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

Chapter 5, Part 2: Douglas’s Speech through The Burns Case

When Douglas came into the Senate on the morning of January 30th, he was a prey to angry excitement, and shortly after his entrance he took the floor to open the debate on the Kansas-Nebraska bill. The reason of his rage was soon apparent. It was caused by the Appeal of the Independent Democrats and by the indications of public sentiment which had already reached Washington, and which Douglas was inclined to attribute wholly to the prompting of this address. In deference to the wishes of Chase and Sumner, he had postponed the consideration of the bill for six days, and now he charged Chase with having come to him " with a smiling face and the appearance of friendship," begging for delay, merely in order to get a wide circulation for the Appeal and forestall public opinion before an exposition of the measure was made by its author. The address,
_____________
1 New York Evening Post, February 3d, 1854.

he said, grossly misrepresented the bill, arraigned the motives and calumniated the characters of the members of the committee, and the postscript applied coarse epithets to himself by name. Chase endeavored to interrupt the speaker, and an excited colloquy followed; Douglas lost his temper completely, and emphatic language was used by both senators, so that they were at different times called to order by the president. This, one may gather from the official report in the Congressional Globe; but it was stated that Douglas carefully corrected his remarks before publication, and struck out many opprobrious words he had used.1 Several Washington correspondents agree in their description of the manner and language of Douglas. One speaks of his "senatorial billingsgate," and of the "vulgarity and vehemence of the abuse which he poured out upon Senator Chase;" 2 another described the scene as one of " intemperate violence," and maintained that the course of Douglas was "indecorous and a most reprehensible violation of the dignity of the body," and that his style of attack was "more becoming a pot-house than the Senate;" 3 and another spoke of his speech as "violent and abusive."4 In spite of the fact that the display of temper at the outset lost Douglas in a certain degree the respect of his audience, the speech was conceded by his opponents to be able and ingenious, indeed the very best that could be made in a very bad cause.5 An earnest abolitionist paid a tribute to the remarkable force and adroitness of the argument.6
____________
1 See New York Times, February 2d; also letter in the New York Independent of March 16th.
2 See New York Times, February 1st.
3 Washington correspondence New York Courier and Enquirer, January 30th.
4 New York Tribune. It maybe remarked that all these journals were hostile to Douglas. The anger of Douglas was raised when he referred to the affair five years later. See Constitutional and Party Questions, J. M. Cutts, p. 94.
5 New York Times.
6 T. W. Higginson, letter in the Liberator, February 24th.

Douglas stated that by the Missouri Compromise of 1820 a geographical line had been established, north of which slavery was prohibited, and south of which it was permitted. When New Mexico and California were acquired, a logical adherence to that principle required the extension of this line to the Pacific Ocean. On his motion in 1848, the Senate had adopted such a provision; but it failed in the House, being defeated " by Northern votes with Free-soil proclivities."1 This refusal to extend the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean gave rise to a furious slavery agitation, which continued until it was quieted by the compromise measures of 1850. In that series of acts, the principle established was: "Congressional non-intervention as to slavery in the territories; that the people of the territories . . . were to be allowed to do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery, subject only to the provisions of the Constitution." Although the only territorial bills which were a part of the plan of 1850 were those organizing Utah and New Mexico, yet the Missouri Compromise line, in all the unorganized territory not covered by those bills, was superseded by the principles of that compromise. "We all know," said the senator, "that the object of the compromise measures of 1850 was to establish certain great principles, which would avoid the slavery agitation in all time to come. Was it our object simply to provide for a temporary evil? Was it our object just to heal over an old sore and leave it to break out again? Was it our object to adopt a mere miserable expedient to apply to that territory, and that alone, and leave ourselves entirely at sea, without compass, when new territory was acquired or new territorial organizations were to be made? Was that the object for which the eminent and venerable senator from Kentucky [Clay] came here and sacrificed even his last energies upon the altar of his country? Was that the object for which Webster, Clay, and Cass, and all the patriots of that day, struggled so long
_______________
1 See p. 96.

and so strenuously? Was it merely the application of a temporary expedient in agreeing to stand by past and dead legislation that the Baltimore platform pledged us to sustain the compromise of 1850? Was it the understanding of the Whig party when they adopted the compromise measures of 1850 as an article of political faith, that they were only agreeing to that which was past and had no reference to the future V By no means. In the legislation of 1850 a principle was adopted—the principle of congressional non-interference with slavery, and when the two party conventions resolved to acquiesce in the compromise measures, they were giving pledges that in their future action they would carry out that principle. Now it is necessary to organize the territory of Nebraska. The Missouri Compromise restriction is inconsistent with this later principle and should give place to it. "The legal effect of this bill," continued Douglas, "is neither to legislate slavery into these territories nor out of them, but to leave the people do as they please. ... If they wish slavery, they have a right to it. If they do not want it, they will not have it, and you should not force it upon them."

Did Douglas describe the workings of his own mind between January 4th and 23d, when he said, in graphic words: "I know there are some men, Whigs and Democrats, who . . . would be willing to vote for this principle, provided they could do so in such equivocal terms that they could deny that it means what it was intended to mean, in certain localities." But he went on to say: "I do not wish to deal in any equivocal language. If the principle is right, let it be avowed and maintained. If it is wrong, let it be repudiated. Let all this quibbling about the Missouri Compromise ... be cast behind you; for the simple question is, will you allow the people to legislate for themselves upon the question of slavery? Why should you not V For the benefit, probably, of what he called "tender-footed Democrats," he maintained that it was worse than folly to think of Nebraska being a slave-holding country. Nor did the manifestations of public sentiment averse to the measure frighten Douglas. "This tornado," he said, "has been raised by abolitionists, and abolitionists alone."

The senator made an argument based on the fact that the boundary lines of New Mexico and Utah, as constituted, annulled the Missouri Compromise in a part of the territory to which it applied. While this at the time was considered ingenious reasoning, it was effectually refuted by Chase and Everett, and Douglas did not allude to it in his speech which closed the debate; nor was this the argument he relied on in the many defences he made of his present course in after years.

When Douglas sat down, Chase obtained the floor and made a defence of the Appeal of the Independent Democrats. They meant exactly what they said; it was not an occasion for soft words; they considered the Missouri Compromise a sacred pledge, and its proposed abrogation "a criminal betrayal of precious rights." "What rights are precious," demanded the senator, "if those secured to free labor and free laborers in that vast territory are not?" The attempt of Douglas to shield himself under the aegis of Clay and Webster was not overlooked; the Illinois senator knew it to be a strong point, and in after-years elaborated it into a statement that he had given the " immortal Clay," lying on his death-bed, a pledge that his energies should be devoted to the vindication of the principle of leaving each State and territory free to decide its institutions for itself, and he had also given the same pledge to the "godlike Webster."1 On the day when this justification was first broached, Chase must have felt that if he held his peace, the stones would cry out against it, and he emphatically asserted: "When the senator vouches the authority of Clay and Webster to sustain him, he vouches authorities which would rebuke him could those statesmen speak from their graves."

On the 3d of February, Chase made his mark in an elaborate
__________
1 Speech at Bloomington, Illinois, 1858, Life of Douglas, Flint, p. 125.

speech against the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and on that day he took a place in the foremost ranks of the statesmen who devoted themselves to anti-slavery principles.

He was, with perhaps the exception of Sumner, the handsomest man in the Senate, and as he rose to make his plea for the maintenance of plighted faith, all felt the force of his commanding presence. More than six feet high, he had a frame and figure proportioned to his height; with his large head, massive brow, and smoothly shaven face, he looked like a Roman senator; and the similitude was heightened by his coming to plead against the introduction of Punic faith into the Congress of the United States. He appreciated the gravity of the situation, and attributed the crowded galleries, the thronged lobbies and the full attendance of the Senate to the transcendent interest of the theme. Chase was not a fluent and easy speaker; he had less of the spirit of the orator than Douglas; he could not sway an audience of the Senate as could the Little Giant.1 Nevertheless, the dignity of his manner and the weight of his words obtained him a careful hearing, and he was listened to with attention by senators and visitors.2

When Congress met, he said, "no agitation seemed to disturb the political elements." The two great political parties "had announced that slavery agitation was at an end;" the President "had declared his fixed purpose to maintain the quiet of the country. . . . But suddenly all is changed. . . . And now we find ourselves in an agitation the end and issue of which no man can foresee. Who is responsible for this renewal of strife and controversy? ... It is slavery. . . . And what does slavery ask for now? It demands that a time-honored and sacred compact shall be rescinded—a compact which has endured through a whole
______________
1 Warden's Life of Chase, p. 340.
2 Washington correspondence New York Times, published February 6th. I am indebted to Mr. R. C. Parsons, of Cleveland, who knew Chase intimately, for a vivid description of him as he was in his senatorial career.

generation; a compact which has been universally regarded as inviolable, North and South; a compact the constitutionality of which few have doubted, and by which all have consented to abide." The ground on which it is proposed to violate this compact is supposed to be found in the doctrine that the restriction of the Missouri Compromise is superseded by the principles of the compromise measures of 1850. This is a "statement untrue in fact and without foundation in history." It is, continued the senator, "a novel idea. At the time when these measures were before Congress in 1850, when the questions involved in them were discussed from day to day, from week to week, and from month to month, in this Senate Chamber, who ever heard that the Missouri prohibition was to be superseded? What man, at what time, in what speech, ever suggested the idea that the acts of that year were to affect the Missouri Compromise? . . . Did Henry Clay, in the report made by him as chairman of the committee of thirteen, or in any speech in support of the compromise acts, or in any conversation, in the committee or out of the committee, ever even hint at this doctrine of supersedure? Did any supporter or any opponent of the compromise acts ever vindicate or condemn them upon the ground that the Missouri prohibition would be affected by them? Well, sir, the compromise acts were passed. They were denounced North and they were denounced South. Did any defender of them at the South ever justify his support of them upon the ground that the South had obtained through them the repeal of the Missouri prohibition? Did any objector to them at the North ever even suggest, as a ground of condemnation, that that prohibition was swept away by them? No, sir! No man, North or South, during the whole of the discussion of those acts here, or in that other discussion which followed their enactment throughout the country, ever intimated any such opinion." After effectually refuting the argument of Douglas drawn from the constitution of the boundaries of New Mexico and Utah, and giving an account of the anti-slavery opinions of the fathers of the government, Chase related briefly and correctly the history of the Missouri Compromise, and in a few words he stated the obligations which that act imposed on the South. He said: "A large majority of Southern senators voted for it; a majority of Southern representatives voted for it. It was approved by all the Southern members of the cabinet, and received the sanction of a Southern President. The compact was embodied in a single bill containing reciprocal provisions. The admission of Missouri with slavery, and the understanding that slavery should not be prohibited by Congress south of 36° 30', were the considerations of the perpetual prohibition north of that line. And that prohibition was the consideration of the admission and the understanding. The slave States received a large share of the consideration coming to them, paid in hand. Missouri was admitted without restriction by the act itself. Every other part of the compact, on the part of the free States, has been fulfilled to the letter. No part of the compact on the part of the slave States has been fulfilled at all, except in the admission of Iowa and the organization of Minnesota; and now the slave States propose to break up the compact without the consent and against the will of the free States." Chase gave a brief but able review of the slavery question in this country. He rose to the height of prophecy as he spoke of his faith in progress and his hope of the future of the republic, and he closed with an earnest appeal to the senators to reject this bill, as it was " a violation of the plighted faith and solemn compact which our fathers made, and which we, their sons, are bound by every sacred tie of obligation sacredly to maintain." This speech was indeed a great one. As an earnest protest against a measure which violated the sentiment of justice, and whose iniquity the speaker felt in every fibre of his being, it must ever take high rank. In it were united the understanding of the lawyer, the elevation of the statesman, and the gravity of the moralist; the warmth of the advocate is tempered by the fairness of the judge. His statements are lucid, his arguments unanswerable. He seemed to feel a profound regret that the question of slavery should be agitated again; but his strong moral nature had burning convictions, and he was bound to express them. The matter is made plain, history is truthfully related, his reasoning is careful, and the conclusions irresistible.

Wade, Seward, and Sumner made powerful speeches against the bill. Their point of view was the same as that of Chase. All thought slavery an evil whose power must be circumscribed, and all looked to a time when it should be eradicated. The line of argument which they pursued was substantially the same as that of Chase, but each had a peculiar following in the country, to whom their arguments were addressed as well as to the Senate. The rasping language of Wade offended some Eastern critics,1 but the farmers of Northern Ohio, whom he represented, loved plain speaking, and were glad that their senator did not mince his words when he protested against a rank injustice. He had a ready wit, and, while his set speech was soon forgotten, a retort that he made during the debate is still remembered. In it there lurked a strong argument, and it states incisively the difference between the apologists and the assailants of slavery. Badger, of North Carolina, had rehearsed the ancient argument for the dilution of slavery, and in a feeling manner had asked: "Why, if some Southern gentleman wishes to take the nurse who takes charge of his little baby, or the old woman who nursed him in childhood, and whom he called 1 Mammy' until he returned from college, and perhaps afterwards too, and whom he wishes to take with him in his old age when he is moving into one of these new territories for the betterment of the fortunes of the whole family—why, in the name of God, should anybody prevent it?” Wade was glad to answer this question. "The senator," he said, "entirely mistakes our position. We have not the least objection,
______________
1 See Washington correspondence New York Times, February 6th.

and would oppose no obstacle to the senator's migrating to Kansas and taking his old 1Mammy' along with him. We only insist that he shall not be empowered to sell her after taking her there."1

Seward was not an effective speaker, but his high political position gave him an attentive hearing at Washington, and his words were not only listened to by his followers in New York, but they had a marked influence on all the anti-slavery Whigs in the country. His speech was translated into German and extensively circulated among the Germans of Western Texas under the frank of Senator Houston.2 It probably affected the minds of more men than any speech delivered on that side of this question in Congress; and, though lacking the force, feeling, and decision of that of Chase, it was a clever legal argument. The speech of Chase was the argument of an indignant moralist, the pathetic appeal of a patriotic statesman; that of Seward was the reasoning of a politician who could not conceal his exultation that the Democrats had forsaken their high vantage-ground and played into the hands of their opponents.3 But he could not feel entirely certain whether a new anti-slavery party would be formed, or whether there was still a reason for the existence of the Whig party, and thought it not well to use words so harsh that a deadly breach would be made between the Northern and Southern Whigs. He had declined,
_________________
1 Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, Wilson, vol. ii. p. 388. Compare Life of Wade, Riddle, p. 232.
2 See letter of Yeoman from San Antonio, Texas, of April 18th, 1854, New York Times, May 13th. Yeoman was the name under which Frederick Law Olmsted wrote.
3 Montgomery Blair wrote to Gideon Welles, May 17th, 1873: "I shall never forget how shocked I was at his [Seward] telling me that he was the man who put Archy Dixon, the Whig senator from Kentucky in 1854, up to moving the repeal of the Missouri Compromise as an amendment to Douglas's first Kansas bill, and had himself forced the repeal by that movement, and had thus brought to life the Republican party."—Lincoln and Seward, Welles, p. 68.

therefore, to sign the Appeal of the Independent Democrats.1

Yet Seward made some pregnant assertions that may not be omitted in an account of this debate. If, said he, it had been known that the Missouri Compromise was to be abrogated, directly or indirectly, by the compromise of 1850, not a representative from a non-slaveholding State would have at that day voted for it, while every senator from the slaveholding States would have given it his support. Nor, he asserted, does it weaken my opposition to this measure "to be told that only a few slaves will enter into this vast region. One slave-holder in a new territory, with access to the executive ear at Washington, exercises more political influence than five hundred freemen."2

Sumner spoke to the cultured people of Massachusetts, to the professors and students of colleges, and to clergymen of advanced political views. The moral side of the question appealed to him forcibly, and he approached it inspired by the same sentiment that had moved Chase. His illustrations delighted scholars, and his quotations pleased lovers of literature; but the speech lacked the cogency that distinguished the effort of the Ohio senator. No doubt can remain in the minds of impartial men that the speech of Chase was the greatest which was made in either House in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska bill. It was so regarded by Douglas. Five years afterwards, in speaking of the senatorial debates on this subject, he said: "Seward's and Sumner's speeches were mere essays against slavery. Chase was the leader."3

In eloquent periods Sumner depicted the nature of the question which now agitated the country. He showed that
________________
1 Life of Chase, Schuckers, p. 160. Many Western papers published the Appeal with Seward's name signed to it. The Tribune said, when the Appeal was made, "Seward was at home in Auburn in consequence of serious illness in his family, and accordingly neither signed it, nor had any knowledge of it whatever."—New York Weekly Tribune, February 11th.
2 Seward's Works, vol. iv. p. 442.
3 Constitutional and Party Questions, J. M. Cutts, p. 123.

the issue was made up. Slavery, he said, "is the only subject within the field of national politics which excites any real interest. The old matters which have divided the minds of men . . . have disappeared, leaving the ground to be occupied by a question grander far. The bank, subtreasury, the distribution of the public lands, are each and all obsolete issues. And now, instead of these superseded questions, which were filled for the most part with the odor of the dollar, the country is directly summoned to consider face to face a cause which is connected with all that is divine in religion, with all that is pure and noble in morals, with all that is truly practical and constitutional in politics. Unlike the other questions, it is not temporary or local in its character. It belongs to all times and to all countries. Though long kept in check, it now, by your introduction, confronts the people, demanding to be heard. To every man in the land, it says with clear, penetrating voice, 'Are you for freedom or are you for slavery?' And every man in the land must answer this question when he votes."1

Edward Everett also made a speech against the bill in the Senate. His utterances were important, not only for the weight of his argument, but because he spoke for the conservative Whigs of the North, those who had supported the compromise of 1850 and had been the followers of Webster or Fillmore. Chase and Seward in the Senate, and Sumner and Wade out of it, had opposed that adjustment. The character of the opposition had led Douglas to assert that every one in either House of Congress who had supported the compromise of 1850 was now in favor of the Kansas-Nebraska bill; and this speech of Everett gave that statement the first effective denial.2 As had been the case when the other senators who have been mentioned spoke, so now crowds filled the Senate Chamber; the House was deserted. The senator was listened to with profound attention, in
_______________
1 Wade spoke February 6th, Seward February 17th, and Sumner February 21st.
2 Everett's speech was made February 8th.

which curiosity in regard to his position was mingled with interest, for it had been reported that he would favor the bill.1 But all doubts regarding Everett's position were soon dispelled as he gradually unfolded his argument, which, though expressed in too courtly phrase to suit the radical spirits, was very forcible. Being of a deprecatory nature, it would hardly have fitted the leader of the opposition.2 Yet it appealed to men whom the more radical utterances of Chase, Wade, and Sumner could not reach, and it was of great importance as reflecting, and at the same time moulding, a certain public sentiment.3

Everett showed conclusively, by an argument drawn from the letter of the acts and from the very nature of the legislation itself, that the principle of non-intervention on the part of Congress in the question of slavery was not enacted in the territorial bills of 1850. Furthermore he asked: "How can you find in a simple measure applying in terms to these individual territories, and to them alone, a rule which is to govern all other territories with a retrospective and with a prospective action? Is it not a mere begging of
_________________
1 Everett was a true conservative. "You are quite right," he wrote Greeley in 1862," in calling me a ' conservative,' but I am so, not from any bigoted attachment to the past or to the established, as such. We should all strive to preserve what is good as well as contest what is evil. . . . Few men succeed in living up to their ideal of character, but I have tried to obey the apostolic rule in both parts—'to prove all things: hold fast that which is good.'" This letter was called out by a complimentary biographical notice that Greeley had written for the New York Ledger, and a copy of it was kindly furnished me by Mr. Gordon L. Ford, of Brooklyn, who owns the original. I take this occasion to say that I have been under many obligations to Mr. Ford, and to his son, Mr. Paul L. Ford.
2 See Washington correspondence New York Times, February 8th; see also New York Evening Post, especially letter from Boston criticising this speech, published March 11th.
3 The New York Courier and Enquirer called this speech of Everett the most brilliant and effective effort of the session. Editorial of February 9th. The Washington correspondent of the New York Tribune spoke of his "eloquent, impressive, and truthful words."

the question to say that those compromise measures adopted in this specific case amount to such a general rule?"

He then went on to consider the spirit of the compromise measures of 1850, and what was the understanding of their scope by their chief supporters. While, said he, " I was not a member of Congress and had not heard the debates . . . I inquired of those who had heard them, I read the reports, and I had an opportunity of personal intercourse with some who had taken a prominent part in all of those measures. I never formed the idea—I never received the intimation until I got it from this report of the committee—that those measures were intended to have any effect beyond the territories of Utah and New Mexico, for which they were enacted. I cannot but think that if it was intended that they should have any larger application, if it was intended that they should furnish the rule which is now supposed, it would have been a fact as notorious as the light of day." The well-known personal and political friendship existing between Webster and Everett1 gave a peculiar force to these expressions, which was heightened when the orator proceeded to relate his familiar intercourse with the expounder of the Constitution in 1851, brought about by the fact that he had by request undertaken to edit Webster's works and write the biographical memoir prefaced to them. He had occasion to discuss the 7th-of-March speech with its author; and, while the question of 1854 was not mooted, for little had they dreamed that any such construction would ever be put upon the legislation of 1850, Everett spoke with authority when he expounded the meaning of Webster. He had not the slightest doubt that the great Massachusetts senator considered the Missouri restriction a compact which the government could not in good faith repeal.

Everett touched upon the absurdity of the principle of Congressional non-intervention on the subject of slavery in the territories; and in conclusion he gave vent to words
_____________
1 See p. 293.

eminently proper for a philosophic historian, but which sounded strange enough in the midst of a heated debate. He said: "I share the opinions and the sentiments of the part of the country where I was born and educated. . . . But in relation to my fellow-citizens in other parts of the country, I will treat . . . their characters and feelings with tenderness. I believe them to be as good Christians, as good patriots, as good men as we are."

The speeches in the Senate in favor of the Kansas-Nebraska bill were not, with the exception of those of Douglas, remarkable. There was considerable curiosity in regard to the position of Cass. Although in the early part of January it was reported that he would take advanced ground in favor of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, an opinion became current, after Douglas had in substance incorporated the Dixon amendment in his bill, that Cass was wavering and would vote against the Kansas-Nebraska act.1 "He," wrote a prominent Democratic representative from New York City, "evidently looks upon the whole movement, and the manner in which it has been made, as a despicable piece of demagogism on the part of Douglas, though he does not like to say so."2 John Van Buren had hopes that Cass might be induced even to head the opposition. "There are but two men," he wrote to Clemens, "who can do any good in this crisis—one is General Cass, the other yourself. If you will agree to the Nebraska bill of last year,3 it will be promptly and triumphantly passed."4 Cass voted for one of the amendments with which Chase badgered Douglas, and he explained that he did so because he did not like the phraseology of the bill. In order to meet this objection, Douglas still further amended his bill so that the
_______________
1 See correspondence New York Courier and Enquirer, January 31st.
2 Letter of Mike Walsh, New York Herald, February 13th.
3 See p. 425.
4 John Van Buren to ex-Senator Clemens, February 3d, 1854, New York Evening Post, February 11th.

crucial section should read: "which [the Missouri Compromise act] being inconsistent with the principles of nonintervention by Congress with slavery in the States and territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void, it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." The alteration lay in the use of the words " being inconsistent with" instead of "was superseded by," and in the more elaborate explanation of the intention of the act; in this shape it finally became a law. This satisfied Cass, who declared that he would support the measure,1 and two weeks later he delivered a long and formal speech advocating it.

Among the supporters of the bill, two distinct conceptions were developed of what would be the practical working of the act. One was the notion of Douglas and Cass, agreed to by most of the Northern Democrats, and in the main by the Southern Whigs. It was their idea that the inhabitants of the territories themselves should protect or prohibit slavery. As that part of the country to which the act applied was practically unsettled, they eluded the decision as to when this sovereignty should begin, or as to how great a number of settlers there should be in the territory before they might legislate on this subject. Cass, goaded to define the doctrine of which he was the author2 by the questions of Southern Democrats, said that he did not seek "in the science of arithmetic the principles of the science of political institutions;" and he maintained that the world had never
_______________
1 This amendment was not formally introduced until February 7th; but the vote on the Chase amendment was on the 6th. This amendment was then outlined by Douglas, and declared satisfactory by Cass.
2 See the Nicholson letter.

seen a truer basis of government than that established by the one hundred and one Pilgrims when they landed at Plymouth.

The Southern Democrats, however, believed in the doctrine of Calhoun; that as slaves were property, those owners had the same right under the Constitution to carry their negroes into the new territories as they had to take their horses and mules, and no law could rightfully be made to prevent their exercise of this right. It was true that the Missouri restriction in set words prohibited slavery in the Nebraska territory; but the Southern Democratic senators were all sure that it was unconstitutional, and would be so decided when the question should be brought before the highest tribunal. Yet to have the Missouri restriction declared inoperative and void by Congress was more speedy and direct than to have it decided unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and the Kansas-Nebraska act, therefore, met their approval. But if it became a law, they held that they would have a right to take their slaves into these territories, and that such property would be entitled to the same protection as any other property. When the people of a territory came to the point of applying for admission as a State, then it would be decided by the voice of those inhabitants whether the new State should be free or slave.

Chase laid great stress upon this difference of views between the supporters of the bill, and he endeavored, by an amendment and pertinent suggestions, to have the Senate declare precisely what was meant by the act. He averred that in its present shape it settled nothing, and that misunderstandings were sure to arise in its construction. But his amendment only received ten votes, and his suggestions were contemptuously rejected. The reason of this is plainly apparent. If the act stated that the first settlers of the territory might prohibit slavery, it would not receive the full Southern Democratic vote; if, on the other hand, it declared the doctrine of Calhoun, hardly a Northern senator would dare to give it his support. This difference of opinion was frequently discussed in caucus; and as the bill looked either way, it was decided to put it through and leave it to the Supreme Court to determine which of the two constructions was correct.1

Toombs made a noteworthy contribution to the discussion when he denied the declaration so frequently made, that in 1850 no one pretended that the compromise measures were inconsistent with the Missouri restriction. He said that in Georgia he had been severely criticised for having supported the compromise, and that in an address made to the people of his State to vindicate his action, he had maintained that a great principle, compromised away in 1820, had "been rescued, re-established, and again firmly planted in our political system" by the legislation of 1850. Yet Toombs did not say that the Missouri restriction was abrogated; and if that were his meaning, he would have been practically alone in his opinion. His statement did not, therefore, invalidate in the slightest degree the argument drawn from the spirit of the compromise measures or the intent of their originator and supporters.

Douglas managed the bill in an adroit and energetic manner, but it was objected that he was at times dictatorial to the friends of the measure. Anxious to have the debate proceed rapidly, he objected to a postponement, no matter how reasonable might be the cause. He chafed at the delay that Everett asked for in order to examine and consider carefully the last amendment of Douglas before speaking to the subject, and he was urgent that Clayton should continue speaking when physically unable to do so. It was foreign to the nature of Douglas to be discourteous, but he felt the necessity of haste. While he could at no time have had any doubt about carrying the measure through the Senate, he was anxious about the bill in the House; for that
______________
1 Speech of Benjamin in the Senate, May 8th, 1860; see also speech of Bell, May 24th and 25th, 1854; and speech of Douglas in the Senate, Feb 23d, 1859.

body was more amenable to public opinion, and by the 1st of February Douglas knew that the current of Northern sentiment was setting strongly against his measure. The longer the delay, the greater was the chance of representatives being influenced by the manifest feeling of their constituents. Douglas was always present in the Senate, and eagerly watched the progress of the debate. His political prospects were bound up in this measure, and he could not afford to miss a single trick. He did not, however, speak as often as Clay did on the compromise measures, but these were before the Senate more than six months, while the debate on the Kansas-Nebraska act lasted but thirty-three days.

Chase tacitly took the position of the leader of the opposition. He was ready in debate, and quick to see and lay bare the weak points of the adversary. Yet he was frank in his replies, even when forced to answer questions he would rather have left unanswered; for while he knew he could not be too radical for his Free-soil supporters, he felt that the time had come when he must appeal to a larger constituency. His manner was described by Badger "as cool and unimpassioned earnestness."

Some of the Southern Whig senators justified their support of the bill, because the offer of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise came from the North; if it were a compact between the North and the South, the two parties to the contract had the right to annul it; and as the restriction was manifestly in the interest of the Northern people, they had, in a spirit of magnanimity, offered through their senators to yield their advantage. Could it be expected that the South would refuse this generous proffer?1

It was, indeed, strange that honorable men could shield
________________
1 This was the argument of Dixon, Jones of Tennessee, and Clayton of Delaware. The latter, indeed, did not vote for the bill. "Clayton speaks for the bill, but will vote against it. Cass speaks against the bill, but will vote for it."—New York Evening Post, March 2d.

themselves under such a miserable subterfuge; for no fact was ever more certain or easier to be seen than that the Northern people utterly repudiated the action of the Illinois senator and his supporters. Never but thrice in our history has a feeling so spontaneous, fierce, and sincere spread over the North. For a parallel to the sentiment of February, 1854, we must look backward to that inspired by the shedding of American blood at Lexington, or forward to the grand uprising of 1861. "The storm that is rising," wrote Seward, "is such a one as this country has never yet seen." 1 In every way that was possible a free and earnest people expressed their opinion. The power of the newspapers was exercised in a manner to justify all the praise that has ever been bestowed upon an unrestrained press. Ability and zeal combined marked every step. Greeley and Dana, of the New York Tribune; Bryant and Bigelow, of the Evening Post; Raymond, of the Times; Webb, of the Courier and Enquirer; Bowles, of the Springfield Republican; Thurlow Weed, of the Albany Journal; Schouler, of the Cincinnati Gazette—all bore an honorable part in exciting and guiding public opinion. And they had coadjutors, young men full of enthusiasm for a righteous cause, who were glad to begin a journalistic career under the inspiration of the noble principle of opposition to the spread of slavery. Some of them have written their reminiscences, which are a record of pure and unselfish labors in a holy war. In reading carefully the leading articles in the journals of this period, one is struck with the vigor of the reasoning, and the sincere motives which prompted it. Apparently the editors determined their course without ulterior thoughts as to what the effect might be on their pecuniary interest, or whether it would suit their party or faction.

What was true of the prominent newspapers which have been named may be affirmed, in general, of the opposition press all over the North. The Whig journals were unanimously
_____________
1 Seward to his wife, February 19th, Life of Seward, vol. ii. p. 322.

opposed to the bill; the Democratic press was divided. In the main it could be said that the newspapers which favored it had their policy dictated from Washington.1 The journals which opposed the repeal of the Missouri Compromise were aggressive in tone; their articles, which had the ring of sincerity and earnestness, were fervent protests against the violation of plighted faith and against opening the door to an extension of slavery.' On the other hand, the arguments of the newspapers favoring the bill were shuffling, and sounded as if the heart of the writers was not in the cause they were paid to advocate.3
___________
1 See New York Evening Post, February 7th. In New York State the Albany Argus stated that thirty-seven " Hard " papers and two " Soft" supported the bill, while thirty-eight" Soft" papers opposed it; cited by Von Hoist, vol. iv. p. 418, note. In Ohio, thirteen Democratic journals were for it, forty-one against it. National Intelligencer, March 25th. In Wisconsin, four Democratic papers supported and eleven opposed the bill. Boston Atlas, February 21st. In Illinois, but one daily journal supported it. Ibid. The five daily newspapers of Chicago, one of which Senator Douglas had a prominent share in establishing, were against it. New York Evening Post, February 20th. Only two daily papers in Indiana were in favor of the bill; and it was about the same way in Michigan and Iowa as in Indiana and Illinois. Boston Atlas. "In some hundred newspapers which we have just looked over, the expression of an indignant disapproval of the Nebraska bill is almost unanimous. It is a perfect chorus of condemnation and remonstrance."—New York Evening Post, February 15th.
2 One of the notable contributions to the discussion may be found in the New York Tribune of February 22d. Greeley, who obviously wrote the article, says: "We know Henry Clay did not deceive us with regard to his views and purpose in urging that compromise [the compromise of 1850]; we are morally sure that no idea of repealing or superseding' the Missouri Compromise entered into his mind. Others may have been deeper in his confidence; but he deceived no man, and he discussed the whole subject freely with us, and ever regarded it as one wherein the territories [i.e., Utah and New Mexico] were to inure to free labor, and that the practical business was to save the South from all needless and wanton humiliation."
3 A good example of this may be seen in the able paper, the New York Journal of Commerce. The remarks in the text will not apply to the New York Herald, which advocated the bill in a positive and flippant manner.

Public opinion generally acts more quickly through the press than through public meetings. People "will not assemble to pass resolutions on any subject until they have had time to get at the facts, to discuss them with their neighbors, and to make up their minds. But the Kansas-Nebraska bill was a measure whose provisions, clearly stated, were its own condemnation; and the newspapers and the Appeal of the Independent Democrats had made the intent of the bill easily intelligible. Public meetings of protest began to be held early. New York City was one of the first to lead off.1 On January 30th, two or three thousand conservative people met at the Broadway Tabernacle. They were, for the most part, the solid merchants and leading lawyers of the city, who had been active in 1850 in working up public sentiment in favor of the compromise measures. This meeting, with but one negative vote, declared against the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and asserted that such action "would impair the confidence of the country in the integrity of the South." 2 A gathering in Chicago on the 8th of February attracted great attention, for the proceedings were directed by men who, though they had been warm personal and political friends of Senator Douglas, could not follow where he led. These spoke in earnest tones against the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act.3 On the 18th of February a people's meeting was held at the Broadway Tabernacle, New York City. The building was crowded; people were glad to stand in the aisles and lobbies for the sake of hearing the speeches, and many were turned away because they could not get inside the doors. The meeting was addressed by John P. Hale and Henry Ward Beecher, who created great enthusiasm. Resolutions denouncing the Kansas-Nebraska bill and calling upon the
______________
1 The first meeting of which I have found any notice was at Cleveland on January 28th.
2 New York Tribune, January 31st; see also the Liberator, February 10th, and the New York Evening Post of January 81st.
3 Boston Atlas; New York Tribune. I.—30

President to veto it, if passed, were adopted with demonstrations of intense feeling.1

Boston likewise had two meetings in Faneuil Hall to protest against the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The radical gathering was addressed by Theodore Parker; the conservative meeting was composed largely of the same element that had assembled together to endorse Webster's 7th-of-March speech, and was presided over by Samuel Eliot, the Boston representative who had voted for the Fugitive Slave law.2

These meetings which have been mentioned were simply a representation of what was taking place all over the North. In every city and every town, people of the same mind came together and expressed their sentiments. The newspapers had columns in each issue which were entitled "The Voice of the Free States on the Nebraska Question," 3 or "The Voice of the North, No Slavery Extension," 4 and these were devoted to brief accounts of public meetings the tenor and action of which were always the same. At last one journal which had devoted a great deal of space to these expressions of opinion felt impelled to say: "If the Evening Post were three times as large as it is, and were issued three times a day, we should still despair of finding room for anything like full reports of the spontaneous gatherings which are every day held throughout the North and West" to protest against the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act.5 Up to the 15th of March two to three hundred large popular meetings had been held to denounce the bill, while there had not been at the North half a dozen gatherings to sustain it.6 "We have never known," said the Richmond Whig, "such unanimity of sentiment at the North upon any
_____________
1 New York Times; New York Tribune.
2 The Liberator; New York Tribune, February 24th.
3 New York Evening Post.
4 New York Tribune.
5 Cited by the Liberator, April 7th.
6 New York Courier, March 15th, cited and verified by the Washington National Intelligencer of March 18th.

question affecting the rights of the South as now prevails in opposition to the Missouri Compromise repeal."1

The expression of the authoritative representatives of the people, with one notable exception, was all in the same direction. Between January 1st and March 15th, ten of the legislatures of the free States were in session, and these bodies, in Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, and Wisconsin, protested against the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill.2 The legislatures of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Ohio, although strongly Democratic, refused to vote on resolutions concerning the subject. California took no action. A large amount of influence and work was brought to bear upon Illinois, with the result of obtaining a reluctant approval of the measure from her legislature.3
____________________
1 March 21st. The description of the opinion of New England by a Southerner visiting there may be interesting: "They are 'boiling over' here upon the Nebraska bill; all parties, Whigs and Democrats, Silver Grays and Woolly Heads, Softs and Hards, anti-slavery and even the little handful of pro-slavery folks."—Private letter to a Washington lady, dated Boston, February 18th, published in National Intelligencer, February 28th. The Boston correspondent of the New York Journal of Commerce wrote February 16th: "It must be acknowledged that persons who have hitherto been quite conservative on the questions before the country are now giving unmistakable symptoms in the opposite direction. . . . They begin to feel that they must oppose with all their might the further extension of slave-holding on this continent, and that the North has hitherto been too lukewarm on this subject." "The protest against the Nebraska bill of Senator Douglas from the Northwest will be long and loud. It comes not from anti-slavery men, but from men of all parties."—Letter from Iowa, dated January 26th, published in New York Independent.
2 In Maine, the resolutions passed the Senate by a vote of 24 to 1, the House by 96 to 6; in Massachusetts, the Senate was unanimous, the House 246 to 13. The Rhode Island Legislature passed the resolutions unanimously. In New York, the Senate stood 23 to 6, the Assembly 80 to 27; in Wisconsin, the majorities for the resolutions were large. New York Courier, March 15th, cited and corrected by the Washington National Intelligencer of March 18th. Maine, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin were Democratic States.
3 Ibid. The vote in Illinois stood: Senate, 14 to 8; House, 30 to 22; but the affirmative vote in both branches made up less than one-half of the legislature.

Petitions and memorials against the Kansas-Nebraska act poured in to Congress. "We know not," said the Liberator, "how many remonstrances have been sent to Congress from all parts of the free States against the passage of the Nebraska bill: we only know that we cannot keep pace with them; while the first memorial, approving the bill, has yet to be presented to that body."1 "Sir," said a great man at Washington to a friend, "every ten signatures to a remonstrance against this bill make a pale face at Washington."2

Those who have read the preceding chapter will not expect any such display of sentiment in favor of the measure at the South as there was against it at the North. There had, indeed, been exciting political contests at the South, but they were generally connected with the strife of candidates for office, at which time interest in the struggle had been aroused by impassioned appeals from the stump. But a healthy public opinion which was not worked up by politicians, and which manifested itself in engrossing private discussion, in countless letters to the newspapers, in large popular meetings, and in petitions to Congress without number, was almost absolutely unknown at the South.3 A portion of the Southern press and a large part of the Southern aristocracy, who were the only people that did any political thinking in their section, were at first disposed to regard this measure of Douglas as a gift of the Greeks. It is true that, in 1848, Calhoun had originated the doctrine that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, and Southern thinkers had embraced that theory; but Calhoun himself had never proposed its abrogation; and, indeed, at the previous session of Congress, Atchison, who was one of the chief
____________
1 April 14th.
2 New York Evening Post, February 20th.
3 The South does not speak by petitions to Congress, said Toombs; "she speaks through her representatives and senators."—Senate, May 25th, 1854.

apostles of slavery, had admitted that while the Missouri Compromise was a great error, the error was irremediable and must be submitted to, for it was evident that the restriction could never be repealed. And now "no public meeting of the people, no private assembly, no convention, no legislative body, had asked that the Missouri restriction should be set aside; and no Southerner in Congress had ever proposed its repeal."1

But when the scope of the Kansas Nebraska act came to be thoroughly understood, when it was noted that the friends of Southern institutions in Congress were earnest in its favor and that the abolitionists were vehemently opposed to it, the newspapers began to praise Douglas warmly and to advocate his measure with zeal.2 The exceptions were few, and were practically confined to New Orleans and the commercial cities of the border States.3 While some observers reported a feeling of indifference in regard to the measure, this arose from the fact that it was not perfectly understood, or because its passage would be regarded as a barren victory.4 There was no doubt, however, that the Charleston Courier faithfully represented Southern opinion when it remarked, "We cherish slavery as the apple of our eye, and
________________
1 See speech of Cullom, Whig representative of Tennessee, April 11th.
2 Compare the Richmond Whig of January 25th and February 14th. January 25th it is "that tricky demagogue, Douglas;" February 14th, Douglas has " exhibited a disinterested fearlessness." See New York Times, February 4th; also article in the Columbia (S. C.) Times of March 4th. "Senator Douglas deserves well of his country for having originally proposed it."—Charleston Courier, February 16th; also letters in the Washington National Intelligencer, January 31st and February 14th.
3 The New Orleans Commercial Bulletin was strongly opposed to it; see articles of January 23d, 27th, February 18th, 24th, and March 8th. The New Orleans Crescent thought the measure one of bad policy for the South; see article of February 24th, cited in the New York Times, March 8th. The Louisville Journal and Baltimore American gave it a qualified condemnation, and the St. Louis Democrat was outspoken against it. See New York Evening Post, February 4th.
4 New York Evening Post, March 17th; New York Times, February 16th.

are resolved to maintain it, peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must;" and it may confidently be stated that when the Kansas-Nebraska bill was understood to be of benefit to slavery, Southern sentiment at that moment became concentrated in its favor.1 "The South flies to the bill," wrote Francis Lieber from South Carolina, "as moths to the candle."2

The legislatures of the slave States were slower to act than those of the North. Before the bill passed the Senate, only Georgia had spoken. Her House unanimously, and the Senate with only three dissenting votes, adopted resolutions strongly in favor of the bill, and instructed her delegation to vote in Congress accordingly. In Tennessee the Senate endorsed the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska act, but the House laid a similar resolution on the table.3 Not until after the bill had passed the United States Senate did the legislatures of Mississippi and Louisiana adopt resolutions approving it.4

And now the day had come when a vote on the bill was to be taken. The Senate met on the 3d of March at the usual hour, and an animated discussion of the measure consumed the afternoon and evening. The floor was full and the galleries were crowded when Douglas rose, a half an hour before midnight, to close the debate. He offered to waive his privilege in order that they might proceed to vote; but many senators protested, and begged him to go on. The importance of the occasion and the influence which this speech might have on his future career might well make even as ready a speaker as Douglas tremble when he thought what he must confront. The bill had passed to a third
__________________
1 Charleston Courier, February 16th. The Richmond Whig said, March 14th: "The South are united for the removal of the Missouri restriction."
2 Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 269.
3 New York Courier, March 15th, cited and corrected by the National Intelligencer of March 18th.
4 National Intelligencer, April 1st and 4th.

reading the day previous by a vote of twenty-nine to twelve, so that argument in the Senate was needless; but the people of the North were almost unanimously against the measure and its author, and it was to them that Douglas spoke with extraordinary energy and ability, persuading and imploring them to reverse their verdict. A feeling of regret that he had provoked this controversy must have mingled with the excitement of the combatant in the contest; but there was no trace of it in his manner as he applied himself vigorously to the work of justifying himself, of defending his bill, and of hurling defiance at his opponents.

The appearance of Douglas was striking. Though very short in stature, he had an enormous head, and when he rose to take arms against the sea of troubles which opposed him, he was the very picture of intellectual force. Always a splendid fighter, he seemed this night like a gladiator who contended against great odds; for while he was backed by thirty-seven senators, among his fourteen opponents were the ablest men of the Senate, and their arguments must be answered if he expected to ride out the storm which had been raised against him. Never in the United States, in the arena of debate, had a bad cause been more splendidly advocated; never more effectively was the worse made to appear the better reason.

The opponents of the bill, he said, had misrepresented the issue to the country; they wished the people to believe that the paramount object of the bill was to repeal the Missouri Compromise. "That which is a mere incident they choose to consider the principle. They make war on the means by which we propose to accomplish an object instead of openly resisting the object itself. The principle which we propose to carry into effect is this: That Congress shall neither legislate slavery into any territories or State, nor out of the same; but the people shall be left free to regulate their domestic concerns in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. In order to carry this principle into practical operation, it becomes necessary to remove whatever legal

obstacles might be found in the way of its free exercise. It is only for the purpose of carrying out this great fundamental principle of self-government that the bill renders" the Missouri restriction inoperative and void.

Douglas then went on to show, by extracts from his speeches, that as he thought now, so had he thought in 1850; and at that time the legislature of his State believed that the principle should be so applied.1 We are contending, he maintained, for " the great fundamental principle of popular sovereignty;" and as the Missouri restriction is inconsistent with that principle, it ought to be abrogated. Instead of the opponents of this bill talking about "the sanctity of the Missouri Compromise and the dishonor attached to the violation of plighted faith, . . . why do they not meet the issue boldly and fairly and controvert the soundness of this great principle of popular sovereignty in obedience to the Constitution?" It is because "the doctrine of the abolitionists—the doctrine of the opponents of the Nebraska and Kansas bill and of the advocates of the Missouri restriction—demands congressional interference with slavery, not only in the territories, but in all the new States to be formed therefrom. It is the same doctrine, when applied to the territories and new States of this Union, which the British government attempted to enforce by the sword upon the American colonies. It is this fundamental principle of self-government which constitutes the distinguishing feature of the Nebraska bill. . . . The onward march of this great and growing country," he continued, made it necessary for the committee on territories to give a government to Nebraska; and then we met this question of slavery. It could be settled on the principle of 1820, which was congressional interference, or on the principle of 1850, which was noninterference. "We chose the latter for two reasons: first, because we believed that the principle was right; and, second, because it was the principle adopted in 1850, to which
_______________
1 See Appendix, Congressional Globe, vol. xxix. p. 327.

the two great political parties of the country were solemnly pledged." If we will adopt this principle, the senator further argued, "it will have the effect to destroy all sectional parties and sectional agitations." If the slavery question is withdrawn from the political arena and removed to the States and territories, each to decide for itself, there can be no more agitation of slavery. If this vexed question is removed from politics, the agitators will be deprived of their vocation. There will be no further necessity for bargains between the North and the South.

"I have not," said Douglas at the close of his argument, "brought this question forward as a Northern man or as a Southern man. I am unwilling to recognize such divisions and distinctions. I have brought it forward as an American senator, representing a State which is true to this principle, and which has approved of my action with respect to the Nebraska bill. I have brought it forward not as an act of justice to the South more than to the North. I have presented it especially as an act of justice to the people of those territories, and of the States to be formed therefrom, now and in all time to come. I have nothing to say about Northern rights or Southern rights. I know of no such divisions or distinctions under the Constitution. The bill does equal and exact justice to the whole Union, and every part of it; it violates the rights of no State or territory, but places each on a perfect equality, and leaves the people thereof to the free enjoyment of all their rights under the Constitution."

The foregoing extracts will give an idea of the line of argument which Douglas pursued; but nearly the whole speech must be read to comprehend the skill with which specious arguments were urged, and duly to estimate the dexterity with which an historical account of the Missouri Compromise and succeeding events was used. The kindly feeling of the audience towards him from the first was increased by his audacity, and with artful management he gained their sympathy. He told how he had been maligned all over the country. He had been burned in effigy in all the abolition towns of Ohio because they believed the misrepresentations of Chase; he had been hanged in effigy in Boston, owing to the influence of Sumner; but that he considered an honor, for this same Boston had closed Faneuil Hall to the immortal Webster. A remonstrance had been presented to the Senate in which he was called "a traitor to his country, to freedom, and to God, worthy only of everlasting infamy;" and he had even received insulting letters from Ohio, rejoicing at his domestic bereavements,1 and praying that still greater calamities might befall him. The state of public sentiment of which these were the manifestations was, the senator averred, due to the misrepresentations of his opponents, and particularly to those which were contained in the Appeal of the Independent Democrats.

In spite of his warmth of argument and vehemence of attack, Douglas showed the most perfect courtesy to his antagonists. When Seward, Chase, or Sumner, to whom he especially addressed himself, desired to interrupt him to correct a statement or briefly reply to an argument, Douglas cheerfully yielded the floor; but every rejoinder showed that in debate he was more than a match for any one of these senators. The politeness with which he complied with their requests for a hearing, and the force of his answers, caused Seward to burst out, in admiration, "I have never had so much respect for the senator as I have to-night."

In the course of his speech, Douglas took up Everett's argument, and showed by the construction he put upon Webster's 7th-of-March speech that he could twist the language of the clearest of speakers to his purpose as well as he could distort the facts of history.

While the suavity of Douglas during the whole night was remarkable, he did not propose to let Chase and Sumner off as easily as he had Seward and Everett. Their charge that his measure was offered as a bid for Presidential votes was
______________
1 The wife of Douglas died January 19th, 1853.

a rankling wound, and he demanded with a show of sincere indignation if they were "incapable of conceiving that an honest man can do a right thing from worthy motives?" Nor did he think that these senators were proper judges of his character or principles, for he intimated that they had obtained their seats in the Senate "by a corrupt bargain or dishonorable coalition." This angered Chase, who met it with an indignant denial, and Sumner made a calm refutation. In the excited colloquy which followed between Chase and a Democrat from California, who insisted on charging directly what Douglas had only implied, the "Little Giant" was cool, and, restraining the impetuosity of his supporter, continued the defence of his own motives; and, with the address of a master of parliamentary art, he made it appear, by the most delicate implication, that he was a self-sacrificing patriot, while Chase was actuated by an " unworthy ambition."

Douglas spoke until daybreak, and the crowd remained to hear the last words of the giant, who was flushed with victory and seemed to exult in his strength. Senator Houston explained why he could not consent to a violation of the Missouri Compromise; and then the vote was taken. The Senate was composed of sixty-one members,"1 of whom fifty-one were present, and the vote stood 37 in favor to 14 against the bill. There were recorded in the affirmative fourteen Northern Democrats, fourteen Southern Democrats, and nine Southern Whigs; while four Northern Democrats, six Northern Whigs, two Free-soilers, one Southern Whig, and one Southern Democrat voted in the negative. The negative vote is a roll of legislative honor, and deserves detailed mention. It was composed of Dodge of Wisconsin, Hamlin of Maine, James of Rhode Island, Walker of Wisconsin, Houston of Texas, Democrats; Fessenden of Maine, Fish and Seward of New York, Foot of Vermont, Smith of Connecticut, Wade of Ohio, and
__________________
1 There were thirty-one States, but there was one vacancy.

Bell of Tennessee, Whigs; and Chase and Sumner, Free-soilers.1

As the senators went home on this sombre March morning, they heard the boom of the cannon from the navy-yard proclaiming the triumph of what Douglas called popular sovereignty. Chase and Sumner, who were devoted friends, walked down the steps of the Capitol together, and as they heard the thunders of victory, Chase exclaimed: "They celebrate a present victory, but the echoes they awake will never rest until slavery itself shall die." 2

Before the bill passed, an amendment of Badger of North Carolina was incorporated in it to the effect that nothing in the act should be construed to revive the old Louisiana law which protected slavery in the whole of that territory. An amendment of Clayton was likewise adopted, which provided that only citizens of the United States should have the right of suffrage and of holding office in the territories. This was intended to work against emigrants from Europe who might settle there. This amendment was only carried by a vote of 22 to 20; and it is noticeable, as indicating the feeling towards the foreign population, that all the senators but one who favored this amendment were from the slave States, and all who opposed it were from the free States, Douglas voting with Chase, Seward, Sumner, and Wade.
___________________
1 It will be noted that Everett's name does not appear in the negative. He remained in the Senate until half-past three o'clock in the morning, but was ill and could not remain longer. National Intelligencer, March 4th, and Everett's explanation, March 7th. He showed excessive sensitiveness to attacks that were made upon him for his failure to vote against the bill. A certificate soon appeared, signed by Seward, Wade, Fish, Smith, and Foot, vouching his inability to be present. This did not help the matter. See New York Evening Post, April 10th, 11th, and 15th; also Reminiscences of a Journalist, C. T. Congdon, p. 278, which undoubtedly refers to Everett. See also private letters of Seward, Life of Seward, vol. ii. p. 225. Clayton was also ill, but would have voted against the bill; he stated his reasons in the Senate, March 7th.
2 Life of Chase, Schuckers, p. 156.

This speech of Douglas, which closed the debate, has been considered at length, for it was an epoch-making event in the decade of 1850-60. Cass was the author of the doctrine which Douglas so warmly embraced, but until now it had been known as congressional non-intervention, or squatter sovereignty.1 Douglas this night gave it the name of popular sovereignty, and the name was a far greater invention than the doctrine. The ardent advocacy of the sovereignty of the people was certain to have a powerful influence;2 and while at this moment the fate of Douglas seemed trembling in the balance, he was destined to rise above the wave of popular indignation which now threatened to overwhelm him. Using his principle of popular sovereignty to oppose the encroachments of slavery, he would in the future enlist under that banner many who now regarded his work with execration.

The doctrine of popular sovereignty died with slavery. At the best it was a makeshift. As expounded by Douglas, it meant that Congress, which represented the political wisdom of an educated people, should abdicate its constitutional right of deciding a question, which demanded the most sagacious statesmanship, in favor of a thousand, or perhaps ten thousand, pioneers, adventurers, and fortune-seekers who should happen to locate in a territory. As an expedient to settle an angry controversy, and as one of a series of compromises, congressional non-intervention in Utah and New Mexico was justified in 1850; but, used as a principle to unsettle a time-honored settlement, it can receive at the bar of history only an unqualified condemnation.

A spirit had been roused by the introduction of this bill which the politicians must reckon with. On the 13th of March, Hamilton Fish, senator from New York, presented a petition, signed by clergymen of different denominations in New York City and its vicinity, remonstrating against the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act. The
_______________
1 Douglas made a distinction between squatter and popular sovereignty. See Cutts, p. 123.
2 See Life and Times of Samuel Bowles, vol. i. p. 115.

bishop of the Episcopal Church headed the memorial, which was subscribed by a majority of the clergymen of New York City.1 This petition attracted no attention, and it was ordered to lie upon the table in the usual manner. But the next day Everett presented a remonstrance against the passage of the Nebraska bill, signed by three thousand and fifty clergymen of all denominations and sects in the different States of New England. There were in that section of country three thousand eight hundred ministers,2 and this memorial was therefore the expression of the sentiments of a very large proportion of the whole number.3

The petition was couched in strong language. It said: "The undersigned, clergymen of different religious denominations in New England, hereby, in the name of Almighty God, and in his presence, do solemnly protest against the passage of what is known as the Nebraska bill. . . . We protest against it as a great moral wrong, as a breach of faith eminently unjust to the moral principles of the community, and subversive of all confidence in national engagements; as a measure full of danger to the peace and even the existence of our beloved Union, and exposing us to the righteous judgments of the Almighty."4
_________________
1 Among the names subscribed to it were: J. M. Wainwright, Stephen H. Tyng, G. T. Bedell, Isaac Ferris, George B. Cheever, R. 8. Storrs, Jr., Theo. L. Cuyler, Samuel Osgood, Henry W. Bellows, Thomas K. Beecher. The Independent said that if there had been time to circulate the petition more widely, many more names would have been obtained. The Independent, March 23d.
2 See Everett's statement, Congressional Globe, vol. xxviii. p. 617.
3 Among the names subscribed to this memorial were: Lyman Beecher; Man ton Eastburn, Episcopal bishop of Massachusetts; C. A. Bartol; Theodore Parker; T. D. Woolsey, Pres. of Yale College; F. Wayland, Pres. of Brown University; Mark Hopkins, Pres. Williams College; Edward Hitchcock, Pres. Amherst College; G. Burgess, Episcopal bishop of Maine; Horace Bushnell, Hartford; E. Ballou, Montpelier. See the Liberator, April 14th.
4 The petition was dated March 1st, and the purpose was to present it to the Senate before the bill passed.

The reading of this memorial created a sensation in the Senate. Douglas made some fierce and sarcastic remarks, and rebuked the clergymen for quitting their proper vocation and meddling in an affair which they did not understand. They had, he said, "desecrated the pulpit and prostituted the sacred desk to the miserable and corrupting influence of party politics."

Somewhat more than a month later, Douglas himself presented a petition against the bill of five hundred and four clergymen of the Northwestern States, which emanated from Chicago, and which was similar in language to the New England petition. He made this the text of a speech which criticised severely the interference of preachers in affairs of State. Douglas and the Southern senators might cry down these manifestations, but in truth they were the inception of a movement which was destined to have a powerful influence towards the abolition of slavery. On the compromise measures clergymen had been divided; indeed, many of high station had counselled submission to the Fugitive Slave law. Now, however, they were practically united, and they considered it their duty to preach sermons against what they believed to be a violation of plighted faith.1

It will be generally conceded that on political questions which are those of mere expediency the minister should be silent. It would to-day2 shock the church-going community to hear from the pulpit arguments directed to show that a high tariff or free trade was demanded by the law of God; but when the paramount political issue becomes intertwined with a sacred moral principle, it is the duty of the preacher to declare that principle, and to urge his hearers to make
________________
1 Douglas said that on one day in New England fifteen hundred to two thousand sermons were preached against the bill. Appendix, Congressional Globe, vol. xxix. p. 656. The religious and secular newspapers of this time are full of reports of sermons on the subject.
2 1892.

their political action conform to the behests of the moral law. The slavery question had a moral as well as a political side. The ministers would have been recreant to their calling had they not proclaimed from their pulpits what the spirit of their religion prompted them to speak. This widespread agitation from the pulpit is a striking evidence of the deeply stirred-up feeling at the North. It was patent that the preachers spoke to willing listeners, and that their congregations would stand by them in the position they had taken.

The bill now went to the House of Representatives, and the first action of this body showed that it paid attention to the uprising of popular sentiment which the Senate had depreciated and disregarded. On the 21st of March, the Senate Kansas-Nebraska bill came up in order, and Richardson,1 who was thoroughly devoted to Douglas and his interests, moved that it be referred to the committee on territories, of which he was the chairman. Cutting, a member from New York City, who belonged to the faction of "Hards," at once moved that it be referred to the committee of the whole on the state of the Union, and demanded the previous question. He stated that he was in favor of the principle of the bill; but the representatives owed it to the country to consider this "grave and serious question" carefully, to correct whatever imperfections there were in the measure as it had come from the Senate, and to make plain to the people of the North what was intended by this legislation; for it was undeniable that, "since its introduction into Congress, the North would seem to have taken up arms, and to have become excited into a sort of civil insurrection." In spite of the protest of Richardson that such a reference of the bill "would be killing it by indirection," Cutting's motion prevailed by a vote of 110 to 95. This action was a defeat for the friends of the measure, and especially incensed Breckinridge, of Kentucky, who said that,
______________
1 Richardson was from Illinois.

having been done "under the guise of friendship to the bill, it was the act of a man who throws his arm in apparently friendly embrace around another saying, 'How is it with thee, brother V and at the same time covertly stabs him to the heart." Some of the opponents of the bill were disposed to think that it had no chance of passing the House at this session; but those who had the best knowledge and clearest judgment thought, with the New York Tribune, that the snake was scotched, not killed.1 As a matter of fact, this reference placed the bill at the foot of the calendar; there were fifty bills ahead of it, and it could not be reached in the regular course of legislation.2

The shrewd anticipation of Douglas, that the help of the administration would be needed to carry the measure through the House, was realized. Marcy, however, who had more influence with the representatives than any other member of the cabinet, was indifferent to the fate of the measure. Indeed, after Douglas introduced the substitute, Marcy's apprehensions of the effect of it on the Democratic party were so grave that he entertained the idea of resigning his position, and took advice from his personal and political friends regarding his line of duty. The drift of their opinion was that he ought to remain. The "Softs" had now an equal amount of the patronage and influence of New York State; but should Marcy retire, it was feared that the "Hards" would gain the supremacy.3 It may be presumed that in Marcy's mind a higher motive was mixed with the lower, and that he felt that, if he resigned, a secretary of state might be chosen who would truckle to the Southern propaganda, and give them effective aid in carrying out schemes prejudicial to the country.
________________
1 March 23d. 2 See Congressional Globe, vol. xxviii. p. 762. 2 Wilson's Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, vol. ii. p. 382. This was stated on the authority of Reuben E. Fenton, a "Soft" representative from New York. See also Washington correspondence New York Courier and Enquirer, January 31st and February 25th.

The vacillation of the President undoubtedly gave uneasiness to the supporters of the measure. When under the influence of Davis and Cushing, he was an enthusiastic friend of it, and expressed himself warmly in favor of the principle of the bill;1 when chilled by the doubts of Marcy, he wavered. "You ask me," wrote Dix, "what General Pierce's opinion is. I do not know. Some say he is for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise—others as confidently that he is against it."2 The result of the New Hampshire election might well make him halt between the two opinions. His native State, which had given him a handsome majority for President, was now only carried with great difficulty by the Democratic governor; and, what was of more importance, the lower House of the legislature was so strongly anti-Nebraska that it would insure the choice of two opposition senators in the place of Norris and Williams, who had voted for the Kansas-Nebraska act. But, in spite of internal dissensions and the unsteadiness of the President, the authoritative public expressions of the administration were all one way. It was announced that the patronage would be used in the interest of those representatives who voted for the bill;3 and the morning after the House had consigned it to the committee of the whole, the organ declared that the Kansas Nebraska project had become a prominent measure of President Pierce's administration. "If it be defeated in the House, it will, it must be admitted, be a defeat of the administration."4 Important appointments were withheld in order that they might be used to reward the constant friends of the bill; alluring bait was held out to those who were lukewarm, and threats were
_____________
1 See letter of Jeremiah Clemens to Franklin Pierce, March 24th, Washington Union, March 26th.
2 Letter of Dix to J. C. Curtis, February 25th, Memoirs of J. A. Dix, vol. L p. 285.
3 Washington Union, March 7th, quoted by Von Hoist.
4 Washington Union, March 22d.

employed to coerce the representatives who were disposed to rebel against the dictates of the party leaders. All the members of the cabinet, except Marcy and McClelland, were working for the measure, and Davis and Cushing were earnest and indefatigable advocates.

As the bill slept in the committee of the whole, some of its friends and some of its enemies began to think that the project would not be revived this session.1 But they little knew Douglas who thought one check would daunt him. He thoroughly understood the situation. He was aware that many Northern Democratic representatives would secretly delight if the bill were never brought to a vote in the House, yet these same men would feel constrained to give it their voice when the question was actually put. They would not dare to resist the power of the administration and that party discipline which, having been instituted by Jefferson, had gained force by use, and was never so powerful as now.

On the 8th of May the result of the pressure became manifest. On that day Richardson, the trusted lieutenant of Douglas, obtained the floor after the reading of the journal, and moved that the House resolve itself into the committee of the whole on the state of the Union. He frankly avowed that his object was to have the committee lay aside all bills which had the precedence of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, so that they might at once proceed to its consideration. While the Senate act had been placed at the foot of the calendar, there were but eighteen bills ahead of the House bill, which had been reported by the House committee of territories, and which was the same as the Senate bill before it had been amended. Richardson now moved to lay aside one by one
______________
1 "The Nebraska bill lies quietly in the committee of the whole. . . . The Nebraska bill is considered dead Killed by Cutting."—New York Herald, April 6th. "We now believe it most improbable that any bill repudiating the Missouri restriction can be forced through the present House."—New York Tribune, April 27th. The latter is quoted by Von Hoist.

these bills. The question was put eighteen times, and each time the majority voted with their leader. The House Kansas-Nebraska bill was then reached, when Richardson proposed as a substitute a bill which was the same as the Senate act, with the exception of the Clayton amendment. This was, the next two days, debated in committee. On Thursday, May 11th, Richardson obtained the floor almost immediately after the reading of the journal, moved that the debate close the next day at twelve o'clock, and on that motion called for the previous question. At this, the pent-up feeling of the opponents of the measure broke forth. They implored Richardson for more time; they protested against this summary closing of debate as rank injustice. An informal discussion was permitted by the speaker, in order to see whether an understanding could not be arrived at; but the feeling was so intense that heated expressions were not avoided, and the breach became wider. One member roused the wrath of others by calling the bill a "swindle." Alexander H. Stephens expressed the willingness of the majority to give the minority a reasonable time for debate, provided they would then allow a vote to be taken; but he emphatically declared that if factious opposition were made, it would be met" as factious opposition in this House has always been met." Lewis D. Campbell1 cried, amidst shouts of approval: "I will resist the further progress of this bill by all the means which the rules of the House place in my power, even though gentlemen may call it faction." Then filibustering under the leadership of Campbell began. Motions to adjourn, motions to adjourn to a fixed time, motions for a call of the House, followed one another. Then a member would ask to be excused from voting, and a friend would move that he be excused; and on all these motions the yeas and nays were called for. In short, all kinds of dilatory motions were used with skill by men who thoroughly understood the rules of the House, and they were supported by a determined
__________
1 Of Ohio.

minority. The session continued all day Thursday, all of Thursday night, and all day Friday, without reaching any result. At times the monotonous call of the yeas and nays would cease, and attempts would be made by the more moderate of both sides to come to some arrangement, when a remark would be interjected by some member which would provoke an angry reply, and the uproar and confusion would begin again. Douglas was on the floor of the House a large share of the time for the purpose of directing his followers, but he and Richardson did little but watch and wait for a subsidence of the excited feeling. It was after eleven o'clock on Friday night when, as a result of a talk between Campbell and Richardson, the latter stated that, as a number of the opponents of the bill had signified their desire that they might have until the next day for deliberation, he would move an adjournment. The House was now in a very excited state. The nervous tension caused by loss of sleep, irregular hours, and powerful emotion was manifest. Those who were accustomed to use stimulants in times of excitement were inflamed by strong drink. It had been freely talked that a disturbance was liable to occur, and many members came to the House armed for the fray. A spark only was needed to produce an explosion.

Hunt, a Whig from Louisiana opposed to the measure, who many times had tried to pour oil upon the troubled waters, now made a patriotic and amicable appeal to Richardson to give his friends until Monday for consideration. Richardson made a courteous reply, saying it was beyond his power to grant the request, but hoped that on the morrow a desirable result might be reached. Had the speaker1 then put the question, trouble would have been avoided; but, with praiseworthy intentions, he permitted a desultory discussion, during which Alexander Stephens made some fiery remarks. This brought Campbell to his feet, who had
_____________
1 Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, was speaker, but at this moment Orr, of South Carolina, was in the chair.

started to reply when he was called to order by Seward, of Georgia. It must be understood that this discussion was by unanimous consent, no debatable question being before the House, and no member could speak if called to order by another. The interposition of Seward was unfair, and cries of order went up from all parts of the hall. Above the confusion could be heard the voice of Campbell: "I shall resist this measure to the bitter end. I say so, never minding the gentleman who calls me to order." Amidst repeated shouts of "Order!" Seward retorted: "There are other places instead of this where personal difficulties may be settled." Confusion was now confounded. Members crowded around Campbell. Many got on the tops of the desks. Above the din Campbell vehemently exclaimed: "I tell you, gentlemen, that I shall resist this measure with all the power that I can to the bitter end." Members still continued to crowd around Campbell, and it was reported that weapons were drawn, and that an attempt was made to use one by Edmundson, of Virginia. The speaker did his best to preserve order; he prayed all lovers of order to assist him, and he commanded the sergeant-at-arms to use the emblem of authority. The sergeant-at-arms, advancing with the mace of the House, arrested Edmundson, compelled members to resume their seats, and was successful in partially restoring order. The speaker then cut off all further attempts at discussion, and, as soon as possible, put the motion of Richardson, and declared the House adjourned. By his prompt action he undoubtedly prevented a bloody affray. It deserves to be noted that among the gentlemen who effectually assisted the speaker in preventing a disgraceful brawl were Aiken and Keitt, of South Carolina. The sitting came to a close at twenty-seven minutes before midnight, the House having been in continuous session nearly thirty-six hours.1

1 See Congressional Globe, Washington correspondence New York Courier and Enquirer, New York Times, and New York Herald.

The next day's session of the House was short, and nothing was done. On this Saturday, May 13th, an enthusiastic anti-Nebraska meeting of five thousand people was held in the City Hall Park, New York City, the assemblage being composed chiefly of mechanics. The speeches were heard attentively, and the resolutions responded to with earnestness. One of these declared that they would vote for no representative who gave his voice in Congress for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.1

On Monday, May 15th, Richardson proposed to give until Saturday for debate. This offer would undoubtedly have been made before, had not a special order on the Pacific Railroad bill stood in the way. To postpone this now, a suspension of the rules was necessary, and eighteen Northern Democrats, who had hitherto voted in the opposition, gave their voices on the side of the majority, which made the requisite two-thirds vote; and it was then decided that the debate should close on the Saturday following. The action of these Democrats was severely criticised by the Whigs, and they were charged with being recreant to principle and dominated by party considerations; but, in truth, such questioning of motives was liable to be unjust. It must always occur to some congressmen of the minority, as it does to the philosophic observer, that filibustering is an inane mode of accomplishing an object. It rarely defeats the aim of the majority, although indeed it may postpone action. It is true that there was abundant reason to suppose that if action were not reached on the Kansas-Nebraska bill this session, it would not be revived at the next; but it was also true that the majority was large enough and determined enough to keep the House in session until the measure was passed. The assertion of the minority that the majority wanted to stifle debate was, of course, a subterfuge. Already, Richardson stated, eighty speeches had been made in the House on the question, which was more
____________
1 New York Times, May 15th.

than had ever been made on any previous measure;1 and before the bill came to a vote this number was increased to one hundred.2

The discussion proceeded quietly the remaining days of the week, the House holding long sessions. On Saturday, the 20th, the members came together at nine o'clock. The debate closed soon after twelve; the opposition badgered the majority the rest of the day by offering amendments and speaking to them under the five-minute rule. On Monday, May 22d, the House met and went immediately into committee. Stephens then moved to strike out the enacting clause of the bill, avowing that his object was to cut off all amendments, and have the bill reported to the House so that a vote might be taken on it. This unusual proceeding caused a great sensation. Indeed, Stephens had great difficulty in getting the leaders to agree to this mode of action.3 One member declared that it was apparent the majority purposed to ride rough-shod over the minority. Another, in the midst of the excitement, called upon his friends not to vote upon the question, and cried: "Oppose tyranny by revolution!" The motion to strike out the enacting clause was, however, agreed to. The committee rose and reported to the House. Then ensued a stubborn contest. The minority used every means in their power to prevent a vote; but the management of Richardson4 was skilful, and he had Douglas at hand to prompt him. The House refused to concur in the report of the committee, which struck out the enacting clause of the bill. Well might Stephens write, " I took the reins in hand, applied whip and spur, and brought the
_______________
1 Congressional Globe, vol. xxviii. p. 1161.
2 Washington Sentinel, quoted by New York Herald, May 23d. In the House, 45 speeches were made for the bill, 55 against; in the Senate, 17 for, 11 against. Total number of set speeches to May 21st, 128.
3 Life of Alexander H. Stephens, Johnston and Browne, p. 277.
4 Campbell afterwards (June 27th) said that the course of Richardson on the Nebraska bill was "open, frank, and manly."

'wagon' out."1 It was nearly midnight when a vote was reached. The Kansas-Nebraska bill was then passed by 113 yeas to 100 nays. Forty-four Northern and fifty-seven Southern Democrats voted for the bill, and these were reinforced by twelve Whigs from the slave States; against the bill were forty-five Whigs and forty-two Democrats from the North, two Democrats and seven Whigs from the slave States. The names of these nine, with whom respect for plighted faith was more powerful than the supposed interest of their section, deserve a record. They were: Puryear and Rogers of North Carolina, Bugg, Cullom, Etheridge, and Taylor of Tennessee, Hunt of Louisiana, Whigs; and Millson of Virginia and Thomas H. Benton, Democrats.2

No man in either House of Congress brought so much intelligence and experience to bear upon his vote as did Benton. He had come into political life on the Missouri Compromise. His State had kept him in the Senate for thirty years; and when the legislature would no longer elect him, he had appealed to the people of his district and they had sent him to the House. He was not only a statesman of experience, but he was writing a history of the events in which he had been an actor and on which he had looked as a spectator. Certainly his protest should have been regarded. He spoke as a statesman whose memory and judgment were enlightened by the investigation of an historian. He declared that the movement for the abrogation of the Missouri Compromise began " without a memorial, without a petition, without a request from a human being;" that this scheme was directed against a compromise which was not a "mere statute to last for a day," but one which "was intended for perpetuity, and so declared itself." When he came to analyze the Kansas-Nebraska bill, he referred to the explanation which Douglas had incorporated in his substitute in
______________
1 Johnston and Browne, p. 277.
2 This analysis is taken from the New York Tribune.

words which were remembered as long as Douglas was a candidate for the presidency.1

As the House bill had left out the Clayton amendment, it was necessary that it should go to the Senate before becoming a law. An interesting debate of two days occurred, in which important revelations were made of the efforts used to dragoon a few objecting Southern Whigs into support of the measure. The difference, moreover, in the construction of the act by its friends became again apparent. Judged by the succeeding events, the most remarkable expressions came from Sumner, for he had an insight into the future. This bill, he said, "is at once the worst and the best bill on which Congress ever acted. It is the worst bill, inasmuch as it is a present victory of slavery. ... It is the best bill, . . . for it prepares the way for that 'All hail hereafter,' when slavery must disappear. It annuls all past compromises with slavery, and makes all future compromises impossible. Thus it puts freedom and slavery face to face, and bids them grapple. Who can doubt the result?" The bill, as it had come from the House, was ordered to a third reading by a vote of 35 to 13, and passed the Senate May 25th. It was approved by the President May 30th.

It is safe to say that, in the scope and consequences of the Kansas-Nebraska act, it was the most momentous measure that passed Congress from the day that the senators and representatives first met to the outbreak of the civil war. It sealed the doom of the Whig party; it caused the formation of the Republican party on the principle of no extension of slavery; it roused Lincoln and gave a bent to his great political ambition.2 It made the Fugitive Slave law a

________________
1 Benton said that the clause "It being the true intent and meaning of this act, etc.," was "a little stump speech injected in the belly of the bill."
2 Life of Lincoln, Herndon, p. 361; Life of Lincoln, Arnold, p. 115. He wrote to a friend: "I was losing interest in politics when the repeal of the Missouri Compromise aroused me again."—E. B. Washburne on Lincoln, Reminiscences of A. Lincoln, North American Publishing Company.

dead letter at the North; it caused the Germans to become Republicans; it lost the Democrats their hold on New England; it made the Northwest Republican; it led to the downfall of the Democratic party.

It may be asserted with confidence that no man in the country except Douglas could have carried this measure through the necessary stages of becoming a law. Five years later, in familiar talk with his Boswell, he said: "I passed the Kansas-Nebraska act myself. I had the authority and power of a dictator throughout the whole controversy in both houses. The speeches were nothing. It was the marshalling and directing of men, and guarding from attacks, and a ceaseless vigilance preventing surprise,"1 that led to the success of the measure. It is certain that in after years Douglas came to believe that his doctrine of popular sovereignty was a great political principle; and it is probable that even now he half believed that there was some occult virtue in it as a rule of action. Persistent advocacy often convinces the advocate. Yet, laying aside entirely the moral view, the action of Douglas as a statesman, as a politician and leader of a party, was characterized by a lamentable lack of foresight and the utter absence of the careful reflection which far-reaching measures of legislation demand. Douglas had asserted in 1849 that all the evidences of public opinion seemed to indicate that the Missouri Compromise " had become canonized in the hearts of the American people, as a sacred thing which no ruthless hand would ever be reckless enough to disturb."2 Having once had that conviction, therefore, he owed it to his country, and to his party as well, not to broach this measure until he had given it deep study and prolonged consideration. For Douglas loved his country; his party was his religion, the Constitution was his creed; and in following the leading of an inordinate ambition he did not imagine that he was sacrificing
____________
1 Constitutional and Party Questions, Cutts, p. 123.
2 Quoted by Cullom, Appendix, Congressional Globe, vol. xxix. p. 539.

his party and injuring his country. He made up his mind quickly; confiding, like all spoiled children of fortune who have been endowed with rich natural gifts, in his intuitive judgment, he thought that he had no need of close application and methodical reasoning. "His library was never clear from dust," said a friend and follower;1 and Greeley, who in these days denounced him without stint,2 wrote truly after his death that, if Douglas had been a hard student, "it would have been difficult to set limits to his power." 3 He, like his greater Illinois rival, was a good mathematician,4 but he did not, like Lincoln, wrestle in manhood with the problems of Euclid for mental discipline.5 He hardly knew any history but that of his own country; he cared not to learn of the development of the world, except when Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon were on the stage of action, and of them he could not read too much.6

Of all the descriptions of Douglas at this time, none seem to seize the essential characteristics of the man so well as that of a journalist whose soul was wrapped up in the antislavery cause. The writer was impressed with his "pluck, persistency, and muscular self-assurance and self-assertion." To see and hear him was to "comprehend the aptness of that title of ‘Little Giant.'" Never was a characteristic name better applied. The historian must sympathize with the regret expressed by this journalist that one who championed bad measures with such indomitable ability was not upon the right side; and one cannot but reflect "of what infinite value this remarkable man might have
________________
1 S. S. Cox, Eulogy, July, 1861.
2 " We presume that three more tricky and managing politicians don't live than Pierce, Cushing, and Soule. If we were to add a fourth, we should of course name 8. A. Douglas."—New York Tribune, May 13th, 1854; evidently written by Greeley.
3 Recollections of a Busy Life, p. 358.
4 See Atlantic Monthly, vol. viii. p. 206.
5 Herndon's Life of Lincoln, p. 308.
6 Atlantic Monthly, vol. viii p. 206; Forney's Anecdotes of Public Men.

been to the cause of liberty if the fortune of politics had made him a leader of it." 1

Douglas had the quality of attaching men to him; he was especially fond of young men, and they repaid his complaisance by devotion. No American statesman but Clay ever had such a personal following. He now became the leader of the Democratic party; he retained the leadership of the Northern Democrats to the last; and since Andrew Jackson, no man has possessed the influence, received the confidence, or had the support that it was the lot of Douglas to enjoy from the Democrats in the northern half of the Union. From 1854 to 1858, he was the centre of the political history of the country; from 1858 to 1860, he was the best-known man in the United States; but after the contest with Lincoln in 1858, it became apparent that the "Little Giant" had met his match in that other son of Illinois.

Douglas was generous and faithful to his friends. He had large ideas in business; he made money easily and spent it lavishly. It was stated during this controversy that he was furthering the interests of slavery because he was himself a slave-holder, but the allegation was untrue. Douglas had, indeed, been offered a plantation with a large number of slaves by his father-in-law, but he had declined the gift because he was unwilling to accept such a responsibility. He answered this charge in the Senate with dignity.2 Indeed, those who sought a mercenary motive as a key to the course of Douglas strangely misapprehended his character.3

________________
1 Reminiscences of a Journalist, C. T. Congdon, p. 286.
2 Life of Douglas, Sheahan, p. 437.
3 My authorities for the view of Douglas are, besides those I have named, the two biographies of him by Sheahan and Flint; Constitutional and Party Questions, J. M. Cutts; Representative Men, Savage; Forney's Anecdotes of Public Men; Blaine's Eulogy on Garfield. I have received valuable hints concerning him from Senator John Sherman, General Logan, and my friend Mr. George H. Stone; but for his personal characteristics more than to any other source I am indebted to my father and mother, who were intimately acquainted with him and very often saw him familiarly. Having seen him frequently when a child, my own recollection of his personal appearance and manner of speaking from the stump is vivid.

In comprehensive views he was a true representative of the West. No public man has ever had more of the spirit of the boundless prairie or has been such a faithful type of the resistless energy that characterizes the city of Chicago. He understood the West, but it is plain that he had not thought out the results of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, for he seemed to have little apprehension of the political revolution that was destined to take place in his beloved section of country.1 On January 1st, 1854, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa were Democratic States; 2 all their senators were Democrats; of twenty-nine representatives only five were Whigs. None but Indiana remained reliably Democratic. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa at once became Republican, and Illinois would have immediately ranged herself at their side had it not been for the strong personal influence of Douglas.

Some writers and many men who were contemporary with the event have maintained that the civil war would not have taken place had it not been for the abrogation of the Missouri Compromise. This will probably not be the mature verdict of history. The more the subject is studied, the more profound will appear the prophetic saying of John Quincy Adams: "I am satisfied slavery will not go down until it goes down in blood."3 Yet it must be adjudged that Douglas hastened the struggle; he precipitated the civil war.

The North was now in a ferment. At the Connecticut State election in April the Democrats had failed to elect
__________
1 See his speech, May 25th, 1854
2 Minnesota was not a State. "What gain had freedom in the admission of Iowa into the Union? Are Alabama and Mississippi more devoted to the despotic ideas of American panslavism than are Indiana and Illinois?"—New York Tribune, March 29th, 1854.
3 Life of Seward, vol. i. p. 672. This remark was made in 1848.

the legislature or governor. While both Whig and Democratic conventions had protested against the repeal of the Missouri Compromise,1 the result of the election was obviously a rebuke to the dominant party for their support of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. The newly elected legislature passed resolutions averse to the proposed measure; these were presented to the House the day on which the concluding vote was taken, and to the Senate before its final action on the bill. The Whig convention of Pennsylvania resolved against the disturbance of the legislation of 1820. while the Democratic convention of that State was silent.2

One phase of the public sentiment has been barely alluded to. The foreign immigration had become a factor in politics of which heed must be taken. The Germans and Irish, for the most part, had joined the Democratic party; but the Germans, from the first, were opposed to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, for they were against the extension of slavery.3 Of eighty-eight German newspapers, eight were in favor of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, while eighty were decidedly opposed to it.4 This change was of enough consequence to determine the political character of Wisconsin and Iowa, and was a great element of anti-slavery strength in Ohio.

The cannon roared in Washington when the Senate enacted the measure, but gloom overspread the minds of Northern men. Pierce and Douglas, said Greeley, have made more abolitionists in three months than Garrison and Phillips could have made in half a century.5 Crowds of people
_________________
1 National Intelligencer, March 2d.
2 Ibid, March 18th.
3 See New York Evening Post, February 4th and 7th; the Liberator, April 21st; National Intelligencer, April 15th.
4 List made by Cincinnati Gazette, cited by Von Hoist, vol. iv. p. 429. See Von Hoist's remarks on this subject in his history; also his criticism of Bryce's American Commonwealth. See The Nation, April 24th, 1890, which refers to an article in the Historische Zeitschrift, neue Folge, vol. xxviii. pp. 1-50.
5 New York Tribune, May 17th.

who had heretofore severely criticised Garrison, Phillips, Parker, and their methods, now flocked to hear them, and were glad to listen to the arguments of these earnest men.1 It was at once urged by the press and from the platform that an effort should be made to have Kansas enter the Union as a free State, and a systematic movement was begun with this end in view.

The author of the bill was regarded with execration; his middle name was Arnold, and this suggested a comparison to Benedict Arnold. The term which is used in every Christian land as a synonym of traitor was likewise applied to him, and one hundred and three ladies of an Ohio village sent him thirty pieces of silver.2 He could travel, as he afterwards said, "from Boston to Chicago by the light of his own effigies." Horace Bushnell, a noted preacher in Hartford, applied to Douglas the bitter prophecy of the Hebrew prophet: "Tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him; therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy and utterly to make away many, yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him." A journal which had opposed the Kansas-Nebraska measure with pertinacity asked, in derision, "Who names Douglas for the next President now?"3 Not a response came from the North.

"Never was an act of Congress so generally and so unanimously hailed with delight at the South" as was the Kansas-Nebraska act, wrote Alexander Stephens six years after its passage.4 This may be accepted as a fact, although there were some exceptions to the almost universal acclaim. Many people in New Orleans did not like it; such, also,
_________________
1 Life of Garrison, vol. iii. pp. 407,408; New York Tribune. See Bell's speech in the Senate, Congressional Globe, Appendix, vol. xxix. p. 943.
2 The Liberator, vol. xxiv. p. 43.
3 New York Times, May 23d.
4 Life of Alex. H. Stephens, Johnston and Browne, p. 360, letter of May 9th, 1860.


appeared to be the feeling in Texas.1 Indifference as to the fate of the bill while it was pending was reported from Charleston, from other parts of South Carolina, and from a city of Mississippi.2 The leading state-rights organ of Charleston did not scruple to condemn the tactics of Stephens as a violation of the rights of the minority and as of a dangerous tendency.3 But as the measure gradually came to be understood as a victory for slavery and a defeat of the abolitionists, the general feeling fully justified the assertion of Stephens. It was thought in the border States that if a new slave State could be created it would add five per cent. to the value of slaves, which was already very high.4 The planters in the cotton States, being buyers of negroes, did not regard the rise of values as an unmixed good; but they did not grumble: they cast about for a remedy, and did not look for it long. The reopening of the African slave-trade began to be discussed seriously in South Carolina and Mississippi.5

There were Southern members of Congress whom Atchison could not convince that Kansas would enter the Union as a slave State.6 But they felt that if Atchison were too
________________
1 See the New Orleans Crescent. Gen. Houston says: "The people of the South care nothing for it; it is the worst thing for the South that has ever transpired since the Union was first formed."—Washington correspondence New York Tribune, June 5th.
2 See Charleston News, cited in National Intelligencer, May 25th and 27th; Charleston Mercury, June 21st, cited in National Intelligencer, June 27th; see private letter from Beaufort, S. C, to New York Courier and Enquirer, dated May 15th; letter from Natchez, Miss., to the National Intelligencer, cited by Courier and Enquirer, May 31st. There was a strong feeling against the measure in Eastern Tennessee, see letter from Knoxville, ibid.
3 Charleston Mercury, cited in New York Tribune, May 31st.
4 See letter of Yeoman, New York Times, May 13th. For the high price of slaves see Mobile Advertiser, cited in New York Evening Post, January 30th.
5 New York Tribune, May 31st; see Pike, First Blows of the Civil War, cited by Von Hoist, vol. iv. p. 437.
6 See Congressional Globe, Appendix, vol. xxix. p. 939.

sanguine, and even if the Kansas-Nebraska act did not recognize the Calhoun dogma, it did at any rate make a quietus of the Wilmot proviso doctrine. As the establishment of a principle it was of great benefit to the South; for when the bill was introduced negotiations were in progress which were expected to result in the accession of an important piece of territory from Mexico. That Cuba would be ours by the close of the year was not deemed an unwarranted expectation. Nor was it a wild dream to expect that before many years the United States would extend to the isthmus. The acquisition of Mexico, Central America, and Cuba, to be cut up into slave States, was an object worth striving for, and the Kansas-Nebraska act seemed to assert a principle that could properly be applied if this territory were gained to achieve such a consummation. The better the measure was understood, the more complete seemed the humiliation of the North, and the greater reason there appeared for the exultation of the South.

"The Fugitive law did much to unglue the eyes of men, and now the Nebraska bill leaves us staring," said Emerson.1 The repeal of the Missouri Compromise emphasized every argument against the Fugitive Slave act, and gave to the story of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" the force of solid reasoning. The uprising against this law of 1850 is a well-known fact of the decade between 1850-60, but the distinction between the excitement which followed its passage and that which grew out of the Kansas-Nebraska act is not always carefully borne in mind. Yet the difference is of transcendent importance. The excitement of 1850 and 1851 was transitory. It was vehement while it lasted, for the abolitionists and extreme anti-slavery men prompted it, but all their agitation did not prevent the public mind from settling into the conviction that the Fugitive Slave law was only one unpalatable article of a good contract. Public opinion at the North in 1852 was well expressed by the Democratic and
______________
1 New York Evening Post, March 8th.

Whig platforms.1 Even the brilliant speech of Sumner on the subject 2 did not produce a ripple of excitement, and in 1853 the acquiescence was complete. When the Fugitive Slave law was enforced it was done quietly, with sometimes a lack of zeal3 on the part of the officers, and with little or no resistance from the people. It seemed to be one of those laws which a law-abiding community believe wrong to resist, though inexpedient to put in force.

But in 1854 there began to be a smarting sense of the injustice of the Fugitive Slave law, which was never allayed until there was no longer reason for its existence. We shall see, in the course of this work, that one political party made, in its political platforms, obedience to this act a test of fidelity, and that the other remained silent on the subject; we shall see that Lincoln, on first taking the oath of his high office, virtually announced his purpose of enforcing it. Yet, after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act, the majority of men at the North, and by far the greater number of intelligent and moral people, felt that they had been cheated, and that the Fugitive Slave law was a part of the cheat. They reasoned that the South set aside the Missouri Compromise because it no longer operated in their favor; and as the Fugitive act was to them the obnoxious part of the compromise of 1850, they would consider the breach of it more honorable than the observance.

In March a colored man had been claimed as a fugitive slave and committed to jail at Milwaukee, Wis. He was rescued by a party of sympathizers. Booth, a journalist, who was one of these, was arrested on a warrant of the United States commissioner; he applied to an associate justice of the State Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus and his discharge. The justice ordered his discharge on two grounds, one of which was that the Fugitive Slave law was unconstitutional. This decision was afterwards
_____________
1See pp. 249, 253.
2 See the Richmond Whig, January 19th, 1854.
3 See p. 266.

affirmed by a full bench of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, only one justice dissenting.1 "If the Nebraska bill should be passed, the Fugitive Slave law is a dead letter throughout New England," wrote a Southerner from Boston to a friend.2 "As easily," he continued, "could a law prohibiting the eating of codfish and pumpkin-pies be enforced as that law be executed." The events which followed hard upon the action of the House of Representatives showed that the stranger had accurately judged the drift of opinion.

On the evening of the 24th of May, Anthony Burns, a negro who had escaped from servitude about three months previously, was arrested in the heart of Boston. The next morning he was taken manacled to the United States Courtroom for examination by Commissioner Loring. The news of his arrest had not got into the papers, and the proceedings would have been summary had not Richard H. Dana, Jr., a prominent lawyer of anti-slavery opinions, chanced to pass the court-house at about nine o'clock and received an intimation of what was going on. He entered the courtroom and offered Burns his professional services. The negro declined them. "It is of no use," he said; "they will swear to me and get me back; and if they do, I shall fare worse if I resist."3 Meanwhile, Theodore Parker and other gentlemen who had accidentally heard of the arrest had entered the court-room, and Parker had a conference with Burns. He told the frightened fugitive that he was a minister, that by a meeting of citizens he had been appointed the special pastor of fugitive slaves, and he asked whether Burns did not want counsel. The negro replied: "I shall
__________________
1 3 Wisconsin Reports, edited by Abram D. Smith, pp. 1-144. The case was carried to the Supreme Court of the United States and the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed. Chief-Justice Taney gave the decision. See 21 Howard, p. 506.
2 Letter dated February 18th, National Intelligencer, February 28th.
3 R. H. Dana's Diary, Life by C. F. Adams, vol. i. p.265.

have to go back. My master knows me. His agent knows me. If I must go back, I want to go back as easily as I can." "But surely," rejoined Parker, "it can do you no harm to make a defence." "Well," said Burns, "you may do as you have a mind to about it." "He seemed," Parker afterwards related, " to be stupefied with fear."

The news of the arrest, and the circumstances connected with it, spread quickly through the city and found a great change in public opinion from that which had prevailed three years before, when Sims was arrested.1 The fugitive had now the active or passive sympathy of nearly every one. Inflammatory handbills were circulated; they were drawn up with skill, appealing at the same time to the fiery abolitionist and to the compromiser of 1850. Invectives against kidnappers and man-stealing were joined to a statement which expressed the overpowering thought in the minds of New England men. "The compromises," one of the placards said," trampled upon by the slave power when in the path of slavery, are to be crammed down the throat of the North."2 On Friday morning, the 26th, a call for a meeting at Faneuil Hall that evening was issued, the object of which was stated to be: "To secure justice for a man claimed as a slave by a Virginia kidnapper;" and the notice ended: "Shall he be plunged into the hell of Virginia slavery by a Massachusetts judge of probate?"3 By Friday evening the city was in a ferment. Not since the massacre in revolutionary days had there been such wild excitement. Agitators were running to and fro, setting all the city in an uproar. The pent-up feeling produced by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise broke forth with fury. The crowd that gathered in Faneuil Hall were agitated
____________
1 See p. 211; also Life of R. H. Dana, C. F. Adams, vol. i. pp. 269, 285, 286. For a similar change in Iowa, see Life of Grimes, Salter, p. 73.
2 A copy of these placards may be found in Life and Correspondence of Theo. Parker, Weiss, vol. ii. p. 132.
3 Loring was judge of probate as well as United States commissioner.

by passion; and when Wendell Phillips rose to speak, they were in that state which orators delight to see when they would urge their fellow-men to violent deeds. Phillips had the manner of Brutus, but his words were like those of Mark Antony, fitted to stir up mutiny. "See to it," he said, "that to-morrow, in the streets of Boston, you ratify the verdict of Faneuil Hall, that Anthony Burns has no master but his God. . . . Will you adhere to the case of Sims and see this man carried down State Street between two hundred men? . . . Nebraska, I call knocking a man down, and this is spitting in his face after he is down." Thus Phillips went on, the audience hanging breathless on his every word.

When he had finished, Theodore Parker delivered a wild, incoherent, and vindictive harangue. "Men and brothers," Parker said, "I am an old man; I have heard hurrahs and cheers for liberty many times; I have not seen a great many deeds done for liberty. I ask you are we to have deeds as well as words? . . . Gentlemen, there was a Boston once, and you and I had fathers—brave fathers; and mothers who stirred up fathers to manly deeds. . . . They did not obey the stamp-act. . . . You know what they did with the tea." He ended with the proposition that when they adjourned it should be to meet the next morning at nine o'clock in Court-house Square. "To-night," shouted a hundred voices in reply. The excitement was now intense. The people were in a tumult. Above the roar of voices might be heard cries, "To the court-house I"1 "To the Revere House for the slave-catchers!" Parker tried in vain to still the storm he had raised, but he could not get a hearing. Phillips then ascended the platform and a few well-chosen words sufficed to allay the tumult. He had almost persuaded the audience to disperse quietly, when a man at the entrance of the hall shouted: "Mr. Chairman, I am just
________________
1 The United States leased a portion of the court-house. Burns was imprisoned in the jury-room of the United States Court.

informed that a mob of negroes is in Court Square attempting to rescue Burns. I move that we adjourn to Court Square." The hall became quickly empty. The crowd rushed to the scene of action. There they found a small party under the lead of Thomas W. Higginson attempting to break down one of the doors of the court-house with a large stick of timber used as a battering-ram. The Faneuil Hall men lent a hand. Those who could not work rent the air with shouts; others hurled stones or fired pistol-shots at the court-house windows. It was an angry, excited crowd of two thousand, bent on the rescue of Burns.1 At last a breach was made in the door, but the place was defended. In the melee one of the marshal's posse was killed, and Higginson was wounded by a sabre-cut. Several of Higginson's companions were arrested, after which no further attempt was made to break into the court-house. Two companies of artillery were immediately ordered out by the mayor to preserve the peace.

This attempt for the rescue of Burns was foolish. Under a government like ours there can be no justification for an attack upon the constituted authorities. It pleased the multitude to call the Boston Court-house the Bastille; but the recollection of the event which was thus conjured up impresses one with the contrast between the Paris of 1789 and the Boston of 1854, and not with their likeness. Yet it is an evidence of the deep feeling that, although this attempt was widely condemned, it did not weaken the public sympathy for the fugitive or the indignation against the United States functionaries. This attack enabled the marshal to appear as a vindicator of the law; he immediately called out two companies of United States troops, reported his action to the President, and received the reply: "Your conduct is approved. The law must be executed."

On the following Monday the examination began. An eye-witness relates that "the court-house had the air of a
_____________
1 A Bronson Alcott was in the mob.—The Nation, March 8,1888.

beleaguered fortress."1 Every window was guarded by Massachusetts or United States soldiery. Only one door of the court-house was open, and at that was stationed a strong force of city police. None but functionaries could enter without a permit from the marshal. The counsel for the fugitive made a strong defence. Burns was undeniably the slave of the claimant, although the proofs were clumsy, and on technical grounds he might have been set free. The United States officers, however, were determined to win. On the 2d of June, Commissioner Loring adjudged the negro to his owner.

The most instructive act in the whole drama was now to be played. The fugitive slave must be sent out of Boston. The city was full of people; during the whole week men from the suburban towns and from all parts of Massachusetts had been flocking into Boston. The President had just signed the Kansas-Nebraska act. There was earnest indignation against Congress, the President, and the United States authorities of Boston; but these Massachusetts men were, for the most part, on a peaceful errand bent. The United States district attorney, the marshal, and the mayor of the city were determined, however, to be prepared for a mob and an attempt at rescue. A large body of city police and twenty-two companies of Massachusetts soldiers guarded in detachments the streets through which Burns and his guard must pass. The streets were cleared by a company of cavalry. The procession was made up of one United States artillery battalion, one platoon of United States marines, the marshal's civil posse of one hundred and twenty-five men guarding the fugitive, two platoons of marines, a field-piece, and one platoon of marines as a guard to the field-piece. Windows along the line of march were draped in mourning; from a window opposite the old Statehouse was suspended a black coffin on which were the words, "The funeral of liberty;" further on was an
_____________
1 Anthony Burns, Stevens, p. 80.

American flag, the union down, draped in mourning. The solemn procession was witnessed by fifty thousand people, who hissed, groaned, and cried "Shame! shame 1" as it went by. A weight of suspense hung over the crowd, and it seemed as if a slight occasion might precipitate an outbreak with terrible consequences. The fugitive was marched to the wharf, and was soon on a United States revenue-cutter, sailing towards Virginia.1

To this complexion had it come at last. In a community
________________
1 About fourteen thousand dollars were paid out of the United States Treasury for services rendered by the Massachusetts militia. Anthony Burns, Stevens, p. 133. The cost of returning Burns to the federal government was not far from forty thousand dollars. New York Times, June 9th. Henry A. Wise said it cost the government a hundred thousand dollars. Speech at Alexandria, February, 1855.
My chief authority in this account is Anthony Burns, a History, by C. E. Stevens, published in 1856. The writer states in his preface: "My materials have been derived chiefly from original sources. ... I was present at the Faneuil Hall meeting from its commencement to its close, and I witnessed the attack on the court-house." I have also used the Life of R. H. Dana, by C. F. Adams; the Life of Theodore Parker, by Weiss; and I have carefully read the contemporary accounts in the Boston Journal, the Liberator, and the Boston Courier. The latter was a very conservative Whig newspaper. The sequel of this affair is interesting. Burns, after undergoing persecution and hardship in Virginia, was sold to go to North Carolina, was ransomed in 1855 by money collected by a Boston colored preacher; was sent to Oberlin College; afterwards became the pastor of a colored society at St. Catherines, Canada, and died in 1862. "Burns was the last fugitive slave ever seized on the soil of Massachusetts."—Life of R. H. Dana, C. F. Adams, vol. i. p. 265. Indictments were found against Parker, Phillips, Higginson, and others. A test case was made of one, and Judge Curtis quashed the indictment. Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, Wilson, vol. ii. p. 443.
Loring had previously been appointed lecturer to the law-school of Harvard University, but the board of overseers refused to confirm the appointment. The legislature sent an address to the governor requesting him to remove Loring from the position of probate judge; this the governor declined to do. The agitation against Loring was, however, kept up, and when Banks became governor in 1858 he made the removal of the probate judge on an address from the legislature.

celebrated all over the world for the respect it yielded to law, and for obedience to those clothed with authority; in a community where the readiness of all citizens to assist the authorities had struck intelligent Europeans with amazement—it now required to execute a law a large body of deputy marshals, the whole force of the city police, eleven hundred and forty soldiers with muskets loaded, supplied with eleven rounds of powder and ball and furnished with a cannon loaded with grape-shot. If anything were needed to heighten the strangeness of the situation, it may be found in the fact that the marshal's deputies were taken from the dregs of society, for no reputable citizen would serve as a slave-catcher.

As the men of Boston and the men of New England reflected on what had taken place, they were persuaded, as they had never been before, that something was rotten in the United States, and that these events boded some strange eruption to our State.1 Nor was the significance of the transaction entirely lost upon the South. "We rejoice at the recapture of Burns," said a fiery organ of the slavery propaganda, "but a few more such victories and the South is undone."2

1 "The tables under the Fugitive Slave law are beginning at last to turn against the law and in favor of humanity. There is deep and painful suspense here."—Seward to his wife from Washington, May 28th. Life of Seward, vol. ii. p. 230.

2 Richmond Enquirer, cited in the Independent, June 8th.

END OF VOLUME I

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].