Mr Buchanan's Administration on the Eve of the Rebellion Chapter III
by James Buchanan
Senator Seward, of New York, was at this period the
acknowledged head and leader of the Republican party. Indeed, his utterances had become its oracles. He was much more
of a politician than a statesman. Without strong convictions,
he understood the art of preparing in his closet, and uttering
before the public, antithetical sentences well calculated both to
inflame the ardor of his anti-slavery friends and to exasperate
his pro-slavery opponents. If he was not the author of the
"irrepressible conflict," he appropriated it to himself and converted it into a party oracle. He thus aroused passions, probably without so intending, which it was beyond his power afterwards to control. He raised a storm which, like others of whom
we read in history, he wanted both the courage and the power
to quell.
We quote the following extract from his famous speech at
Rochester on the 25th of October, 18581 "Free labor and
slave labor, these antagonistic systems, are continually coming
into close contact, and collision results. Shall I tell you what
this collision means? They who think it is accidental, unnecessary, the work of interested or fanatical agitators, and therefore
ephemeral, mistake the case altogether. It is an irrepressible
conflict between opposing and enduring forces, and it means that
the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either
entirely a slaveholding nation or entirely a free-labor nation.
Either the cotton and rice fields of South Carolina and the
sugar plantations of Louisiana will ultimately be tilled by free
labor, and Charleston and New Orleans become marts for legitimate merchandise alone, or else the rye fields and wheat fields
of Massachusetts and New York must again be surrendered by
their farmers to slave culture and to the production of slaves,
and Boston and New York become once more markets for trade
in the bodies and souls of men."
1. Helper's Compendium, p. 142.
However impossible that Massachusetts and New York
should ever again become slaveholding States, and again engage
in the African slave trade, yet such was the temper of the times
that this absurd idea produced serious apprehensions in the
North. It gave rise to still more serious apprehensions in the
South. There they believed or affected to believe that the people of the North, in order to avoid the dreaded alternative of
having slavery restored among themselves, and having their
rye fields and wheat fields cultivated by slave labor, would put
forth all their efforts to cut up slavery by the roots in the Southern States. These reckless fancies of Senator Seward made the
deeper impression upon the public mind, both North and South,
because it was then generally believed that he would be the
candidate of the Republican party at the next Presidential election. In accordance with the views expressed by Senator
Seward, Hinton Helper's "Impending Crisis" soon afterwards
appeared, a book well calculated to alarm the southern people.
This was ushered into the world by the following warm commendation from Mr. Seward himself:1 "I have read the 'Impending Crisis of the South' with great attention. It seems to
me a work of great merit, rich yet accurate in statistical information, and logical in analysis."
1. Fowler's Sectional Controversy, p. 205.
On the 9th of March, 1859, a Republican committee in New
York, consisting of Horace Greeley, Thurlow Weed, and others,
issued a circular warmly commending the book, and proposing
to publish one hundred thousand copies of a compendium of it
at a cheap rate for gratuitous circulation. In order to raise
subscriptions for the purpose, they obtained the recommendation
of this plan by sixty-eight Republican members of Congress,
with Schuyler Colfax at their head. It is in the following
terms:1 "We the undersigned, members of the House of Representatives of the National Congress, do cordially indorse the
opinion and approve the enterprise set forth in the foregoing
circular."
1. Con. Globe, 1859-'60, p. 16.
The author of the book is by birth a North Carolinian,
though of doubtful personal character, but his labors have since
been recognized and rewarded by his appointment as Consul of
the United States at Buenos Ayres.
Published under such auspices, the "Impending Crisis" became at once an authoritative exposition of the principles of the
Republican party. The original, as well as a compendium, were
circulated by hundreds of thousands, North, South, East, and
West. No book could be better calculated for the purpose of
intensifying the mutual hatred between the North and the South.
This book, in the first place, proposes to abolish slavery in the
slaveholding States by exciting a revolution among those called
"the poor whites," against their rich slaveholding neighbors.
To accomplish this purpose, every appeal which perverse ingenuity and passionate malignity could suggest, was employed to
excite jealousy and hatred between these two classes. The cry
of the poor against the rich, the resort of demagogues in all
ages, was echoed and reechoed. The plan urged upon the non-slaveholding citizens of the South was--1
1. Compendium, p. 76.
1st. "Thorough organization and independent political action on the part of the non-slaveholding whites of the South."
2d. "Ineligibility of pro-slavery slaveholders. Never another
vote to any one who advocates the retention and perpetuation
of human slavery."
3d. "No cooperation with pro-slavery politicians-no fellowship with them in religion-no affiliation with thema in society."
4th. "No patronage to pro-slavery merchants-no guestship
in slave-waiting hotels--no fees to pro-slavery lawyers--no employment of pro-slavery physicians--no audience to pro-slavery
parsons.
5th. "No more hiring of slaves by non-slaveholders."
6th. "Abrupt discontinuance of subscription to pro-slavery
newspapers."
7th. "The greatest possible encouragement to free white
labor."
"'This, then," says Mr. Helper, " is the outline of our scheme
for the abolition of slavery in the Southern States. Let it be
acted upon with due promptitude, and as certain as truth is
mightier than error, fifteen years will not elapse before every
foot of territory, from the mouth of the Delaware to the emboguing of the Rio Grande, will glitter with the jewels of freedom. Some time during this year, next, or the year following,
let there be a general convention of non-slaveholders from every
slave State in the Union, to deliberate on the momentous issues now pending."1 Not confining himself even within these
limits, Mr. Helper proceeds to still greater extremities, and
exclaims: "But, sirs, slaveholders, chevaliers, and lords of
the lash, we are unwilling to allow you to cheat the negroes
out of all the rights and claims to which, as human beings,
they are most sacredly entitled. Not alone for ourself as an
individual, but for others also, particularly for five or six millions of southern non-slaveholding whites, whom your iniquitous Statism has debarred from almost all the mental and material comforts of life, do we speak, when we say, you must sooner
or later emancipate your slaves, and pay each and every one of
them at least sixty dollars cash in hand. By doing this you
will be restoring to them their natural rights, and remunerating
them at the rate of less than twenty-six cents per annum for the
long and cheerless period of their servitude from the 20th of
August, 1620, when, on James River, in Virginia, they became
the unhappy slaves of heartless tyrants. Moreover, by doing
this you will be performing but a simple act of justice to the
non-slaveholding whites, upon whom the system of slavery has
weighed scarcely less heavily than upon the negroes themselves.
You will, also, be applying a saving balm to your own outraged
hearts and consciences, and your children--yourselves in fact--
freed from the accursed stain of slavery, will become respectable, useful, and honorable members of society."
1. Pages 89, 90.
He then taunts and defies the slaveholders in this manner:
"And now, sirs, we have thus laid down our ultimatum. What
are you going to do about it? Something dreadful of course!
Perhaps you will dissolve the Union again. Do it, if you dare!
Our motto, and we would have you to understand it, is, 'The
abolition of Slavery and the perpetuation of the American
Union.' If, by any means, you do succeed in your treasonable
attempts to take the South out of the Union to-day, we will
bring her back to-morrow; if she goes away with you, she will
return without you.
"Do not mistake the meaning of the last clause of the last
sentence. We could elucidate it so thoroughly that no intelligent person could fail to comprehend it; but, for reasons which
may hereafter appear, we forego the task.
"Henceforth there are other interests to be consulted in the
South, aside from the interests of negroes and slaveholders. A
profound sense of duty incites us to make the greatest possible
efforts for the abolition of slavery; an equally profound sense
of duty calls for a continuation of those efforts until the very
last foe to freedom shall have been utterly vanquished. To the
summons of the righteous monitor within, we shall endeavor to
prove faithful; no opportunity for inflicting a mortal wound in
the side of slavery shall be permitted to pass us unimproved.
"Thus, terror engenderers of the South, have we fully and
frankly defined our position; we have no modifications to propose, no compromises to offer, nothing to retract. Frown, sirs,
fret, foam, prepare your weapons, threat, strike, shoot, stab,
bring on civil war, dissolve the Union, nay, annihilate the solar
system if you will--do all this, more, less, better, worse, any
thing--do what you will, sirs, you can neither foil nor intimidate us; our purpose is as firmly fixed as the eternal pillars of
heaven; we have determined to abolish slavery, and so help us
God, abolish it we will! Take this to bed with you to-night,
sirs, and think about it, dream over it, and let us know how
you feel to-morrow morning."
Such are specimens from the book indorsed and commended
by the acknowledged leader of the Republican party, after having read it "with great attention," and by sixty-eight prominent
Republican members of Congress! In the midst of the excitement produced by this book, both North and South, occurred the
raid of John Brown into Virginia. This was undertaken for
the avowed purpose of producing a servile insurrection among
the slaves, and aiding them by military force in rising against
their masters.
John Brown was a man violent, lawless, and fanatical.
Amid the troubles in Kansas he had distinguished himself, both
by word and by deed, for boldness and cruelty. His ruling
passion was to become the instrument of abolishing slavery, by
the strong hand, throughout the slaveholding States. With
him, this amounted almost to insanity. Notwithstanding all
this, he was so secret in his purposes that he had scarcely any
confidants. This appears in a striking manner from the testimony taken before the Senate Committee.1 Several abolitionists had contributed money to him in aid of the anti-slavery
cause generally, but he had not communicated to them for what
particular purpose this was to be employed. He had long meditated an irruption into Virginia, to excite and to aid a rising
of the slaves against their masters, and for this he had prepared.
He had purchased two hundred Sharp's carbines, two hundred
revolver pistols, and about one thousand pikes, with which to
arm the slaves. These arms he had collected and deposited in
the vicinity of Harper's Ferry. When the plot was ripe for
execution, a little before midnight on Sunday evening, the 16th
of October, 1859, he, with sixteen white and five negro confederates, rushed across the Potomac to Harper's Ferry, and there
seized the armory, arsenal, and rifle factory belonging to the
United States. When the inhabitants awoke in the morning
they found, greatly to their terror and surprise, that these places,
with the town itself, were all in possession of John Brown's
force. It would be a waste of time to detail the history of this
raid. Suffice it to say that on Tuesday morning, 18th, the
whole band, with the exception of two who had escaped, were
either killed or captured. Among the latter was John Brown
himself, badly wounded. In the mean time, however, his party
had murdered five individuals, four of them unarmed citizens,
and had wounded nine others. It is proper to observe that
John Brown, after all his efforts, received no support from the
slaves in the neighborhood. The news of this attack on Harper's Ferry spread rapidly over the country. All were at first
ignorant of the strength of the force, and public rumor had
greatly exaggerated it. The President immediately sent a detachment of marines to the spot, by which John Brown and his
party were captured in the engine house, where they had fled
for shelter and defence. Large numbers of volunteers from
Virginia and Maryland had also hastened to the scene of action.
John Brown and several of his party were afterwards tried before the appropriate judicial authorities of Virginia, and were
convicted and executed.
1. Reports of Senate Committee, 1st Session 36th Congress, No. 276, vol. ii
In the already excited condition of public feeling throughout the South, this raid of John Brown made a deeper inpression on the southern mind against the Union than all former
events. Considered merely as the isolated act of a desperate
fanatic, it would have had no lasting effect. It was the enthusiastic and permanent approbation of the object of his expedition by the abolitionists of the North, which spread alarm and
apprehension throughout the South. We are told by Fowler
in his "Sectional Controversy," that on the day of Brown's
execution bells were tolled in many places, cannon fired, and
prayers offered up for him as if he were a martyr; he was placed
in the same category with Paul and Silas, for whom prayers
were made by the Church, and churches were draped in mourning. Nor were these honors to his memory a mere transient
burst of feeling. The Republican party have ever since honored him as a saint or a martyr in a cause which they deemed
so holy. According to them, "whilst his body moulders in the
dust his spirit is still marching on " in the van to accomplish
his bloody purposes. Even blasphemy, which it would be improper to repeat, has been employed to consecrate his memory.
Fanaticism never stops to reason. Driven by honest impulse,
it rushes on to its object without regard to interposing obstacles. Acting on the principle avowed in the Declaration of
Independence, "that all men are created equal," and believing
slavery to be sinful, it would not hesitate to pass from its own
State into other States, and to emancipate their slaves by force
of arms. We do not stop to inquire whether slavery is sinful.
We may observe, however, that under the old and new dispensations, slaves were held both by Jews and Christians, and rules were
prescribed for their humane treatment. In the present state of
civilization, we are free to admit that slavery is a great political
and social evil. If left to the wise ordinances of a superintending
Providence, which never acts rashly, it would have been gradually extinguished in our country, peacefully and without bloodshed, as has already been done throughout nearly the whole of
Christendom. It is true that other countries enjoyed facilities
for emancipation which we do not possess. In them the slaves
were of the same color and race with the rest of the community, and in becoming freemen they soon mingled with the general mass on equal terms with their former masters.
But even admitting slavery to be a sin, have the adherents of
John Brown never reflected that the attempt by one people to
pass beyond their own jurisdiction, and to extirpate by force of
arms whatever they may deem sinful among another people,
would involve the nations of the earth in perpetual hostilities?
We Christians are thoroughly convinced that Mahomet was a
false prophet; shall we, therefore, make war upon the Turkish empire to destroy Islamism? If we would preserve the peace of the
world and avoid much greater evils than we desire to destroy,
we must act upon the wise principles of international law, and
leave each people to decide domestic questions for themselves.
Their sins are not our sins. We must intrust their punishment
and reformation to their own authorities, and to the Supreme
Governor of nations. This spirit of interference with what we
may choose to consider the domestic evils of other nations, has
in former periods covered the earth with blood. Even since the
advent of Christianity, until a comparatively late period, Catholics and Protestants, acting on this false principle, have, with
equal sincerity, made war against each other, to put down dogmas of faith which they mutually believed to be sinful and dangerous to the soul's salvation, and this in the name of Him who
descended from heaven to establish a kingdom of peace and
charity on earth. Spain waged a reckless war against the poor
Indians of Mexico, to root out the sin of idolatry from their
midst and compel them to embrace the Christian faith; and
whoever shall read the life of Cortes must admit that be acted
with perfect sincerity, and was intent on their souls' salvation.
Mahometans, believing Christianity to be sinful, have, in a similar spirit, made war on Christian nations to propagate their
own faith.
We might fill volumes with like examples from history.
These days of darkness and delusion, of doing evil that good
might come, have, it is to be hoped, passed away for ever under
the pure light of the Gospel. If all these acts were great wrongs
in the intercourse between independent nations, if they violated
the benign principles of Christianity, how much greater would
the wrong have been had one portion of the sovereign States
of a confederate union made war against the remainder to extirpate from them the sin of slavery! And this more especially
when their common constitution, in its very terms, recognizes
slavery, restores the runaway slave to his master, and even
makes the institution a basis for the exercise of the elective
franchise. With like reason might the State of Maine, whilst
the delusion of the Maine liquor law prevailed, have made war
on her sister States to enforce its observance upon their people,
because drunkenness is a grievous sin in the belief of all Christians. In justification of this, she might have alleged that the
intemperance tolerated among her neighbors, and not her own
spirit to intermeddle with their concerns, was the cause of
the war, just as it has been asserted that slavery in the Southern States was the cause of the late war. We may believe
and indeed know that the people of the North, however much
they may have extolled the conduct of John Browii, would
never in practice have carried out his teachings and his example; but justice requires that we should make a fair allowance
for the apprehensions of the Southern people, who necessarily
viewed the whole scene from an opposite standpoint. Under
these circumstances it is no wonder that the South should have
entertained fearful apprehensions for their peace and safety, in
the event that the Abolition party should succeed in obtaining
the reins of the government, an event soon thereafter rendered
morally certain by the breaking up of the Charleston Democratic Convention. To the history of the sad event we now
proceed.
It is certain that before the meeting of the Convention, the
Democratic party of the North had become seriously divided
between the old and the Douglas Democracy, and that the latter at least was strongly tinctured with an anti-slavery spirit.
The Convention assembled at Charleston on the 23d of
April, 1860, to nominate candidates for the offices of President
and Vice-President. It was composed of delegates from all the
thirty-three States of the Union, and each State was entitled to
as many votes as it had Senators and Representatives in Congress. The whole number of votes was, therefore, 303; and
under the two-thirds rule which it adopted, after the example
of former Conventions, 202 votes were required to make a nomination.1 The Convention elected Hon. Caleb Cushing, of
Massachusetts, its President.
1. Report of Proceedings p.11
This Convention had no sooner assembled than a radical
difference of opinion was exhibited among its members in regard
to the status of slavery in the Territories. The old Democratic
portion, invoking the Dred Scott decision, held that slave property, under the Constitution, was entitled to the same protection therein with any other property; whilst the Douglas delegates, in opposition to this decision, maintained the power of a
Territorial Legislature to impair or destroy this property in its
discretion. On the day after the Convention assembled (24th
April), a committee was appointed, consisting of a delegate
from each State, selected by the respective State delegations, to
report resolutions as a platform for the party; and on the same
day it was resolved unanimously "that this Convention will not
proceed to ballot for a candidate for the Presidency until the
platform shall have been adopted." On the 27th of April the
Committee on Resolutions made majority and minority reports.1
1. 5th day, p. 45,
After a long, able, and eloquent discussion on the respective
merits of the two reports, they were both, on motion of Mr.
Bigler, of Pennsylvania, re-committed to the Committee on
Resolutions,1 with a view, if possible' to promote harmony; but
this proved to be impracticable. On the sixth day of the Convention (Saturday, April 28th), 2 at an evening session, Mr.
Avery, of North Carolina, and Mr. Samuels, of Iowa, from the
majority and minority of the committee, again made opposite
and conflicting reports on the question of slavery in the Territories. On this question the committee had divided from the
beginning, the one portion embracing the fifteen members from
the slaveholding States, with those from California and Oregon,
and the other consisting of the members from all the free States
east of the Rocky Mountains. On all other questions both
reports substantially agreed, and therefore in regard to them no
special notice is required.
1. Page 89.
2. Pages 92, 93.
The following is the report of the majority made on this
subject by Mr. Avery, of North Carolina, the chairman of the
committee: "Resolved, That the platform adopted by the Democratic party at Cincinnati be affirmed with the following explanatory resolutions: 1st. That the Government of a Territory, organized by an act of Congress, is provisional and temporary, and during its existence all citizens of the United States
have an equal right to settle with their property in the Territory, without their rights, either of person or property, being
destroyed or impaired by Congressional or Territorial legislation.
2d. That it is the duty of the Federal Government, in all its
departments, to protect, when necessary, the rights of persons
and property in the Territories, and wherever else its constitutional authority extends. 3d. That when the settlers in a Territory having an adequate population form a State Constitution,
the right of sovereignty commences, and being consummated
by admission into the Union, they stand on an equal footing
with the people of other States, and the State thus organized
ought to be admitted into the Federal Union whether its constitution prohibits or recognizes the institution of slavery." It
will be perceived that these resolutions are in exact conformity
with the decision of the Supreme Court.
The following is the report of the minority, made by Mr.
Samuels, of Iowa. After re-affirming the Cincinnati platform
by the first resolution, it proceeds: "Inasmuch as differences
of opinion exist in the Democratic party, as to the nature and
extent of the powers of a Territorial Legislature, and as to the
powers and duties of Congress, under the Constitution of the
United States, over the institution of slavery within the Territories, Resolved, That the Democratic party will abide by the
decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States upon questions of constitutional law."
It must strike the reader that this resolution does not meet
the question, but is vague and evasive. It entirely ignores the
fact that all these "questions of constitutional law" had been
already decided by the Supreme Court, and that in regard to
them no differences of opinion could exist among those who
were willing to recognize its authority. It leaves the rights of
the master over slave property in the Territories as an open
question, and places them at the mercy of a majority in Territorial Legislatures, until some future decision should be made,
not on this specific question, but generally "on questions of
constitutional law." In fact, it treats the decision as though it
had never been made. It is proper to observe that we have
included the member of the committee from Massachusetts (Mr.
Butler) among the sixteen votes in favor of the minority report,
because, although he made a separate report of his own, this was
confined to a simple recommendation of the Cincinnati platform
and nothing more. The opposing reports from the Northern
and the Southern members of the committee were thus distinctly
placed before the Convention. It was soon manifest that should
the minority report prevail, the Convention must be broken into
fragments.
After some preliminary remarks, Mr. Samuels moved the
adoption of the minority report as a substitute for that of the
majority.1 This gave rise to an earnest and excited debate.
The difference between the parties was radical and irreconcilable. The South insisted that the Cincinnati platform, whose
true construction in regard to slavery in the Territories had always been denied by a portion of the Democratic party, should
be explained and settled by an express recognition of the principles decided by the Supreme Court. The North, on the other
hand, refused to recognize this decision, and still maintained the
power to be inherent in the people of a Territory to deal with the
question of slavery according to their own discretion. The vote
was then taken, and the minority report was substituted for that
of the majority by a vote of one hundred and sixty-five to one
hundred and thirty-eight.2 The delegates from the six New England States, as well as from New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, fourteen free States,
cast their entire vote in favor of the minority report. New Jersey
and Pennsylvania alone among the free States east of the
Rocky Mountains refused to vote as States, but their delegates
voted as individuals. Had all the States voted as units, without
regard to the respective minorities in each; or, on the other hand,
had the delegates from all the States voted as individuals, in either
case the majority report would have been sustained, and the
Democratic party might have been saved. It was the want of
uniformity in the mode of voting that produced the disastrous
result. The means employed to attain this end were skilfully
devised by the minority of the Pennsylvania delegation in favor of nominating Mr. Douglas.3 The entire delegation had,
strangely enough, placed this power in their hands, by selecting
two of their number, Messrs. Cessna and Wright, to represent
the whole on the two most important committees of the Convention--that of organization and that of resolutions. These
gentlemen, by adroitness and parliamentary tact, succeeded in
abrogating the former practice of casting the vote of the State
as a unit, and in reducing it almost to a cipher. In this manner, whilst New York indorsed with her entire thirty-five votes
the peculiar views of Mr. Douglas, notwithstanding there was
in her delegation a majority of only five votes in their favor on
the question of Territorial sovereignty,4 the effective strength
of Pennsylvania recognizing the judgment of the Supreme
Court was reduced to three votes, this being the majority of fifteen on the one side over twelve on the other.
1. Page 97.
2. Page 112. 7th day, April 30.
3. Page 21
4. Mr. Bartlett, p. 249.
The question next in order before the Convention was upon
the adoption of the second resolution of the minority of the
committee, which had been substituted for the report of the
majority. On this question Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Florida, and Mississippi refused to vote.1 Indeed, it soon appeared that on the question of the final adoption
of this second vague and general resolution, which in fact
amounted to nothing, it had scarcely any friends of either party
in the Convention. The Douglas party, abandoning their own
offspring, and preferring to it the Cincinnati platform, pure and
simple, without explanation or addition, voted against it.2 On
the other hand, the old Democracy could not vote for it without admitting that the Supreme Court had not already placed
the right over slave property in the Territories on the same
footing with all other property, and therefore they also voted
against it. In consequence the resolution was negatived by a
vote of only twenty-one in its favor to two hundred and thirty-
eight. 3 Had the seven Southern States just mentioned voted,
the negatives would have amounted to two hundred and eighty-
two, or more than thirteen to one. Thus both the majority and
the minority resolutions on the Territorial question were rejected, and nothing remained before the Convention except the
Cincinnati platform.
1. Page 116.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
At this stage of the proceedings1 (April 30th), the States
of Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida,
Texas, and Arkansas, having assigned their reasons for the act,
withdrew in succession from the Convention.2 After these
seven States had retired, the delegation from Virginia made a
noble effort to restore harmony.3 Mr. Russell, their chairman,
addressed the Convention in a solemn and impressive manner.
He portrayed the alarming nature of the crisis. He expressed
his fears that we were on the eve of a revolution, and if this
Convention should prove a failure it would be the last National
Convention of any party which would ever assemble in the
United States. "Virginia," said he, "stands in the midst of
her sister States, in garments red with the blood of her children
slain in the first outbreak of the 'irrepressible conflict.' But,
sir, not when her children fell at midnight beneath the weapon
of the assassin, was her heart penetrated with so profound a
grief as that which will wring it when she is obliged to choose
between a separate destiny with the South, and her common
destiny with the entire Republic."
1.Pp. 118-125.
2. Pp. 126, 127.
3. 30th April, 7th day, p. 126.
Mr. Russell was not then prepared to answer, in behalf of
his delegation, whether the events of the day [the defeat of the
majority report, and the withdrawal of the seven States] were
sufficient to justify her in taking the irrevocable step in question. In order, therefore, that they might have time to deliberate, and if they thought proper make an effort to restore harmony in the Convention, he expressed a desire that it might
adjourn and afford them an opportunity for consultation.1 The
Convention accordingly adjourned until the next day, Tuesday,
May 1st; and immediately after its reassembling the delegation
from Georgia, making the eighth State, also withdrew.2
1. Page 128, 8th day.
2. Ibid.
In the mean time the Virginia delegation had consulted
among themselves, and had conferred with the delegations of
the other Southern States which still remained in the Convention, as to the best mode of restoring harmony.1 In consequence, Mr. Howard, of Tennessee, stated to the Convention
that "he had a proposition to present in behalf of the delegation from Tennessee, whenever, under parliamentary rules, it
would be proper to present it." In this Tennessee was joined
by Kentucky and Virginia, "the three great middle States
which stand as a breakwater against fanaticism on one side and
disunion on the other. He should propose the following resolution, whenever it would be in order: 'Resolved, That the
citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle with
their property in the Territories of the United States; and that,
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States,
which we recognize as the correct exposition of the Constitution
of the United States, neither the rights of person nor property
can be destroyed or impaired by Congressional or Territorial
legislation."' 2
1. Page 136.
2. Page 136.
"Mr. Russell, as chairman of the delegation from Virginia,
rose to express the sentiments entertained by the delegation from
that State, and the position they occupy this morning in this
Convention. They came here for the double purpose of defending the rights of the South, which are involved in the great issues
of the day, and of maintaining the integrity of the American
Union. The events of yesterday had especially left him a delicate task to perform. Events had occurred which their constituency never contemplated when they were sent here. They desired that the Democratic party should remain complete, whatever might be done in this Convention. With these general
views, the Virginia. delegation had entered into consultation
among themselves, and had conferred with their sister Southern
States remaining in the Convention. They believed that the
resolution just read by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Howard] presented a reasonable basis of settlement among all
parties, North and South, affirming, as it did, the doctrine of
the decision of the Supreme Court, and going no further."
On a subsequent day (May 3d), Mr. Russell informed the
Convention that this resolution had, " he believed, received the
approbation of all the delegations from the Southern States
which remained in the Convention, and also received the approbation of the delegation from New York. He was informed
there was strengthe pough to pass it when in order."1 Of this
there could have been no doubt, with the vote of New York in
its favor. Had it been adopted, what an auspicious event this
would have been both for the Democratic party and the country !
1. Page 152.
Mr. Howard, however, in vain attempted to obtain a vote
on his resolution. When he moved to take it up on the evening
of the day it had been offered, he was met by cries of "Not in
order," "Not in order." 1 The manifest purpose was to postpone
its consideration until the hour should arrive which had been
fixed by a previous order of the Convention, in opposition to its
first order on the same subject, for the balloting to commence
for a Presidential candidate, when it would be too late. This
the friends of Mr. Douglas accomplished, and no vote was ever
taken upon it either at Charleston or Baltimore.
1. Page 138.
Before the balloting commenced Mr. Howard succeeded, in
the face of strong opposition, with the aid of the thirty-five
votes from New York, in obtaining a vote of the Convention
in affirmance of the two-thirds rule. On his motion they resolved, by 141 to 112 votes,1 "that the President of the Convention be and he is hereby directed not to declare any person
nominated for the office of President or Vice-President, unless
he shall have received a number of votes equal to two-thirds of
the votes of all the electoral colleges." It was well known at
the time that this resolution rendered the regular nomination
of Mr. Douglas impossible.
1. Page 141.
The balloting then commenced (Tuesday evening, May 1st),
on the eighth day of the session.1 Necessary to a nomination,
under the two-thirds rule, 202 votes. On the first ballot Mr.
Douglas received 145 1/2 votes; Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, 42; Mr.
Guthrie, of Kentucky, 35 1/2; Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee, 12;
Mr. Dickinson, of New York, 7; Mr. Lane, of Oregon, 6; Mr.
Toucey, of Connecticut, 2 1/2; Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, 1 1/2, and
Mr. Pearce, of Maryland, 1 vote.
1. Pages 141-152.
The voting continued until 3d May, during which there
were fifty-four additional ballotings. Mr. Douglas never rose
to more than 152 1/2, and ended at 151 1/2 votes, 202 votes being
necessary to a nomination. Of these votes, at least 110 were
given by delegates from States which, judging from their antecedents, could not give him or any Democratic candidate a single electoral vote.
This statement proves the wisdom and foresight of those who
adopted the two-thirds rule. Until 1824 nominations had been
made by Congressional caucus. In these none participated except Senators from Democratic States, and Representatives from
Democratic Congressional districts. The simple majority rule
governed in these caucuses, because it was morally certain that,
composed as they were, no candidate could be selected against
the will of the Democratic States on whom his election depended. But when a change was made to National Conventions, it was at once perceived that if a mere majority could
nominate, then the delegates from Anti-Democratic States might
be mainly instrumental in nominating a candidate for whom
they could not give a single electoral vote. Whilst it would
have been harsh and inexpedient to exclude these States from
the Convention altogether, it would have been unjust to confer
on them a controlling power over the nomination. To compromise this difficulty, the two-thirds rule was adopted. Under
its operation it would be almost impossible that a candidate
could be selected, without the votes of a simple majority of delegates from the Democratic States.
It had now become manifest that it was impossible to make
a nomination at Charleston. The friends of Mr. Douglas adhered to him and would vote for him and him alone, whilst his
opponents, apprehending the effect of his principles should he
be elected President, were equally determined to vote against
his nomination.
In the hope that some compromise might yet be effected to
save the Democratic party, the Convention, on the motion of
Mr. Russell, of Virginia, resolved to adjourn to meet at Baltimore on Monday, the 18th June;1 and it was "respectfully recommended to the Democratic party of the several States, to
make provision for supplying all vacancies in their respective
delegations to this Convention when it shall assemble."
1. Pages 152-154 10th day, May 3d.
The Convention re-assembled at Baltimore on the 18th June,
1860,1 according to its adjournment, and Mr. Cushing, the President, took the chair. It was greatly to be desired that the
Southern delegates who had withdrawn at Charleston might
resume their seats at Baltimore, and thus restore the Convention to its original integrity. In that event high hopes were
still entertained that both parties might harmonize in selecting
some eminent Democratic statesman, not obnoxious to either as
a candidate, and thus save the Democracy of the Union from
certain defeat. Every discerning citizen foresaw that without
such a re-union the Democratic party would continue to be
hopelessly divided, and the Republican candidates must inevitably be elected.
1. Page 165.
Immediately after the reorganization of the Convention,
Mr. Howard, of Tennessee, offered a resolution, "that the President of this Convention direct the sergeant-at-arms to issue
tickets of admission to the delegates of the Convention, as originally constituted and organized at Charleston." Thus the vitally important question was distinctly presented. It soon,
however, became manifest that no such resolution could prevail.
In the absence of the delegates who had withdrawn at Charleston, the friends of Mr. Douglas constituted a controlling majority. At the threshold they resisted the admission of the original delegates, and contended that by withdrawing they had
irrevocably resigned their seats. In support of this position,
they relied upon the language of the resolution adjourning the
Convention to Baltimore, which, as we have seen, "recommended to the Democratic party of the several States to make
provision for supplying all vacancies in their respective delegations to this Convention, when it shall reassemble." On the
other hand, the advocates of their readmission contended that
a simple withdrawal of the delegates wag not a final renunciation of their seats, but they were still entitled to reoccupy them,
whenever, in their judgment, this course would be best calculated
to restore the harmony and promote the success of the Democratic party; that the Convention had no right to interpose between them and the Democracy of their respective States; that
being directly responsible to this Democracy, it alone could accept their resignation; that no such resignation had ever been
made, and their authority therefore continued in full force, and
this, too, with the approbation of their constituents.
In the mean time, after the adjournment from Charleston
to Baltimore, the friends of Mr. Douglas, in several of these
States, had proceeded to elect delegates to take the place of
those who had withdrawn from the Convention, but not in any
instance, it is believed, according to the rules and usages of the
Democratic party. Indeed, it was manifest at the time, and
has since been clearly proved by the event, that these delegates
represented but a small minority of the party in their respective
States. These new delegates, nevertheless, appeared and demanded seats.
After a long and ardent debate, the Convention adopted a
resolution, offered by Mr. Church, of New York, and modified on
motion of Mr. Gilmore, of Pennsylvania, as a substitute for
that of Mr. Howard, to refer "the credentials of all persons
claiming seats in this Convention, made vacant by the secession
of delegates at Charleston, to the Committee on Credentials."
They thus prejudged the question, by deciding that the seats of
these delegates had been made and were still vacant. The
Committee on Credentials had been originally composed of one
delegate from each of the thirty-three States, but the number
was now reduced to twenty-five, in consequence of the exclusion of eight of its members from the States of Georgia,
Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Florida. The committee, therefore, now stood 16 to
9 in favor of the nomination of Mr. Douglas, instead of 17 to
16 against it, according to its original organization.1
1. Pages 187-191.
The committee, through their chairman, Mr. Krum, of Missouri, made their report on the 21st June, and Governor Stevens, of Oregon, at the same time presented a minority report,
signed by himself and eight other members.
It is unnecessary to give in detail these conflicting reports.
It is sufficient to state that whilst the report of-the majority
maintained that the delegates, by withdrawing at Charleston,
had resigned their seats, and these were still vacant; that of the
minority, on the contrary, asserted the right of these delegates
to resume their seats in the Convention, by virtue of their original appointment.
In some respects the majority report presented a strange
aspect. Whilst it recommended the admission of all the new
delegates from the States of Alabama and Louisiana, to the
exclusion of the old, it divided Georgia equally between the
conflicting parties, allowing one half to each, thus rendering the
vote of the State a mere nullity. This anomaly was, however,
afterwards corrected by a vote of the Convention. Indeed, the
new delegates voluntarily withdrew their claim to seats.
On the next day (June 22),1 the important decision was
made between the conflicting reports. Mr. Stevens moved to
substitute the minority report for that of the majority, and his
motion was rejected by a vote of 100 1/2 to 150. Of course no
vote was given from any of the excluded States, except one half
vote from each of the parties in Arkansas.
1. Page 203.
The resolutions of the majority, except the ninth, relating
to the Georgia delegation, were then adopted in succession.
Among other motions of similar character, a motion had been
made by a delegate in the majority to reconsider the vote by
which the Convention had adopted the minority report, as a
substitute for that of the majority, and to lay his own motion
on the table. This is a common mode resorted to, according to
parliamentary tactics, of defeating every hope of a reconsideration of the pending question, and rendering the first decision
final.1
1. Page 209.
Mr. Cessna, always on the alert, with this view called for a
vote on laying the motion to reconsider on the table. Should
this be negatived, then the question of reconsideration would be
open. The President stated the question to be first "on laying
on the table the motion to reconsider the vote by which the Convention refused to amend the majority report of the Committee
on Credentials by substituting the report of the minority." On
this question New York, for the first time since the meeting at
Baltimore, voted with the minority and changed it into a majority. "When New York was called," says the report of the
proceedings, "and responded thirty-five votes" (in the negative),
"the response was greeted with loud cheers and applause." 1
The result of the vote was 113 1/2 to 138 1/2" so the Convention
refused to lay on the table the motion to reconsider the minority report." The Convention then adjourned until the evening,
on motion of Mr. Cochrane, of New York, amidst great excitement and confusion.
1. Page 210.
This vote of New York, appearing to indicate a purpose to
harmonize the party by admitting the original delegates from
the eight absent States, was not altogether unexpected. Although
voting as a unit, it was known that her delegation were greatly
divided among themselves. The exact strength of the minority
was afterwards stated by Mr. Bartlett, one of its members, in
the Breckinridge Convention.1 He said: "Upon all questions
and especially upon the adoption of the majority report on credentials, in which we had a long contest, the line was strictly
drawn, and there were thirty on one side and forty on the other."
This was equal to fifteen votes to twenty.
1. Page 249.
The position of New York casting an undivided vote of
thirty-five, with Dean Richmond at their head, had been a controlling power from the commencement. Her responsibility
was great in proportion. Had she cast her weight into the scale
at Charleston in favor of the majority report on the resolutions
and in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court, this,
as we have already seen, would have prevailed by a vote of 173
to 130. Such a result might probably have terminated the
controversy between the North and the South.
After the retirement of the Southern delegations at Charleston, the delegation from New York had appeared to be willing
to change their course and adopt the compromise platform proposed by Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky, with the approbation of the other border States still in the Convention. This
was in fact nothing more than an affirmance of the decision of
the Supreme Court. In advocating it, Mr. Russell, of Virginia,
whose ability and spirit of conciliation had been displayed
throughout, stated his belief, as we have seen, that it had "received the approbation of the delegation from New York;" and
this statement was not contradicted. This would have secured
its adoption. The means by which a vote upon the question
was defeated at Charleston by the commencement of the balloting have already been presented. Strong expectations were,
therefore, now entertained that after the New York delegation
had recorded their vote against a motion which would have
killed the minority report beyond hope of revival, they would
now follow this up by taking the next step in advance and voting
for its reconsideration and adoption.1 On the evening of the
very same day, however, they reversed their course and voted
against its reconsideration. They were then cheered by the
opposite party from that which had cheered them in the morning. Thus the action of the Convention in favor of the majority
report became final and conclusive.2
1. Page 211.
2. Page 211.
Mr. Cessna, of Pennsylvania, always eager, at once moved
"that the Convention do now proceed to nominate candidates
for President and Vice-President of the United States." These
proceedings immediately produced the disastrous effects which
must have been foreseen by all.1
1. Page 212.
Mr. Russell rose and stated, "It has become my duty now,
by direction of a large majority of the delegation from Virginia,
respectfully to inform you and this body, that it is not consistent with their convictions of duty to participate longer in its
deliberations."1
1. Page 213.
Mr. Leader next stated "that it became his duty, as one of
the delegates from North Carolina, to say that a very large
majority of the delegation from that State were compelled to retire permanently from this Convention, on account, as he conceived, of the unjust course that had been pursued toward some
of their fellow-citizens of the South. The South had heretofore
relied upon the Northern Democracy to give them the rights
which were justly due them; but the vote to-day had satisfied
the majority of the North Carolina delegation that these rights
were now refused them, and this being the case, they could no
longer remain in the Convention."
Then followed in succession the withdrawal of-the delegations
from Tennessee,1 Kentucky,2 Maryland,3 California,4 Oregon,5
and Arkansas.6 The Convention now adjourned at half-past
ten o'clock until the next morning at ten.
Soon after the assembling of the Convention 1 the President,
Mr. Cushing, whilst tendering his thanks to its members for
their candid and honorable support in the performance of his
duties, stated that notwithstanding the retirement of the delega-
tions of several of the States at Charleston, in his solicitude to
maintain the harmony and union of the Democratic party, he had
continued in his post of labor. " To that end and in that sense,"
said he, " I had the honor to meet you, gentlemen, here at Baltimore. But circumstances have since transpired which compel
me to pause. The delegations of a majority of the States have,
either in whole or in part, in one form or another, ceased to participate in the deliberations of the Convention. * * * In
the present circumstances, I deem it a duty of self-respect, and I
deem it still more a duty to this Convention, as at present organized, * * * to resign my seat as President of this Convention, in order to take my place on the floor as a member of
the delegation from Massachusetts. * * * I deem this above
all a duty which I owe to the members of this Convention, as to
whom no longer would my action represent the will of a majority
of the Convention." 2
1. Sixth day, June 23d, page 225.
2. Page 226.
"Governor Tod, of Ohio, one of the Vice-Presidents, then
took the vacant chair, and was greeted with hearty and long-
continued cheers and applause from members of the Convention."
"Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts, now announced that a portion
of the Massachusetts delegation desired to retire, but was interrupted by cries of 'No,' 'No,' 'Call the roll.' The indefatigable Mr. Cessna called for the original question, to wit, that the
Convention now proceed to a nomination for President and Vice-
President."
"The President here ordered the Secretary to call the States.
Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont were called, and they
gave an unbroken vote for Stephen A. Douglas. When Massachusetts was called, Mr. Butler rose and said he had a respectful paper in his hand which he would desire the President to
have read. A scene of great confusion thereupon ensued, cries
of ' I object' being heard upon all sides." Mr. Butler, not to be
baffled, contended for his right at this stage to make remarks
pertinent to the matter, and cited in his support the practice of
the Conventions at Baltimore in 1848 and 1852, and at Cincinnati in 1856. He.finally prevailed, and was permitted to proceed. He then said he " would now withdraw from the Convention, upon the ground that there had been a withdrawal, in whole
or in part, of a majority of the States; and further, which was a
matter more personal to himself, he could not sit in a Convention where the African slave trade, which was piracy according
to the laws of his country, was openly advocated."
Mr. Butler then retired, followed by General Cushing and
four others of the Massachusetts delegation.
The balloting now proceeded. Mr. Douglas received 173 1/2
votes; Mr. Guthrie 9; Mr. Breckinridge 6 1/2; Mr. Bocock and
Mr. Seymour each 1; and Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Wise each
half a vote. On the next and last ballot Mr. Douglas received
181 1/2 votes, eight of those in the minority having changed their
votes in his favor.
To account for this number, it is proper to state that a few
delegates from five of the eight States which had withdrawn still
remained in the Convention. On the last ballot Mr. Douglas
received all of their votes, to wit: 3 of the 15 votes of Virginia,
1 of the 10 votes of North Carolina, 1 1/2 of the 3 votes of Arkansas, 3 of the 12 votes of Tennessee, 3 of the 12 votes of
Kentucky, and 2 1/2 of the 8 votes of Maryland, making in the
aggregate 14 votes. To this number may be added the 9 votes
of the new delegates from Alabama and the 6 from Louisiana,
who had been admitted to the exclusion of the original delegates. If these 29 votes from Southern States be deducted
from the 181 1/2 votes nominating Mr. Douglas, that number would
be reduced to 152 1/2.
These proceedings had now rendered it clear that Mr. Douglas could not, as he did not, receive one electoral vote from any
of the sixteen Democratic States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, California, and Oregon. He owed his nomination almost
exclusively to States which could not give him a single electoral
vote. What was still more ominous of evil, the division was
sectional between the free and the slaveholding States, between
the North and the South. It might have been supposed that
these disastrous circumstances, foreboding such dangers both to
the Democratic party and the Union, would have caused his
friends to pause, and at the last moment consent to some means
of conciliation. But they rushed on to complete their work,
regardless of consequences. The two-thirds rule interposed no
obstacle in their course, although it bad been expressly adopted
and readopted by this Convention, and the very case had now
occurred--the nomination by nearly all the Anti-Demiocratic
States--against which its original authors, with wise foresight,
intended to guard. Mr. Douglas was accordingly declared to
be the regular nominee of the Democratic party of the Union,1
upon the motion of Mr. Church, of New York, when, according to the report of the proceedings, "The whole body rose to
its feet, bats were waved in the air, and many tossed aloft;
shouts, screams, and yells, and every boisterous mode of expressing approbation and unanimity, were resorted to."
1. Pages 231-236.
Senator Fitzpatrick, of Alabama, was then unanimously
nominated as the candidate for Vice-President; and the Convention adjourned sine die on the 23d June, the sixth and last
day of its session.1 On the same day, but after the adjournment, Mr. Fitzpatrick declined the nomination, and it was
immediately conferred on Mr. Herschel V. Johnson, of Georgia, by the Executive Committee. Thus ended the Douglas
Convention.
1. Page 239.
But another Convention assembled at Baltimore on the
same 23d June,1 styling itself also, and with as little reason,
the "National Democratic Convention." It was composed
chiefly of the delegates who had just withdrawn from the Douglas Convention, and the original delegates from Alabama and
Louisiana. One of their first acts was to abrogate the two-
thirds rule, as had been done by the Douglas Convention.
Both acted under the same necessity, because the preservation
of this rule would have prevented a nomination by either.
This consideration, instead of causing both to desist and appeal
to the people of the States to appoint a new Convention for the
salvation of the Democratic party, was totally disregarded.
1. Page 241.
Mr. Cushing was elected and took the chair as President.
In his opening address he said: "Gentlemen of the Convention, we assemble here, delegates to the National Democratic
Convention [applause], duly accredited thereto from more than
twenty States of the Union [applause], for the purpose of nominating candidates of the Democratic party for the offices of
President and Vice-President of the United States, for the purpose of announcing the principles of the party, and for the purpose of continuing and reestablishing that party upon the firm
foundations of the Constitution, the Union, and the coequal
rights of the several States."1
Page 248.
Mr. Avery, of North Carolina, who had reported the major-
ity resolutions at Charleston, now reported the same from the
committee of this body, and they "were adopted unanimously,
amid great applause."
The Convention then proceeded to select their candidates.
Mr. Loring, on behalf of the delegates from Massachusetts, who
with Mr. Butler Bad retired from the Douglas Convention,
nominated John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, which Mr.
Dent, representing the Pennsylvania delegation present, "most
heartily seconded." Mr. Ward, from the Alabama delegation,
nominated R. M. T. Hunter, of Virginia; Mr. Ewing, from
that of Tennessee, nominated Mr. Dickinson, of New York;
and Mr. Stevens, from Oregon, nominated General Joseph Lane.
Eventually all these names were withdrawn except that of Mr.
Breckinridge, and he received the nomination by a unanimous
vote. The whole number of votes cast in his favor from twenty
States was 103 1/2. The vote of Mr. Douglas was considerably
greater, but Mr. Breckinridge received a large majority over
him from States known to be Democratic.
General Lane was unanimously nominated as the candidate
for Vice-President. Thus terminated the Breckinridge Convention.
The 23d of June, 1860, was a dark and gloomy day both
for the Democratic party and the Union. It foreboded nothing
but evil. There could be no pretence that either candidate had
been nominated according to the established rules of the party.
Every individual Democrat was, therefore, left at liberty to
choose between them. In many localities, especially North,
their respective partisans became more violent against each
other than against the common foe. No reasonable hope could
remain for the election of Mr. Douglas or Mr. Breckinridge.
It was morally certain that Mr. Lincoln would be the next President, and this added greatly to his strength. The result was,
that of the 303 electoral votes, Mr. Douglas received but 121
(3 from New Jersey, and 9 from Missouri), and Mr. Breckinridge only 72 (3 from Delaware, 8 from Maryland, 10 from
North Carolina, 8 from South Carolina, 10, from Georgia, 6
from Louisiana, 7 from Mississippi, 9 from Alabama, 4 from
Arkansas, 3 from Florida, and 4 from Texas). Virginia, North
Carolina, and Tennessee cast their 39 votes for John Bell, of
Tennessee, of the self-styled Constitutional Union party.
1. Congressional Globe, 1860-'61, page 894.
In reviewing the whole, it is clear that the original cause of
the disaster was the persistent refusal of the friends of Mr.
Douglas to recognize the constitutional rights of the slaveholding States in the Territories, established by the Supreme Court.
These rights the Southern States could not yield after the decision, without a sense of self-degradation, and voluntary abandonment of their equality with their sister States, as members
of the Union. But were they justified, for this cause, in seced-
ing from the Convention, and pursuing a course so extreme?
Far from it. Had they remained at the post of duty, like Virginia and the other border States, it would have been impossible that a candidate so obnoxious to them, on account of his
principles, could have been nbminated. The final result would
probably then have been the nomination of some compromise
candidate, which would have preserved the unity and strength
of the Democratic organization. Indeed, the withdrawal of
these States, under the circumstances, has afforded plausible
ground for the belief of many, that this was done with a view to
prepare the way for a dissolution of the Union. Although,
from the votes and speeches of their delegates, there do not
seem to be sufficient grounds for so harsh a judgment, yet it
cannot be denied that the act was rash, unwise, and unfortunate.
An entire new generation had now come upon the stage in
the South, in the midst of the anti-slavery agitation. The
former generation, which had enjoyed the blessings of peace and
security under the Constitution and the Union, had passed away.
That now existing bad grown up and been educated amid
assaults upon their rights, and attacks from the North upon the
domestic institution inherited from their fathers. Their post-
offices had been perverted for the circulation of incendiary pictures and publications intended to excite the slaves to servile
insurrection. In the North, the press, State Legislatures, anti-
slavery societies, abolition lecturers, and above all the Christian
pulpit, had been persistently employed in denouncing slavery as
a sin, and rendering slaveholders odious. Numerous abolition
petitions had been presented to Congress, from session to session,
portraying slavery as a grievous sin against God and man. The
Fugitive Slave Law enacted by the first Congress, as well as
that of 1850, for the security of their property, had been nullified by the Personal Liberty Acts of Northern Legislatures, and
by the organized assistance afforded by abolitionists for the escape of their slaves. Wilmot provisos had been interposed to
defeat their constitutional rights in the common Territories, and
even after these rights had been affirmed by the Supreme Court,
its decision had been set at naught not only by the Republican
but by the Douglas party. "The irrepressible conflict" of Senator Seward, and the Helper book, both portending the abolition of slavery in the States, had been circulated broadcast
among the people. And finally the desperate fanatic, John
Brown, inflamed by these teachings, had invaded Virginia, and
murdered a number of her peaceful citizens, for the avowed
purpose of exciting a servile insurrection; and although he had
expiated his crimes on the gallows, his memory was consecrated
by the abolitionists, as though he had been a saintly martyr.
In the midst of these perils the South had looked with hope
to the action of the Democratic National Convention at Charleston, but in this they had been sadly disappointed. This series
of events had inflamed the Southern mind with intense hostility
against the North, and enabled the disunion agitators to prepare
it for the final catastrophe.
It was not until after the breaking up of the Democratic
party at Charleston and Baltimore, that the masses, even in the
cotton States, always excepting South Carolina, could be induced
to think seriously of seceding from the Union. The border
States, with Virginia in the front rank, although much dissatisfied with the course of events at the North, still remained true
to the Federal Government.