Read Ebook: A History of the Republican Party by Platt George Washington

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 753 lines and 117752 words, and 16 pages

All of the threatening phases of the slave question had been compromised by the various provisions in the Constitution, and the common territory of the nation had been practically partitioned between Freedom and Slavery, with the Ohio River as the dividing line. With some exceptions the Northern States still possessed a large number of slaves, New York and New Jersey having the greatest number , but not only in these States, but throughout the North, emancipation was making rapid progress.

The population of the country was scattered along the Atlantic seaboard, but the migration to the west of the Alleghanies had set in strongly both north and south of the Ohio River; the settlers from Virginia and the States south of her carrying with them, westward, the prejudices and customs of their mother States, while the settlers north of the Ohio River took with them into the wilderness the energy and thrift of the East, and its spirit of freedom and emancipation for all individuals, laying the foundation of those great States which, in later years, untrammeled by the commercial conservatism of the East, were so outspoken and sturdy in their expressions against slavery. The first census, taken in 1790, showed a population of 3,929,827, classed and divided between the North and South as follows:

Free White. Negroes. Slave. North .......... 1,900,976 27,109 40,370 South .......... 1,271,488 32,357 657,527

These figures are interesting because of the political effect that the population of the two sections had upon the representation in the House.

The South was still devoting herself to the raising of tobacco, rice, indigo, and several lesser staples, but since the close of the Revolution, owing to the dying out of the indigo plant, a new staple had received considerable attention. Cotton had been cultivated in Virginia by the early settlers, but little attention had been paid to it, and only enough was produced for domestic use; but after the close of the Revolution it gradually came to be cultivated in all the Southern States, and it was quickly discovered that being an indigenous plant it grew very rapidly, and the climate, soil and the great number of slaves at hand were favorable toward making it, with some attention, a most promising and valuable product.

The development of cotton manufacture had been gradual but certain to this period, which saw the triumph and use of the mechanical inventions of Hargreave, Arkwright, Crompton and Cartwright. The steam engine was introduced to supply motive power, and only one thing stood in the way of an enormous production of the new staple. The separation of the seed from the cotton fibre was a tedious and time-consuming task; one negro could only remove the seeds from about two pounds of cotton a day, and consequently only a small amount could be sent to market.

In 1790 not a pound of cotton was exported from the United States. In 1793, Eli Whitney, of Massachusetts, who was temporarily in Georgia, invented his Cotton Gin, one of the earliest and most remarkable of the many great inventions of Americans. This invention was productive of most important and far-reaching consequences. It caused an industrial revolution in the South by making cotton the great staple. The production increased by leaps and bounds, bringing great wealth and increasing social and political power to the South. With the earlier form of the new invention the seeds could be removed from about one hundred pounds of cotton a day. In 1792, 192,000 pounds were exported to Europe; in 1795, after Whitney's invention, nearly six million pounds were exported. The value of the export in 1800 was ,700,000; in 1820, it was ,000,000. These figures represented enormous wealth in those days.

Whatever sentiment in the South against slavery had survived the Constitutional period now disappeared completely. Cotton brought about a new view, and from being an evil to be eradicated in some way in the course of time, it was now regarded as absolutely necessary to the social and political welfare of the South. The strongest of human passions, avarice, ambition and worldly interest now bound the South closer than ever to slavery. The slaves produced cotton--which was wealth--and wealth brought independence and social distinction; besides the slave was a political advantage of great importance, because five of them, without any voice in the matter themselves, counted as three white persons. Under these auspices grew the Slave Power, soon to be a bold, threatening and overbearing faction in the nation.

While the South and the Slave Power were thus being prepared for great wealth and political standing, circumstances were working in the North to counteract and balance, in a way, this development. New England was beginning to feel the first impulses of a great industrial development; interest in commerce and manufacturing was awakening, and inventive genius, called into action by economical necessity, was at work, and the use of machinery and mechanical inventions was increasing. New England was shortly to be covered with cotton and other factories.

The war between France and England opened to the United States almost a monopoly on the West Indies trade in 1793, and it was the North that received the greatest benefit from this trade. Congress in 1791 had established the United States Bank at Philadelphia, with branches in all of the important cities, and this aided the North more than the South. In short, the North was developing that capital, energy, ingenuity and thrift and use of mechanical inventions, the lack of which was the greatest weakness of the South. The settlement of the Northwest Territory by pioneers from the northern States is also to be kept in mind.

This great manufacturing and commercial development, and the movement of the population westward, also awakened in the North a lively interest in internal improvements, and the steamboat, railroad and telegraph were soon to add their tremendous influences and advantages to this section of the country. The various pursuits and the development of the North increased and attracted population, and the balance between the North and the South, which was so nearly even in 1790, grew steadily in favor of the North, until at the opening of the Civil War the North had nineteen million free people against eight and one-quarter million in the South, the South at that time having four million slaves.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

"The Missouri question marked a distinct era in the political thought of the country ... suddenly and without warning the North and the South, the free States and the slave States, found themselves arrayed against each other in violent and absorbing conflict."

Shall there be Slave States other than Louisiana west of the Mississippi River? This question coming suddenly before the people in 1818, laying bare the inherent antagonisms of the North and South, aroused the entire country to a white heat of excitement; and only after a most bitter and alarming struggle resulted in the third great Compromise on the slavery question.

From the time of Whitney's invention to the Missouri Compromise, three important events happened in the history of slavery: The first Fugitive Slave Law passed in January, 1793; the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory in 1803, and the abolition of the slave trade in 1807.

The call for legislation to enforce the Fugitive Slave provision in the Constitution came, strangely enough, from the North. A free negro had been kidnapped in Pennsylvania in 1791 and taken to Virginia. The Governor of Virginia refused to surrender the kidnappers, claiming there was no law on the subject. Upon the matter being brought to the attention of Congress by the Governor of Pennsylvania, a Fugitive Slave Law and also an Extradition Law for fugitives from justice were enacted. While the fugitive from justice was surrounded by the safeguards of a requisition accompanied by a certified copy of an indictment or affidavit charging the crime, these safeguards were not given to the slave, but he could be forcibly seized by the owner or his agent and taken before a magistrate. There was no trial by jury, and the only requisite for conviction was an affidavit that he had escaped. The harshness of this procedure was resisted from the very first by the northern people, but this law was on the statute books until the second and last law on the subject was passed as a part of the Compromise of 1850.

When the time came at which Congress could abolish the slave trade, a law was promptly passed, after considerable angry debate as to its terms, prohibiting the slave trade after December 31, 1807. In fact, it was necessary to even effect a compromise on this subject on the point as to what should be done with any slaves that might be imported contrary to the law; and it was decided that they should belong neither to the importer nor any purchaser, but should be subject to the regulations of the State in which they might be brought. As far as it restrained the South, the law abolishing the slave trade proved to be more of a dead letter than the Fugitive Slave Law did in the North, because the slave trade was carried on with more or less openness until the Civil War, it being estimated that about fifteen thousand slaves were brought into the country annually. The abolition of the slave trade caused several of the border States to devote their attention to slave breeding, which, with the increased demand and the large advance in prices, became a profitable industry in Virginia, Maryland and Kentucky.

The acquisition in 1803 of the Louisiana Territory, the wonderful and romantic exploration of it by Lewis and Clark in 1804-5, the closing of the Indian Wars and the second war with England, and hard times in the East, caused that tremendous rush of population to the West, which resulted in the admission of so many new States prior to 1820, and opened anew the slavery question. Vermont, admitted in 1791, Kentucky 1792, Tennessee 1796, Ohio 1803, Louisiana 1812, Indiana 1816, Mississippi 1817, Illinois 1818, and Alabama 1819, had raised the number of States to twenty-two; eleven free and eleven slave; the early custom of admitting a free and slave State together having been strictly followed. The admission of these States effectively partitioned all of the territory east of the Mississippi between Freedom and Slavery, with the exception of the Michigan Territory , and the new Territory of Florida, purchased from Spain in 1819. West of the Mississippi only one State had been admitted, and the rest of the land was known as the Missouri Territory. The tide of population passing down the Ohio, or through the States, had crossed the Mississippi into the Missouri country, and Missouri, in 1818, petitioned Congress for permission to form a Constitution and enter the Union. Nothing was said about slavery, but it was known that the great majority of the Missouri settlers were slave owners or sympathizers, as those who held anti-slavery opinions were content to remain in the States formed out of the Northwest Territory, and it was therefore certain that Missouri would be a slave State.

The Bill authorizing Missouri to act was taken up in the House on February 13, 1819, and immediately Mr. Tallmadge, of New York, moved that the further introduction of slavery in Missouri be prohibited, and that children born in the State after its admission should be free at the age of twenty-five years. Instantly and unexpectedly an exciting, violent debate took place between the North and South. Neither professed to understand the position of the other, but the North was more sincerely astonished, because for the first time she realized what the South had intended for many years, that slavery should be made a permanent institution in the original States, and that it should be forced into the Missouri Territory as a matter of political necessity; because the extension of slave area had by this time become absolutely necessary for the interests of the South.

It was a plain proposition that if the South lost control of the legislative reins at Washington, slavery would eventually be doomed by adverse legislation and by the admission of free States. At the time the Missouri question came up, the North, by reason of her larger population, controlled the House, but the Senate was controlled by the South. The censuses taken in 1800 and 1810 had shown that the North was increasing two to one in population over the South, and the coming census, it was feared, would show a much larger increase in favor of the North; in fact, when the census for 1820 was published the division of the population was as follows:

Free White. Negroes. Slaves. North .......... 5,030,371 99,281 19,108 South .......... 2,831,560 134,223 1,519,017

With a great moral weakness to justify, the South now knew herself to be growing physically weaker, and her skillful leaders, always alert on every phase of slavery, saw quickly that the South must insist upon more slave territory, not only to maintain the equilibrium in the Senate, but to counteract the growing population in the North. Therefore the Missouri question was pressed with violence, threat and strategy. The South was determined that Missouri should come in as a slave State or the South would secede from the Union; the North not only argued that slavery was a great wrong, not to be encouraged by its extension, but was equally determined that the South should have no more political advantage because of her slaves. "This momentous question," wrote Jefferson, "like a fire-bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror."

With the two Sections dead-locked, nothing could take place but the most acrimonious debates, accompanied by threats and defiances. The House adopted the Tallmadge Amendment, but it was rejected by the Senate. Neither branch would recede from its position, and amid scenes of the greatest excitement in Washington and throughout the country, the Fifteenth Congress adjourned.

But the difficulty was not over, for when Missouri presented her Constitution it was found to contain a provision that the Legislature should pass a law preventing free negroes from settling in the State. The North violently opposed this provision and refused to admit Missouri, and the situation was even more serious than when the original subject was considered. The intense excitement spread from Washington throughout the country, and many felt that the Union would be dissolved. The debate continued until the middle of February, 1821, without solution, and Congress was to adjourn early in March. Maine had already been admitted, and her representatives were in Congress. The South felt that she had been betrayed. Finally a second compromise on the Missouri question was reached, through the efforts of Henry Clay, and Missouri was admitted upon condition that no law should ever be passed by her to enforce the objectionable provision in her Constitution.

While it was true that the North received in area decidedly the best of the bargain, the Missouri Compromise was a distinct victory and gain for the South, because she obtained a present, tangible and important advantage in the admission of a slave State and the establishment of slavery in the heart of the Louisiana Territory. The North obtained nothing but a hazy, speculative advantage, and as the subsequent history of this Compromise proved, the South intended to keep it only as long as it served her interests.

On the subject of the sacredness of the various Compromises on slavery, it is interesting to note that a strong attempt was made to set aside the Ordinance of 1787. After Ohio had been admitted the rest of the Northwest Territory was organized under the name of the Indiana Territory, and as many of the settlers were slavery sympathizers, they very early , under the lead of William Henry Harrison, asked Congress to at least temporarily suspend the operation of the Ordinance of 1787. This was refused, but Governor Harrison and a large number of the settlers persisted until 1807 in their efforts; fortunately Congress took no action, and in 1816 Indiana came in as a free State. There was a struggle to make Illinois a slave State, by amending her Constitution, which continued until 1824.

The Compromise of 1820 practically settled the slavery question for twenty-five years, for the question only came up in a serious form when new territory was acquired and the manner of its division arose. No more States were admitted until 1836, when Arkansas became a State, to be balanced by the admission of Michigan in 1837. From 1820 to 1845 the main issues before the people were those relating to the Tariff, Re-chartering the Bank of the United States, and Internal improvements.

The greatest political excitement, having an important bearing upon the feeling between the North and South, was the opposition of the South to the protective Tariffs of 1824 and 1828, and to the question of Internal improvements. As a culmination of her opposition, South Carolina passed a Nullification Ordinance in 1832, based upon the doctrine of State rights as advocated by John C. Calhoun, but the difficulty was settled by Clay's Compromise Tariff Bill of 1833. The opprobrium of nullification and secession, however, does not rest entirely with the South; the Federal Press of New England and many Federal leaders in Congress deliberately discussed and planned a Secession Movement in 1803-4 because they thought that the purchase of the Louisiana Territory was unconstitutional and that it would give the South an advantage which the North would never overcome. This movement, however, never gained strength enough to be serious.

One result of the Missouri Compromise, most important in its political effect, was that it created a solid South, and divided the North into various opinions as to what should exactly be done to meet the evil. It was this uncertainty on the part of the North and the lack of organization on the direct subject of slavery opposition that permitted the South to hold out so long after she had been greatly outnumbered in population and left far behind in material progress.

THE ABOLITIONISTS.

"If we have whispered Truth, Whisper no longer; Speak as the tempest does, Sterner and stronger."

Great changes in the political and economical life of a nation seldom take place abruptly. The forces responsible for a change or modification of conditions are generally at work long before the final result. Nations, like individuals, grope for the truth, forming different opinions, trying different plans--now radical, now conservative--often failing to see and grasp the solution when it is at hand, but all the while bringing about conditions which, when the crisis comes, form a solid and decisive basis for action. Such is the history of this country with reference to slavery for the three decades prior to the Civil War. From 1833 to the organization of the Republican Party, and after that event to the promulgation of the Emancipation Proclamation, public opinion was incessantly agitated by the organized efforts of the Abolitionists, although they differed among themselves and divided as to the best plan under which to act.

While the Northerners grouped into the Whig and Democratic Parties, and condemned the constant agitation of the slavery question as disturbing the public peace and jeopardizing party success, still they could not help recognizing the cogency of the abolition argument; and as year after year went by, and the aggressions of the slave power continued, a steady change went on in the North and the anti-slavery sentiment became more and more pronounced. When active political opposition to slavery finally began it found the North not exactly unanimous as to what should be done, but with her mind almost made up on one point, that slavery should at least be restricted to the territory it then occupied; it required a great political shock, such as came in 1854, to amalgamate this sentiment. From this standpoint the opinions in the North reached out to the extreme views of Garrison and his followers, that slavery should be stamped out regardless of all consequences.

The Quakers, who, from the early colonial days, had been strongest in their expressions against slavery, formed the first Anti-Slavery Society in the United States at Philadelphia in 1775. The Revolution interrupted their work, but at its conclusion they resumed their efforts patiently and incessantly, year after year, in their attempts to arouse the public mind to the enormity and dangerousness of the slave evil. Although other States organized anti-slavery societies immediately after the Revolution, the Pennsylvania Society took the leading part, and was comparatively alone for many years in the work. In the First Congress this Society presented a Memorial, asking Congress to exercise its utmost powers for the abolition of slavery. The subject was the occasion of a heated debate, and Congress decided that under the Constitution it could not, prior to 1808, abolish the slave trade; but that it had authority to prevent citizens of the United States from carrying on the African slave trade with other nations ; and that it had no authority to interfere with the emancipation of slaves or their treatment in any of the States. The Pennsylvania Society watched Congress closely and worked along patiently year after year, meeting with failure after failure. This early Abolition movement had among its supporters the foremost men of the day --Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Jay and Henry are some of the illustrious names connected with the movement, just as in England the names of Burke, Fox and Pitt are recorded against the iniquity. When the purchase of the Louisiana Territory came before Congress, the Pennsylvania Society petitioned that measures should be taken to prevent slavery in the new territory, but the Federalists were more engrossed with a discussion of Constitutional questions, and the opportune moment went by without any action on the matter.

As a result of Mr. Garrison's activity many new abolition societies were formed, and on December 4, 1833, a National Convention of them was held at Philadelphia, and the American Anti-Slavery Society was organized, with Beriah Green as President and Lewis Tappan and John G. Whittier as Secretaries. This Convention decided to petition Congress to suppress the domestic slave trade between the States, and to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia and in every place over which Congress had exclusive jurisdiction. It admitted that Congress had no right to interfere with slavery in any State, but its plan was to circulate extensively anti-slavery tracts and periodicals, not only in the North but throughout all of the slave-holding States, and to organize anti-slavery societies in every city and village where possible, and to send forth its agents to lift their voices against slavery. It frowned on the work of the American Colonization Society, which had been organized in 1816, for the purpose of colonizing parts of Africa with American negroes, as tending to deaden the public conscience on the question.

The great leaders of the Whigs and Democrats in the North, who were aspirants to the presidency, dared not take any active stand against the growing demands of the Slave Power, and both parties bowed abjectly to the monster and passed in silence these gross violations of constitutional rights. Both parties deprecated the slavery agitation, especially the Whigs, who were highly incensed because it jeopardized their candidates more than it did those of the Democrats. The failure of the two great political parties to act led to the first political organization of the anti-slavery sentiment. At Warsaw, New York, on November 13, 1839, the Abolitionists held a convention and nominated James G. Birney, of New York, for President, and Thomas Earl, of Pennsylvania, for Vice-President. This was subsequently called the "Liberty Party," and was the first of the three anti-slavery parties to appear in national politics. Its platform demanded the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia and in the territories; stoppage of the interstate slave trade, and opposition to slavery to the fullest extent of Constitutional powers. Mr. Birney did not desire the nomination, and in the election of 1840, that resulted in the defeat of Van Buren by Harrison, the Abolitionists received only 7069 votes out of a total of two and one-half millions. The membership of the abolition societies at this time was about 200,000; the failure to show strength at the polls may be accounted for by reason of the refusal of many to vote at any election held under the Constitution, and also that many feared the dissolution of the Union, and preferred, if they voted at all, to remain with the Democratic or Whig Parties in the hope that their party would take some decisive action on the question.

While the Slave Power in the United States was making violent efforts to perpetuate itself and stifle all opposition, all the other civilized countries of the world were abolishing slavery. Great Britain abolished it in all her colonies in the year 1833 at a cost of one hundred millions of dollars; but the United States, already showing itself to be the most progressive nation in the world, could not throw off the evil, and it remained a cause of bitter distraction until overthrown politically by the success of the Republican Party and removed by Secession, War, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the amendments to the Constitution.

Although the Abolition cause seemed hopeless after the election of 1840, they persisted in their work, and soon a series of events happened-- Texas Annexation, the Mexican War, and the Wilmot Proviso, which, independent of their efforts, brought about a direct issue between the North and South on the great question--an issue to be finally decided only by the Civil War. The work of the early Abolitionists, however, had an influence of inestimable value and weight on the immediate success of the Republican Party when it was organized.

COMPROMISE OF 1850.

"That, as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory."

From the campaign of 1844 to the Civil War the slavery question dominated all others in politics, North and South. During this period almost every legislative question was decided with reference to its effect on slavery. Press, Pulpit and Platform felt the baleful influence of its presence, and aspirants to the presidency and to lesser political honors sacrificed principle, conscience, and the support of their friends to obtain the favor of the aggressive and dominating Slave Power. The Democratic Party during this entire period took a bold stand on the question; an anti-slavery wing of the party appeared in the North, but at no time was it successful in changing the party platforms. The Whig Party, with its strong pro-slavery wing in the South, and with its northern members desirous of party success, omitted entirely any mention of slavery in its platforms, and although the anti-slavery members of the party were outspoken in their private views of slavery, they attended the party conventions and acquiesced in the platforms until 1852, when there was a general desertion of the Whig platform and candidate. The refusal of the Whig Party to make a direct issue of the slavery question doomed it, sooner or later, to dissolution; and although the party was successful in 1840 and in 1848, its disintegration really began after the election of 1840.

To say that the result of the "Log Cabin and Hard Cider" campaign was a bitter disappointment to both Democrats and Whigs is putting it mildly. The Democrats were deeply chagrined at the defeat of their candidate by a "clap-trap" campaign, and the disappointment of the Whigs came with the death of President Harrison and the succession of Tyler, who played directly into the hands of the Democrats and the Slave Power, bitterly antagonizing the party that elected him.

The Texas question now came up to disturb politics and again bring slavery directly before the people. Texas had gained her independence from Mexico, and had applied, in 1837, to be received into the Union, but the offer was declined by President Van Buren. The tragic death of Mr. Upshur, Secretary of State, on February 28, 1844, and the appointment of Mr. Calhoun to that office, made possible the completion of a long conspiracy to admit Texas, and to further extend the slave area by a war with Mexico. A Treaty of Annexation was immediately prepared and presented to the Senate, but was subsequently rejected. It then became apparent that the South intended to make a political issue of the Texas question, and there was great alarm in the North, for the admission of Texas meant a slave area capable of being divided into five or six slave States. In addition, it meant war with Mexico over disputed boundaries, and the fact that Mexico had not fully recognized the independence of Texas, and the result of that war would unquestionably be the acquisition of more area contiguous to the South.

Mr. Clay and Mr. Van Buren at this time were the only ones prominently mentioned as possibilities for the Whig and Democratic nominations for the presidency; both published letters in which they opposed the annexation of Texas. Mr. Van Buren's letter cost him the Democratic nomination, for when the Convention met at Baltimore on May 27, 1844, he was unable to obtain a sufficient vote under the two-thirds rule, and the South forced the nomination of James K. Polk of Tennessee. This division on the slavery question in a Democratic Convention is of great historical importance as a link in the chain of events which led to the final great political division between the North and South. The Democratic Platform was emphatic in its support of slavery and the condemnation of the Abolitionists; it advocated the annexation of Texas and the occupation of Oregon, and the Democrats went into the campaign with the rallying cry of "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight," in the North--a promise of more free soil--and in the South the "Annexation of Texas."

Mr. Clay's letter had made him stronger than ever with his party and he was nominated unanimously. The Whig Platform, however, was absolutely silent about the Texas question, and there was absolutely no mention of any opposition to slavery; the whole question was totally ignored. Mr. Clay would have defeated Polk had he not been led into the blunder of writing another letter on the Texas question, in which he largely withdrew from his earlier position; this alienated great numbers of the Northern Whigs and threw thousands of votes to the candidate of the Liberty Party. This party, in a convention at Buffalo the preceding year, had again nominated James G. Birney for President. Its platform was long and elaborate, and contained strong denunciations of slavery and pledged the party to work for its abolition. The Liberty Party polled a total of 62,300 votes, defeating Clay, who lost New York, the pivotal State, with its thirty-six electoral votes, by 5,106, the Liberty Party casting 15,812 votes in that State. Texas annexation followed the election, but the pledge in regard to Oregon was cast aside. "Fifty-four Forty or Fight" was nothing more than a campaign cry, never intended to be followed up, and, in truth, could not have been without a war with England.

With the great Texas victory achieved, the South now turned herself to the acquisition of more territory, and war with Mexico was declared May 11, 1846. The Whig Party in the North was strongly against the Mexican War, and a strong element also expressed itself in the northern Democratic ranks as against it; the opposition became so threatening that, as a new House was to be elected in the Fall of 1846, the Administration decided to end the War, if possible, and Congress was asked to give ,000,000 to be used in negotiating a Treaty with Mexico, fixing the disputed boundaries. Immediately David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, introduced a Proviso, which had been prepared by Jacob Brinkerhoff, of Ohio , to the effect that slavery should be prohibited in any territory acquired from Mexico. This Proviso carried in the House, but the Senate adjourned its session without coming to a vote on it. The Proviso appeared again often in Congress, but was never adopted; it caused more excited debate between the North and South than anything that had ever been introduced by the anti-slavery element in Congress. Although defeated, it served to amalgamate the anti-slavery forces, and from that day they rallied around it as representing the fixed and unalterable sentiment of the North; on it the Free-Soil Party entered the Campaign of 1848 and it was the underlying principle in the organization of the Republican Party in 1854. As a counter-balancing action to the Wilmot Proviso, Mr. Calhoun, in February, 1847, introduced in the Senate a long resolution to the effect that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in any territory, and that any attempt to do so would be a violation of constitutional rights and lead to a dissolution of the Union. No vote was ever taken on this resolution, and it was nothing more than a deliberate attempt to force the issue with the North.

The Thirtieth Congress met December 6, 1847, and had among its members Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois, and Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, the former elected as a Whig and the latter as a Democrat; in the Senate Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, took his seat for the first time in that body. Opposition to the war was strong, and it was finally closed by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed February 2, 1848; by its terms vast stretches of new territory were acquired by the United States. This land had been free soil by the Laws of Mexico since 1827, but the South, as a matter of course, expected, and had planned, to make it slave soil, and she was determined to oppose to the utmost any attempt to keep slavery out of this new territory; the North was equally determined that it should remain free. The campaign of 1848 came on with the question undecided. The Democratic Convention nominated Lewis Cass, of Michigan, and adopted a platform similar to those of 1840 and 1844, but nothing was said about slavery in the new territory. The Whigs nominated Major-General Zachary Taylor, of Louisiana, for President, and Millard Fillmore, of New York, for Vice-President, and their Convention adjourned without adopting any platform at all.

The failure of the two great parties to take up the prohibition of slavery in the new territory was regarded with great indignation by many members of both parties in the North, especially so by the Whigs; in addition, an element of political revenge crept into the situation to help the anti-slavery sentiment. The defeat of Van Buren in the Democratic Convention of '44, and the anti-slavery sentiment in the Democratic Party, had divided it, in New York, into two factions known as "Barnburners" and "Hunkers"; the former being those who were opposed to the extension of the slave area, and were likened to the Dutchman who burned his barn to rid it of rats; and the latter were "Administration Democrats"--"Northern men with Southern principles," who "hankered" after office. Samuel J. Tilden and Benjamin F. Butler were two of the leading "Barnburner" leaders. When the Democratic National Convention convened in 1848, both "Barnburners" and "Hunkers" applied for admission; the Convention offered to permit the New York vote to be cast between them. This was refused by the "Barnburners," and they withdrew and held an enthusiastic meeting in New York, and soon became known as "Free-Soil Democrats." A National Convention was called to meet at Buffalo, August 9, 1848. The old Liberty Party had already held their Convention in November, 1847, and had nominated John P. Hale, of New Hampshire, for President, but Mr. Hale withdrew and the Liberty Party joined in the new movement and attended the Free-Soil Convention. Mr. Van Buren was nominated for President, and Charles Francis Adams, of Massachusetts, for Vice-President. The Free-Soil Platform was, of course, strongly antagonistic to the Slave Power, and concluded with the stirring words, "We inscribe on our banner, 'Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor and Free Men,' and under it will fight on and fight ever, until a triumphant victory shall reward our exertions."

The Campaign of '48 assumes another important aspect, in that Mr. Lincoln took an active part in it; it fixed his ideas on slavery, and impressed him with the utter hopelessness of reconciling the North and South on this question. Mr. Lincoln had made his debut in the House in December, 1847, with the famous "Spot Resolutions." In the Spring of '48 he urged his Illinois friends to give up Clay and support Gen. Taylor. He attended the Whig Convention at Philadelphia and was well satisfied with the nominations and the prospects of victory. Late in July he made a strong speech for Taylor on the floor of the House, attracting the attention of the campaign managers to such an extent that he was sent to New England where he delivered a number of speeches, pleading with the New Englanders not to join the Free-Soil movement, but to vote with the Whig Party. Here he saw the strength of the anti-slavery movement, and what he heard made him think deeper on the great question of the hour. After listening to one of Governor Seward's speeches at Boston, in September, he said, "Governor Seward, I have been thinking about what you said in your speech; I reckon you are right. We have got to deal with this slavery question, and got to give more attention to it than we have been doing." Later in the campaign Mr. Lincoln stumped Illinois for Taylor.

When the Thirty-first Congress convened for its first session, on December 3, 1849, all was confusion and uncertainty in regard to the situation. A great many felt that the crisis had been reached at last, and that nothing but a civil war could result. The South feared that its long cherished plan of more slave territory was to be frustrated, and the anxiety in the North that the territory acquired from Mexico might be made slave was equally great. An event now occurred that brought matters directly to an acute crisis and necessitated a settlement or a war. Gold had been discovered in California early in 1848, and instantly there was a tremendous influx of population, with the result that late in 1849 California was ready for admission into the Union, not as a slave State, as the South fondly hoped, but as free soil. With the convening of Congress came the President's message, and it was a severe blow to the South, for it advocated the admission of California as a free State. The South now indeed saw its plan rapidly weakening. Violent opposition was at once made to the admission of California as disturbing the equal balance between the two sections, and in addition the South complained bitterly of the difficulty of capturing slaves who escaped into the free States. She also complained of the constant agitation of the slave question, and now demanded that the territories should be open to slavery, and asserted that any attempt to enforce the Wilmot Proviso or to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia would lead to an immediate dissolution of the Union.

Such was the acute situation in December, 1849, and the men, scenes and debates which attended the solution of this grave crisis present a remarkable and dramatic picture. All eyes now turned to Mr. Clay, the great Compromisor, then in his seventy-third year. In January, 1850, he began his efforts to bring about what proved to be the last compromise between the North and the South. Four great speeches were delivered on the resolutions introduced by him. Mr. Clay, so feeble that he had to be assisted up the Capitol steps, spoke early in February. On March 4th Mr. Calhoun, too weak to speak himself, had his speech, full of antagonism and foreboding, read by a colleague. Three days after Calhoun's speech, Webster delivered his famous "Seventh of March" speech, in which he sacrificed the support of thousands of friends, and demoralized the entire North by condemning the Abolitionists and advocating the passage of the Compromise measures. On March 11th Mr. Seward delivered his "Higher Law" speech, denouncing the Compromise. The great triumvirate, Clay, Calhoun and Webster, appeared in this debate for the last time before the American public. Calhoun died on the last day of March. Late in '51 Clay resigned his seat in the Senate and died at Washington, June 29, 1852. Webster took the office of Secretary of State, received a few votes in the Whig Convention and refused to support General Scott in the election of 1852, and died broken-hearted October 24, 1852.

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet