sowing of this seed. Connected with the journals of this time were many able and earnest men full of enthusiasm for a righteous cause. Almost without exception, the conspicuous editors at the North took ground from the first against the Nebraska act, and their papers abounded in sharp criticisms of the author of the measure and in entreaties to the friends of freedom not to permit the consummation of the infamy. Some regarded the measure with anger, others with grief, and all with apprehension. The public mind was in a state that could not fail to be profoundly affected by an authoritative and impressive protest from Washington. It is true that the Free-soil congressmen had not a large political following; but their arguments were so cogent that they convinced and roused many men who had been accustomed to regard the authors of the Appeal with mistrust. If the politicians at Washington, wrote one earnest journalist, have any doubt about the public opinion, let them put their ears to the ground and they " will hear the roar of the tide coming in."1
_____________
1 New York Evening Post, February 3d, 1854.


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].