History of the United States, v.2, by James Ford Rhodes, 1910 [c1892].

Chapter 11, Part 1: Thirty-Sixth Congress through Davis and Douglas

CHAPTER XI

John Brown was hanged Friday, December 2d. The excitement was still intense when, on the following Monday, the Thirty-sixth Congress assembled. "Virginia is arming to the teeth," wrote ex-President Tyler from his plantation. "More than fifty thousand stand of arms already distributed, and the demand for more daily increasing. Party is silent and has no voice. But one sentiment pervades the country: security in the Union, or separation. An indiscreet move in any direction may produce results deeply to be deplored. I fear the debates in Congress, and, above all, the speaker's election. If excitement prevails in Congress, it will add fuel to the flame which already burns so terrifically." 1

The Senate was composed of thirty-eight Democrats, twenty-five Republicans, and two Americans. 2 Since the meeting of the previous Congress, the Republicans had gained five senators. Two new States had been admitted by the last Congress. Minnesota, with a constitution prohibiting slavery, had come into the Union without objection from the Southerners, although she made one more weight in the balance of free against slave States. But her first senators and representatives were Democrats. Oregon, too, was admitted with a free constitution. The main opposition to her admission came from the Republicans, for the reason that her population was not equal to the number required for
_________________
1 John Tyler to his son, December 6th, 1859, Letters and Times of the Tylers, vol. ii. p. 555.
2There was one vacancy.

a representative, and as Kansas was held to this rule, it was deemed unjust to admit Oregon unless Kansas should also be made a State; moreover, the constitution of Oregon was criticised in that it forbade the entrance of free negroes or mulattoes into the State. Another objection, not so clearly expressed, was that Oregon being strongly Democratic, it was expected that she would furnish the coming year three electoral votes for the Democrats, besides at once notably increasing their strength in the Senate. In the House the admission of Oregon only commanded the votes of fifteen Republicans, none of them but Colfax being prominent in the councils of his party.1 Although regarded as a Democratic victory, it was really an anti-slavery gain. There were now eighteen free to fifteen slave states, and Oregon as well as Minnesota cast her vote in 1860 for Lincoln. Nowhere in the existing territory of the country was there a possibility of carving out another slave State.

The House was composed of one hundred and nine Republicans, eighty-eight administration Democrats, thirteen anti-Lecompton Democrats, and twenty-seven Americans; all but four of the Americans were from the South.2 No one party having a majority, a contest for speaker was inevitable. On the first ballot the Republicans divided their votes between John Sherman, of Ohio, and Grow, of Pennsylvania; but immediately after the ballot was announced, Grow withdrew his name. Clark, of Missouri, soon obtained the floor and offered a resolution that no representative who had endorsed and recommended the insurrectionary book, Helper's "Impending Crisis," was fit to be speaker of this House.
___________________
1 The vote for admission was: 92 Lecompton Democrats, 7 Anti-Lecompton Democrats, 15 Republicans—total, 114: against admission, Republicans, 73; Southern Democrats, 18; South Americans, 10; anti-Lecompton Democrats, 2—total, 103. See analysis of vote by New York Tribune, February 14th, 1859.
2 This classification is corrected from those in the Congressional Globe and Tribune Almanac.

"The Impending Crisis of the South: How to Meet It," was the title of a book written by a poor white of North Carolina, to show that slavery was fatal to the interests of the non-slaveholding whites of the South. Although the writer's manner was highly emotional, sincerity flowed from his unpractised pen. The facts were in the main correct; the arguments based on them, in spite of being disfigured by abuse of the slave-holders and weakened by threats of violent action in a certain contingency, were unanswerable. The book was an arraignment of slavery from the standpoint of the poor white, and in his interest. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was full of burning indignation at the wrong done the slave, and John Brown sacrificed his life willingly for him; while Helper, though he had the prejudices of his class against the black, made a powerful protest against the institution in the name of the non-slaveholding white. "Oligarchal despotism must be overthrown; slavery must be abolished," he declared; but "we long to see the day arrive" when the negroes shall be removed from the United States, and their places filled by white men.1

This book, published in 1857, had not at first a large circulation, but in 1859 it began to attract attention from those earnestly in favor of the Republican cause. A compend of its contents was published in cheap form for gratuitous distribution, and this enterprise received the written approval of many members of Congress, among whom were Sherman and Grow. The burden of Helper's argument was that the abolition of slavery would improve the material interests of the South by fostering manufactures and commerce, thus increasing greatly the value of land, the only property of the poor whites, and giving them a larger market for their products. The country and the cities would grow; there would be schools, as at the North, for the education of their children, and their rise in the social scale would be marked. The reasoning, supported as it was
________________
1 Helper, pp. 345, 381.

by a mass of figures, could not be gainsaid. Had the poor white been able to read and comprehend such an argument, slavery would have been doomed to destruction, for certainly seven voters out of ten in the slave States were non-slaveholding whites. It was this consideration that made Southern congressmen so furious, for to retain their power they must continue to hoodwink their poorer neighbors.

The second day of the session was exciting. Clark spoke on his resolution, and had extracts from the Helper compend read to show that it was an incendiary publication. Millson, of Virginia, declared that "one who consciously, deliberately, and of purpose lent his name and influence to the propagation of such writings is not only not fit to be speaker, but is not fit to live." These remarks were aimed at Sherman, now the sole Republican candidate for speaker, and he deemed it proper to make a reply. He had read neither book nor compend, and did not recollect signing the recommendation; to a pointed question he made the frank answer: "I am opposed to any interference whatever by the people of the free States with the relations of master and slave in the slave States." Keitt, of South Carolina, charged upon the Republicans the responsibility of Helper's book and John Brown's foray, exclaiming: "The South here asks nothing but its rights. ... I would have no more; but, as God is my judge, as one of its representatives, I would shatter this republic from turret to foundation-stone before I would take one tittle less." Thaddeus Stevens, with grim humor, replied: "I do not blame gentlemen of the South for the language of intimidation, for using this threat of rending God's creation from the turret to the foundation. All this is right in them, for they have tried it fifty times, and fifty times they have found weak and recreant tremblers in the North who have been affected by it, and who have acted from those intimidations." An angry colloquy between Crawford, of Georgia, and Stevens ensued; the House was in an uproar; the clerk was powerless to preserve order; members from the benches on both sides crowded down into the area, and it was feared that a physical collision between Northern and Southern representatives would take place.' Morris, of Illinois, who exerted himself to allay the tumult, said the next day: "A few more such scenes . . . and we shall hear the crack of the revolver and see the gleam of the brandished blade." Yet the dignity of the place and their position restrained men from violence, and quiet was at length restored. It was not, however, until near the close of the proceedings of the following day that the House took the second ballot. Sherman then received 107, nine votes short of an election; Bocock, a Democrat of Virginia, had 88; Gilmer, an American of North Carolina, 22; while 14 votes were scattering.

The House, proceeding without rules, unrestricted by the formalities of legislation, and lacking the guidance of chairmen of committees, with the clerk in the chair who had neither the authority nor the dignity of a speaker, became a great debating society in which the questions for debate were: Is slavery right or wrong? Ought it to be extended or restricted? The greater part of the talking was done by Southern men, and their feelings were wrought up to the highest pitch. Lamar, of Mississippi, declared that the Republicans were not "guiltless of the blood of John Brown and his co-conspirators, and the innocent men, the victims of his ruthless vengeance." Helper's book, said Pryor, of Virginia, riots "in rebellion, treason, and insurrection," and is "precisely in the spirit of the act which startled us a few weeks since at Harper's Ferry." The leader of the Republican party, Seward, was an especial object of attack, and his declaration of the irrepressible conflict received hot censure. Lamar suspected that he was implicated in the John Brown invasion. 2 Reuben Davis, of Mississippi, called him a
__________________
1 Congressional Globe; New York Tribune.
2 Remarks of December 7th. This suspicion in regard to Seward was common at the South. When part of Brown's party took possession of the schoolhouse near Harper's Ferry, the schoolmaster asked if Seward were concerned in the raid. Testimony Mason committee.

traitor.1 From such expressions there followed naturally the threat to dissolve the Union in case the Republicans elected a President. "We will never submit to the inauguration of a Black Republican President," declared Crawford, of Georgia, amidst applause from Southern Democrats, and he averred, " I speak the sentiment of every Democrat on this floor from the State of Georgia." This sentiment was reiterated in many forms and at every stage of the proceedings. "The Capitol resounds with the cry of dissolution, and the cry is echoed throughout the city," wrote Senator Grimes.2 The speeches of Southern members may be summed up in abuse of John Brown, Helper, Seward, Greeley, and John Sherman, and in threats of disunion. The choice of Sherman for speaker, said Pryor, will be a presage of "the ultimate catastrophe, the election of William H. Seward" for President. The Republicans, for the most part, held aloof from the discussion; they were always ready for a ballot, but it was impossible to get a vote every day. Corwin, an orator who never failed to command attention, made a moderate and witty speech, which for the time being put the House in good humor; but the political atmosphere was sultry, and in the arena of the representatives' hall, men swayed by powerful emotions had a chance to vent them, unhampered by the most intricate of parliamentary rules. Applause and hisses on the floor, echoed almost unchecked by the crowded galleries, added fuel to the flame.

The arrangement of the hall had a tendency to increase the excitement. By resolution adopted at the previous session, the desks were ordered to be removed from the floor of the House, and such a rearrangement of the seats of members made as would bring them together into the smallest convenient space. The committee who had reported
______________________
1 Remarks of December 8th.
2 To his wife, Life of Grimes, Salter, p. 121.

this resolution thought the change expedient and desirable, and an important step towards many legislative reforms. The chief argument for retaining the desks, the committee said, "is the strongest reason for their abolition—namely, the convenient facility which they afford members for writing letters and franking documents. It would certainly seem as if the very first duty of a representative in Congress was not simply to attend bodily in his place, but to listen to, and understand, and, when occasion requires it, to participate in the discussions and proceedings of the body of which he is a member." The immense size of the hall, the committee continued, made it difficult to hear a member when speaking; and if members came into nearer contact, greater attention could be paid to the discussions. The British House of Commons, of six hundred and fifty-four members, it was stated, held its sessions in a much smaller hall than our House of Representatives, which had to accommodate only two hundred and thirty-six. Under this order, benches were arranged so that the House was brought into the smallest possible compass consistent with convenient and comfortable seats, and about one third of the space of the hall was left vacant. The new arrangement, however, did not suit the majority of the members. Three weeks after the election of a speaker, they ordered the benches taken out and the desks and chairs restored; but this was not actually done until after the close of this Congress. It is a matter of regret that the experiment was not given a longer trial. The desks were not, however, brought back on account of the heated debates of this session, but because the members missed their convenience.

The closer physical contact, the enforced attention to every remark, undoubtedly added to the excitement of the daily meetings. The participants in an angry colloquy could easily meet. One day Kellogg and Logan, both of Illinois, had an altercation growing out of a charge made against Senator Douglas; on another, a hot personal dispute on the floor of the House between Branch, of North Carolina, and Grow, of Pennsylvania, led to a virtual challenge to a duel from Branch, which met a dignified refusal from Grow. Both were afterwards arrested and placed under heavy bonds to keep the peace.1 Another day, when Haskin, an anti-Lecompton Democrat from New York, was making excited and bitter personal remarks about a colleague, a pistol accidentally fell to the floor from the breast-pocket of his coat. Some members, believing that he had drawn the weapon with the intention of using it, were wild with passion. Many Democrats rushed towards the centre area near which Haskin stood. The loud cries for order, the nervous demands for the sergeant-at-arms, and the clamor of excitement, made a scene of pandemonium.2 A bloody contest that day was imminent. "The members on both sides," wrote Senator Grimes, of Iowa," are mostly armed with deadly weapons, and it is said that the friends of each are armed in the galleries.”3 Senator Hammond told the same story. "I believe," he wrote to Lieber, " every man in both houses is armed with a revolver—some with two— and a bowie-knife."4

The practice among Southerners of carrying concealed weapons was not uncommon. Among Northern men it was rarer, though they were led to it by the domineering tone and menacing words they were every day obliged to hear. They were determined not to fight duels; the moral sense of every Northern community was opposed to that manner of settling disputes. With the shadow of Broderick's death resting over the Capitol, it was seen that they were invited to an unequal contest; for in the code of honor and the art of duelling the slave-holders were adept, and had the advantages of skill over inexperience. Nevertheless, Republican
______________
1 New York Tribune, January 2d and 4th, 1860.
2 See CongressionalGlobe and New York Tribune, January 13th, 1860.
3 Grimes to his wife, Salter, p. 121.
4 Life of Lieber, p. 310; see also New York Tribune, January 13th, 1860; Recollections of Mississippi, Reuben Davis, p. 383.

members were resolved to defend themselves if attacked, and carried weapons in order to be ready for an emergency. The gravity of the situation was felt. Men were aware of the consequences that might flow from a bloody affray on the floor of the House, and counsels of forbearance from both sides were frequent. The Republicans showed great moderation; it was rare that one of them spoke; they were anxious to organize the House; and rather than lose time they let extravagant assertions pass uncontradicted, and bore in silence taunts and gibes from those who displayed plantation manners in the assembly of the nation.

The House remained in session the week between Christmas and New-Year's Day. During the intervals of debate, ballots were taken. On the twenty-fifth ballot, January 4th, 1860, Sherman came within three votes of election, and he came no nearer in any subsequent trials. The plurality rule was proposed but not pressed to a vote, as the Republicans knew the Southern members would filibuster against its adoption. Nor were any night sessions held, although Greeley thought the Republicans should have insisted on a vote on the plurality rule, and held night sessions if necessary to accomplish the purpose.1 Such procedure, however, would have increased the friction between the parties and sections. In spite of the bitter personal attacks made upon him, Sherman maintained during the contest a dignified composure. Corwin had taken pains to explain the difference between Republicans and abolitionists; but Sherman was frequently called an abolitionist, perhaps with the design of vilifying him at the South as Seward was vilified. General Sherman, then at the head of a military academy in Louisiana, relates how he was looked upon with suspicion on account of being the brother of the "abolition candidate" for speaker.2 On January 20th, John Sherman was able to explain how his
_______________
1 See Greeley to Colfax, Life of Colfax, Hollister, p. 153.
2 Sherman's Memoirs, vol. i. p. 148.

name had come to be signed to the recommendation of the compend of Helper's book. It was done by proxy.1 He that day declared: "I am for the Union and the Constitution, with all the compromises under which it was formed and all the obligations which it imposes." When I came here, he continued, " I did not believe that the slavery question would come up; and but for the unfortunate affair of Brown at Harper's Ferry I did not believe that there would be any feeling on the subject. Northern men came here with kindly feelings, no man approving the foray of John Brown, and every man willing to say so; every man willing to admit it as an act of lawless violence; . . . but this question of slavery was raised by the introduction of the resolution of the gentleman from Missouri. It has had the effect of exciting the public mind with an irritating controversy."

A combination of Democrats and Southern Americans would have been able to name the speaker, but this seemed impossible to effect. Still, Smith, an American of North Carolina, received, January 27th, 112 votes, within three of an election, and Sherman's vote on the same ballot fell to 106. The House then adjourned from Friday to Monday, January 30th. When it met, Sherman withdrew his name, and Pennington, of New Jersey, was placed in nomination by the Republicans. Five ballots were taken on three successive days. February 1st, on the forty-fourth trial, Pennington received 117 votes, exactly the number necessary to elect. Three representatives, who would not vote for Sherman, had come to his support to end the contest. 2 Pennington
_________________________
1 For full explanation, see Congressional globe, 1st Session 36th Congress, p. 547; also his letter to General Sherman, December 24th, 1859, where he writes: "It was a thoughtless, foolish, unfortunate act."—CenturyMagazine, November, 1892, p. 90.
2 They were Adrian, anti-Lecompton Democrat from New Jersey; Briggs, American, New York; Henry Winter Davis, American, from Maryland. Three anti-Lecompton Democrats—Hickman and Schwartz, from Pennsylvania, and Haskin, from New York—voted most of the time for Sherman; and Reynolds, anti-Lecompton Democrat from New York, was ready to join them if his vote would elect. All four voted for Pennington.

was sent to Congress by the People's party, but was regarded as a conservative Republican, and had constantly voted for Sherman while Sherman was a candidate. The contest lacked three days of being as long as that which terminated in the election of Banks; but then one hundred and thirty-three ballots were taken, while now there had been only forty-four. Good-humor and courtesy had marked the previous contest, where now were acrimony and defiance. There was then a suspicion that bribery had brought about the result; now passions more intense than avarice ruled supremely. Both times the discussion turned on the slavery question, but it was now a more strongly marked feature of the contest, and characterized by greater bitterness. Threats of disunion were then received with laughter; now they were too frequent and earnest to be treated lightly, even by those Republicans who believed they were uttered for mere effect. In the four years the divergence of the North and the South had grown into strong antagonism.

The excitement in the House extended throughout the country. Congressmen received a significant and hearty support in their threats of disunion from the Southern press.1 Senator Bigler, of Pennsylvania, wrote: "The excitement seems to abate slightly in Congress, but it is on the rise in nearly every Southern State. . . . Nothing has made so much bad blood as the endorsement of the Helper book, and the attempt now making to promote a man who did this to the responsible station of speaker of the House. The next most offensive thing is the sympathy manifested for old Brown."2 The speakership contest had made Helper’s
________________
1 See Richmond Enquirer, January 1st, 6th, 20th, 1860; Washington Constitution (the administration organ), January 5th, 13th; Raleigh Standard, cited by Constitution, January 14th; see the Mobile Tribune, Demopolis (Alabama) Gazette, New Orleans Courier, and Richmond Whig, cited by the Liberator, January 6th.
2 To Robert Tyler, December 16th, 1859, Letters and Times of the Tylers, vol. ii. p. 255.

book famous, and given it an astounding circulation. Although the book could not openly be sold at the South, and a Methodist minister, a native of North Carolina, was imprisoned for circulating the book, yet many copies found their way by stealth to that region.1 But the ignorance of the poor white was too dense to be penetrated by Helper's arguments, which had little, if any, appreciable influence on the South. At the North great piles of " The Impending Crisis" might be seen on the counter of every book-store, news-depot, and newspaper-stand. It proved a potent Republican document, especially in the doubtful States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Illinois, where it was easier to arouse sympathy for the degraded white than for the oppressed negro.2

General Scott wrote Senator Crittenden confidentially: "The state of the country almost deprives me of sleep."3 Union-saving meetings were held in the Eastern cities to deplore the widening breach between the two sections, and to condemn equally the abolitionists and the fire-eaters of the South, as the advocates of secession began to be called. Wendell Phillips, with a certain degree of justice, thus characterized these gatherings: "The saddest thing in the Union meetings was the constant presence, in all of them, of the clink of coin—the whir of spindles—the dust of trade. You would have imagined it was an insurrection of peddlers against honest men."4 The Union-savers, wrote Bryant, "include a pretty large body of commercial men." 5 The Southern trade, always of importance to the Eastern cities, was now of especial consequence, for the South had scarcely felt the effects of the panic of 1857, while the West still labored under great business depression. "The Southern
________________
1 Helper's Impending Crisis, p. 395; New York Tribune, April 12th.
2 Pike's First Blows of the Civil War, p. 469.
3 Life of Crittenden, Coleman, vol. ii. p. 182.
4 Speeches and Lectures, p. 316.
5 Life of Bryant, Godwin, vol. ii. p. 128.

trade is good just now," wrote Bryant to John Bigelow, "and the Western rather unprofitable. Appleton says there is not a dollar in anybody's pocket west of Buffalo."1 A black list of New York merchants, called abolition houses, and a white list, called constitutional houses, were published in the South, and Southern buyers were advised, and even warned, to place their orders with the proper parties.2 Northern business men and agents of Eastern houses received warning at Savannah that they had better return home, as it would be useless for them to solicit orders on account of the sentiment now prevailing. Gratified at the success of this move, Southerners argued that "nonintercourse is the one prescription for Northern fanaticism and political villany.3 Health-seekers accustomed to go South, to avoid the rigor of the Northern winter, were counselled to change their plans and visit the West Indies or Europe, as the mere fact of hailing from the North might subject them to annoyance or insult from the Southern populace.4

The gravity of the situation demanded an expression from the four representative men of the country, especially as three of them were avowed candidates for the presidency. The differences between Douglas and the Southern senators coming up in the Senate, he declared to them: "I am not seeking a nomination. I am willing to take one, provided I can assume it [the nomination] on principles that I believe to be sound; but in the event of your making a platform that I could not conscientiously execute in good faith if I were elected, I will not stand upon it and be a candidate. .. . I have no grievances, but I have no concessions. I have no
_________________
1 Life of Bryant, Godwin, vol. ii. p. 128.
2 New York Tribune, January 23d.
3 Savannah Republican; see also Memphis Avalanche, cited by New Orleans Picayune, January 26th; also Picayune, February 15th, and Charleston Courier, January 6th and March 17th.
4 New York Tribune, January 21st.

abandonment of position or principle; no recantation to make to any man or body of men on earth." 1 The responsibility of leadership imposed upon Jefferson Davis a comparatively guarded expression of his views. But he gave the Senate to understand that the Union would be dissolved in the event of the election of a radical Republican like Seward on the platform of the " irrepressible-conflict" speech. 2 On the 2d of February Davis introduced a series of resolutions to define the position of Southern Democrats. The fourth was the crucial one; it declared that neither Congress nor a territorial legislature, by direct or indirect and unfriendly legislation, had the power to annul the constitutional right of citizens to take slaves into the common territories; but it was the duty of the federal government to afford for slaves, as for other species of property, the needful protection. 3

These declarations of Douglas and Davis had more than usual significance in view of the approaching national Democratic convention, and seemed to show that the breach in the party was irreconcilable. Davis said, in effect, to Douglas, You must come on to our platform or you will get no Southern support in your candidature for President; while Douglas had declared that he would not yield a jot, and that he was backed by two-thirds of the Democratic party.4 Lincoln, on invitation of the Young Men's Central Republican Union of New York city, obtained, to his great delight, a hearing in the East, delivering a speech, February 27th, in the Cooper Institute to a brilliant audience.5 "Since the days of Clay and Webster," said the Tribune the next morning, "no man has spoken to a larger assemblage of the intellect and mental culture of our city." Lincoln had a
________________
1 Remarks of January 12th.
2 Congressional Globe, 1st Session 36th Congress, pp. 574, 577.
3 These resolutions may be found in the Congressional Globe, 1st Session 36th Congress, p. 658.
4 Ibid., p. 424. 5 Nicolay and Hay, vol. ii. p. 216.

long time to prepare his address, and to no previous effort of his life had he devoted so much study and thought. But on appearing before the New York city audience, he was at first a little dazzled, and, moreover, disconcerted at his personal appearance. The new suit of clothes that had seemed so fine in his Springfield home was in awkward contrast with the neatly fitting dress worn by William Cullen Bryant, the chairman of the meeting, and other New York gentlemen who graced the platform.1 But the earnest manner and power of expression overcame the effect produced by his ungainly appearance. The speech was a success. "No man," said the Tribune, "ever before made such an impression on his first appeal to a New York audience." The speech is worthy of great praise, and ought to be read entire by him who would fully understand the history of the year 1860.2 "I do not hesitate to pronounce it," wrote Greeley some years later, "the very best political address to which I ever listened—and I have heard some of Webster's grandest." 3

Lincoln showed conclusively that the fathers held and acted upon the opinion that Congress had the power to prohibit slavery in the territories; that the Republican party, therefore, was not revolutionary but conservative, for it maintained the doctrine of the men who had made the Constitution. Addressing himself to the Southern people, he said: "Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave-trade; some for Congress forbidding the territories to prohibit slavery within their limits; some for maintaining slavery in the territories through the judiciary; some for the ' great principle' that' if one man would enslave another, no third man should object,' fantastically called popular sovereignty; but never a man among you in favor of federal
_________________
1 Herndon, p. 454.
2 It is given in full in the Life of Lincoln by Howells, and in the Life by Raymond. Liberal extracts are made by Nicolay and Hay.
3 Century Magazine, July, 1891, p. 373. An address of Greeley, written about 1868, and first published in 1891.

prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of our fathers who framed the government under which we live. Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our government originated. . . . You say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers." Alluding to the Southern threats of disunion, he said: "Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the government unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events."

Addressing himself to the Republicans, he referred to the encroaching demands of the slave power and asked, What will satisfy the South ?" This, and this only," he answered: "cease to call slavery wrong and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly—done in acts as well as in words." The South thinking slavery right and "our thinking it wrong is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition as being right; but thinking it wrong as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this? Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the national territories, and to overrun us here in these free States? . . . Let us not be slandered," Lincoln continued, " from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the government. . . . Let us have faith that right makes might; and in that faith let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it."

Two days later, Seward spoke in the Senate. Of an unimposing physical figure, with a husky voice, angular gestures, and a dry didactic manner, he held spell-bound for two hours the Senate chamber and galleries, crowded with the distinguished and intellectual men and the graceful women of the nation's capital. It was the pregnant matter of the discourse and the commanding position of the speaker that attracted this profound attention.

Almost at the outset Seward said: "It will be an overflowing source of shame as well as of sorrow if we, thirty millions,. . . cannot so combine prudence with humanity, in our conduct concerning the one disturbing subject of slavery, as not only to preserve our unequalled institutions of freedom, but also to enjoy their benefits with contentment and harmony." 1 "Men, States and nations," he continued, "divide upon the slavery question, not perversely, but because, owing to differences of constitution, condition, or circumstances, they cannot agree." He alluded to the encroachments of the slave power, mentioning the governor's veto of the act of the Nebraska legislature dedicating that territory to freedom, the legal establishment of slavery in New Mexico, and he referred to the fact that "savage Africans have been once more landed on our shores." He asked, "Did ever the annals of any government show a more rapid or more complete departure from the wisdom and virtue of its founders? . . . There is not," he declared, "over the face of the whole world to be found one representative of our country who is not an apologist for the extension of slavery.
_____________
1 In connection with this remark and the general drift of Seward's speech, the opinion of Professor Bryce is interesting. "It is possible that a higher statesmanship might have averted" the civil war.—American Commonwealth, vol. ii. p. 201. Bryce also expresses the conjecture that cabinet government might have solved the slavery question without war. "But it was the function of no one authority in particular to discover a remedy, as it would have been the function of a cabinet in Europe."—Ibid., p. 317. See abstract of Von Hoist's criticism of this statement, The Nation, April 24th, 1890.

" Now, " we hear menaces of disunion, louder, more distinct, more emphatic than ever," so that, while hitherto the question for the Republican party has been, "How many votes can it cast?" it is now, " Has it determination to cast them?" Nevertheless, we should "consider these extraordinary declamations [for disunion] seriously and with a just moderation." The motto inscribed on the banner of the Republican party will be " Union and Liberty;" but "if indeed the time has come when the Democratic party must rule by terror, instead of ruling through conceded public confidence, then it is quite certain it cannot be dismissed from power too soon." Yet, " I remain now in the opinion .. . that these hasty threats of disunion are so unnatural that they will find no hand to execute them."1

This speech, the calm, temperate discussion of an exciting question by a statesman, was one of great power. Seward, of all leading Republicans the most obnoxious to the South, and thought to be assured of the Republican nomination, owed it to his party to allay if possible, without abating a jot of principle, the unnecessary fears of what would happen should he become President; and for that purpose this speech was calculated. It was likewise a frank exposition of his ideas for the benefit of the Republican national convention soon to assemble at Chicago, and an outline of the spirit and principles in which he would administer the government should he be nominated and elected President. The speech was severely criticised by the abolitionists, because it was not a vigorous enforcement of the " irrepressible-conflict" doctrine. They appealed from Seward in the Capitol to Seward on the stump. "The temptation which proved too powerful for Webster," wrote Garrison, "is seducing Seward to take the same downward course." 2 "Seward makes a speech in Washington on the tactics of the Republican party," said Wendell Phillips, "but he phrases
___________
1 Seward's Works, vol. iv. p. 619 et seq.
2 The Liberator, March 9th.

it so as to suit Wall Street."1 This was the captious criticism of men who, far in the vanguard of public opinion, were impatient because political leaders did not keep pace with them. They failed to recognize that Seward and Lincoln, in their opposition to slavery, were going just as far and as fast as the people would follow. The influence of the abolitionists in the decade between 1850-60 was by no means commensurate with their ability and zeal. Their meetings were frequent, their conventions well attended, their resolutions wordy and emphatic. Yet they rejected the most feasible and regular means of checking the slave power, for the reason that the Republicans did not go far enough. These only proposed to prohibit slavery in the territories, while the abolitionists were for its abolition in the States. To take no part in elections was a tenet of Garrison and Phillips; and they were apt to criticise Republicans as severely as they did Democrats. An earnest writer and organizer like Garrison and an orator like Phillips could hardly devote themselves to a work for ten years without making themselves felt. Yet the only practical result of their labor lay in the fact that, having convinced men that slavery was wrong, they made Republican voters, while they were urging their followers not to vote. The work of Garrison and his disciples between 1831-40, in arousing the conscience of the nation, had borne good fruit; but that work was done. The public mind had now to grapple with the question, How could the sentiment that slavery was wrong accomplish results and stop the spread of the evil? The abolitionists said, By disunion; while the Republicans, intending to preserve union and liberty, proposed constitutional and regular methods. Yet it was better for the cause that Garrison and Phillips wrought outside of the Republican party. Their radical notions could not be held within platforms, nor could they follow a political leader. It was a frequent charge of Southerners that Garrison and Phillips
_______________
1 New York Tribune, March 22d.

were apostles whom the Republicans delighted to honor, while in the Republican literature we see long explanations and emphatic denials that Republicans are abolitionists, or have anything in common with them.

The party that had for representatives two such men as Seward and Lincoln was indeed fortunate. That their speeches of 1858 and 1860, made absolutely without consultation, so closely resembled each other is evidence that two great political minds ran in the same channel; and, as both interpreted acutely popular sentiment, it is evidence, too, of the length to which Republican voters were willing to go. Both men realized that an effort should be made to attract the Fillmore voters of 1856; and although neither reaffirmed his declaration of 1858, nothing in these speeches indicated the smallest change of opinion. Lincoln's speech received far less attention than Seward's. Every sentence of the senator was dissected and every word weighed. "I hear of ultra old Whigs in Boston," wrote Bowles to Thurlow Weed, "who say they are ready to take up Seward upon his recent speech." 1

When we consider that Seward and Lincoln were prominent candidates for the presidential nomination, and that the convention would assemble in two months and a half, such able and bold discussion by them of the issue before the country commands our admiration. Understanding the character of Lincoln as we do now, the combination of moral feeling and political sagacity which marks the Cooper Institute address seems entirely in keeping with the man. The veering course of Seward makes students of history doubt whether he had strong convictions. But his public speeches guided opinion, and were conceived in a higher moral atmosphere than he breathed when engaged in political manipulation.

For some time after the election of the speaker, peace had reigned in the House of Representatives, but on the 5th of
_____________
1 Life of Weed, vol. ii. p 260.

April a violent scene took place. In committee of the whole, Lovejoy had the floor and proceeded to make an anti-slavery speech. "Slave-holding," he asserted, "is worse than robbing, than piracy, than polygamy. . . . The principle of enslaving human beings because they are inferior ... is the doctrine of Democrats, and the doctrine of devils as well; and there is no place in the universe outside the five points of hell and the Democratic party where the practice and prevalence of such doctrines would not be a disgrace." As Lovejoy spoke, his manner as boisterous as his words were vehement, he advanced into the area and occupied the space fronting the Democratic benches. Pryor, of Virginia, left his seat, moved quickly towards Lovejoy, and, with gesture full of menace, exclaimed, in a voice of anger: "The gentleman from Illinois shall not approach this side of the House, shaking his fists and talking in the way he has talked. It is bad enough to be compelled to sit here and hear him utter his treasonable and insulting language; but he shall not, sir, come upon this side of the House shaking his fist in our faces."

Potter, of Wisconsin, stepped towards Pryor and shouted: "We listened to gentlemen on the other side for eight weeks, when they denounced the members upon this side with violent and offensive language. We listened to them quietly and heard them through. And now, sir, this side shall be heard, let the consequences be what they may."

The point of order I make, replied Pryor, is that the gentleman shall speak from his seat; "but, sir, he shall not come upon this side shaking his fist in our faces and talking in the style he has talked."

"You are doing the same thing," cried Potter.

"You shall not come upon this side of the House," said Barksdale, of Mississippi, menacingly to the face of Lovejoy. "Nobody can intimidate me," uttered Lovejoy, with a loud voice.

And now thirty or forty members had gathered in the area around Lovejoy and Pryor, shouting and gesticulating.

The confusion was great; men trembled with excitement and passion; rage distorted many faces; it seemed as if the long-dreaded moment of a bloody encounter on the floor of the House had come. Above the din might be heard the voice of Potter, saying," I do not believe that side of the House can say where a member shall speak, and they shall not say it;" also the cries of a member from Mississippi and a member from Kentucky insisting that Lovejoy could not speak on their side," let the consequences be what they will."


"My colleague shall speak," said Kellogg. The chairman of the committee, having in vain tried to preserve order, called the speaker to the chair and reported the disorder to the House. The speaker begged gentlemen to respect the authority of the House and take their seats. "Order that black-hearted scoundrel and nigger-stealing thief to take his seat, and this side of the House will do it," shouted Barksdale. The efforts of the speaker were at last successful; order was restored, the chairman of the committee resumed the chair, and Lovejoy went on. The speech was interspersed with remarks from Barksdale, calling Lovejoy "an infamous, perjured villain," "a perjured negro-thief," and from another Mississippi member terming him a "mean, despicable wretch." Nothing daunted Lovejoy. "You shed the blood of my brother on the banks of the Mississippi twenty years ago," he cried to the Southerners, " and what then? I am here to-day, thank God, to vindicate the principles baptized in his blood. . . . But I cannot go into a slave State," he continued, "and open my lips in regard to the question of slavery—" "No," interrupted a Virginia member, " we would hang you higher than Haman."

"The meanest slave in the South is your superior," cried Barksdale. Lovejoy was, however, permitted to finish his speech, and for a few days the story of his bearding the slave-holders in the representatives' hall of the nation filled the North.1
_________________
1 My account is taken from the Congressional Globe and the New York Tribune.

Out of the proceedings of this day a quarrel grew between Pryor and Potter. Pryor demanded " the satisfaction usual among gentlemen for the personal affront you offered me in debate." Potter accepted the challenge, and, using his privilege, named bowie-knives as the weapons. The second of Pryor, without consulting him, refused to allow his principal to engage in combat by "this vulgar, barbarous, and inhuman mode."1

This incident produced a greater sensation at the North than its intrinsic importance warranted. The reason is not far to seek. In Washington, Northern congressmen were taunted as cowards because they would not practise the code of honor, and in the Southern States the boast that one Southron could thrash four Yankees frequently accompanied the threats of disunion. Neither Lovejoy nor Potter had quailed before the menaces of the fire-eaters. Such action awakened the feeling in the breasts of many Northern men that they were as ready to fight for their own proper rights as were the vaunting Southerners; that on equal terms they were equally brave. Potter's choice of the bowie-knife had a grim fitness, for it was a popular implement of the South, and might be considered slavery's contribution to the practice of single combat, although not recognized by the code.

Potter was the hero of but a day. Public attention, taken for the moment from the approaching Charleston convention, returned to it with renewed force. We all know the absorbing interest taken beforehand in the convention of a great party whose platform or candidates are matters of uncertainty; but never before nor since has there been such an intensity of curiosity, interest, and concern as now prevailed regarding the action that would be taken by the national Democratic convention.

A Southern view of the situation from a conservative standpoint is best given in a confidential letter of Senator
______________
1 The correspondence was published in the New York Tribune of April 17th.

Hammond to Francis Lieber. "The Lovejoy explosion," he wrote, April 19th, "and all its sequences which were so threatening last week, has been for the present providentially cast in the shade by the intensified and utterly absorbing interest in the Charleston convention. ... I assure you . . . that unless the slavery question can be wholly eliminated from politics, this government is not worth two years', perhaps not two months', purchase. . . . Unless the aggression on the slave-holder is arrested, no power short of God's can prevent a bloody fight here, and a disruption of the Union. . . . While regarding this Union as cramping the South, I will nevertheless sustain it as long as I can. . . . I firmly believe that the slave-holding South is now the controlling power of the world—that no other power would face us in hostility. Cotton, rice, tobacco, and naval stores command the world; and we have sense to know it, and are sufficiently Teutonic to carry it out successfully. The North without us would be a motherless calf, bleating about, and die of mange and starvation."1

It was unfortunate both for the Northern Democrats and the Union that at this critical juncture the national convention should meet at Charleston, the hot-bed of disunion. The place had been selected four years previously,2 when harmony prevailed in the party and Douglas was a favorite of the South. Although having a population of but forty thousand, Charleston was marked by wealth and refinement, and tinctured with more of the aristocratic spirit than any other city of the country. Its citizens were generous and hospitable, but their entertainment was for people of their own way of thinking; it does not appear that they opened their houses to Northern delegates who came to advocate the cause of Douglas. The appearance and conduct of the Tammany delegation excited disgust in the minds of
______________
1 Life and Letters of Francis Lieber, p. 310.
2 Greeley's American Conflict, vol. i. p. 309; Cleveland Plain Dealer, April 26th.

the elegant residents, who had only known by hearsay their Northern allies; while to Northern Democrats the haughty bearing they encountered seemed little in keeping with the character of their party, which they regarded essentially as the party of the people. The appearance of wealth and luxury shown in the mansions, in gay equipages, and in the rich dress of the ladies was a novel sight to all Northern visitors except to those living in a few of the Eastern cities; the forced economy of the West for the last three years was in painful contrast with the lavish display that might be seen any pleasant afternoon on the fashionable drive of Charleston.1

At this time Southern travel was exclusively confined to health-seekers and Eastern business men, so that most of the Northern delegates saw, for the first time in their lives, slavery face to face. Many of them, curious to look into the workings of the institution, availed themselves of several opportunities to visit the slave mart, and were present at a slave auction. A delegate who has given a graphic account of his investigations, expressed surprise at the manifestation of so little feeling by negroes about to be sold. He saw none of the indecent and outrageous scenes described in abolition prints, yet the strange spectacle of human beings sold like horses was one of the most revolting sights he had ever seen. 2 The exuberant prosperity of the South did not seem an object of envy to the Northern visitors, because it was attended with slavery, and they were shocked to hear men rated wealthy on account of the high price of negroes.

The delegates were a strong body of men. The politicians who came were of the better class; lawyers, men of
________________
1 New York Tribune, April 23d. My mother, who accompanied my father to Charleston, he being a delegate, has given me a lively description of her impressions of the city and people.
2 J. W. Gray to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, April 20th and 30th; see also National Political Conventions of 1860, Halstead, p. 61.

business, and planters of large influence and high character in their respective communities, though little known beyond their own States, were glad to have the honor of assisting in the deliberations of their party's national council. The selections had for the most part been made with care, and, except in New York and Pennsylvania, the action of the minor conventions that met to choose delegates was little disturbed by the operations of machine politics. But few senators or congressmen had seats in the convention. It actually seemed as if one of the conditions the constitutional fathers had hoped to secure in providing for the choice of a President by electors was fulfilled in this nominating assemblage of the great party. "It was desirable," wrote Hamilton, in defending the mode of appointment of the chief magistrate, " that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any pre-established body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture. It was equally desirable that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station. ... A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations." 1 The convention was composed of about six hundred delegates; but three hundred and three, the exact number of electors, was the total vote, each State casting its electoral vote.

Another condition, however, that the constitutional fathers had deemed of vital importance was completely set at naught by the convention system. "It was also peculiarly desirable," Hamilton argued," to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. . . . And as the electors chosen in each State are to assemble and vote in the State
___________________
1 The Federalist. No. lxviii.

in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place." Yet many evils now attendant upon the national political conventions did not accompany the one at Charleston. As the city was small, the local outside pressure was not heavy; and, not being easy of access, only a small number of strangers came from different parts of the country to shout for their particular candidate and increase the difficulty of careful procedure. The hall in which the sessions were held could only accommodate two thousand people. Deliberative action was more feasible there than in the monstrous buildings where now the delegates play their parts to an audience of many thousands.

The antagonism between the delegates from the cotton States and those from the West was the main feature of the situation.1 It proclaimed in an emphatic manner the schism in the party. The sections divided on a man, Douglas being the pivot on which the convention turned. As he stood for a principle, the minute the making of a platform began, the radical difference was obvious. The West, from personal loyalty and enthusiasm, determined to have Douglas, and they carried nearly the whole North with them, for it was patent that he could poll more votes in the free States than any other candidate. His nomination implied a certain platform, and meant resistance to the domination of Southern extremists in the party. On the other hand, the delegates from the slave States thought Douglas as bad as Seward, and popular sovereignty as hateful as Sewardism, and in their demand for a plain statement of principles and not one facing both ways, they asked for a platform on which Douglas could not possibly stand, and which would render his nomination impossible. These differences came to the surface before the convention met, and were prominent
______________
1 The cotton States had fifty-one votes, the West sixty-six.

in the first day's proceedings. The agitation of the whole country centred at Charleston. Men asked, Would there be wisdom enough in the convention to do something towards allaying the agitation, or would it only be increased, as had been the result of the actual session of Congress? The difficulty seemed insurmountable. It was evident that unless the delegates from the cotton States could frame the platform or name the candidate, they would secede from the convention, and it was just as apparent to the North that the Douglas men could concede neither. But this the Southerners did not see. They generally had the privilege of dictating the declaration of principles and controlling the nomination; and although the Western opposition was fiercer than any they had previously met, they could not doubt that it would eventually give way. You deny us our rights in the territories, complained the South. We will stand by you in all of your just claims, replied those whom the slogan of Douglas had called to the contest, but the demands of the fire-eaters we will not concede.1

The gravity of the situation was appreciated by all. Union meant probable success, disagreement implied certain defeat. It was noted that intemperate drinking, so frequent where a mass of men gathered on a political errand, was absent. Boisterous merriment would have seemed a discordant note while the shadow of dissolution hung over the convention. The delegates felt the weight of responsibility resting upon them; their faces were serious, even sad. "In this convention," said the Charleston Mercury, " where there should be confidence and harmony, it is plain that men feel as if they were going into a battle."2 Charleston being a religious community, the old Episcopal Church of St. Michael was open daily, and specially ordered prayers
______________
1 " Dinna hear the slogan? 'Tis Douglas and his men," was a favorite expression of the Douglasites.
2 April 21st, cited by Cleveland Plain Dealer.

for the success of the Southern cause were offered up. The supplications of the priest were responded to by a goodly number of women. On the day of the most exciting debate, when the critical period had arrived, the clergyman who opened the session prayed for a happy and harmonious conclusion of the present deliberations.1 At the same time, fervent abolition preachers at the North were praying for a disruption of the Charleston convention. 2

The convention met Monday, April 23d. The Douglas men had a majority in number of the delegates, but as California and Oregon acted with the South, the anti-Douglas men had seventeen States out of thirty-three. Thus, having a majority on the committees, they were able to name the president of the convention. Caleb Cushing was chosen for the position. Both factions were anxious to have the platform settled before balloting for a candidate, a course decided upon the second day. The committee on resolutions, composed as usual of one member from each State, went industriously to work. They were anxious to agree; their sessions were protracted and earnest. It seemed as if the fate of the party lay in the hands of those thirty-three men, but they were really only representatives of Douglas and Jefferson Davis. The Southern delegates had in caucus determined to stand by the Davis Senate resolutions; the Northern delegates were committed to the position of Douglas. The irrepressible conflict had invaded the Democratic party, and its convention was a house divided against itself. On the fifth day the committee on resolutions made known their disagreement, and presented a majority and minority report.

The platform of the majority of the committee declared that the territorial legislature has no power to abolish slavery in a territory, to prohibit the introduction of slaves
______________
1 Charleston Daily Courier, April 27th. 2
See Cleveland Plain Dealer, June 2d.

therein, or destroy the right of property in slaves by any legislation whatever; and that it is the duty of the federal government to protect, when necessary, slavery in the territories. The platform of the minority in committee reaffirmed the Cincinnati platform. In substance, it asserted that the Democratic party was pledged to abide by the Dred Scott decision, or any future decision of the Supreme Court on the rights of property in the States or territories. Henry B. Payne, of Ohio, submitted the minority report, and defended it in an earnest speech. He was a lawyer of culture and a gentleman of refinement who loved the Union and his party and reverenced the Constitution. Always an impressive speaker, his mien was especially solemn as he made a conciliatory appeal to the South. Every gentleman who had signed the minority report, he said, "had felt in his conscience and in his heart that upon the result of our deliberations and the action of this convention, in all human probability, depended the fate of the Democratic party and the destiny of the Union." This was not the usual clap-trap exaggeration of convention oratory, but it was the expression of the sincere feeling of thoughtful Northern men. We should have been no patriots, Payne continued, if we had brought into our deliberative conference any but an earnest and honest desire to adjust the differences that exist in our party. Citing the opinion of many Southerners to show that once the Southern idea of popular sovereignty was the same as that of the North, he declared, "The Northern mind is thoroughly imbued with the principle of popular sovereignty. . . . We ask nothing for the people of the territories but what the Constitution allows them, for we say we abide by the decision of the courts, who are the final interpreters of the Constitution. The Dred Scott decision, having been rendered since the Cincinnati platform was adopted, renders this proper. We will take that decision and abide by it like loyal, steadfast, true-hearted men. . . . I would appeal to the South to put no weights on the North —to let them run this race unfettered and unhampered.

If the appeal is answered, the North will do her duty in the struggle."1

Payne's speech was received with loud demonstrations of approval from the Northern delegates and with respect by those of the South. But the eloquence of a Demosthenes could not have persuaded them to take the platform advocated by Payne, unless coupled with the condition that they might name the candidate. At the afternoon session, Yancey, of Alabama, the champion of the fire-eaters and the most eloquent orator of the South, took the floor amid deafening and prolonged cheers. The Southern gentlemen rose to their feet, and the ladies in the galleries waved their handkerchiefs as he advanced to the platform.2 He was tall and slender, with long black hair, a mild and gentlemanly manner, and an habitual expression of good humor; dressed in pronounced Southern style, his appearance was picturesque. As he opened his mouth, his words of passion, uttered in a soft, musical voice, gave him the rapt attention of the audience. "We came here," he said, " with one great purpose. First, to save our constitutional rights, if it lay in our power to do so. . . . We are in the minority, as we have been taunted here to-day. In the progress of civilization, the Northwest has grown up from an infant in swaddling-clothes into the free proportions of a giant people. We therefore, as the minority, take the rights, the mission, and the position of the minority. What is it we claim? We claim the benefit of the Constitution that was made for the protection of minorities; that Constitution which our fathers made that they and their children should always observe—that a majority should not rely upon their numbers and strength, but should loyally look into the written compact and see where the minority was to be respected and protected. The proposition you make [those favoring
_____________
1 These citations are taken from the speech as published in the Charleston Courier and compared with the report of the Charleston Mercury. 2 Charleston Courier.

the minority report] will bankrupt us of the South. Ours is the property invaded—ours the interests at stake. The honor of our children, the honor of our females, the lives of our men, all rest upon you. You would make a great seething caldron of passion and crime if you were able to consummate your measures. . . . You acknowledged that slavery did not exist by the law of nature or by the law of God—that it only existed by State law; that it was wrong, but that you were not to blame. That was your position, and it was wrong. If you had taken the position directly that slavery was right and therefore ought to be . . . you would have triumphed, and anti-slavery would now have been dead in your midst. But you have gone down before the enemy so that they have put their foot upon your neck; you will go lower and lower still, unless you change front and change your tactics. When I was a schoolboy in the Northern States, abolitionists were pelted with rotten eggs. But now this band of abolitionists has spread and grown into three bands—the Black Republican, the Free-soilers, and squatter-sovereignty men—all representing the common sentiment that slavery is wrong. I say it in no disrespect, but it is a logical argument that your admission that slavery is wrong has been the cause of all this discord." 1

The extreme demands of the South had been formulated, and as soon as Yancey closed, Senator Pugh, of Ohio, who was very near to Douglas, and now his only follower in the Senate, sprang to his feet. He thanked God that a bold and honest man from the South had at last spoken and told the whole truth of the demands of the South. The exaction was made of Northern Democrats that they should say slavery is right and ought to be extended. "Gentlemen of the South," declared Pugh, "you mistake us—you mistake us: we will not do it."2 Excitement and fatigue compelled
______________
1 These extracts are taken from the Charleston Courier; see also Politics and Pen Pictures, Henry W. Hilliard, p. 286 et ante.
2 National Political Conventions of 1860, Halstead, p. 49.

the convention to adjourn before he had concluded; but he returned to the charge in the evening, and spoke with animation and energy. A demand by a Connecticut delegate for the previous question, so that a vote might be taken on the platform, set the convention in an uproar. The tumult was not checked until the chair recognized a motion of adjournment, which, on a vote by States, was carried by a small majority.1 The debate had demonstrated that agreement was impossible; but on Saturday, the following day, and the sixth day of the convention, Senator Bigler, a friend of Buchanan, made an attempt to pour oil upon the troubled waters, and moved that both platforms be recommitted. This was carried, and at four o'clock in the afternoon the committee reported again two platforms, slightly changed in phraseology, but in essence unaltered. A dreary debate followed. Then the Douglas men tried hard to get a vote. The Southerners filibustered, and confusion prevailed to the extent that the president threatened to leave the chair unless his authority were respected. In the end, the convention decided to adjourn.

And now Sunday intervened. The most gloomy anticipations had been realized. The delegates were brought face to face with a condition of things which indicated that one side or the other must yield or the convention would break up. It was idle to attempt to carry a Northern State on the Yancey platform, but why could not the South accept the Douglas declaration of principles? It was more favorable to the slave States than any platform ever adopted by a Democratic national convention. Unquestionably if a Southern man, sound according to the ideas of the slavery propaganda, or another Pierce or Buchanan, could have been nominated, the Southern delegates would have ceased their ado about the platform. But this was precisely what the Douglas men could not concede. No ultra pro-slavery man, no Northern man with Southern principles, could carry
_______________
1 National Political Conventions of 1860, Halstead, pp. 50, 51.

a Northern State, no matter what was the platform. After all discussion and innumerable suggestions, the delegates were back where they started from. Douglas was the only man who could make a strong contest at the North, and his strength lay in the fact that he represented opposition to the slave power. The followers of Douglas were justified in adhering strictly to their platform and candidate, for the two were inseparable. Having temperately explained their reasons, they were bound to pursue the course marked out and use the power that a majority of the convention gave them. They did indeed resent being called abolitionists, a favorite taunt of the Southerners; but from the Southern standpoint, any one who opposed the programme of the extension of slavery deserved that name.

On Monday, after the day of rest and reflection, the delegates met. They no longer ventured to hope that an agreement might be reached. The two factions could now only logically carry out that which their previous action had determined. The Douglas platform was adopted by a vote of 165 to 138. The division was practically on Mason and Dixon's line, only twelve from the slave States voting for it and thirty from the free States voting against it. Buchanan's malice against Douglas knew no bounds, and his power had been directed to securing anti-Douglas delegates from the North. Administrative patronage had dictated their choice in California and Oregon, and had obtained a portion of the delegations of Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. But although they were accompanied by a large body of office-holders,1 their influence was not great, and served little more than to deceive some Southerners regarding the practical unanimity of Democratic sentiment at the North.

After the adoption of the platform, the chairman of the Alabama delegation rose, and, protesting against the action
_________________
1 "Five hundred and seven office-holders at Charleston."—J. W. Gray, a delegate, to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, April 30th.

of the convention, announced that Alabama would formally withdraw. Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas protested in the same strain, and declared their purpose of secession. Before each delegation left their seats, one of their number made a short speech to justify their course; the remarks of Glenn, of Mississippi, were especially thrilling. Pale with emotion, his eyes glaring with excitement, he averred that the solemn act of the Mississippi delegation was not conceived in passion or carried out from mere caprice or disappointment. It was the firm resolve of the great body they represented. The people of Mississippi ask, What is the construction of the platform of 1856? You of the North say it means one thing; we of the South another. They ask which is right and which is wrong? The North have maintained their position, but, while doing so, they have not acknowledged the rights of the South. We say, go your way and we will go ours. But the South leaves not like Hagar, driven into the wilderness friendless and alone, for in sixty days you will find a united South standing shoulder to shoulder.1

The cheers and prolonged applause greeting the speaker as he finished his speech, and the demonstrations of approval that came from the ladies, who had turned out in numbers to see the first act in the drama of secession played, were evidence that disunion was popular. Yet to all but the most enthusiastic fire-eaters and a few Northern men disposed to levity, the moment was supremely solemn. Men looked alarmed as they thought to what this action might lead. Their eyes were suffused with tears, feeling that they were witnessing the disruption of the great party of Jefferson and Jackson. They trembled when asking themselves, was this the prelude to the dissolution of the Union?—that Union, strong and great; for they felt that
__________________
1 National Political Conventions of 1860, Halstead, p. 66; Richmond Enquirer.

"Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate !"

On the next day the convention decided that two-thirds of the whole electoral vote was necessary to nominate, and then proceeded to ballot. Georgia in the meantime having withdrawn, only 253 votes were cast, and 202 were necessary to a choice. On the first ballot, Douglas received 145 ½ ; Hunter, of Virginia, 42; Guthrie, of Kentucky, 35 ½ ; scattering, 30. In two days the convention cast fifty-seven ballots, Douglas several times receiving 152 ½ votes, a majority of the whole electoral vote, and under a majority rule he would have been nominated. On May 3d, the tenth day of the convention, the delegates, seeing that it was impossible to reach any result, adjourned to meet at Baltimore the 18th of June. The seceders meanwhile had formed themselves into a convention and adopted a platform. Now they terminated their proceedings by a resolution to meet again at Richmond on the second Monday of the same month.1

Gloomy thoughts were the portion of Northern and border-State men as they wended their way homeward. They had assisted in the disruption of the party to which they were devotedly attached, and in whose fortune, it seemed to them, was bound up the fate of the country. They saw the immense patronage and power of the administration of the government, which they had held so long, receding from their grasp. They could not now ignore the strong probability that the Republican convention at Chicago would name the next President, and in that event they could have little doubt, after what had taken place at Charleston, that the Southern extremists would lead their States into secession. The followers of Yancey were so bitter against Douglas
___________
1 In this account of the convention, besides the authorities already quoted, I have consulted the flies of the Liberator, the Philadelphia Press, the Washington Constitution, and the New Orleans Picayune.

that they must have felt exultation at preventing for the moment his nomination. But all prominent men at the South did not share their sentiments. Alexander Stephens understood the motives underlying their action and expressed himself frankly in a private letter to his friend. "The seceders intended from the beginning to rule or ruin," he wrote; "and when they find they cannot rule, they will then ruin. They have about enough power for this purpose; not much more; and I doubt not but they will use it. Envy, hate, jealousy, spite—these made war in heaven, which made devils of angels, and the same passions will make devils of men. The secession movement was instigated by nothing but bad passions. Patriotism, in my opinion, had no more to do with it than love of God had with the other revolt." 1

Yet Stephens was not blind to what the secession at Charleston tended. In conversation with his friend Johnston shortly after the adjournment of the convention, he said: "Men will be cutting one another's throats in a little while. In less than twelve months we shall be in a war, and that the bloodiest in history. Men seem to be utterly blinded to the future."

"Do you not think that matters may yet be adjusted at Baltimore?" asked his friend. "Not the slightest chance of it," was the reply. "The party is split forever. Douglas will not retire from the stand he has taken. . . . The only hope was at Charleston. If the party could have agreed there, we might carry the election. ... If the party would be satisfied with the Cincinnati platform and would cordially nominate Douglas, we should carry the election; but I repeat to you that is impossible."

"But why must we have civil war, even if the Republican candidate should be elected?" Johnston inquired. "Because," answered Stephens, "there are not virtue and
____________
1 Letter to B. M, Johnston, June 19th, Life by Johnston and Browne, p. 365.

patriotism and sense enough left in the country to avoid it. Mark me, when I repeat that in less than twelve months we shall be in the midst of a bloody war. What is to become of us then God only knows. The Union will certainly be disrupted." 1

On the 9th of May, the remnant of old-line Whigs and Americans calling themselves the Constitutional Union party met in convention at Baltimore. It was a highly respectable body, and not to be despised in point of ability. An absence of the younger men was noticeable. The delegates were, for the most part, venerable men who had come down from a former generation of politicians, and who, alarmed at the growth and bitterness of the sectional controversy, had met together to see if their efforts might avail something to save the endangered Union. A patriotic spirit animated the assemblage. Fully recognizing the impending peril of the country, their action, from their point of view, was calculated to allay the trouble. But their remedy for the sore was a plaster, when it rather needed cauterization. Their platform was: "The Constitution of the country, the union of the States, and the enforcement of the laws;" and they nominated—For President, Bell, of Tennessee; and for Vice-President, Everett, of Massachusetts; men of honesty and experience, who were a fit expression of the patriotic and conservative sentiments animating a large number of citizens that looked to this convention for guidance.2

The contest at Charleston was now transferred to the floor of the Senate, where the principals could speak in person. Jefferson Davis, with an arrogant manner 3 all his
_______________
1 This remarkable conversation is given by Johnston and Browne, p. 355.
2 See National Political Conventions of 1860, Halstead; the New York Tribune. One gets a good idea of the spirit animating this party from the confidential correspondence of Crittenden, see Life, by Coleman, vol. ii. pp. 182 to 212.
3 "Public sentiment proclaims that the most arrogant man in the United States Senate is Jefferson Davis. Nor does there seem to be much doubt that in debate he is the most insolent and insufferable. The offence consists not so much in the words used as in the air and mien which he assumes towards opponents."—Editorial, New York Tribune, April 14th.

own, asserted: "We claim protection [for slavery in the territories], first, because it is our right; secondly, because it is the duty of the general government;" and he demanded, What right has Congress to abdicate any power conferred upon it as trustee of the States? But we make you no threat, he said; we only give you a warning.1 Douglas, in replying to Davis several days later, took occasion to explain his position in reference to the Democratic convention. "My name never would have been presented at Charleston," said he, "except for the attempt to proscribe me as a heretic, too unsound to be the chairman of a committee in this body, where I have held a seat for so many years without a suspicion resting on my political fidelity. I was forced to allow my name to go there in self-defence; and I will now say that had any gentleman, friend or foe, received a majority of that convention over me, the lightning would have carried a message withdrawing my name." Douglas intimated that Yancey and his followers had begun in 1858 to plan disunion, and that the secession movement at Charleston was their first overt act. The Davis resolutions in the Senate were substantially the Yancey platform of Charleston, and while senators who advocated them might not mean disunion, those principles insisted upon "will lead directly and inevitably to a dissolution of the Union."2

On the 17th of May, a heated debate between Douglas and Davis took place, which at the end was attended with personalities. "I have a declining respect for platforms," Davis said. "I would sooner have an honest man on any sort of a rickety platform you could construct than to have a man I did not trust on the best platform which could be
________________
1 Davis made an elaborate speech May 7th.
2 Speech of Douglas, May 16th.

made." "If the platform is not a matter of much consequence," demanded Douglas, " why press that question to the disruption of the party? Why did you not tell us in the beginning of this debate that the whole fight was against the man and not upon the platform?" After several days a vote on the Davis resolution was reached, and though the phraseology of the crucial proposition had been changed, its essence was the same as when originally introduced.1 Every Democratic senator but Pugh 2 voted for it; but the appearance of harmony was illusory, for the position of Douglas and Pugh had more Democratic adherents among the people than the Davis resolution could muster.
___________
1 See p. 430.
2 Douglas was not present.



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.2. New York: Macmillan, 1910 [c1892].