diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 20:04:02 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 20:04:02 -0700 |
| commit | 7ab98a4615eb672250433e008772e78117a5df22 (patch) | |
| tree | 0e7eab802466f48e132a0adb8fb7fc158eaa3266 /35558-h | |
Diffstat (limited to '35558-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 35558-h/35558-h.htm | 31925 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 35558-h/images/1.jpg | bin | 0 -> 5356 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 35558-h/images/2.jpg | bin | 0 -> 151357 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 35558-h/images/3.jpg | bin | 0 -> 150395 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 35558-h/images/4.jpg | bin | 0 -> 181786 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 35558-h/images/5.jpg | bin | 0 -> 142098 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 35558-h/images/6.jpg | bin | 0 -> 169750 bytes |
7 files changed, 31925 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/35558-h/35558-h.htm b/35558-h/35558-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..8277176 --- /dev/null +++ b/35558-h/35558-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,31925 @@ + +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> + +<html> +<head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> + <title>The Project Gutenberg e-Book of The Middle Period, by John W. Burgess</title> + <style type="text/css"> + <!-- + body {margin:10%; text-align:justify} + h1 {text-align:center} + h2 {text-align:center} + h3 {text-align:center} + h4 {text-align:center} --> + </style> +</head> + +<body> + + +<pre> + +Project Gutenberg's The Middle Period 1817-1858, by John William Burgess + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Middle Period 1817-1858 + +Author: John William Burgess + +Release Date: March 12, 2011 [EBook #35558] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE MIDDLE PERIOD 1817-1858 *** + + + + +Produced by Ron Swanson + + + + + +</pre> + +<h4><i>THE AMERICAN HISTORY SERIES</i></h4> +<hr align="center" width="400"> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<h1>THE MIDDLE PERIOD</h1> +<h4>1817-1858</h4> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<center><small>BY</small></center> +<h3>JOHN W. BURGESS, P<small>H</small>.D., LL.D.</h3> +<center><small>PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,<br> +AND DEAN OF THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE,<br> +IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK</small></center> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<center><i>WITH MAPS</i></center> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<center><small>NEW YORK</small><br> +CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS<br> +<br> +1910</center> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<center>C<small>OPYRIGHT</small>, 1897, <small>BY</small><br> +CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS</center> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<table align="center" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" summary="seal"> + <tr> + <td width="105"> + <img src="images/1.jpg" alt="Scribner Seal"> + </td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<center>To the memory<br> +<br> +of<br> +<br> +my former teacher, colleague, and friend,<br> +<br> +JULIUS HAWLEY SEELYE,<br> +<br> +philosopher, theologian, statesman, and educator,<br> +<br> +this volume is reverently<br> +<br> +and affectionately<br> +<br> +inscribed</center> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<h3>PREFACE</h3> +<hr align="center" width="60"> +<br> + +<p>There is no more serious and delicate task in literature and morals +than that of writing the history of the United States from 1816 to +1860. The periods which precede this may be treated without fear of +arousing passion, prejudice, and resentment, and with little danger of +being misunderstood. Even the immaculateness of Washington may be +attacked without exciting anything worse than a sort of uncomfortable +admiration for the reckless courage of the assailant. But when we pass +the year 1820, and especially when we approach the year 1860, we find +ourselves in a different world. We find ourselves in the midst of the +ideas, the motives, and the occurrences which, and of the men who, +have, in large degree, produced the animosities, the friendships, and +the relations between parties and sections which prevail to-day.</p> + +<p>Serious and delicate as the task is, however, the time has arrived +when it should be undertaken in a thoroughly impartial spirit. The +continued misunderstanding between the North and the South is an ever +present menace to the welfare of both sections and of the entire +nation. It makes it almost impossible to decide any question of our +politics upon its merits. It offers an almost insuperable obstacle to +the development of a national opinion upon the fundamental principles +of our polity. If we would clear up this confusion in the common +consciousness, we must do something to dispel this misunderstanding; +and I know of no means of accomplishing this, save the rewriting of +our history from 1816 to 1860, with an open mind and a willing spirit +to see and to represent truth and error, and right and wrong, without +regard to the men or the sections in whom or where they may appear.</p> + +<p>I am by no means certain that I am able to do this. I am old enough to +have been a witness of the great struggle of 1861-65, and to have +participated, in a small way, in it. My early years were embittered by +the political hatreds which then prevailed. I learned before my +majority to regard secession as an abomination, and its chief cause, +slavery, as a great evil; and I cannot say that these feelings have +been much modified, if any at all, by longer experiences and maturer +thought. I have, therefore, undertaken this work with many misgivings.</p> + +<p>Keenly conscious of my own prejudices, I have exerted my imagination +to the utmost to create a picture in my own mind of the environment of +those who held the opposite opinion upon these fundamental subjects, +and to appreciate the processes of their reasoning under the +influences of their own particular situation. And I have with sedulous +care avoided all the histories written immediately after the close of +the great contest of arms, and all rehashes of them of later date. In +fact I have made it an invariable rule to use no secondary material; +that is, no material in which original matter is mingled with +somebody's interpretation of its meaning. If, therefore, the facts in +my narration are twisted by prejudices and preconceptions, I think I +can assure my readers that they have suffered only one twist. I have +also endeavored to approach my subject in a reverent spirit, and to +deal with the characters who made our history, in this almost tragic +period, as serious and sincere men having a most perplexing and +momentous problem to solve, a problem not of their own making, but a +fatal inheritance from their predecessors.</p> + +<p>I have been especially repelled by the flippant superficiality of the +foreign critics of this period of our history, and their evident +delight in representing the professions and teachings of the "Free +Republic" as canting hypocrisy. It has seemed to me a great misfortune +that the present generation and future generations should be taught to +regard so lightly the earnest efforts of wise, true, and honorable men +to rescue the country from the great catastrophe which, for so long, +impended over it. The passionate onesidedness of our own writers is +hardly more harmful, and is certainly less repulsive.</p> + +<p>I recently heard a distinguished professor of history and politics say +that he thought the history of the United States, in this period, +could be truthfully written only by a Scotch-Irishman. I suppose he +meant that the Scotch element in this ideal historian would take the +Northern point of view, and the Irish element the Southern; but I +could not see how this would produce anything more than another pair +of narratives from the old contradictory points of view; and he did +not explain how it would.</p> + +<p>My opinion is, on the contrary, that this history must be written by +an American and a Northerner, and from the Northern point of +view—because an American best understands Americans, after all; +because the victorious party can be and will be more liberal, +generous, and sympathetic than the vanquished; and because the +Northern view is, in the main, the correct view. It will not improve +matters to concede that the South had right and the North might, or, +even, that both were equally right and equally wrong. Such a doctrine +can only work injury to both, and more injury to the South than to the +North. Chewing the bitter cud of fancied wrong produces both spiritual +misery and material adversity, and tempts to foolish and reckless +action for righting the imagined injustice. Moreover, any such +doctrine is false, and acquiescence in it, however kindly meant, is +weak, and can have no other effect than the perpetuation of error and +misunderstanding. The time has come when the men of the South should +acknowledge that they were in error in their attempt to destroy the +Union, and it is unmanly in them not to do so. When they appealed the +great question from the decision at the ballot-box to the "trial by +battle," their leaders declared, over and over again, in calling their +followers to arms, that the "God of battles" would surely give the +victory to the right. In the great movements of the world's history +this is certainly a sound philosophy, and they should have held to it +after their defeat. Their recourse to the crude notion that they had +succumbed only to might was thus not only a bitter, false, and +dangerous consolation, but it was a stultification of themselves when +at their best as men and heroes.</p> + +<p>While, therefore, great care has been taken, in the following pages, +to attribute to the Southern leaders and the Southern people sincerity +of purpose in their views and their acts, while their ideas and their +reasoning have been, I think, duly appreciated, and patiently +explained, while the right has been willingly acknowledged to them and +honor accorded them whenever and wherever they have had the right and +have merited honor, and while unbounded sympathy for personal +suffering and misfortune has been expressed, still not one scintilla +of justification for secession and rebellion must be expected. The +South must acknowledge its error as well as its defeat in regard to +these things, and that, too, not with lip service, but from the brain +and the heart and the manly will, before any real concord in thought +and feeling, any real national brotherhood, can be established. This +is not too much to demand, simply because it is right, and nothing can +be settled, as Mr. Lincoln said, until it is settled right. Any +interpretation of this period of American history which does not +demonstrate to the South its error will be worthless, simply because +it will not be true; and unless we are men enough to hear and accept +and stand upon the truth, it is useless to endeavor to find a bond of +real union between us. In a word, the conviction of the South of its +error in secession and rebellion is absolutely indispensable to the +establishment of national cordiality; and the history of this period +which fails to do this will fail in accomplishing one of the highest +works of history, the reconciliation of men to the plans of Providence +for their perfection.</p> + +<p>I have not, in the following pages, undertaken to treat <i>all</i> of the +events of our experience from 1816 to 1860. The space allowed me would +not admit of that. And even if it had, I still would have selected +only those events which, in my opinion, are significant of our +progress in civilization, and, as I am writing a political history, +only those which are significant of our progress in political +civilization. The truthful record, connection, and interpretation of +such events is what I call history in the highest sense, as +distinguished from chronology, narrative, and romance. Both necessity +and philosophy have confined me to these.</p> + +<p>I cannot close these prefatory sentences without a word of grateful +acknowledgment to my friend and colleague, Dr. Harry A. Cushing, for +the important services which he has rendered me in the preparation of +this work.</p> + +<div align="right">J<small>OHN</small> W. B<small>URGESS</small>. </div> + +<p> 323 W<small>EST</small> F<small>IFTY-SEVENTH</small> +S<small>TREET</small>, N<small>EW</small> Y<small>ORK</small> +C<small>ITY</small>.<br> + JANUARY 22, 1897.</p> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CONTENTS</h3> +<hr align="center" width="60"> +<br> + +<a href="#chap1">CHAPTER I.</a><br> +T<small>HE</small> N<small>ATIONALIZATION OF THE</small> +O<small>LD</small> R<small>EPUBLICAN</small> P<small>ARTY</small><br> +<br> +<a href="#chap2">CHAPTER II.</a><br> +T<small>HE</small> A<small>CQUISITION OF</small> F<small>LORIDA</small><br> +<br> +<a href="#chap3">CHAPTER III.</a><br> +S<small>LAVERY IN THE</small> U<small>NITED</small> S<small>TATES +BEFORE</small> 1820<br> +<br> +<a href="#chap4">CHAPTER IV.</a><br> +T<small>HE</small> C<small>REATION OF THE</small> C<small>OMMONWEALTH +OF</small> M<small>ISSOURI</small><br> +<br> +<a href="#chap5">CHAPTER V.</a><br> +T<small>HE</small> B<small>EGINNING OF THE</small> +P<small>ARTICULARISTIC</small> R<small>EACTION</small><br> +<br> +<a href="#chap6">CHAPTER VI.</a><br> +T<small>HE</small> P<small>RESIDENTIAL</small> E<small>LECTION OF</small> 1824<br> +<br> +<a href="#chap7">CHAPTER VII.</a><br> +T<small>HE</small> D<small>IVISION OF THE</small> +R<small>EPUBLICAN</small> P<small>ARTY</small><br> +<br> +<a href="#chap8">CHAPTER VIII.</a><br> +D<small>EMOCRATIC</small> O<small>PPOSITION TO</small> +I<small>NTERNAL</small> I<small>MPROVEMENTS AND</small> P<small>ROTECTION</small><br> +<br> +<a href="#chap9">CHAPTER IX.</a><br> +T<small>HE</small> U<small>NITED</small> S<small>TATES</small> B<small>ANK +AND THE</small> P<small>RESIDENTIAL</small> C<small>ONTEST OF</small> 1832<br> +<br> +<a href="#chap10">CHAPTER X.</a><br> +N<small>ULLIFICATION</small><br> +<br> +<a href="#chap11">CHAPTER XI.</a><br> +A<small>BOLITION</small><br> +<br> +<a href="#chap12">CHAPTER XII.</a><br> +T<small>HE</small> B<small>ANK</small>, <small>THE</small> S<small>UB</small>-T<small>REASURY</small>, +<small>AND</small> P<small>ARTY</small> D<small>EVELOPMENT BETWEEN</small> 1832 <small>AND</small> 1842<br> +<br> +<a href="#chap13">CHAPTER XIII.</a><br> +T<small>EXAS</small><br> +<br> +<a href="#chap14">CHAPTER XIV.</a><br> +O<small>REGON</small><br> +<br> +<a href="#chap15">CHAPTER XV.</a><br> +T<small>HE</small> "R<small>E-ANNEXATION OF</small> T<small>EXAS AND +THE</small> R<small>E-OCCUPATION OF</small> O<small>REGON</small>"<br> +<br> +<a href="#chap16">CHAPTER XVI.</a><br> +T<small>HE</small> W<small>AR WITH</small> M<small>EXICO</small><br> +<br> +<a href="#chap17">CHAPTER XVII.</a><br> +T<small>HE</small> O<small>RGANIZATION OF</small> O<small>REGON</small> +T<small>ERRITORY AND THE</small> C<small>OMPROMISE OF</small> 1850<br> +<br> +<a href="#chap18">CHAPTER XVIII.</a><br> +T<small>HE</small> E<small>XECUTION OF THE</small> F<small>UGITIVE</small> +S<small>LAVE</small> L<small>AW</small>, <small>AND THE</small> +E<small>LECTION OF</small> 1852<br> +<br> +<a href="#chap19">CHAPTER XIX.</a><br> +T<small>HE</small> R<small>EPEAL OF THE</small> M<small>ISSOURI</small> +C<small>OMPROMISE</small><br> +<br> +<a href="#chap20">CHAPTER XX.</a><br> +T<small>HE</small> S<small>TRUGGLE FOR</small> K<small>ANSAS</small><br> +<br> +<a href="#chap21">CHAPTER XXI.</a><br> +T<small>HE</small> D<small>RED</small> S<small>COTT</small> C<small>ASE</small><br> +<br> +<a href="#chap22">CHAPTER XXII.</a><br> +T<small>HE</small> S<small>TRUGGLE FOR</small> K<small>ANSAS</small> +C<small>ONCLUDED</small><br> +<br> +<hr align="center" width="60"> +<br> +<a href="#app1">APPENDIX I.</a><br> +T<small>HE</small> E<small>LECTORAL</small> V<small>OTE</small> +IN D<small>ETAIL</small>, 1820-1856<br> +<br> +<a href="#app2">APPENDIX II.</a><br> +T<small>HE</small> C<small>ABINETS OF</small> M<small>ONROE</small>, +A<small>DAMS</small>, J<small>ACKSON</small>, V<small>AN</small> +B<small>UREN</small>, H<small>ARRISON</small>, T<small>YLER</small>, +P<small>OLK</small>, T<small>AYLOR</small>, F<small>ILLMORE</small>, +P<small>IERCE</small>, <small>AND</small> B<small>UCHANAN</small>—1816-1858<br> +<br> +<hr align="center" width="60"> +<br> +<a href="#chronology">CHRONOLOGY</a><br> +<br> +<a href="#bibliography">BIBLIOGRAPHY</a><br> +<br> +<a href="#index">INDEX</a><br> +<br> +<br> +<hr align="center" width="60"> +<br> +<br> +<h3>LIST OF MAPS.</h3> +<br> +<a href="#map1">F<small>LORIDA AT THE</small> T<small>IME OF</small> +A<small>CQUISITION</small></a><br> +<br> +<a href="#map2">T<small>EXAS AT THE</small> T<small>IME OF</small> +A<small>NNEXATION</small></a><br> +<br> +<a href="#map3">O<small>REGON AS</small> D<small>ETERMINED BY THE</small> +T<small>REATY OF</small> 1846</a><br> +<br> +<a href="#map4">C<small>ALIFORNIA AND</small> N<small>EW</small> +M<small>EXICO IN</small> 1850</a><br> +<br> +<a href="#map5">N<small>EBRASKA AND</small> K<small>ANSAS</small>, +1854-1861</a><br> +<br> +<br> +<hr align="center" width="60"> +<br> +<br> +<h2>THE MIDDLE PERIOD</h2> +<br> +<br><a name="chap1"></a><a name="page1"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER I.</h3> + +<center>THE NATIONALIZATION OF THE OLD REPUBLICAN PARTY</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side1">General Character of the Acts of the Fourteenth +Congress</a>—<a href="#side2">Madison's Message of December 5th, +1815</a>—<a href="#side3">Change in the Principles of the Republican +Party</a>—<a href="#side4">The United States Bank Act of +1816</a>—<a href="#side5">Report of the Bank Bill by Mr. +Calhoun</a>—<a href="#side6">Mr. Calhoun's Argument in Favor of the +Bill</a>—<a href="#side7">Webster's Objections to the Bank +Bill</a>—<a href="#side8">Mr. Clay's Support of the Bank +Bill</a>—<a href="#side9">Passage of the Bank Bill by the House of +Representatives</a>—<a href="#side10">The Passage of the Bank Bill by the +Senate</a>—<a href="#side11">The United States Bank of 1816 a Southern +Measure</a>—<a href="#side13">The Tariff Bill Framed by the Committee on Ways and +Means</a>—<a href="#side14">The Tariff Bill +Reported</a>—<a href="#side15">The Character of the Tariff +Bill</a>—<a href="#side16">Mr. Calhoun's Speech upon the Tariff +Bill</a>—<a href="#side17">The Passage of the Tariff +Bill</a>—<a href="#side18">The Army and Navy +Bills</a>—<a href="#side19">The Bill for National +Improvements</a>—<a href="#side20">Mr. Calhoun's Advocacy of this +Bill</a>—<a href="#side21">The Opposition to the Internal Improvements +Bill</a>—<a href="#side22">Passage of the Bill by +Congress</a>—<a href="#side23">Veto of the Bill by the +President</a>—<a href="#side24">The Failure of Congress to Override the Veto.</a></blockquote> +<br> + +<p>It is no part of my task to relate the events of the War of 1812-15. +That has already been sufficiently done in the preceding volume of +this series. I take up the threads of the narrative at the beginning +of the year 1816, and my problem in this chapter will be to expound +the acts and policies of the Fourteenth Congress in the light of the +experiences of that War.</p> +<a name="side1"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote1"> + <tr> + <td><small>General<br> + character of<br> + the acts of the<br> + Fourteenth<br> + Congress.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page2"></a> +<p>Those acts and policies were shaped and adopted under the influence of +those experiences, and this influence was so predominant, at the +moment, in the minds of the leading men in the Government and +throughout the country as to exclude, or at least to overbalance, all +other influences. This is especially manifest in the attitude of the +statesmen of the slave-holding Commonwealths, and most especially in +the attitude of their great leader, Mr. Calhoun, who was the chief +champion of some of the most national measures voted by that Congress. +A clear appreciation of his views and his acts at that period of his +career will enable us far better than anything else to understand the +terrible seriousness of the slavery question, which subsequently drove +him into lines of thought and action so widely divergent from those +upon which he set out in early life.</p> +<a name="side2"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote2"> + <tr> + <td><small>Madison's<br> + message of<br> + December<br> + 5th, 1815.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was the President himself, however, one of the chief founders of +the "States' rights" party, Mr. Madison, who set the direction toward +centralization in the Congressional legislation of 1815-17. In his +annual message of December 5th, 1815, he recommended the increase and +better organization of the army and the navy, the enlargement of the +existing Military Academy and the founding of such academies in the +different sections of the country, the creation of a national +currency, the protection of manufactures, the construction of roads +and canals, and the establishment of a national university.</p> + +<p>This is a very different political creed from that promulgated by +President Jefferson when the Republican party first gained possession +of the Government at Washington. Then, decrease in all the elements of +power in the hands of the central Government, and careful maintenance +of all the rights and powers of the <a name="page3"></a>"States," were recommended and +urged upon the attention of the national lawgivers.</p> +<a name="side3"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote3"> + <tr> + <td><small>Change in the<br> + principles of<br> + the Republican<br> + party.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>From a "States'-sovereignty" party in 1801, the Republican party had +manifestly become a strong national party in 1816; that is, if we are +to take the two Presidential messages, to which we have referred, as +containing the political principles of that party at these two periods +of its existence.</p> + +<p>As the Congress of 1801 showed itself, in its legislation, to be in +substantial accord with President Jefferson's views and sentiments, so +did the Congress of 1815 manifest, in its legislation, the same +general harmony with the views and sentiments of President Madison. In +order that the latter part of this statement may be set down as an +established fact of history, we will review with some particularity +the two cardinal acts of this Congress—the United States Bank Act and +the Tariff Act.</p> +<a name="side4"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote4"> + <tr> + <td><small>The United<br> + States Bank<br> + Act of 1816.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>So soon as the reading of President Madison's message before the House +of Representatives was completed, that body resolved to refer that +part of the message which related to the establishment of an uniform +national currency to a select committee. The committee chosen was +composed of Mr. Calhoun, Mr. Macon, Mr. Pleasants, Mr. Tucker, Mr. +Robertson, Mr. Hopkinson, and Mr. Pickering. The first five of these +gentlemen were from Commonwealths south of the Pennsylvania line, and +only two, therefore, from what began now to be called the +"non-slave-holding States." In other words, it was a Southern +committee, and the great South Carolinian was its chairman. It is, +therefore, just to regard the bill which this committee brought in, +and the arguments with which they supported it, as containing the +views and the sentiments of the leading Southern Republicans in the +House.</p> +<a name="side5"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote5"> + <tr> + <td><small>Report of the<br> + Bank Bill by<br> + Mr. Calhoun.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page4"></a> +<p>This committee came speedily to the conclusion that the +nationalization of the monetary system was the most pressing need of +the country, and within a month from the date of the appointment of +its members the chairman of the committee reported a bill for the +creation of an United States Bank, a mammoth national banking +corporation, which should have a capital of thirty-five millions of +dollars; in which the central Government should own one-fifth of the +stock and be represented by one-fifth of the directors; the president +of which should always be selected from among the Government's +directors; the demand notes and bills of which should be received in +all payments to the United States; and the chartered privileges of +which should be made a monopoly for twenty years.</p> +<a name="side6"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote6"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Calhoun's<br> + argument in<br> + favor of the Bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In his great argument in support of the bill, delivered on February +26th, Mr. Calhoun dismissed at the outset any consideration of the +constitutionality of the bill. That is, he simply assumed that +Congress had the power to pass the bill, and declared that the public +mind was entirely made up and settled upon that point.</p> + +<p>Only five years before this, even the national-minded Clay had +pronounced the dictum that Congress had no power to grant a national +bank charter, and the fact that Congress then declined to grant such a +charter is good evidence that the majority of the people of the +country held the same view. There can be little question that the +Republican party, down to 1812, regarded the establishment of an +United States bank by Congress as an usurpation of power not granted +by the Constitution.</p> + +<p>Five years constitute a short period of time for the accomplishment of +so important a change in the public <a name="page5"></a>opinion. Five years of ordinary +experience would not have produced it. It was, without doubt, the +strain brought upon the finances of the country by the necessities of +the War that had developed a powerful national opinion upon the +subject of the financial system of the country.</p> + +<p>Mr. Calhoun also declined to discuss the question whether banks were +favorable or unfavorable to "public liberty and prosperity." He +assumed, here again, that public experience had settled that question, +and said that such an inquiry was now purely metaphysical. This +statement is certainly prime evidence that the practical experiences, +made in conducting the Government under the pressure of war, had about +knocked the metaphysics of the year 1800 out of the Republican party, +and had led the party on to a much more positive stage of political +opinion.</p> + +<p>Mr. Calhoun furthermore dismissed the question whether a "national +bank would be favorable to the administration of the finances of the +Government," since there was not enough doubt, he said, in the public +mind upon that point to warrant a discussion of it.</p> + +<p>He declared, finally, that the only questions which demanded +consideration were those relative to the existing disorders of the +currency, and the efficiency of a national bank in working their cure. +Upon these two points he was distinct, decided, and thoroughly +national. He said that the Constitution had without doubt placed the +monetary system of the country entirely within the control of +Congress; that the "States" had usurped the power of making money by +chartering banks of issue in the face of the constitutional provision +forbidding the "States" to emit bills of credit; that the two hundred +millions of dollars of irredeemable bank-notes, paper, and credits, +issued by these banks, were the cause of the <a name="page6"></a>financial disorders of +the country; and that the remedy for this condition of things was, in +his opinion, to be found in a great specie-paying national bank, +sustained by the power of the general Government in the work of +bringing such a pressure upon these "State" banks as would force them +either to pay specie or go into liquidation. This was clear, generous, +and patriotic. No one made a fairer statement of the case, and no one +advocated a more national remedy in its treatment.</p> +<a name="side7"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote7"> + <tr> + <td><small>Webster's<br> + objections to<br> + the Bank Bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On the other hand, it was Webster who, at this time, appeared narrow +and particularistic. He objected to the large amount of the capital, +and to the stock feature of the proposed bank, and expressed alarm at +the proposition to place it under such strong governmental control. He +thought that the bills and paper of the "State" banks would be good +enough, if the general Government would only force them to redeem +their currency in specie by refusing to accept for Government dues the +bills of banks which did not pay specie on demand.</p> + +<p>Whatever may be thought of Webster's attitude from the point of view +of political economy, it was certainly, from the point of view of +political science, the attitude of a "States'-rights" man rather than +that of a nationalist. Webster did not, however, call the +constitutionality of the bill in question. That was conceded upon all +sides.</p> + +<p>The friends of the measure felt more anxiety in regard to Mr. Clay. He +had, only five years before, as we have seen, pronounced a similar +bill unconstitutional in his opinion, and he was now the Speaker of +the House, with all the power over the procedure in the House which +that position involved. It was generally felt that the fate of the +measure would be largely determined by his attitude toward it.</p> +<a name="side8"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote8"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Clay's<br> + support of<br> + the Bank Bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Clay did not leave the House long in doubt <a name="page7"></a>concerning his views. +He quickly revealed and avowed that noted change of opinion upon this +subject, which has been commonly accounted one of his greatest +inconsistencies, but which may be very properly considered as simply +manifesting that growth in patriotism and national spirit experienced +by almost all the leading men of the country, outside of New England, +in consequence of the vicissitudes of the period of war under which +the nation suffered between the dates of Mr. Clay's two utterances. He +frankly confessed that he had changed his opinion, and explained the +change by saying that the power of Congress in respect to the matter +was contained in the clause of the Constitution which conferred upon +Congress the authority to make all laws necessary and proper for +carrying the powers of the Government into operation; that, in the +interpretation of the words "necessary and proper," reference must +always be had to existing circumstances; that, when conditions change, +the interpretation must be so modified as to meet and satisfy such +change; and that the conditions obtaining in the country in 1816 were +so changed from those obtaining in 1811 as to require the enlarged +interpretation of the powers of Congress under this clause upon the +subject of the monetary system of the country.</p> +<a name="side9"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote9"> + <tr> + <td><small>Passage of the<br> + Bank Bill by<br> + the House of<br> + Representatives.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The eloquence and the influence of Mr. Clay counted heavily in favor +of the measure, and it was passed by a substantial majority of votes. +In fact, the privileges of the proposed Bank had been increased by +amendment during the progress of the bill through the House. The Bank +and its branches were made the depositories of the funds of the +Government. This great advantage was, at least, a substantial offset +to the other modifications of the original bill, whereby the clauses +requiring that the president of <a name="page8"></a>the Bank should always be chosen from +among the Government directors, and reserving to Congress the power to +permit a temporary suspension of specie payment by the Bank, were +stricken out.</p> +<a name="side10"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote10"> + <tr> + <td><small>The passage<br> + of the Bank<br> + Bill through<br> + the Senate.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>During the passage of the bill through the Senate only a single +Senator expressed any doubts of its constitutionality, Mr. Wells, of +Delaware. Mr. Wells did not deny the power of Congress to charter a +national bank, but simply contended that the particular Bank proposed +in the bill exceeded what was "necessary and proper" for carrying into +effect the powers of Congress, and was therefore unconstitutional. On +the other hand, Senators Barbour, of Virginia, Taylor, of South +Carolina, and Bibb, of Georgia, supported the measure, both in +principle and in details, and carried it with a larger relative +majority through the Senate than it had received in the House.</p> +<a name="side11"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote11"> + <tr> + <td><small>The United States<br> + Bank of 1816 a<br> + Southern measure.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The United States Bank of 1816 was thus a Southern measure, and +Calhoun was its chief author. It was in principle a great national +measure, and its creation by Congress is strong evidence of the great +growth in national opinion and sentiment throughout the country, away +from the national indifference of the Jeffersonian metapolitics of +1800.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote12"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Tariff of 1816.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>A review of the Tariff Act of 1816 will bring us to the same +conclusions concerning the great nationalizing influence of the War.</p> + +<p>The rate of duty upon the principal articles of imported goods was, +before the War, twelve and one-half per centum ad valorem. From a rate +of five per centum upon these articles, imposed by the first Customs +Act, that of July, 1789, the duty had been increased by about a dozen +acts, passed by both Federal and Republican Congresses, until, in +1812, it had reached the <a name="page9"></a>above-mentioned per centum. Twelve and +one-half per centum was, as a fact, nothing more than a revenue duty, +and was intended for nothing more by the party in power at that date.</p> + +<p>At the outbreak of the War double duties were imposed by the Act of +July 1st, 1812, as a war measure, that is, as a measure for obtaining +additional revenue for the prosecution of the War. It was not intended +as a measure for the protection of manufacturers. This Act was to +expire in one year, at the farthest, after the conclusion of peace +with England.</p> + +<p>The ratifications of the Treaty of Ghent were exchanged on February +17th, 1815. At the meeting of Congress, in December, 1815, the war +duties were, therefore, still in force, but the Act establishing them +would expire by its own limitation in less than three months. This +Congress was obliged, therefore, to deal with the tariff anew.</p> +<a name="side13"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote13"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Bill framed by<br> + the Committee on<br> + Ways and Means.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The recommendations of the President in regard to the matter were +referred to the committee of the House on Ways and Means, the regular +revenue committee. At that moment this committee was composed of seven +members, four from Commonwealths south of Maryland, and three from +those north of Maryland. Mr. Lowndes, of South Carolina, was its +chairman. It is fair, therefore, to call it a Southern committee, and +to regard the bill which it produced as a Southern measure.</p> +<a name="side14"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote14"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Tariff<br> + Bill reported.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The committee first asked for a continuation of the existing duties +until the thirtieth day of the following June, in order to give proper +time to mature the bill, which request was voted by both houses of +Congress; and on March 20th, Mr. Lowndes announced that he was +prepared to report the draft of the new Act. The measure contained +virtually the continuation of the war <a name="page10"></a>tariff as the permanent rule and +policy in time of peace. It was now manifestly a protective tariff, +and it was intended to be such. Mr. Ingham of the committee said, at +the beginning of the debate upon it, that "its great primary object +was to make such a modification of duties upon the various articles of +importation as would give the necessary and proper protection and +support to the agriculture, manufactures, and commerce of the +country." He went so far as to say that revenue considerations ought +not to have any influence in the decision of the House upon the +committee's propositions.</p> +<a name="side15"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote15"> + <tr> + <td><small>The character of<br> + the Tariff Bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It is entirely evident, however, that the committee did not regard the +bill as proposing advantages for the manufacturers only, or as having +for its principal aim the increase of the wages of the employees in +the manufacturing establishments, but considered it a great national +measure, a measure necessary to the industrial independence of the +country. It is also evident that the bill was not thought by anybody +to rest upon a perfect and permanent principle. Mr. Clay himself said +of it, "that the object of protecting manufacturers was, that we might +eventually get articles of necessity made as cheap at home as they +could be imported, and thereby to produce an independence of foreign +countries;" that "in three years we could judge of the ability of our +establishments to furnish those articles as cheap as they were +obtained from abroad, and could then legislate with the lights of +experience;" and that "he believed that three years would be +sufficient to place our manufacturers on this desirable footing."</p> +<a name="side16"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote16"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Calhoun's<br> + speech upon<br> + the Tariff Bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was Calhoun again, however, who surpassed them all in broadness of +view and in patriotic devotion to the interests of the nation. The +immediate occasion of <a name="page11"></a>his speech was a motion made by John Randolph, +which seemed to Mr. Calhoun to attack the principle of the bill. He +said, that so long as the debate had been confined to questions of +detail he had refrained from joining in it; but now that the general +policy of the measure had been attacked he felt obliged to come +forward in support of that policy, which he could do with all the more +grace and sincerity since his own private interests were primarily +subserved by the advancement of agriculture, as were those of his +section. He began his argument with the assertions that commerce and +agriculture were the chief sources of the wealth of the country at the +moment, almost the only sources, and that manufactures must be added +to these in order to accomplish industrial independence. In proof of +this latter proposition he referred to the well known effect of war +between a maritime power and the United States upon the prosperity of +the latter. He simply pointed to the historic facts that such a war +destroyed the commerce of the country with foreign powers, and that +the destruction of commerce caused the products of agriculture, +usually exported to pay for manufactured goods imported from foreign +countries, to perish in the hands of the producers. Domestic +manufactures, he contended, would not only relieve us from dependence +upon foreign countries for manufactured goods, but would create home +markets for agricultural products. Encouragement to manufactures was, +therefore, a sound national, a truly American, policy. As Mr. Calhoun +proceeded in his speech, his strong patriotism became more manifest. +He affirmed that the policy of protection to manufactures was +calculated to bind more closely together the different parts of our +widely extended country, since it would increase the mutual dependence +of these different sections on each <a name="page12"></a>other in proportion as it +decreased their dependence on foreign markets. And he declared that he +considered the production of this result to be the most fundamental of +all our policies, for the reason that the absence of such mutual +dependence would tend toward disunion, and disunion comprehended +almost the sum and substance of our political dangers, against which, +therefore, we ought to be perpetually guarded.</p> +<a name="side17"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote17"> + <tr> + <td><small>The passage of<br> + the Tariff Bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Calhoun was in his thirty-fifth year when he advanced these views. The +sentiments which they revealed cannot, therefore, be ascribed to the +enthusiasm of youth and inexperience. They rested upon the settled +convictions of a mature man. They stand in need of no comment. They +speak for themselves. We shall search the reports of the debate in +vain for anything wiser, nobler, or more patriotic. In comparison with +them the views pronounced by the New Englanders upon the subject +appear narrow and selfish. They were willing to sacrifice the +industrial independence of the nation to their own interests in the +carrying trade upon the sea. Even the name of Webster is not to be +found among those who voted for the final passage of the bill. The +majority in its favor was, however, nearly two to one. In the Senate, +the vote was nearly four to one for it. Though Southern in its +immediate origin, it certainly had the support of the nation, and was +regarded as a great measure of national independence. The opposition +made to it by Randolph and Telfair, and by the remnant of the New +England Federalists, was regarded as unnational and unpatriotic. It +contributed to the complete disappearance of the Federal party from +the arena of national politics.</p> +<a name="side18"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote18"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Army and<br> + Navy Bills.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>This Congress gave, however, an even surer test of the growth of the +national spirit among the people than either the Bank Act or the +Tariff Act. It was the <a name="page13"></a>series of acts for the increase of the Army and +the Navy, and for their thorough reorganization. The Republican +doctrine of 1800 was, that there was no need of a national army; that +the militias of the Commonwealths were a sufficient military force; +and that a standing army was dangerous to liberty. By the Act of March +16th, 1802, Congress fixed the peace establishment at two regiments of +infantry, and one regiment of artillerists, not more than thirty-five +hundred men. No increase of this force had been permitted between 1802 +and 1812.</p> + +<p>During the War of 1812-15, the Commonwealths of Massachusetts, Rhode +Island, and Connecticut taught the nation how much, or rather how +little, reliance was to be placed upon the militias of the +Commonwealths in the defence of the country against foreign attack. In +spite of the plain provision of the Constitution, and the Act of +Congress in accordance therewith, empowering the President to call the +militias of the Commonwealths into the service of the United States, +the Governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut disputed the +President's authority in this respect and refused compliance with his +orders. Well might the President complain that, even upon this most +essential point, the military organization, the United States was not +a nation. With such an experience as this, Congress and the people +were thoroughly converted from the particularistic doctrinism of 1800, +and now manifested their strong national spirit in the willingness to +place a large standing military force in the hands of the central +Government in times of peace.</p> + +<p>By the Act of March 3rd, 1816, Congress fixed the peace footing of the +Army at ten thousand men, excluding the corps of engineers; and by the +Act of April 24th, of the same year, it reorganized, or rather +<a name="page14"></a>re-created, the general staff, upon the principle that the staff +should be as complete in time of peace as in time of war.</p> + +<p>The Navy received similar attention and favor. By the Act of April +29th, 1816, Congress appropriated eight millions of dollars for the +construction of nine seventy-four-gun ships, twelve forty-four-gun +ships, and three steam batteries.</p> + +<p>Evidently the fear that the President would, by virtue of his power as +commander-in-chief of a large standing army and navy, declare himself +emperor, and make the military and naval officers his dukes and +counts, had vanished in the smoke of the burned Capitol, and, in place +of this silly terror of crowns and diadems, a thoroughgoing confidence +in the national Government had established itself in the brain and +heart of the people and of their leaders.</p> + +<p>These great national measures occupied the attention of Congress to +such a degree, during the session of 1815-16, as to delay the +consideration of the question of a system of national internal +improvements to the second session, that of 1816-17.</p> +<a name="side19"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote19"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Bill for<br> + National<br> + Improvements.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>At the opening of this session, Mr. Calhoun, again, came forward with +a motion for the appointment of a committee, which should consider the +question of setting aside the bonus to be paid by the United States +Bank to the Government for its charter, and the net annual proceeds +received by the Government upon its shares in the Bank, as a permanent +fund for internal improvements. The motion was quickly carried, and +the committee, consisting of two members from the North and two from +the South, with Mr. Calhoun for chairman, was appointed. This was +December 16th, 1816. In a week from this date the committee presented +a bill providing for the setting <a name="page15"></a>apart of the funds above indicated +for the construction of roads and canals.</p> +<a name="side20"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote20"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Calhoun's<br> + advocacy of<br> + this Bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Calhoun opened the debate upon the bill, and his speech abounded +with the same national ideas and patriotic sentiments which +characterized his arguments in support of the Bank and Tariff +measures. After asserting that the moment was most opportune for the +consideration of the question, on account of the fact that all party +and sectional feelings had given way to "a liberal and an enlightened +regard for the general concerns of the nation," Mr. Calhoun again +pronounced his warning concerning the greatest danger to which the +country was exposed, namely, disunion, and declared it to be the +highest duty of American statesmen so to form the policies of the +Government as to counteract all tendencies toward sectionalism and +disunion. He contended that from this point of view nothing could be +more necessary or more advantageous than a large national system of +internal improvements, establishing the great lines of commerce and +intercourse for binding together all the parts of the country in +interests, ideas, and sentiments.</p> + +<p>No part of his argument, however, is so instructive to the student of +American constitutional history as the observations upon the question +of the constitutionality of the bill. He said that he was no advocate +of refined reasoning upon the Constitution; that "the instrument was +not intended as a thesis for the logician to exercise his ingenuity +on; that it ought to be construed with plain good sense; and that when +so construed nothing could be more express than the Constitution upon +this very point." The clause to which he referred was that which +confers upon Congress the power "to levy and collect taxes, duties, +imposts, and excises; to pay the <a name="page16"></a>debts and provide for the common +defence and general welfare of the United States." Mr. Calhoun claimed +that these words were to be interpreted as vesting in Congress the +power to appropriate money for the common defence and general welfare +of the country at its own discretion, both as to object and amount. He +insisted that a generous interpretation of the power to raise and +appropriate money was absolutely required, in order to avoid the +necessity of placing a forced construction upon other powers. It was +all in his best strain, and showed Mr. Calhoun still as the chief +advocate of national union and national development. No other person +seemed to equal him in breadth of view and purity of patriotism.</p> +<a name="side21"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote21"> + <tr> + <td><small>The opposition<br> + to the Internal<br> + Improvements Bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The measure met, however, with more opposition than the Bank Bill or +the Tariff Bill had experienced. Two years of peace had cooled the +ardor of the national spirit somewhat, and the people were dropping +back into the narrow spheres of ordinary life and business routine.</p> + +<p>Moreover, the great hue and cry raised by the demagogues and the press +over the bill, passed at the previous session, changing the pay of the +members of Congress from a per diem of six dollars during attendance +to an annual salary of fifteen hundred dollars, had made the members +timid about the appropriation of money, and disinclined to obligate +the Treasury to anything beyond absolutely necessary expenses.</p> +<a name="side22"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote22"> + <tr> + <td><small>Passage of the<br> + Bill by Congress.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Nevertheless, the great power and earnestness with which Mr. Calhoun +addressed himself to the task of carrying the bill through its +different stages were crowned with success. It finally passed both +Houses, in a slightly modified form, during the last week of the +Fourteenth Congress and of President Madison's second term.</p> +<a name="side23"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote23"> + <tr> + <td><small>Veto of the<br> + Bill by the<br> + President.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page17"></a> +<p>To the great surprise of the friends of the measure, the President +returned the bill to Congress on March 3rd, with his objections. These +were, summed up in a single sentence, that there was no warrant in the +Constitution for the exercise of the power by Congress to pass such a +bill. The President held that Congress could appropriate money only to +such objects as were placed by the Constitution under the jurisdiction +of the general Government. He, therefore, repudiated Calhoun's +latitudinarian view that Congress was referred to its own discretion +merely in the appropriation of money for the advancement of the +general welfare. He acknowledged the desirability of attaining the +object contemplated by the bill, and indicated that an amendment to +the Constitution, expressly conferring upon Congress the power in +question, was the proper way to deal with the subject. He had, as we +have seen, recommended the consideration of the question of internal +improvements in both of his annual messages to the Fourteenth +Congress, and it was chiefly for this reason that the veto was so +unexpected. It is true that, in both of these messages, he had +expressed some doubt in regard to the power of Congress over the +subject, but it was supposed that this was only his cautious way of +approaching a new thing, and that he would certainly defer to the +views of the Congressional majority.</p> + +<p>It must be remembered, however, that Mr. Madison belonged to the first +generation of the Republicans, and that the principle of the party, in +the period of its origin, was strict construction of the Constitution +in regard to the powers of the general Government. He had been driven +by the younger men into the War, and into the national policies which +it occasioned and produced, and it is at least intelligible that he +returned to his earlier <a name="page18"></a>creed as the country settled down again into +the humdrum of ordinary life.</p> +<a name="side24"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote24"> + <tr> + <td><small>The failure<br> + of Congress<br> + to override<br> + the veto.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The national Republicans looked upon his act, however, as an apostasy, +and the House of Representatives repassed the bill by an increased +majority and with considerable feeling. The majority was still, +however, not sufficient to overcome the veto, and thus the first +earnest attempt to commit the nation to a general system of internal +improvements failed, failed through the resurrection of a spirit in +the retiring President, which was destined soon to take possession of +many who denounced it then as mean and narrow, and to lead the whole +country back into those cramping tenets of particularism from which +war and bloodshed alone could deliver it.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="chap2"></a><a name="page19"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER II.</h3> + +<center>THE ACQUISITION OF FLORIDA</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side25">The Influence of Physical Geography upon Political +Development</a>—<a href="#side26">Defect in the Southern Boundary of the United States before +1819</a>—<a href="#side27">The Treaty of Paris of +1763</a>—<a href="#side28">The Boundary between Louisiana and +Florida</a>—<a href="#side29">Occupation of Florida by the United States Forces during the War of +1812</a>—<a href="#side30">The Hold of the Spaniards on Florida Weakened by the War of +1812</a>—<a href="#side31">The British Troops in Florida during and after the War of +1812</a>—<a href="#side32">Nicholls and his Buccaneer State in +Florida</a>—<a href="#side33">The British Government's Repulse of Nicholls' +Advances</a>—<a href="#side34">Destruction of the Nicholls Fort by the United States +Forces</a>—<a href="#side35">The Seminole +War</a>—<a href="#side36">The Fight at +Fowltown</a>—<a href="#side37">The Seminole War +Defensive</a>—<a href="#side38">McGregor on Amelia +Island</a>—<a href="#side39">General Gaines sent to Amelia +Island</a>—<a href="#side40">General Jackson placed in Command in Florida—His +Orders</a>—<a href="#side41">Jackson's Letter to President +Monroe</a>—<a href="#side42">Jackson's Operations in +Florida</a>—<a href="#side43">The First Treaty for the Cession of Florida to the United +States</a>—<a href="#side44">Jackson's Popularity in consequence of the Seminole +War</a>—<a href="#side45">The Attempt in Congress to Censure +Jackson</a>—<a href="#side46">The same Attempt in the +Cabinet</a>—<a href="#side47">The Failure of the Attempt to Censure Jackson in +Congress</a>—<a href="#side48">Assumption of the Responsibility for Jackson's Acts by the +Administration</a>—<a href="#side49">Jackson +Triumphant</a>—<a href="#side50">The Treaty of Cession Attacked in Congress, but Ratified by the +Senate</a>—<a href="#side51">Rejection of the Treaty by the Spanish +Government</a>—<a href="#side52">Resumption of +Negotiations</a>—<a href="#side53">The New Treaty Ratified by the Senate and by the Spanish +Government</a>—<a href="#side54">Political Results of the Seminole War.</a></blockquote> +<br> + +<p>It was entirely natural that the quickening of the national spirit and +the growth of the national consciousness throughout the United States, +in the decade between 1810 and 1820, had, for one of their results, +the <a name="page20"></a>extension of the territory of the United States, at some point or +other, to its natural limits.</p> +<a name="side25"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote25"> + <tr> + <td><small>The influence<br> + of physical<br> + geography<br> + upon political<br> + development.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The element of physical geography always plays a large part in +national political development. The natural territorial basis of a +national state is a geographical unity. That is, it is a territory +separated by broad bodies of water, or high mountain ranges, or broad +belts of uninhabitable country, or climatic extremes, from other +territory, and possessing a fair degree of coherence within. If a +national state develops itself on any part of such a territory, it +will inevitably tend to spread to the natural limits of the same. It +will not become a completely national state until it shall have +attained such boundaries, for a completely national state is the +sovereign organization of a people having an ethnic unity upon a +territory which is a geographic unity.</p> +<a name="side26"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote26"> + <tr> + <td><small>Defect in<br> + the southern<br> + boundary of<br> + the United<br> + States<br> + before 1819.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In the second decade of this century, and down to the latter part of +it, the United States had not acquired the territory of the country as +far as to the natural southern boundary east of Louisiana. This +boundary was, of course, the Gulf of Mexico; but Spain held in quasi +possession a broad strip, and then a long peninsula, of land along and +within this boundary. In other words, the territory called Florida, or +the Floridas, was, politically, a colony of Spain, but geographically +a part of the United States. It was inhabited chiefly by Indian +tribes. Spanish rule in this territory was, therefore, foreign rule, +both from the geographical point of view and the ethnical. Indian rule +was not to be thought of in the nineteenth century. There was but one +natural solution of the question. It was that the United States should +annex this territory and extend the jurisdiction of the general +Government over it.</p> +<a name="side27"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote27"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Treaty<br> + of Paris<br> + of 1763.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Treaty of Paris of 1763 was the first great <a name="page21"></a>international +agreement which gave a fair degree of definiteness to the claims of +England, France, and Spain, upon the North American continent. In this +Treaty, France surrendered Canada, Cape Breton, and all claims to +territory east of the Mississippi River, from the source of the river +to the point of confluence of the Iberville with it, to Great Britain. +From this latter point, the boundary between the two powers was +declared to be the middle line of the Iberville, and of the Lakes +Maurepas and Pontchartrain, to the Gulf of Mexico. It is also +expressly stated in this Treaty that France cedes the river and port +of Mobile to Great Britain.</p> + +<p>In this same instrument, Spain surrendered to Great Britain Florida +and every claim to territory east and southeast of the Mississippi.</p> +<a name="side28"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote28"> + <tr> + <td><small>The boundary between<br> + Louisiana and Florida.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The boundary between Louisiana and Florida had, to that time, been the +River Perdido. After the cessions above mentioned to Great Britain, +the British Government united the part of Louisiana received from +France with Florida, and then divided Florida into two districts by +the line of the River Appalachicola. That part lying to the west of +this river was named West Florida, and the part east of it was called +East Florida.</p> + +<p>By a secret Treaty of the year 1762, which became known to the world +some eighteen months later, but whose terms were not executed until +1769, France ceded Louisiana to Spain. After this, therefore, the +North American continent was divided between Great Britain and Spain, +and the line of division was, so far as it was fixed, the Mississippi +River to the confluence of the Iberville with it, then the Iberville +and the middle line of the Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain to the +Gulf of Mexico.</p> +<a name="page22"></a> +<p>The Treaty of 1762 between France and Spain, having been concluded +before the Treaty of 1763 between France and Great Britain, gave Spain +a certain show of title to the territory between the Mississippi and +the Perdido; but the Treaty of 1763, in which France ceded this same +territory to Great Britain, was, as we have just seen, known first, +and was the Treaty which France executed in respect to this territory. +The conflict of claims between Great Britain and Spain, which was thus +engendered, continued to be waged for twenty years, and was settled in +the year 1783, in so far as these two powers were concerned, by the +recession of Florida to Spain.</p> + +<p>In this same year, Great Britain recognized the independence of the +United States, with a southern boundary extending from the point where +the Mississippi River is intersected by the thirty-first parallel of +latitude, along this parallel to the River Appalachicola, thence down +the Appalachicola to its confluence with Flint River, thence on the +line of shortest distance to the source of the River St. Mary, and +thence by the course of this stream to the Atlantic. Spain thus held, +as the result of these several treaties, all of the territory south of +this line, unless England reserved in her recession of Florida that +portion of Louisiana lying between the Iberville and the Perdido, +ceded by France to Great Britain in the Treaty of 1763, and united by +Great Britain with Florida. There is no evidence in the text of the +Treaty of 1783 that Great Britain made any such reservation, or in the +subsequent actions of the British Government.</p> + +<p>By the Treaty of St. Ildefonso, of October 1st, 1800, also a secret +treaty, Spain receded Louisiana to France. The description of the +territory thus receded was very vague. It reads in the official +translation of the treaty, <a name="page23"></a>"His Catholic Majesty promises and engages, +on his part, to cede to the French Republic, six months after the full +and entire execution of the conditions and stipulations herein +relative to his Royal Highness the Duke of Parma, the Colony or +Province of Louisiana, with the same extent that it now has in the +hands of Spain, and that it had when France possessed it; and such as +it should be after the treaties subsequently entered into between +Spain and other states."</p> + +<p>There was here certainly opportunity for a dispute between Spain and +France as to the correct boundary between Louisiana and Florida. +France could claim with some reason the Perdido as the eastern +boundary of Louisiana, and Spain could meet this with a counterclaim +that, after the cession in 1763 of all Louisiana east of the Iberville +and the Lakes to Great Britain, and its union by Great Britain with +Florida, the line of the Iberville and the Lakes Maurepas and +Pontchartrain was the eastern boundary of Louisiana.</p> + +<p>Before, however, any actual contest arose over the question, France +sold Louisiana to the United States, with the same vague description +of boundary contained in the cession of the territory from Spain to +France by the Treaty of St. Ildefonso. The question of boundary became +now one which must be settled between Spain and the United States.</p> + +<p>The United States claimed at once that Louisiana reached to the +Perdido. Spain disputed the claim, and held that Florida extended to +the Iberville and the Lakes. Spain could make out the better abstract +of title. Spain certainly did not intend to recede to France in 1800 +anything more as Louisiana than France had ceded to her in 1762. But +the United States had a show of legal title. It could be held that the +ancient boundary of Louisiana was the one intended both in the Treaty +<a name="page24"></a>of St. Ildefonso and in that of 1803, in which France passed the +possession of Louisiana to the United States. The reasons of physical +geography and of national development certainly favored the annexation +of the whole of Florida to the United States; and with such forces to +back the apparent legal claim to a large part of it, the result of the +dispute could not well have been otherwise than it was.</p> + +<p>The United States enforced its claim by military occupation of the +disputed district before the close of the War of 1812.</p> +<a name="side29"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote29"> + <tr> + <td><small>Occupation of<br> + Florida by the<br> + United States<br> + forces during<br> + the War of 1812.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>During the course of the war, the British forces had occupied +Pensacola. The Spanish governor either could not, or would not, +prevent them from doing so. Florida became thus, in spite of its +nominal neutral status, a base of operations for the enemy of the +United States. No more convincing evidence of the necessity for its +annexation to the United States could have been offered. It was thus +seen that not only the geography and the national growth of the Union +demanded it, but that the safety of the Union, in case of war with any +power, required it. The sea is the natural boundary of the United +States on the south, and it was the "manifest destiny" of the Union to +reach it.</p> + +<p>The occupation of Florida would have been a sound and justifiable +policy for the United States, had the Government commanded a +sufficient military force for the purpose, when the British troops +took possession of Pensacola. General Jackson did expel the British +from Pensacola, but restored the place to the Spanish authorities, in +order to avoid a conflict with Spain while engaged in war with Great +Britain. We know now that the Congress of the United States had, by +secret acts passed before the beginning of the War, authorized the +<a name="page25"></a>President to occupy Florida <i>east</i> of the Perdido temporarily. The +President did not deem it wise, under the circumstances which +prevailed, to make use of this power; but the readiness of the +Congress to intrust the President with the authority to take +possession of the territory of a friendly power certainly shows that a +strong feeling existed among the representatives of the people that +Florida must be acquired by the United States upon the first fair +opportunity.</p> +<a name="side30"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote30"> + <tr> + <td><small>The hold of the<br> + Spaniards on<br> + Florida<br> + weakened by<br> + the War of 1812.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The occasion was destined soon to appear. The power of Spain upon the +American continents was everywhere in rapid decline. At the close of +the War of 1812, the Spanish occupation in Florida was confined +substantially to three points—Pensacola, St. Mark's, and St. +Augustine. The remainder of the province, by far the greater part of +it, was a free zone, in which desperate adventurers of every race and +land might congregate, from which they might make their raids for +murder and pillage into the United States, and into which they might +escape again with their prisoners and plunder.</p> +<a name="side31"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote31"> + <tr> + <td><small>The British<br> + troops in Florida<br> + during and after<br> + the War of 1812.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>We have noticed the occupation of Pensacola by the British troops +during the War of 1812, and their expulsion by General Jackson from +this position in November of 1814. After this, they concentrated upon +the Appalachicola and established a fort some fifteen miles above the +mouth of this stream for their head-quarters and base of operations. +The British commander, one Colonel Nicholls, pursued from this point +the policy which he had already inaugurated at Pensacola. This policy +was the collection and organization of fugitive negroes, Indians, and +adventurers of every character, and their employment in raids into the +territory, and attacks upon the inhabitants, of the United States.</p> +<a name="page26"></a> +<p>It appears that Colonel Nicholls did not regard the Treaty between the +United States and Great Britain concluding the War as putting an end +necessarily to his hostile movements. He remained in command at his +fort on the Appalachicola for several months after the ratification of +the Treaty, and then went to London, taking with him the Indian priest +Francis, for the purpose of securing a treaty of alliance between the +British Government and his band of outlaws in Florida.</p> +<a name="side32"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote32"> + <tr> + <td><small>Nicholls and<br> + his buccaneer<br> + state in<br> + Florida.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Before leaving the Appalachicola, he had incited the Indians and their +negro auxiliaries to continue hostilities against the United States, +by representing to them that the ninth article of the Treaty of Ghent +contained a pledge on the part of the United States to reinstate the +Indians in all lands held by them in the year 1811. He represented to +them that this provision restored to the Creeks the lands in southern +Georgia surrendered by them to the United States in the Treaty between +the Creeks and the United States made at Fort Jackson in August of +1814, although it was well understood by both of the high contracting +parties to the Treaty of Ghent that only those lands were intended +under this provision whose seizure by the United States had not been +confirmed by an agreement with the Indians; and the pledge as to these +only was conditioned upon the immediate cessation of hostilities on +the part of the Indians when the Treaty of Ghent should be announced +to them. This announcement had been made, and the actual continuation +of hostilities, therefore, after the announcement, made this whole +article nugatory.</p> + +<p>Nicholls left the fort, with all its munitions, in the hands of the +negroes and Indians. The garrison <a name="page27"></a>consisted of some three hundred +negroes and about twenty Indians.</p> +<a name="side33"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote33"> + <tr> + <td><small>The British Government's<br> + repulse of Nicholls' advances.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The British Government would not listen to Nicholls' proposition for +an alliance between Great Britain and the buccaneering state which he +was endeavoring to establish upon territory belonging politically to +Spain.</p> +<a name="side34"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote34"> + <tr> + <td><small>Destruction of the<br> + Nicholls Fort by the<br> + United States forces.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The United States Government waited a year and a half for the +disbanding of this hostile force, or for its dispersion by the Spanish +authorities, and then, when forbearance had ceased to be a virtue, did +the work itself. The fort was destroyed by the explosion of its +magazine, which was pierced by a red-hot shot from the batteries of +the assailants, and almost the whole garrison perished. It was claimed +that the attack was made by the United States forces with the consent +of the Spanish authorities, whatever the significance of that may have +been.</p> + +<p>Professor von Holst, in his great work, has designated the expedition +against the Nicholls Fort as a hunt by the United States army for +fugitive slaves. He does not seem to have recognized the danger to the +peace and civilization of the United States of the growth of a +community of pirates and buccaneers upon its borders. It does not +appear to have occurred to him that the most humane attitude toward +the slaves of Georgia may have been to prevent them from being drawn +into any such connection. He does not seem to have comprehended that +any public interest was subserved by disposing of the negroes captured +in this expedition in such a way as to prevent any future attempts on +their part at co-operation with the Indians in their barbarous warfare +upon the frontiers of the United States. In a sentence, he seems to +have regarded the entire incident as a prostitution of the military +power of the United States to the private greed of <a name="page28"></a>slave-hunters, and +to have discovered in it a most convincing proof of the canting +hypocrisy of the free Republic. In view of all the facts of the case, +this certainly appears to be a very crude appreciation of the subject.</p> +<a name="side35"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote35"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Seminole War.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>This same historian calls the attack upon the Nicholls Fort the +beginning of the Seminole War. It appears, however, more like the +termination of the War of 1812, so far as the negro outlaws of Florida +were participant in that War, than like the beginning of a new war. +Generals Gaines and Jackson and the War Department of the Government +seem to have so comprehended the event.</p> + +<p>After the destruction of the Nicholls Fort, or the Negro Fort, as it +was then called, there was comparative peace, for a few months, on the +frontier. With the beginning of the year 1817, however, hostilities +were renewed. It is not known which party gave the first offence. +Ex-Governor Mitchell of Georgia, then holding the office of Indian +agent for these parts, thought both parties equally at fault. The +point is a matter of little moment. The conflict between civilization +and barbarism is irrepressible, and arises as often from the +encroachments of civilization as from the onslaughts of barbarism.</p> +<a name="side36"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote36"> + <tr> + <td><small>The fight<br> + at Fowltown.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In November of 1817, General Gaines endeavored to secure an interview +with the chief of the hostile Indians, but the chief refused to visit +the General, whereupon the General sent a detachment of soldiers to +the chief's village, called Fowltown, to repeat his invitation, and to +conduct the chief and his warriors to a parley-ground. The soldiers +were fired upon by the Indians as they approached the village. They +naturally returned the fire, and then seized and destroyed the +village. A few Indians were killed in the conflict.</p> +<a name="page29"></a> +<p>The Indian agent, Mitchell, called this event the beginning of the +Seminole War. It was certainly something more like it than was the +capture of the Negro Fort. Still it will be more correct to consider +it as being only the continuation of the War of 1812, in so far as the +participation in that War of Great Britain's Indian allies on the +southern border of the United States was concerned. They had never +really resumed the status of peace after acting during that War, at +the instigation of the British officers in Florida, against the United +States.</p> +<a name="side37"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote37"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Seminole<br> + War defensive.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Following the fight at Fowltown hostilities became much more active. +Fowltown was situated north of the Florida line, upon territory ceded +by the Creeks to the United States in the Treaty of Fort Jackson. If, +therefore, the incident of November 20th was the beginning of the +Seminole War, it stamps that War as defensive in its character. The +troops of the United States were attacked upon the territory of the +United States. If the further prosecution of the War should, in the +judgment of the President, or of the officer whom he might vest with +discretionary power in the execution of his will, require the crossing +of the Florida line and the pursuit of the enemy upon Florida +territory, the character of the War could not be changed thereby. This +could not be regarded as making war on Spain. Spain could meet and +satisfy the right of the United States to do this only by dispersing +the Indians herself, and preventing Florida from becoming a base of +hostile operations against the United States. Spain could claim the +rights of neutrality for Florida only when she discharged these duties +of neutrality. The general principles of international custom required +that of her. When, now, we add to this the consideration that Spain +had pledged <a name="page30"></a>herself in a specific agreement with the United States to +do these very things, and that Florida, nevertheless, was actually a +free zone, over which no civilized state had any efficient control, +then it certainly appears that the right of the United States to +pursue its enemy into Florida was clearly in keeping with the +recognized law of nations. The President, therefore, ordered the +pursuit of the enemy into Florida, under the qualification that if +they took refuge in a Spanish fortification the fortress should not be +attacked, but the situation should be reported to the War Department +and further orders awaited. This order was issued on December 16th, +1817, to General Gaines, who was then in command of the forces on the +Florida frontier.</p> +<a name="side38"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote38"> + <tr> + <td><small>McGregor on<br> + Amelia Island.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Meanwhile an adventurer by the name of McGregor had, with a band of +freebooters, taken possession of Amelia Island, which lies off the +coast of Florida, just below the mouth of the St. Mary's River, and +had, in the name of the Governments of Buenos Ayres and Venezuela, +proclaimed the independence of Florida against Spain. They made the +island an entrepôt for the smuggling of slaves into the United States, +a storehouse for the results of their robberies, and head-quarters +generally for piratical expeditions.</p> +<a name="side39"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote39"> + <tr> + <td><small>General<br> + Gaines sent to<br> + Amelia Island.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>By a secret act of the year 1811, the Congress of the United States +had declared its unwillingness to have Florida, or any part of it, +pass from the hands of Spain into those of any other power, and had +authorized the President to prevent it. Acting upon this authority, +the President instructed General Gaines to go to Amelia Island and +take possession of it.</p> +<a name="side40"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote40"> + <tr> + <td><small>General<br> + Jackson<br> + placed in<br> + command<br> + in Florida.<br> + His orders.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>About ten days later, December 26th, 1817, the President assigned +General Jackson to the command of the <a name="page31"></a>troops acting against the +Indians. The day before the issue of the order to General Jackson, the +War Department had received the news of the Indian attack upon +Lieutenant Scott's boat while ascending the Appalachicola with +supplies for the United States troops at Fort Scott. The cold-blooded +massacre of almost the entire crew of the boat apparently moved the +War Department to more energetic measures. The order to General +Jackson, besides investing him with the command, empowered him to call +on the Governors of the adjacent Commonwealths for such military +forces as he might deem necessary, with those already in the field, to +overcome the Indians, and informed him that General Gaines had been +instructed "to penetrate from Amelia Island, through Florida, to the +Seminole towns, if his force would justify his engaging in offensive +operations." "With this view," the order to Jackson continues, "you +may be prepared to concentrate your forces, and to adopt the necessary +measures to terminate a conflict which it has ever been the desire of +the President to avoid, but which is now made necessary by their +settled hostilities."</p> +<a name="side41"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote41"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson's letter<br> + to President Monroe.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>When Jackson received these orders he was in Tennessee. He wrote +immediately to the President: "Let it be signified to me through any +channel (say Mr. J. Rhea) that the possession of the Floridas would be +desirable to the United States and in sixty days it will be +accomplished." General Jackson naturally supposed that this letter was +duly received and read by President Monroe, and that a subsequent +order, giving him discretionary powers in the prosecution of the +campaign, contained the answer to it. As we shall see, however, the +President claimed later that he did not read Jackson's letter until a +year after it was written and sent to him. It was certainly <a name="page32"></a>the +President's fault if he did not. General Jackson certainly could not +be held accountable for the President's strange negligence in +examining official correspondence, and he had good reason to think, +from the tone of the order issued to him after his letter had had due +time to be received and read, that the Administration desired him to +occupy Florida.</p> + +<p>Upon taking command Jackson called his Tennessee veterans to him, and +reached with them the Florida frontier in March of 1818.</p> +<a name="side42"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote42"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson's<br> + operations<br> + in Florida.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>When he advanced into Florida he found that the Spanish officials in +Florida were in collusion with the Indians, and that the instigators +of the hostilities were an Englishman, named Ambrister, and a +Scotchman, named Arbuthnot, together with two Indian chiefs named +Hillis Hajo and Himallemico.</p> + +<p>An order from the War Department, of January 16th, 1818, instructed +the commander of the United States forces in Florida that the honor of +the nation required a speedy termination of the War with the +Seminoles, "with exemplary punishment for hostilities so unprovoked." +Jackson naturally considered himself empowered to do speedy and +thorough work. He felt it necessary to seize St. Mark's and Pensacola, +in order to destroy the base of operations and the places of refuge of +the enemy, and he caused the four ringleaders of the enemy to be +executed. By the end of May (1818) the campaign was ended, and Florida +was in the military possession of the United States. The President +assumed the responsibility for Jackson's deeds, but offered to restore +St. Mark's and Pensacola, and therewith the nominal possession of +Florida, to Spain, so soon as Spain would garrison these points with +forces able to maintain peace with the United States and <a name="page33"></a>disposed to +do so. Spain accepted the offer, fulfilled in a way the conditions, +and the places were restored to her jurisdiction.</p> +<a name="map1"></a> +<table align="center" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" summary="map1"> + <tr> + <td width="632"> + <img src="images/2.jpg" alt="FLORIDA, at the Time of Acquisition"> + </td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<a name="side43"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote43"> + <tr> + <td><small>The first Treaty for<br> + the cession of Florida<br> + to the United States.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was now manifest to Spain, however, that she could not control +Florida, and that her possession of the province was, and could be, +only nominal. She now, therefore, agreed to cede it to the United +States. The treaty bears date of February 22nd, 1819. Its important +provisions are contained in the second and third articles. By these +articles Spain ceded the Floridas, with the adjacent islands dependent +thereon, to the United States; and agreed with the United States that +the boundary between the two powers in North America should be the +west bank of the Sabine River from its mouth to the thirty-second +parallel of north latitude, thence the line of longitude to the Red +River, thence up the course of the Red River to the one-hundredth +parallel of longitude from London, or the twenty-third from +Washington, thence the line of longitude to the Arkansas River, thence +the south bank of the Arkansas to its source, thence the line of +longitude to the forty-second parallel of north latitude, and thence +this line of latitude to the South Sea.</p> + +<p>This settlement of boundary included that of all other claims, of +whatever character, of the Government, citizens, or subjects of either +power against the Government, citizens, or subjects of the other. All +such were mutually renounced.</p> +<a name="side44"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote44"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson's popularity<br> + in consequence of<br> + the Seminole War.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The results of the Seminole War raised General Jackson to a still +higher plane of popularity than he possessed as the hero of the War of +1812. It was evident that here was a character who would have to be +reckoned with in future presidential contests. It is possible that +Jackson's chief mentor, William B. Lewis, had <a name="page34"></a>conceived, at this date, +the idea of Jackson's candidacy for the highest place in the gift of +the nation. And it is highly probable that the fears of all the +existing aspirants for the presidency were excited by the appearance +of this new and popular rival for public favor. It is difficult to +explain upon any other theory the attempt made in Congress, during the +session of 1818-19, to suppress Jackson by a vote of censure.</p> +<a name="side45"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote45"> + <tr> + <td><small>The attempt in<br> + Congress to<br> + censure Jackson.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>This procedure certainly had no connection whatsoever with the +question of slavery extension through the acquisition of Florida. When +we find Tallmadge, of New York, the self-same person who introduced, +at the same session, the proposition for restricting slavery in +Missouri, defending Jackson's course in every particular, while Cobb, +of Georgia, attacked it, and when we consider that John Quincy Adams, +the life-long opponent of slavery, sustained Jackson in the cabinet, +while Calhoun moved to bring him to account for disobedience to +orders, we are bound to conclude that we have here nothing whatsoever +to do with the question of slavery.</p> +<a name="side46"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote46"> + <tr> + <td><small>The same attempt<br> + in the Cabinet.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Crawford, of Georgia, the Secretary of the Treasury, was the prime +aspirant for presidential honors, after Monroe should have completed +his two terms, and Cobb was Crawford's right-hand man. Clay was also +working up his plans. These two men felt it necessary to discredit +Jackson in every possible way. Clay made a great bugbear out of +Jackson's military heroship, and so threatening did he make it appear +to the principle of civil government and republican institutions that +he really seemed frightened at it himself. Crawford set up the same +strain, through Cobb, in a feebler key. Calhoun seems to have been +animated rather by wrath at what he <a name="page35"></a>conceived to be the violation of +his orders, or, at least, the exceeding of his orders, than by +jealousy of a presidential rival. His presidential fever had not, at +that moment, reached a high degree. But what shall we say of Adams, +who undoubtedly then considered himself a candidate for the +successorship to Monroe, and who stood against the whole Cabinet in +Jackson's defence, and carried the day against both Crawford and +Calhoun combined. Of course it may be said that Adams thought his own +turn would come before that of Jackson, and that he would gain +Jackson's support by his attitude. But against such a supposition must +stand the fact that the Cabinet pledged itself to secrecy in regard to +all that was proposed on the subject, and that for ten years Jackson +supposed that Calhoun was the friend in the Cabinet who had +successfully defended him against the other members under the lead of +Crawford. The attitude of Adams in the question was noble and +disinterested, as well as patriotic, and had Jackson known of it in +1824, it is altogether probable that he would never have charged an +unfair bargain with Clay upon Adams for his own defeat.</p> +<a name="side47"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote47"> + <tr> + <td><small>The failure of<br> + the attempt to<br> + censure Jackson<br> + in Congress.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Clay and Cobb represented that every movement made by Jackson, from +the moment of his appointment to the command of the expedition to the +end of hostilities, was illegal and in defiance of the orders of the +War Department. They said he had no right to call upon his old +soldiers instead of asking the Governor of Tennessee for the militia. +They claimed that he waged an offensive war upon his own +responsibility against Spain, when the War Department had expressly +forbidden him to attack the Spanish forts, and they accused him of +murdering two prisoners of war. The House of Representatives showed +what it thought of these accusations by voting <a name="page36"></a>down the resolutions +which contained the censure by a majority of nearly two to one, while +the resolutions of like effect introduced into the Senate were laid on +the table and never taken up for consideration.</p> +<a name="side48"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote48"> + <tr> + <td><small>Assumption of the<br> + responsibility<br> + for Jackson's acts<br> + by the Administration.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Administration had, under the influence of the Secretary of State, +Mr. Adams, already assumed the responsibility for Jackson's acts, had +upheld their legality, and was even then bringing its negotiations +with Spain, in regard to the cession of Florida, to a successful close; +while the British Government had refrained from any interference on +account of the treatment of Ambrister and Arbuthnot.</p> +<a name="side49"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote49"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson<br> + triumphant.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The attempt to suppress Jackson broke down thus upon all sides, and he +emerged from the assaults of his rivals with a greater popularity than +he had ever before enjoyed, and with improved prospects as a +presidential candidate. With the worship accorded to a hero he now +enjoyed the sympathy extended to a martyr.</p> +<a name="side50"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote50"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Treaty of Cession<br> + attacked in Congress,<br> + but ratified by the Senate.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Treaty itself, ceding the Floridas, did not escape attack. Adams +regarded it as a great diplomatic triumph for the United States, but +Clay expressed great disappointment with it, because it sacrificed, as +he viewed it, the claims of the United States to the territory between +the Sabine and the Rio del Norte. And Crawford, who was seizing every +opportunity to discredit the Administration, by encouraging it to +false measures from his place in the Cabinet, and then professing +publicly his disapprobation of them, also saw in the point emphasized +by Clay a prime occasion for making political capital.</p> + +<p>The Senate showed what its members thought of such manoeuvres by a +speedy and unanimous vote in ratification of the Treaty.</p> +<a name="side51"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote51"> + <tr> + <td><small>Rejection of<br> + the Treaty by<br> + the Spanish<br> + Government.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page37"></a> +<p>The Spanish Government, on the other hand, rejected the Treaty. Mr. +Adams felt, at the moment, that this was a blow to his reputation as a +diplomatist, and perhaps to his chances for the presidency. But it did +not prove to be such. Had the Treaty been then ratified three large +land grants made by the Spanish King to certain Spanish nobles, at a +date earlier than Mr. Adams had supposed, would not have been +extinguished by it. The rejection of the Treaty by the Spanish +Government, which at the same time sent another Ambassador, General +Vivês, to take the place of Don Onis, and to renew negotiations on the +subject, gave Mr. Adams the opportunity to insist upon the cession of +Florida with the extinguishment of the above mentioned grants.</p> +<a name="side52"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote52"> + <tr> + <td><small>Resumption of<br> + negotiations.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>When the new Ambassador arrived, the country was in the midst of the +excitement over the question of slavery extension in the Louisiana +territory, the history of which will be related in a succeeding +chapter. The effect of this agitation was to arouse some doubt in the +minds of those opposed to the extension of slavery in regard to the +expediency of any addition to the territory of the United States +southward. Mr. Adams himself felt the influence of this doubt, and was +prompted, in part at least, by it to assume an attitude of +indifference toward the new propositions of the Spanish Ambassador. He +gave the Ambassador to understand that Spain could make such a treaty +with the United States in regard to the subject as would be +satisfactory to the latter, or take the consequences of leaving things +as they were. The unshakable determination of Mr. Adams won the day, +and the old Treaty, with a new provision extinguishing the above +mentioned land grants, was finally ratified by both Governments, two +years after the date of <a name="page38"></a>the original agreement between Mr. Adams and +Don Onis.</p> +<a name="side53"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote53"> + <tr> + <td><small>The new Treaty ratified<br> + by the Senate and by<br> + the Spanish Government.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The vote of ratification by the Senate of the United States was again +practically unanimous. Only four votes were recorded against it; and +of these four one was cast by a brother-in-law of Mr. Clay, one by a +subservient friend of the same gentleman, and one by a bitter personal +enemy of General Jackson. The province was soon transferred to the +United States and Jackson became its first territorial governor. With +this the United States attained its natural boundary on the south, +eastward from the mouth of the Mississippi, and a source of chronic +irritation was removed.</p> +<a name="side54"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote54"> + <tr> + <td><small>Political results<br> + of the Seminole War.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was to be expected that this territory would be erected into a +Commonwealth in which the institution of slavery would be legalized; +but this did not deter the statesmen of the North from securing the +great advantages just indicated. Radical abolitionism had not yet +blinded them to the general and paramount interests of the Union. In +fact, the results of the Seminole War and of the diplomacy of the +Administration in connection with it had the immediate effect of +diminishing the ultra-Southern influence in the Government. They +brought Adams and Jackson to the front, and set Crawford and Calhoun +back in the course of their careers. They had, indeed, much to do, as +we shall see later, with the development of the era of personal +politics, which prevailed from 1824 to 1832, and which terminated +finally in the separation of the all-comprehending Republican party +into the Whig party and the Democratic party.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="chap3"></a><a name="page39"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER III.</h3> + +<center>SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE 1820</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side55">First Appearance of Slavery in the British North American +Colonies</a>—<a href="#side55">Early Theory of the Benefits of +Slavery</a>—<a href="#side56">The Earliest Legal Recognition of Slavery in the +Colonies</a>—<a href="#side57">Northern Colonies not well Adapted to Negro +Labor</a>—<a href="#side57">The Southern Colonies well Adapted to Negro +Labor</a>—<a href="#side58">Negro Slavery a Temporary Necessity in the +South</a>—<a href="#side59">Was Negro Slavery an Error and an Evil from the +first?</a>—<a href="#side60">Slavery Legislation in the Southern +Colonies</a>—<a href="#side61">Partus Sequitur +Ventrem</a>—<a href="#side62">Definitions of the Slave +Class</a>—<a href="#side63">The Test of the Slave Status as Fixed by the Virginia +Statute</a>—<a href="#side64">The Legal Position of the +Slave</a>—<a href="#side65">Tendency Toward Serfage in the Code of +1705</a>—<a href="#side66">Public Relations of the Slave +System</a>—<a href="#side67">The General Object of the Laws in respect to +Slaves</a>—<a href="#side68">Slavery and the Revolutionary Ideas of the Rights of +Man</a>—<a href="#side69">First Prohibition upon Slave +Importation</a>—<a href="#side70">Abolition of Slavery in the Northern Commonwealths after the Beginning of the +Revolution</a>—<a href="#side72">Slavery and the Constitution of +1787</a>—<a href="#side73">Reaction against the Humanitarian Principles of the +Revolution</a>—<a href="#side74">Abolition of the Foreign Slave-trade by +Congress</a>—<a href="#side75">Cotton Culture and the +Cotton-gin</a>—<a href="#side75">The Effect of the Return to the Arts of Peace upon the Ideas Concerning +Slavery</a>—<a href="#side76">Slavery During the War of 1812 and the Years just before and just after this +War</a>—<a href="#side77">Slavery in the Louisiana +Territory</a>—<a href="#side78">Slavery in the territory West of North Carolina and +Georgia</a>—<a href="#side79">Slavery in Louisiana a Different Question from Slavery in the North Carolina and Georgia +Cessions</a>—<a href="#side80">Interest in Slavery in Maryland and Virginia Increased by the Acquisition of +Louisiana</a>—<a href="#side81">The Domestic +Slave-trade</a>—<a href="#side82">The Relation of Slavery to the Diplomacy of the United States.</a></blockquote> +<br> + +<p>It is not easy to define the term slavery in the abstract without +unfitting it for application to the great majority <a name="page40"></a>of the systems of +servitude which have ever existed. Especially will it be difficult to +gain a correct conception of the relation between the white man and +the negro in North America previous to 1860 by means of such a +definition.</p> + +<p>The institution of negro slavery in the United States was an +historical growth, which was in some respects unique. We shall, +therefore, do better to follow the main stages of that development +than to attempt at the outset any definition whatsoever. We may, in +this manner, build up a true description of it, and escape the error +frequently contained in the brevity of a definition and in the nature +of an abstract proposition.</p> +<a name="side55"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote55"> + <tr> + <td><small>First appearance of<br> + slavery in the British<br> + North American<br> + colonies.<br><br><br> + Early theory of the<br> + benefits of slavery.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It began its existence, like most institutions and relations, as a +social custom. Most of the historians record the appearance of a Dutch +merchant ship at Jamestown, in the year 1619, having negroes on board, +and inform us that twenty of them were sold to the colonists. What +title the Dutch traders had to such property, exactly what they sold +to the colonists, and what rights the colonists acquired in or over +such property, were defined, guaranteed, and secured by no existing +statutes. If any of the parties to the transaction reflected upon +these subjects at all, they must have supposed that the right of +possession and the freedom of contract covered the whole case. There +is certainly no evidence that any of these parties, or anybody else, +had the faintest conception that the law of any state, or any +principle of natural justice, or of reason, was violated or impaired +by the procedure or the results of the procedure. It was a firmly and +universally established opinion of the time that the attachment of +infidels to Christians in a relation of servant to master was vastly +beneficial to the infidel, certainly so when <a name="page41"></a>the infidel was also a +barbarian, and was taken out of slavery to a barbarian master, as was +the case in respect to almost all of the negroes brought to the +English colonies in North America.</p> + +<p>We cannot dismiss this opinion as one of the errors of the dark ages. +It lives to-day as a principle of modern political science and +practical politics, under the form of statement that civilized people +have the right and duty to impose civilization upon uncivilized +populations by whatever means they may deem to be just and proper.</p> + +<p>There can be no reasonable doubt that the negroes transferred from +slavery in Africa to slavery in the English-American colonies +themselves felt the amelioration of their condition, and were, in +general, entirely contented with their new lot.</p> +<a name="side56"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote56"> + <tr> + <td><small>The earliest legal<br> + recognition of<br> + slavery in<br> + the colonies.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The relation was established in the Northern colonies, as well as in +the Southern, in the early years of their existence, and it was in +Massachusetts rather than in Virginia that it first received legal +recognition, and began to be changed from a purely domestic +institution by suffering governmental regulation. In the Massachusetts +"Fundamentals," or "Body of Liberties," passed by the General Court in +1641, the slavery of negroes and Indians, and the slave-trade, were +expressly legalized. In fact, so far as the colonists themselves were +responsible for the introduction of negro slavery among them, the +impartial historian must place the greater blame upon a Northern +colony. Its citizens were first to develop commerce, and it was their +ships which brought the slave cargoes from the coasts of Africa to all +of the colonies.</p> +<a name="side57"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote57"> + <tr> + <td><small>Northern colonies<br> + not well adapted<br> + to negro labor.<br><br><br> + The Southern<br> + colonies well<br> + adapted to<br> + negro labor.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The negroes were not, however, fitted for labor in the Northern +colonies. In the first place, it was too cold for them to thrive +there. A warm, moist air is the natural climate for the negro. In the +second place, the <a name="page42"></a>work to be done in these sections was not suited to +his capacity. The Northern colonies had not, indeed, at that early +day, developed the finer forms of industry which have subsequently +distinguished that part of the country. They were then, as to their +internal pursuits, almost as completely agricultural as the colonies +of the South. But their farming required a great deal more of +intelligence, thrift, and industry in the laborer than the negro of +that day possessed. The country was broken, the good soil was limited +in amount, the weather was capricious, and the management of the crops +demanded judgment and discretion. On the other hand, the vast level +areas of good soil, the warm, uniform climate, and the simple crops of +the Southern colonies furnished the conditions favorable to the +employment of negro labor.</p> +<a name="side58"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote58"> + <tr> + <td><small>Negro slavery a<br> + temporary necessity<br> + in the South.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It is not easy to see how the rich swamp-lands of these colonies could +ever have been reclaimed and made tributary to the civilization of the +world in any way but by the employment of negro labor. And it is no +easier to see how the pure negro could then have been brought to do +this great work save through slavery to the white race, save by being +forced to contribute the muscular effort, under the direction of the +superior intelligence of the white race, to the realization of objects +determined by that superior intelligence. The negro is proof against +malaria, and thrives under the burning sun. The white man is destroyed +by the former and greatly disabled by the latter. And the pure negro +would not at that period of his development labor voluntarily. These +were the elements of the problem which confronted those who undertook +to subject the vast marshes of the Southern colonies to cultivation +and to prepare them for the <a name="page43"></a>production of their most valuable +contributions to the comforts of civilized man. The solution of the +problem was negro slavery.</p> +<a name="side59"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote59"> + <tr> + <td><small>Was negro slavery<br> + an error and an<br> + evil from the first?</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>We are most of us inclined, at this day, to hold that this was an +erroneous solution, and that we could have discovered a better one; +but it was the solution which was reached, and we shall be wiser if we +seek to understand it clearly, instead of wasting our energies in its +condemnation, remembering that many of the things of the past, which, +from the point of view of the present, we are prone to regard as +error, and even as sin, are only anachronisms. In fact, those who +founded the colony of Georgia thought <i>then</i> that they had a better +solution of the problem. They prohibited slavery at the outset from +that colony. In fourteen years they came to regard this act as a great +mistake, and the noblest spirits among them acknowledged themselves in +error, and joined in the movement for the introduction of negro +slave-labor.</p> +<a name="side60"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote60"> + <tr> + <td><small>Slavery legislation in<br> + the Southern colonies.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The conditions above mentioned were undoubtedly the chief causes of +the more rapid and pronounced development of negro slavery in the +Southern colonies. And that more rapid and pronounced development +directs us rather to the legislation of the Southern colonies than to +that of the Northern, in following the legalization of the relation.</p> +<a name="side61"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote61"> + <tr> + <td><small>Partus<br> + sequitur<br> + ventrem.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Virginia naturally took the lead, and furnished the precedents for the +others. The first question, both as to time and importance, which +required legislative treatment, was the question of the status of the +children of slaves. Where legalized marriage does not exist, the only +certainty in respect to parentage is attained by regarding the mother. +Rights and status in such a condition of society are, therefore, +transmitted through the female line. <i>Partus sequitur ventrem</i> is the +rule <a name="page44"></a>not only of the civil law, but of every system of law regulating +the accidents of descent among people where the mingling of the sexes +is not controlled by civilized marriage. Insuperable obstacles present +themselves in the attempt to apply any other rule. It was no unusual +or arbitrary enactment of the Virginia legislature which, in 1662, +prescribed the rule that the status of the slave mother should +determine that of her offspring. This rule was followed in all the +colonies, and many of them enacted it into statute law.</p> +<a name="side62"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote62"> + <tr> + <td><small>Definitions of<br> + the slave class.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>So long as the slaves were few in number and were not Christians the +necessity for legislation defining the slave class was not felt; but +so soon as the slave-trade became more active, and slaves began to +receive Christian baptism, the old customary test in regard to this +matter, that of infidelity or heathenism, would no longer suffice. The +colonists of that day were too conscientious to cut the knot of this +difficulty by denying Christian baptism to any one seeking it. They +considered it their prime duty to lead the heathen to the knowledge of +Christ. It is evident that their consciences were greatly troubled +over the question of the effect of Christian baptism upon the slave +status. The colonial legislatures, the Home Government, and the Bishop +of London were appealed to for counsel in the dilemma. The answers +received from all of these were to the effect that the status of the +slave was not changed by Christian baptism or conversion.</p> +<a name="side63"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote63"> + <tr> + <td><small>The test of the slave<br> + status as fixed by<br> + the Virginia statute.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The test of the slave status was then necessarily fixed by +legislation. The Virginia statute declared all servants brought into +the country by land or sea, who were not Christians in their native +country at the time when they were purchased or procured, nor free in +<a name="page45"></a>England or some other Christian country, to be slaves. Exception was +made of Turks and Moors in amity with the King. This statute, taken +together with the rule <i>partus sequitur ventrem,</i> which rule was +re-enacted, became the test of the slave class. At the same time heavy +penalties were attached to the marriage or cohabitation of white women +with slaves.</p> +<a name="side64"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote64"> + <tr> + <td><small>The legal<br> + position of<br> + the slave.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Of course it very soon became necessary that the legal position of the +slave should be definitely fixed. The legislature of Virginia again +set the precedents. Concisely stated, this legislation provided that a +slave could have no standing in the ordinary courts, either as party +or witness; that a slave could own no property; that a slave owed +obedience to the master, who might force the slave to labor, and +chastise the slave even to the extreme of so injuring the slave that +the slave might die in consequence thereof, without incurring the +penalties of felony; that the slave could be sold or inherited as +personal property; and that the offspring of the female slave belonged +to the master owning her at the time of its birth.</p> +<a name="side65"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote65"> + <tr> + <td><small>Tendency<br> + toward<br> + serfage in the<br> + Code of 1705.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The wilful killing of a slave by anyone, even the master, was +accounted murder, and extraordinary tribunals, without a jury, were +constituted for the protection of his person. The Code of 1705 even +contained regulations which indicated that the trend of thought and of +legislation, at that juncture, was toward attaching the slave to the +soil, which would have been a step upward in a course, which, if +consistently followed, would have made the slave a serf. But the still +prevailing rules, which allowed the slave to be seized and sold for +the debts of the master, and regulated the inheritance of slaves +according to the <a name="page46"></a>law governing the descent of personal property, seem +to have completely neutralized that tendency before the middle of the +century had been reached.</p> +<a name="side66"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote66"> + <tr> + <td><small>Public relations of<br> + the slave system.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Naturally the private law accidents of the relation were first +developed and fixed, but very soon the rights and powers of the +community in regard to the institution began to claim attention. The +public peace and welfare must be safeguarded against the possible +conduct of the slave, on the one hand, and of the master, on the +other.</p> + +<p>The legislation of Virginia set the example in these respects also. +That legislation provided that no slave should have, or carry arms, or +go outside of the plantation of his master without a pass from his +master, or lift his hand against a Christian; that a sheriff should +arrest a runaway slave on the warrant of two justices, and might +lawfully kill any slave who resisted arrest; and that no slave should +be emancipated without the consent of the Governor and Council.</p> + +<p>On the other hand, it provided that the master should be responsible +for all damage done by his slave at any place where there was no +Christian overseer, and required that any master giving freedom to his +slave should pay the cost of his transportation out of the colony.</p> +<a name="side67"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote67"> + <tr> + <td><small>The general object of the<br> + laws in respect to slaves.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Such was substantially the law of negro slavery in all of the colonies +at the beginning of the decade before the Revolution. It was perhaps +more severe than this in South Carolina, and it was certainly less so +in Massachusetts.</p> + +<p>The objects which it had in view were to secure the master's property +in the slave, to enable the master to hold the slave in obedience and +force him, if necessary, to labor, and to protect the public peace and +welfare against the abuse of the relation by the master, and against +the vicious nature of the slave.</p> +<a name="page47"></a> +<p>It does certainly appear that the century of law-making upon the +subject had not ameliorated the condition of the slave. We must +remember, however, that the first stages in the legalization of any +relation sometimes make the situation appear worse than what obtained +before the movement began, although it may not be worse in fact.</p> +<a name="side68"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote68"> + <tr> + <td><small>Slavery and the Revolutionary<br> + ideas of the rights of man.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>But the period of the Revolution brought with it a great change of +view in regard to the morality of slavery, and this change of idea +produced great modifications in the law of slavery, all of which +tended not only toward an improvement of the condition of the slave, +but also toward the ultimate extinction of slavery.</p> + +<p>When we regard the Revolution of the colonies against the motherland +from the point of view of the present, we can easily see that its +purpose was very different from that of the French Revolution. What it +really sought and accomplished was national independence against +foreign rule. Those, however, who formulated the creed of the +Revolution sought its justification in the doctrine of human rights +rather than in that of national rights. The philosophy of the +eighteenth century was a humanitarian outburst. Politically and +legally it is summed up in the very misleading propositions that all +men are born equal and are endowed with freedom, and that the people +have the right to change or abolish existing government at their +pleasure. Whatever we may think of these doctrines now, our ancestors +professed to believe in them, and there is no reason to doubt the +sincerity of their profession, so far as their own consciousness went. +They saw also the inconsistency of slavery with these doctrines, and +quickly came to regard slavery as an evil which should be removed as +soon as possible.</p> +<a name="side69"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote69"> + <tr> + <td><small>First prohibition<br> + upon slave<br> + importation.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page48"></a> +<p>The Continental Congress took the first step in this direction. Two +years before it declared independence it prohibited any further +importation of slaves, and repeated the prohibition two years later. +These acts are good evidence that, at the moment, the question of +slavery was regarded as a matter of national concern.</p> + +<p>The Congress was, however, so occupied with the duties pertaining to +the prosecution of the war, that it failed to go forward in this +matter, as well as in many other matters of national concern; and when +the Confederate Congress succeeded the Continental Congress, it did so +upon the basis of a written constitution, or rather articles of union, +which vested no powers whatsoever in it over the subject of slavery.</p> +<a name="side70"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote70"> + <tr> + <td><small>Abolition of slavery in the<br> + Northern Commonwealths<br> + after the beginning<br> + of the Revolution.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The separate colonies, now become "States" by the theory of the +Articles of Confederation, took up the question. Massachusetts +abolished slavery substantially by her constitution of 1780. +Pennsylvania provided for gradual emancipation by a statute of the +same year. Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire followed the +example of Pennsylvania. And New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, +and Virginia forbade any further importation of slaves.</p> +<a name="side71"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote71"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Ordinance<br> + of 1787.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Under such impulses and influences the Confederate Congress, in spite +of the fact that no power in respect to slavery had been conferred +upon it, assumed to pass the famous Ordinance of 1787, decreeing the +free status exclusively in all of the territory then belonging to the +United States north of the Ohio River. The power to enact the +Ordinance could not even be derived by the most generous principles of +implication from any provision in the Articles of Confederation. To +justify the exercise of it by the Confederate <a name="page49"></a>Congress it is necessary +to go back to the general principle of political science that, as +there was no government for this territory but the Confederate +Congress, and as there were no limitations in the Articles of +Confederation upon the powers of the Congress in this territory, the +powers of that Congress must have extended in this territory to all +subjects usually regulated by government.</p> + +<p>The claim sometimes made that this Ordinance was a treaty between the +"States" forming the Confederation, or between them and the "States" +to be formed out of that territory in the future, is altogether +untenable. It was nothing more nor less than a legislative act of the +Congress.</p> + +<p>It is an incontrovertible proof of the universality and intensity of +the opposition to the farther spread of slavery that the common +consciousness of the age acquiesced in this most latitudinarian +construction of the powers of the Confederate Congress, and that the +Congress itself voted the measure with but a single dissenting voice.</p> +<a name="side72"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote72"> + <tr> + <td><small>Slavery and the<br> + Constitution of 1787.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>At the same moment that this measure was being considered in the +Congress, the Constitutional Convention, sitting at Philadelphia, was +framing the national Constitution of 1787. The attitude which the +nation would assume in this new instrument of its organic law toward +the subject of slavery was one of the most, if not the most, important +of the questions which the Convention was called upon to consider.</p> + +<p>There can be little doubt that the men of 1787 had come to regard the +question of the rights of man a little more calmly than they did +during the heat of the battle with the motherland. In Luther Martin's +famous letter to the legislature of Maryland upon the work of the +<a name="page50"></a>Convention of 1787, a very significant passage concerning the existing +views upon slavery occurs. He wrote: "At this time we do not generally +hold this commerce" (the slave-trade) "in so great abhorrence as we +have done. When our liberties were at stake we warmly felt for the +common rights of men. The danger being thought to be past which +threatened ourselves we are daily growing more insensible to those +rights."</p> + +<p>The Constitution of 1787 contains evidence of the correctness of this +statement. Among its provisions were to be found three most important +compromises with the slavery interest, three most important +recognitions of slavery. The first was political in its nature. It +counted the negro for three-fifths of the white man in the +distribution of the representation in the House of Representatives and +in the Presidential Electoral Colleges. The second was commercial in +its nature. It forbade the Congress to prohibit, before the year 1808, +the migration or importation of such persons as the existing "States" +might see fit to admit. The third was a direct guarantee of slave +property. It required the surrender to his master of an escaped slave +wherever found in the United States. These were most momentous +provisions. They secured slave property, increased slave property, and +made slavery a vast political power in the hands of the slave-masters. +There is no doubt that the clock of the ages was turned back full half +a century in regard to this great question by the Constitution of +1787.</p> +<a name="side73"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote73"> + <tr> + <td><small>Reaction against<br> + the humanitarian<br> + principles of<br> + the Revolution.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>From 1787 to 1808 the reactionary course was pursued almost without a +single break. Kentucky was made a Commonwealth with the slave status. +The Congress accepted from North Carolina and Georgia cessions of the +territory which lay to the west of them, and which they claimed as +belonging to them, with a condition <a name="page51"></a>that slavery should not be +forbidden therein by Congress. The slave Commonwealth of Tennessee was +immediately formed out of a part of this territory. The vast territory +of Louisiana, in which slavery existed wherever it was inhabited, was +added to the domain of the Union. The District of Columbia, the seat +of the general Government, was made a slave-holding community, through +the adoption by Congress of the laws of Maryland as the code of the +District. A fugitive slave-law was passed by Congress, which enabled +any white man to seize, as his slave, any man of color, and bring him +before any magistrate, and, upon proof satisfactory to the latter, to +demand such papers and certificates as would legally warrant him in +reclaiming the slave and transporting him to the place whence he was +said to have escaped; and petitions to Congress complaining of the +abuse of this arbitrary power were laid aside without consideration. +Even the Territory of Indiana prayed Congress to suspend for it that +part of the Ordinance of 1787 which forbade slavery within its limits. +And South Carolina abolished her law against the importation of +slaves, and opened the way wide for a vast increase of the slave +population.</p> +<a name="side74"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote74"> + <tr> + <td><small>Abolition of<br> + the foreign<br> + slave-trade<br> + by Congress.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>These last acts seem to have aroused the consciousness of the Congress +to the rapidity with which the whole country was becoming again +subject to the slave-holding interests. The Congress resisted the +importunities of the Indiana leaders, and after giving South Carolina +a reasonable time to re-enact her law abolishing the foreign +slave-trade, without effect, proceeded itself to abolish the trade +from the first moment that the Constitution permitted this to be done, +from January 1st, 1808.</p> +<a name="side75"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote75"> + <tr> + <td><small>Cotton culture<br> + and the<br> + cotton-gin.<br><br><br> + The effect of the<br> + return to the arts<br> + of peace upon the<br> + ideas concerning<br> + slavery.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It has been customary to ascribe the great revulsion <a name="page52"></a>of view in regard +to slavery, which certainly manifested itself everywhere in the United +States between 1790 and 1807, to cotton culture and the cotton-gin. +The invention of the cotton-gin, in the first part of the last decade +of the eighteenth century, and the increased demand for cotton fabrics +throughout the world, had made the cultivation of cotton highly +profitable. An increase in cotton culture was naturally encouraged by +such enhanced profits, and this tendency produced an increased demand +for negro labor and for new lands, since the cotton crop requires a +warm climate and low lands, and exhausts the soil very rapidly. Those +parts of the country adapted to cotton-raising felt, therefore, a +renewed interest in the increase of negro labor and in territorial +extension. And those parts not so adapted felt an indirect interest in +the same, since the increased and still increasing profits of the +cotton culture made a market for their slaves and a carrying trade for +their shipowners. There is no doubt that such was the main cause of +the great change of view in regard to the question of negro slavery +which the country experienced between 1790 and 1810, but it was not +the sole cause. It was inevitable that, when the men of that era +passed out of the excited state of mind and feeling produced by the +War with the motherland, and came to the task of re-establishing the +relations of peace and every-day life and business, they should regain +a calmness of judgment, a respect for vested rights, and a regard for +customary relations, which placed the political philosophy of 1776 +under many limitations and qualifications, some of which, certainly, +were sound and valuable. It is only when we take all of these +considerations together that we comprehend the reasoning of the men of +the first decade of this <a name="page53"></a>century upon the great question. They saw a +great interest developing which was bringing wealth and comfort into +an impoverished country. They knew that it could be then sustained +only by negro labor. They did not believe that the negro would work +unless forced to it by the white man. They thought it was better for +the negro himself to have food, clothing, and shelter, in slavery, +than to starve, or become a robber, in liberty. They felt, on the +other hand, that the slavery of one human being to another was an +exceptional relation in a political system which rested its own right +to independent existence upon the doctrine of human freedom. It was +not, then, unnatural that they arrived at the conclusion that to +prohibit further importations of the barbarians from Africa was the +only remedy for which the time was ripe. They sincerely believed that +they would place themselves and their slaves in a far more +advantageous position for the gradual elevation of the latter by +having to deal only with negroes born and reared amid civilized +surroundings, and that freedom would finally be attained by all, as +the result of a gradual advancement in intelligence, morals, and +industry, and would be thus attained without any shock to the +civilization and welfare of the country.</p> + +<p>This appeared to the men of that day, both of the North and of the +South, to be the only safe way to proceed in solving the question of +the relation between the highly civilized Anglo-American race and the +grossly barbaric negro race in the United States. We think now that +they might have done better, and some of the more unsympathetic +critics of our history affirm that they did nothing of any +consequence, and that in what they did do they acted with a +consciously deceptive purpose. There may have been a few to whom this +criticism can be justly applied, but there is no <a name="page54"></a>sufficient evidence +that the mass of them were insincere either in act or thought. The +contention that they were is more partisan than truly historical.</p> +<a name="side76"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote76"> + <tr> + <td><small>Slavery during the War<br> + of 1812, and the years<br> + just before and just<br> + after this war.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The decade between 1807 and 1817 was filled with the questions of +foreign relations, of foreign war, and of the results of foreign war. +The suspension, and then the almost entire destruction, of foreign +commerce by the British Orders in Council, the Napoleonic decrees, the +Jeffersonian embargo, and the War of 1812, reduced the exportation in +cotton from about fifty millions of pounds in 1807 to less than twenty +millions of pounds in 1814. The pecuniary interest in the maintenance +of slavery declined thus quite materially, and the majority of the +leading men, both North and South, still regarded negro slavery as +only a temporary status, which would be gradually modified in the +direction of freedom.</p> +<a name="side77"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote77"> + <tr> + <td><small>Slavery in the<br> + Louisiana territory.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Notwithstanding all this, however, the slavery interest was steadily +waxing in influence and power throughout this period. First of all the +existence and the extension of slavery in the vast territory purchased from France was +secured. The custom of slave-holding had been introduced into this +territory by the French and Spanish immigrants, while it was in the +possession of France and Spain, before the year 1800. In that year +Spain, as we have seen, receded it to France. Nine years before this +date, slavery had been abolished in France by the National Assembly. +It is certainly a question, then, whether the re-establishment of +French supremacy over Louisiana in 1800 did not produce the abolition +of slavery there. It will be remembered that France was at that moment +subject to the consular government of Bonaparte, and that the Consul +was not an enthusiast for the revolutionary ideals. He did not disturb +the custom of slave-holding <a name="page55"></a>in Louisiana, and when he ceded this vast +territory to the United States, in 1803, the custom existed in all its +inhabited parts. The Treaty of cession contained a provision which +pledged the Government of the United States to uphold the rights of +property of the inhabitants of the province. It can be fairly said, +therefore, that the United States Government obligated itself to +France to maintain slavery within the territory ceded until it should +be erected into a Commonwealth, or into Commonwealths, of the Union.</p> + +<p>The United States Government might have violated the Treaty, if it had +chosen to do so, and the question then raised would have been one of a +purely diplomatic or international character. There would have been no +question of constitutional power involved. The act of the United +States Government breaking the Treaty would have been the law of the +land for the inhabitants of this territory.</p> + +<p>The United States Government, however, not only permitted the +continuance of the custom of slave-holding in Louisiana, but when, in +1804, Congress divided this vast region into two parts by the +thirty-third parallel of latitude, and organized the southern portion +as the Territory of Orleans, and placed the northern portion under the +jurisdiction of the Governor and judges of the Territory of Indiana, +it, at the same time, authorized citizens of the United States +immigrating into the Territory of Orleans, for the purpose of actual +settlement, to take their slaves with them, and provided that the +French laws in force at the date of the division should continue in +the northern part until repealed or modified by the Governor and +judges of Indiana Territory. Any danger to slavery in this district of +Louisiana, which might be contained in the power vested by Congress in +the Governor and judges of the Territory of Indiana to <a name="page56"></a>repeal or +modify the French laws which Congress had allowed to continue in the +district, was overcome, the following year, by the independent +organization of this district as the Territory of Louisiana, and by a +provision in the Act of Congress effecting this organization, which +provided for the continuance in force of the laws of the district, +until repealed or modified by the legislature of the Territory.</p> + +<p>When, therefore, in 1812, the Territory of Orleans was erected into +the Commonwealth of Louisiana, and the name of the Territory of +Louisiana was changed to Missouri, there was no question about the +status of the new Commonwealth. It was, both in fact and in law, a +slave-holding Commonwealth; and the custom of slave-holding was +perpetuated in the newly named Territory by the provision in the Act +of Congress that the laws and regulations of the Territory of +Louisiana should remain in force in the Territory of Missouri until +repealed or modified by the legislature of the Territory of Missouri.</p> +<a name="side78"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote78"> + <tr> + <td><small>Slavery in the territory<br> + west of North<br> + Carolina and Georgia.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Government of the United States had entered into obligations with +North Carolina and Georgia, as we have seen, not to prohibit slavery +in the territory ceded by them to the United States. Whatever we may +think of the binding force of any such agreement from a legal point of +view, certainly from an ethical point of view it could have been urged +that the Government would have broken faith with some of the citizens +of the United States had the Congress disregarded this understanding.</p> +<a name="side79"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote79"> + <tr> + <td><small>Slavery in Louisiana a<br> + different question from<br> + slavery in the North<br> + Carolina and<br> + Georgia cessions.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It cannot, however, be contended that there was any obligation, legal +or moral, resting upon the Government of the United States toward any +of the citizens of the United States, or any of the Commonwealths, to +maintain slavery in the province of Louisiana and in the <a name="page57"></a>Territories +carved out of it. There was, as we have seen, a provision in the +Treaty of cession of 1803, by which the United States Government +obligated itself to France to protect the property of the inhabitants +of the province. But the Government of the United States was under no +obligation to any citizen of the United States, or to any Commonwealth +of the Union, to keep this Treaty inviolate. It may be affirmed, then, +that the United States Government had, in the case of Louisiana, for +the first time, permitted and maintained slavery in territory where it +was perfectly free to act in regard to this subject as it would, in so +far as its own citizens were concerned. This certainly manifested a +great increase in the power of the slave-holders over the general +Government.</p> +<a name="side80"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote80"> + <tr> + <td><small>Interest in slavery<br> + in Maryland and<br> + Virginia increased<br> + by the acquisition<br> + of Louisiana.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In consequence of this vast territorial extension of slavery the +interest of the more Northern of the old slave-holding Commonwealths +in slavery was, during this period, greatly re-enlivened. Maryland and +Virginia were already, in 1807, overstocked with slaves. The opening +up of the virgin lands of the Southwest to the immigration of masters +and slaves from the older Commonwealths, and the abolition of the +foreign slave-trade, now made the Southwest an excellent market for +the surplus slave population of these older Commonwealths.</p> +<a name="side81"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote81"> + <tr> + <td><small>The domestic<br> + slave-trade.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The domestic slave-trade began now to be one of the chief sources of +the wealth of Maryland and Virginia especially. Those who participated +in this traffic justified it by the claim that it was better for the slaves +themselves to be removed to new homes, where they could be better +supported, than to be kept in their old homes and suffer for the want +of the necessaries of life, and that the distribution of the slave +<a name="page58"></a>population over a larger area would make future emancipation easier, +and less dangerous to the supremacy of the white race. There was a +certain force in this reasoning. The mass of the slave-holders seem to +have been fully convinced of its soundness, although it did not +entirely quiet the consciences of the best men among them to the many +painful incidents connected with the separation of the slaves, made +subject to this traffic, from their old homes and associations.</p> + +<p>It is easy to see, however, that the raising of negro slaves, having +become a most profitable industry in the older Commonwealths, acted as +a vast bribe upon the ideas of men in regard to the questions of the +perpetuation and extension of slavery, and beclouded their consciences +in respect thereto.</p> +<a name="side82"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote82"> + <tr> + <td><small>The relation of<br> + slavery to the<br> + diplomacy of the<br> + United States.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Finally, the capture and abduction of negro slaves by the British +forces during the War of 1812, and the demand of the slave-holders +that the United States Government should secure the restitution of +their slaves, or compensation for the loss of them, from the British +Government, moved the United States Government to assume its attitude +toward slavery in the administration of the international affairs of +the country. The cardinal political principle of the slave-holding +statesmen, at that period, was that slavery was a "State" matter with +which the United States Government had no concern, and in regard to +which it had no powers. This appeal to the Government to voice and +enforce their demands against Great Britain in respect to their slave +property has seemed, therefore, to some of the later and more radical +critics of American history to have been a gross inconsistency, and +they have represented it as a proof of the insincerity of the +slave-holders wherever their pecuniary interests were involved.</p> +<a name="page59"></a> +<p>This criticism is rather taking, but a sound view of the Constitution +will hardly support it. In making the United States Government the +<i>exclusive</i> organ for dealing with foreign countries, the Constitution +impliedly confers upon that Government a protectorate against foreign +states over interests which are regulated, internally, only by the +powers of the respective Commonwealths of the Union. It is true that +this doctrine rests upon a national view of the federal system of +government in the United States, a view which the slave-holding +statesmen did not later share. From their later particularistic +principle of the fundamental character of the Union, such a general +protectorate over "State" interests by the United States Government +against foreign countries could hardly be inferred from the +Constitution. If this principle could be assumed by these critics as +having been held at that time by the slave-holding statesmen, their +charge of inconsistency, if not of insincerity, would be fairly made +out. But such, as we have seen, was not the case. Many of the +slave-holding statesmen of 1816 were stronger in the national view of +the character of the Union than were the statesmen of New England +itself.</p> + +<p>The United States Government recognized its duty to extend the +protection demanded in the case, and it secured from the British +Government compensation to the masters for the loss of slave property +occasioned by the acts of the British officers during the War.</p> + +<p>Such was the status of the slavery question at the close of the War of +1812-15, at the commencement, therefore, of the period when, +withdrawing themselves from foreign complications, the people of the +United States began to adjust the different parts of their political +system, chiefly if not solely, to the demands of their internal +interests, and to solve the problems of their <a name="page60"></a>polity from the point of +view of their domestic institutions. It is not strange, then, that +from this point of time onward the powerful institution of negro +slavery recognized more and more clearly its natural relations to all +of these questions of internal policy and law, and sought more and +more determinedly to bring the political system and the policies of +the United States into accord with its own exclusive interests. For +the first three or four years after the close of the War this tendency +did not, as has been pointed out, appear upon the surface, but it was +working in the depths. From 1820 to 1861, certainly, it furnishes the +point of view for the correct elucidation of the majority of the great +problems of the history of the United States.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="chap4"></a><a name="page61"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER IV.</h3> + +<center>THE CREATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side83">The Growth of Slavery not Seriously Checked by the Prohibition of the +Foreign Slave-trade</a>—<a href="#side84">The General Government Powerless Against Slavery +in the Existing Commonwealths</a>—<a href="#side85">The Powers of the General Government in +Respect to Slavery in the Territories</a>—<a href="#side86">The Powers of Congress in the +Admission of new "States" into the Union</a>—<a href="#side87">Slavery in the Missouri +Territory</a>—<a href="#side88">The First Petition from Missouri Territory for the Permission to form a +Commonwealth</a>—<a href="#side89">The Second Petition, and the First Bill in Congress, for the Admission of +Missouri</a>—<a href="#side90">The Tallmadge Amendment to the +Bill</a>—<a href="#side98">Passage of the Amendment by the House of +Representatives</a>—<a href="#side100">Passage of the Original Bill by the +Senate</a>—<a href="#side101">The Missouri Bill during the Session of +1819-20</a>—<a href="#side103">Mr. Taylor's +Proposition</a>—<a href="#side104">The Bill for the Admission of Maine Reported and Passed by the House of +Representatives</a>—<a href="#side105">The Failure of Mr. Taylor's +Plan</a>—<a href="#side106">The Missouri Bill again before the House of +Representatives</a>—<a href="#side107">Mr. Taylor's Amendment to the +Bill</a>—<a href="#side112">The Independent Missouri Bill of the +Senate</a>—<a href="#side114">The Refusal of the Senate to Disconnect the two +Measures</a>—<a href="#side119">The Conference on the Subject, and the First Missouri +Compromise</a>—<a href="#side120">President Monroe's Approval of the +Compromise</a>—<a href="#side121">Review of the Points Involved in the +Contest</a>—<a href="#side122">The Revival of the Missouri +Struggle</a>—<a href="#side123">The Missouri Constitution in +Congress</a>—<a href="#side124">Mr. Lowndes' Bill for the Admission of Missouri with the Instrument +Unchanged</a>—<a href="#side127">Defeat of the Lowndes Bill in the +House</a>—<a href="#side128">Passage of the Senate Bill with a Proviso by the +Senate</a>—<a href="#side129">The Senate Bill Tabled by the +House</a>—<a href="#side130">Mr. Clay and the Second Missouri +Compromise</a>—<a href="#side134">Passage of the Second Missouri Compromise +Act</a>—<a href="#side135">The General Effects of the Decisions Reached in the Missouri Question.</a></blockquote> +<br> +<a name="side83"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote83"> + <tr> + <td><small>The growth of slavery<br> + not seriously checked<br> + by the prohibition<br> + of the foreign<br> + slave-trade.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Already before the year 1819, as we have seen in the preceding +chapter, had it become manifest that the <a name="page62"></a>influences and measures +relied upon by the forefathers for the ultimate extirpation of negro +slavery were not effecting the desired result in the Commonwealths +south of the line of Pennsylvania and of the Ohio. It was evident that +the revolutionary enthusiasm for universal liberty and the rights of +man was not so strongly felt by the generation which grew up after +"'76" as by the generation of "'76," that the laws against the +importation of slaves were being evaded, and that the slaves were +increasing by birth many times more rapidly than they were decreasing +by emancipation and removal to the colonies of the American Society +for Emancipation. Moreover, four new Commonwealths had been +established—Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Mississippi—in which +slavery was legalized, and a fifth—Alabama—was even then in process +of creation. It was manifest from all sides to the friends of +universal freedom that other means than those hitherto relied upon +must be found, if any progress was to be made in the advancement of +liberty, yea if the evident retrogression in respect to this prime +element of political civilization was to be checked.</p> +<a name="side84"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote84"> + <tr> + <td><small>The general Government<br> + powerless against<br> + slavery in the existing<br> + Commonwealths.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>All had been done by the United States Government, however, against +slavery within the existing Commonwealths that the Constitution +allowed. Before anything more could be undertaken, the Constitution +itself would have to be so amended as to authorize it. The +extraordinary majorities required for the initiation and adoption of +amendments made it practically impossible to effect anything by such +means. Of the thirteen original Commonwealths, seven had abolished +slavery and six had retained it. To these had now been added +four—Vermont, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois—in <a name="page63"></a>which slavery was +forbidden, and five in which it was permitted—Kentucky, Tennessee, +Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama—making thus the number upon each +side the same. And although the population in the Commonwealths north +of the line of Pennsylvania and the Ohio had outstripped, in increase, +that in those south of this line by near half a million of souls in +thirty years, and the representation in the national House of +Representatives stood consequently in favor of the former section in +the ratio of 104 to 79, still the method of representation in the +Senate, and the equality in the number of the Commonwealths +permitting, with those prohibiting, slavery, stood firmly in the way +of any amendment of the Constitution, either favorable or unfavorable +to the slavery interest.</p> +<a name="side85"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote85"> + <tr> + <td><small>The powers of the<br> + general Government<br> + in respect to slavery<br> + in the Territories.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Constitution furnished, however, an indirect way of reaching the +desired result. It gave the Congress general powers within the +Territories and did not restrict these powers in behalf of slavery. +Congress might thus prohibit slavery in the Territories, and the +Territories would thus become settled by a free population, an +anti-slavery population, which would form Commonwealths at the proper +time, in which the free status would be perpetuated by Commonwealth +law. And when a sufficient number of free Commonwealths had been thus +created to give the necessary majorities to amend the Constitution in +the direction of abolition, slavery might be extinguished in the +Commonwealths which had already legalized it. But the first difficulty +in the way of the effectiveness of this line of action was the fact +that Congress had already forfeited, in part, the opportunity, by +failing to keep the southern portion of Louisiana Territory under a +Territorial organization until slavery could have been eradicated in +it. And it was probably, in <a name="page64"></a>1819, already too late to attempt to keep +the remaining parts of this vast region, so far as it had been settled +at all, under Territorial organization until this result could have +been effected. At least, the advocates of freedom in 1819 evidently +thought so, for they searched the Constitution to find some other +power in the general Government by which to deal with the question.</p> +<a name="side86"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote86"> + <tr> + <td><small>The powers of<br> + Congress in the<br> + admission of new<br> + "States" into the<br> + Union.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>There was another provision which had been already several times +applied to this very subject and to other subjects. It was the +provision which conferred upon Congress the power to create, or +co-operate in creating, new Commonwealths out of the Territories of +the United States. This power is expressed in general terms, and in +its employment Congress had imposed a number of limitations upon the +powers of the new Commonwealths which the Constitution did not impose +upon those of the original Commonwealths. Here, then, was a possible +way for those seeking the advancement of liberty to effect their +purpose. If their interpretation of the Constitution, in regard to the +extent of this power, was correct, and they could only command the +President and a simple majority in both branches of Congress, they +could abolish slavery in every new Commonwealth at the time of its +creation, and make the continuance of the free status the perpetual +condition of its continued existence as a Commonwealth. It would then +be only a question of time when sufficient majorities would be secured +for so amending the Constitution of the United States as to expel +slavery from the old Commonwealths through the regular forms for +constitutional development. It was an attractive scheme, and appeared +to provide the means for ridding the country peaceably of its great +evil at no very far distant day. It was the last possible means which +the Constitution afforded. It was <a name="page65"></a>tried in the creation of the +Commonwealth of Missouri and it failed. It is this which constitutes +the significance of the great movement. The result attained made the +abolition of slavery by the United States Government, through legal +and peaceable means, an utter impossibility. It contributed, at least, +toward making the War of 1861 an historical necessity.</p> + +<p>As we have seen in the preceding chapter, slaveholding had become +established by custom in the vast region known as the Louisiana +province, wherever it was inhabited, during the periods when it +belonged to Spain and France, and had been permitted to continue after +its acquisition by the United States; and that in 1812 this province +was divided into one slave-holding Commonwealth, Louisiana, and one +slave-holding Territory, Missouri.</p> +<a name="side87"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote87"> + <tr> + <td><small>Slavery in<br> + the Missouri<br> + Territory.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>From 1812 to 1818 Congress did nothing toward the extinction of +slavery in the Missouri Territory, or preventing the free immigration +of masters with their slaves into the Territory. Neither had the +legislature of the Territory done anything touching these subjects. It +may, therefore, be assumed that in the year 1818, the holding of +negroes as slaves was legal by custom, if not by positive law, in the +whole of the Missouri Territory, so far as it had been settled, and +that unless something should thereafter be done, either by the United +States Government or by the Territorial government, forbidding it, +slavery would be likewise legal wherever the Territory might become +settled.</p> +<a name="side88"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote88"> + <tr> + <td><small>The first petition from<br> + Missouri Territory<br> + for the permission to<br> + form a Commonwealth.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Before the beginning of the year 1818, the population in the Territory +which looked to the town of St. Louis as its centre had begun to +agitate the question of the establishment of Commonwealth government. +During the Congressional session of 1817-18, petitions <a name="page66"></a>appeared in the +House of Representatives from this population, praying for the +erection of that part of Missouri Territory, bounded roughly by the +thirty-sixth parallel of latitude on the south, the line of longitude +passing through the point of confluence of the Kansas River and the +Missouri River on the west, the Falls of the Des Moines River and the +course of that river on the north, and the Mississippi on the east, +into a Commonwealth of the Union. The petitions were referred and +reported on, and the bill presented reached the stage for debate in +the committee of the Whole House, but was not taken up during the +session.</p> +<a name="side89"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote89"> + <tr> + <td><small>The second petition, and<br> + the first bill in Congress, for<br> + the admission of Missouri.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Early in the following session, that of 1818-19, the Speaker of the +House of Representatives presented a memorial from the Territorial +legislature of Missouri which contained substantially the same prayer +as the petitions presented at the preceding session. This memorial was +immediately referred to a committee for report, but the bill which +grew out of the petitions and the memorial was not brought forward for +debate in the committee of the Whole House until February 13th, 1819.</p> +<a name="side90"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote90"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Tallmadge<br> + amendment to<br> + the bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was upon this day, and during this first debate, that Mr. James +Tallmadge, of New York, offered the famous amendment to the bill, +which precipitated a discussion, that lasted for more than a year, +upon the great subject of the distribution of powers between the +United States Government and the Commonwealths, a discussion in which +all the great legal lights of both Houses of Congress participated, +and during the course of which the whole country hung with painful +anxiety upon the outcome. It was the first great trial of the +Constitution under the issue of a domestic question, a question which +threatened to <a name="page67"></a>divide the country upon geographic lines, a question +which, therefore, threatened the dissolution of the Union.</p> + +<p>The exact words of this amendment are essential to a correct +comprehension of the question involved. It reads: "And provided that +the further introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude be +prohibited, except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party +shall have been duly convicted; and that all children born within the +said State, after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be free +at the age of twenty-five years."</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote91"> + <tr> + <td><small>The debate upon the<br> + Tallmadge amendment.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The debate upon this motion is not fully reported in the annals of +Congress, but it is sufficiently reported to give a correct idea of +the constitutional questions involved. The discussion proceeded from +the two points of view of constitutional powers and public policy. Of +course the first point for the restrictionists, as those who favored +the amendment were termed, to establish was the constitutionality of +the power of Congress to impose this restriction in erecting a +Territory into a Commonwealth. If Congress has, or had, no such power, +the question of policy need not have been considered. They claimed the +power, and based it upon that paragraph of Article IV. section three, +which reads: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this +Union." It will be readily seen that this is a very loose statement +concerning the powers of Congress in establishing this most +fundamental relation. Taken apart from all connections, its most +natural meaning is that foreign states may become politically joined +with the United States by an Act of Congress, in so far as this +country is concerned. On the other hand, taken with the context, it +appears to mean that Congress may establish Commonwealth governments, +or, in the language <a name="page68"></a>of the Constitution, "States," upon the territory +belonging to the United States, or to some "State" or "States" already +within the Union. This is, without any reasonable doubt, its only +meaning. For if it had any reference to the connection of foreign +states with the United States, it would confer the most important +diplomatic power of the United States Government upon the Congress, +while the Constitution certainly confers the whole of this class of +powers upon the President and the Senate.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote92"> + <tr> + <td><small>The exact question<br> + at issue in the<br> + first debate on the<br> + Missouri question.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>This was not, however, the point at issue in the Missouri question. +That point was, whether, in the creation of new Commonwealths by +Congress upon territory already within the Union, and subject to the +exclusive jurisdiction of the general Government, Congress had the +constitutional power to impose restrictions upon the new Commonwealths +thus created, which the Constitution did not impose upon the original +Commonwealths. The restrictionists, led by Mr. Tallmadge and Mr. +Taylor, of New York, and Mr. Fuller, of Massachusetts, contended that +Congress possessed this power. Their argument, reduced to a pair of +propositions, was, that the Constitution did not <i>require</i> Congress to +"admit new States into this Union," but only <i>empowered</i> Congress to +do so at its discretion; that therefore Congress could <i>refuse</i> to +admit at its discretion, and that if Congress could admit or refuse to +admit at its own discretion, it could admit upon conditions, upon such +conditions as it might deem wise to impose, and could make the +continued existence of the new Commonwealth, as a Commonwealth, depend +upon the continued observance by it of these conditions.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote93"> + <tr> + <td><small>The precedents cited<br> + in support of the<br> + Tallmadge amendment.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>They pointed to the precedents of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, upon +all of which Congress had imposed, as a <a name="page69"></a>condition of their assumption +of Commonwealth powers and government as "States of the Union," the +requirement that their constitutions should not be repugnant to the +"Ordinance of the Northwest Territory of 1787," the sixth article of +which provided that there should be neither slavery nor involuntary +servitude, except as a criminal penalty, in the Territory, from which +these Commonwealths were carved out. They contended that Congress thus +prohibited slavery in these new Commonwealths as the condition of its +assent to their assumption of the status of Commonwealths of the Union +and of their continued existence with that status.</p> + +<p>They further pointed to the precedent of Louisiana, upon whose +"admission into the Union as a State," Congress imposed the conditions +that the new Commonwealth should use the English language as its +official language, should guarantee the writ of <i>habeas corpus</i> and +trial by jury in all criminal cases, and should incorporate in its +organic law the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote94"> + <tr> + <td><small>Argument for the amendment from<br> + the duty of the United States to<br> + guarantee a republican form of<br> + government to every Commonwealth.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>They went so far as to assert that the Constitution not only permitted +Congress to lay the prohibition of slavery upon every new Commonwealth +which it might "admit into the Union," but obligated Congress to do so +by the constitutional provision which makes it the duty of the United +States Government to guarantee a republican form of government to +every Commonwealth of the Union. That is, they claimed that slavery +was incompatible with the republican form of government, and that +Congress was therefore bound by the Constitution to prohibit slavery +whenever called upon to act in regard to it.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote95"> + <tr> + <td><small>Argument from<br> + morals and policy.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Having thus, from their point of view, vindicated the <a name="page70"></a>constitutional +power and duty of Congress to enact the restriction, they claimed the +personal liberty of every human being to be a self-evident principle +of ethics, specifically recognized in the Declaration of Independence, +and therefore a principle of the political system of the United +States. And, finally, they demonstrated the ruinous policy of the +system of slave labor in the economy of the country.</p> + +<p>There is no question that Mr. Tallmadge and his friends had taken +strong ground, and that it would require extraordinary efforts to +dislodge them.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote96"> + <tr> + <td><small>Replies to the<br> + arguments of the<br> + restrictionists.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>During the first debate upon the subject, the opponents of the +restriction do not seem to have been so clear in their own minds in +reference to the principles involved as they became later, and their +arguments do not appear so convincing. Nevertheless, they touched the +point which was the real gist of the contention, and dealt with it +ably from the first. Mr. Scott, the delegate from Missouri Territory, +and Mr. P. P. Barbour, of Virginia, made a vigorous attack upon the +claim of a power in Congress to enact the restriction, as a condition +of admitting Missouri, "as a State," into the Union. They demonstrated +quite clearly that the interpretation which the restrictionists placed +upon the constitutional provision empowering Congress "to admit new +States into the Union" would enable Congress to establish inequalities +<i>ad libitum</i> between the original Commonwealths and the new ones; +would, in principle, enable Congress to make mere provinces of the new +Commonwealths. They showed conclusively that the real question of the +controversy was not whether slavery should exist in Missouri or not, +but was whether the Commonwealth of Missouri should be allowed to +determine that matter for herself or should have it determined for her +by the <a name="page71"></a>Congress of the United States. They pointed to the facts that +the original Commonwealths exercised, before the formation of the +existing Constitution of the United States, exclusive power over this +matter, each for itself; that the Constitution had not withdrawn this +power from them, nor prohibited it to them; and that the Constitution +declared all powers not delegated to the United States Government, nor +prohibited to the "States," to be reserved to the "States" +respectively or to the people. They, therefore, claimed that the +determination of the question whether slavery should exist in any +Commonwealth or not was a power reserved by the Constitution to each +Commonwealth for itself, and that the attempt to introduce a +distinction between the old Commonwealths and the new, in regard to +the possession of this power, was an attack upon the first principle +of federal liberty, the principle of equality in powers and duties +between the members of the Union, an attack which could be justified +legally only by an express warrant from the Constitution itself.</p> + +<p>They disputed outright the constitutionality of the restrictions in +regard to slavery which Congress had imposed upon the Commonwealths of +Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, and held that these Commonwealths might, +at any time, so amend their organic law as to introduce slavery; and +they justified the restrictions imposed upon Louisiana as having +express warrant from the Constitution.</p> + +<p>They did not deny the claims of the restrictionists that slavery was +ethically wrong and economically destructive, but they contended that +the evil and the impolicy of it would be mitigated by allowing the +slaves to be spread over a larger extent of territory, reducing thus +their numerical ratio to the white population in the older +Commonwealths, and enabling their masters <a name="page72"></a>to emigrate with them from +poor and exhausted lands to rich virgin soil, instead of being obliged +to keep them in want, or sell them to new and, therefore, less +considerate masters. They argued, upon this point, that all +importation of slaves from foreign countries having been strictly +prohibited, not one slave could be added to the number already +existing by allowing their movement into new territory, but that their +condition would be vastly improved by the increased products of their +labor.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote97"> + <tr> + <td><small>The pledge to maintain<br> + slave property in Louisiana<br> + in the Treaty of cession.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>They contended, finally, that the treaty with France by which +Louisiana was ceded to the United States contained an express +provision pledging the United States Government to protect all the +existing property rights of the inhabitants of the province, and to +admit these inhabitants, so soon as consistent with the principles of +the Constitution of the United States, to the enjoyment of +Commonwealth powers on an equality with those of the other +Commonwealths of the Union.</p> + +<p>There is no question that hostility to slavery colored the views of +the restrictionists in regard to the constitutional powers of +Congress, and there is also no question that the anxiety of the +slaveholders to maintain the security of their property led them to +exaggerate all of the defences of the Constitution in its behalf. It +must, however, be conceded that the opponents of the restriction had, +from the outset, the better of the argument in the question of +constitutional law, and maintained it throughout the debate. They did +not express themselves as clearly and as exactly as the political +scientist of this age would do, but they demonstrated quite +convincingly that the questions of political ethics and public policy +were, at the moment, entirely impertinent, unless it could be +satisfactorily established that Congress possessed the constitutional +power to act in the <a name="page73"></a>premises. And they showed that no federal system +of government could exist, as to the new Commonwealths, if Congress +had the unlimited authority to distribute powers between the general +Government and these Commonwealths, which the interpretation that the +restrictionists placed upon the clause of the Constitution vesting +Congress with the authority to "admit new States into this Union" +involved.</p> + +<p>The ethical and economical influences and considerations weighed more +heavily in the minds of the Northern members than the arguments from +constitutional law, although they asserted that the Constitution also +was upon their side.</p> +<a name="side98"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote98"> + <tr> + <td><small>Passage of the Tallmadge<br> + amendment by the House<br> + of Representatives.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>They carried the first part of Mr. Tallmadge's amendment, the +prohibition upon the further introduction of slavery into Missouri, by +a majority of eleven votes, and the second part, the provision for the +emancipation of all slaves born in Missouri, after its admission as a +Commonwealth, when they should have reached the age of twenty-five +years, by a majority of four votes.</p> + +<p>The leading men from the North who voted against the amendment were +Parrot, of New Hampshire, Holmes, Mason, and Shaw, of Massachusetts, +Storrs, of New York, Bloomfield, of New Jersey, Harrison, of Ohio, and +McLean, of Illinois. They were strong and fearless men and no friends +to slavery, but they were good constitutional lawyers, and they felt +that it was better to stand by the Constitution with slavery than to +expose it to the strain of exaggerated interpretations.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote99"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Missouri bill<br> + in the Senate.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was upon February 17th, 1819, that the Missouri bill was finally +passed by the House and sent to the Senate. It was immediately read +twice in the Senate and referred to the committee in charge of the +bill for admitting Alabama.</p> +<a name="page74"></a> +<p>On the 22nd, Mr. Tait, of Georgia, in behalf of the committee, +reported the bill to the Senate, with the recommendation that the +Tallmadge amendment be stricken out.</p> + +<p>The annals of Congress state that "a long and animated debate" took +place upon this recommendation, but the speeches are not reported. It +may be safely concluded, however, that the argument against the power +of Congress to pass the amendment prevailed very decidedly in the +minds of the members of this more calm and judicial body. They voted, +twenty-two to sixteen, against the first part of the amendment, and +thirty-one to seven against the second part. Such men as Otis, of +Massachusetts, and Lacock, of Pennsylvania, voted against the entire +amendment, and Daggett, of Connecticut, and even Rufus King, of New +York, recorded their voices against the second part of it.</p> +<a name="side100"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote100"> + <tr> + <td><small>Passage of the<br> + original bill<br> + by the Senate.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The bill admitting Missouri, without the Tallmadge amendment, passed +the Senate on March 2nd, and was returned to the House substantially +in this form. The House immediately refused to agree to the striking +out of the amendment, and the Senate resolved thereupon to adhere to +its own act. The bill was thus lost for the session, and the Missouri +question became the firebrand with which to light up fanatical and +incendiary passions, both at the North and at the South, during the +following recess of the Congress.</p> +<a name="side101"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote101"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Missouri bill<br> + during the session<br> + of 1819-20.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>At the beginning of the session of 1819-20, Mr. Scott secured the +reference of the memorials concerning the admission of Missouri, +presented at the preceding session, to a select committee. On the +following day, December 9th, Mr. Scott reported a bill from this +committee, which authorized the inhabitants of that part of Missouri +Territory already described to form a constitution and Commonwealth +<a name="page75"></a>government. This new bill was read twice and referred to the committee +of the Whole House for discussion.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote102"> + <tr> + <td><small>The policy of the restrictionists<br> + to delay the admission<br> + of any new Commonwealths.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Warned by the experiences of the preceding session, the +restrictionists now took another tack. They developed the plan of +delaying the formation of any more Commonwealths in the Missouri +Territory until Congress could abolish slavery in the whole of it.</p> + +<p>During the debate of the preceding session upon the power of Congress +to impose upon new Commonwealths, at the time of their creation, +limitations not prescribed by the Constitution, it had been asserted +by the restrictionists, and not denied by their opponents, that +Congress could control the status of the Territories, and keep slavery +out of them or abolish it in them, at its own discretion, during the +period before the Territories should be permitted to assume +Commonwealth government. This seems to have been considered by nearly +all, if not quite all, as a fair interpretation of that provision of +the Constitution which vests in Congress the power to make all needful +rules and regulations respecting the Territories of the United States. +The friends of slavery restriction now determined to take advantage of +this possibility, even at this late day, and go back to the work of +clearing all the Territories west of the Mississippi of slavery by a +Congressional Act; after which the formation of new Commonwealths in +these Territories might be delayed until they could be settled by a +population, which would, by local law, maintain the free status. Mr. +John W. Taylor, of New York, seems to have formulated the plan. On the +14th of December he moved the appointment of a committee to consider +the question of prohibiting the further introduction of slavery into +the Territories of the United States west of the Mississippi. The +proposition was voted, and Mr. Taylor himself was <a name="page76"></a>appointed the +chairman of the committee. Mr. Taylor then moved that the +consideration of the Missouri bill be postponed to the first Monday of +the following February. The friends of this bill objected most +strenuously to this proposition, and Mr. Taylor's party compromised +with them by agreeing to shorten the period of the proposed +postponement to the second Monday of January.</p> +<a name="side103"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote103"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Taylor's<br> + proposition.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Taylor's plan was moderate in its character. He did not propose to +emancipate slaves already held within these Territories or their issue +born therein, but simply to prevent any further increase by +immigration or importation. It is difficult to see how the +slaveholders themselves could have opposed this proposition with much +vigor. They had, nearly all of them, professed to regard slavery as an +evil, though they had suggested that the evil would be mitigated by +the spreading of the slaves over more territory. It was at any rate to +be expected that those Representatives and Senators from the North, +who had voted against the Tallmadge amendment from legal scruples +only, would join with the restrictionists in the support of Mr. +Taylor's measure, since they all regarded slavery restriction as sound +policy wherever the Constitution would permit it. There certainly +seemed to be a fair chance for the passage of a law which would +protect the Territories from, at least, any considerable increase of +the slave population which might already be within them, and give +white immigration a chance to occupy and fill them, and form free +Commonwealths in them. But this passing hope was dashed by a +conjunction of events, the elements of which had already presented +themselves.</p> +<a name="side104"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote104"> + <tr> + <td><small>The petition from the<br> + convention in Maine for<br> + the admission of Maine.<br><br><br> + The bill for the admission<br> + of Maine reported and<br> + passed by the House<br> + of Representatives.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The people resident in that part of Massachusetts known as the +district of Maine had, through delegates in convention assembled, +framed a Commonwealth constitution and government. The assent of +Massachusetts <a name="page77"></a>had been regularly given to the division of the old +Commonwealth. And on December 8th, 1819, Mr. Holmes, of Massachusetts, +presented to the House of Representatives a petition from the +constitutional convention in the district of Maine, praying for the +admission of Maine, as a Commonwealth, into the Union, on an equality +with the Commonwealths already existing. The people of this district +had not asked the permission of Congress to form a constitution and +government, for the reason afterwards alleged that they were already +in the enjoyment of this status as a part of Massachusetts. The reason +offered was not, however, entirely satisfactory, and the people of the +district were hardly able to clear themselves from the charge of an +undue assumption of powers. The petition was, however, immediately +referred to a committee, with Mr. Holmes as chairman. On the 21st, Mr. +Holmes reported a bill to the House providing for the admission of the +district as a Commonwealth. On the 30th, the House, in committee of +the Whole, took up the bill for consideration, and in the course of +the debate upon it Mr. Clay suggested the connection of the Missouri +bill with the Maine bill. Mr. Clay did not, however, put his +suggestion into the form of a motion, and therefore the House came to +no vote upon the point at this juncture. The bill for the admission of +Maine was passed on January 3rd, 1820, without any connection with the +Missouri bill, and without any restrictions or limitations upon the +powers of the new Commonwealth beyond what the Constitution of the +United States placed upon those of the original Commonwealths. Mr. +Clay's suggestion was not, however, lost upon the Senate, as will be +seen later.</p> +<a name="side105"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote105"> + <tr> + <td><small>The failure of Mr. Taylor's<br> + plan for preventing<br> + slavery extension.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page78"></a> +<p>Meanwhile Mr. Taylor's committee had not been able to come to any +agreement. On December 28th, 1819, before the final passage of the +Maine bill, Mr. Taylor stated to the House that the committee had +instructed him to ask for its discharge. The House agreed to his +request, and he immediately moved that a new committee be appointed, +and "instructed to report a bill" prohibiting the further admission of +slaves into the Territories of the United States west of the +Mississippi River. This motion evidently appeared to the House to be a +prejudgment of the whole question, since it postponed the +consideration of it indefinitely.</p> +<a name="side106"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote106"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Missouri bill<br> + again before the House<br> + of Representatives.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Missouri bill was, however, also allowed to rest until January +24th, 1820, and when, upon that day, the Speaker announced the bill as +the first order, Mr. Taylor moved for another week's delay, and the +motion was lost by only a single vote. On the next day the House, in +committee of the Whole, proceeded to consider the bill. On the 26th, +Mr. Storrs, of New York, undertook to connect the prohibition of +slavery in the region north of the thirty-eighth parallel of latitude +and west of the Mississippi River and the proposed Missouri boundary +with the grant of the permission to form a Commonwealth in Missouri. +The opponents of slavery extension did not, however, regard this as +sufficient compensation for their support of the bill, and Mr. Storrs' +motion was lost.</p> +<a name="side107"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote107"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Taylor's<br> + amendment<br> + to the bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Whereupon Mr. Taylor moved that the people of Missouri should be +required to ordain and establish in their constitution the prohibition +of slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for +crime, in the proposed Commonwealth. Conceding, as the result of the +discussions, and <a name="page79"></a>the action of the Congress during the preceding +session, that Congress had no constitutional authority to impose +restrictions upon new Commonwealths, as the condition of their +admission into the Union, which the Constitution did not impose upon +the original Commonwealths, the new question involved in Mr. Taylor's +motion, from the point of view of constitutional law, now was, whether +Congress could require of a new Commonwealth, as the condition of its +admission to the Union, that it should impose any limitations upon +itself which the Constitution of the United States did not impose upon +the original Commonwealths. Could Congress effect indirectly what it +could not do directly?</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote108"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Taylor's<br> + argument in<br> + support of<br> + his amendment.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Taylor's argument rested substantially upon the proposition, +upheld by the restrictionists during the preceding session, that if +Congress could admit, it could refuse to admit, and if it could admit +or refuse to admit, it could admit upon conditions. He, however, +advanced other propositions and suggestions. He held that the +admission of a new Commonwealth into the Union was a procedure in the +nature of a contract between the United States Government and the +people of the new Commonwealth, and, therefore, admitted of any terms +accepted by both parties. He further held that the provision of the +Constitution, which impliedly vested in Congress the power to +prohibit, after 1808, the importation or migration of slaves, covered +the case, in that the word migration meant passage from one +Commonwealth into another, in distinction from importation, which +meant the bringing of slaves into the United States from foreign +countries. And he suggested that territory acquired by the United +States subsequent to the formation of the Constitution need not be +treated with the same consideration, as to the rights of its +inhabitants, as that which <a name="page80"></a>belonged to the United States at the time +of the formation of the Constitution.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote109"> + <tr> + <td><small>Replies to<br> + Mr. Taylor's<br> + reasoning.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Of course the members from the South resisted Mr. Taylor's +conclusions. But they were not alone in their position. Some of the +strongest opponents of slavery from the North stood up with them in +resisting what they considered to be an attack upon the principle of +federal government. Mr. Holmes, of Massachusetts, was again chief +among them, and it is to his argument that one must look for the most +scientific and unprejudiced view of the subject.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote110"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Holmes'<br> + argument<br> + against the<br> + amendment.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>After demonstrating most convincingly that the clauses of the +Constitution which vested in Congress the power to prohibit the +migration of persons into the United States after 1808 and to regulate +commerce between the Commonwealths could not be interpreted as giving +Congress the power to prevent the transportation of slaves from one +Commonwealth into another, Mr. Holmes attacked the fundamental +proposition upon which Mr. Taylor relied, the proposition that if +Congress could admit, it could refuse to admit, and if it could admit +or refuse to admit at pleasure, it could admit upon conditions. Mr. +Holmes contended that the power to determine whether slavery should +exist or not in any community was possessed by each Colony before the +Revolution, and by each "State" after the Revolution, and that the +Constitution of 1787 had not deprived the "States" of it, but had +recognized it as belonging to each of them exclusively; that new +"States" admitted by Congress into the Union must have all the rights, +and be subject to all the duties, which the original "States" +possessed, on the one side, and were obligated to discharge, on the +other; that Congress could not increase the powers of the general +<a name="page81"></a>Government within the new Commonwealths by selling the Territories a +license to the Commonwealth status, and taking the pay for it in +powers to be exercised by the general Government in the new +Commonwealths, which that Government could not, by the Constitution, +exercise within the original Commonwealths; and that if Congress +assumed to exercise such power, and the people of the Territory +seeking the Commonwealth status should even accept the imposed +condition, the new Commonwealth had the right and the power to free +itself from the condition, and the Congress was powerless to prevent +it.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote111"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. McLane's<br> + argument<br> + against the<br> + amendment.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. McLane, of Delaware, a Commonwealth whose legislature had +instructed the representatives from the Commonwealth in Congress to +support all measures for preventing the spread of slavery in the +Territories of the Union west of the Mississippi, presented the +question with even greater clearness and conciseness. He simply +analyzed the words of the Constitution which make up the clause +conferring power on Congress "to admit new States into this Union." He +said that the power to admit was not the power to create; that the +very use of the word presupposed that the power to create the "State" +resided elsewhere than in Congress; that Congress must admit a +<i>"State,"</i> not a Territory or a province or anything but a <i>"State;"</i> +that a "State," in the system of federal government of the United +States, was an organization whose powers and duties had been +determined by the Constitution of the United States itself, and could +not be altered by Congressional definitions and limitations; that +Congress must admit the "State" into <i>this Union,</i> not into some other +union; and that <i>this Union</i> was a system of federal government, in +which the relations between the general Government <a name="page82"></a>and the "States" +had been fixed by the Constitution of the United States, and could not +be altered by a mere Congressional act. This was strong reasoning, and +it had a powerful effect upon the minds of all who heard it and of all +who read it.</p> +<a name="side112"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote112"> + <tr> + <td><small>The independent<br> + Missouri bill<br> + of the Senate.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Meanwhile events were occurring in the Senate which were to exercise a +controlling influence over the fate of the bill in the House. On +December 29th, 1819, a memorial from the Territorial legislature of +Missouri, praying for the admission of that part of the Territory +already described in the memorial to the House, had been presented in +the Senate, and referred to the Judiciary committee. On January 3rd, +1820, the House bill admitting Maine was sent into the Senate. Mr. +James Barbour, of Virginia, immediately gave notice of his intention +to move the connection of the two subjects in the same bill, and on +the same terms. As we have seen, Mr. Clay had already made this +suggestion in the House, but had not formally proposed it.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote113"> + <tr> + <td><small>The connection of the<br> + House bill admitting<br> + Maine with the Senate's<br> + bill admitting Missouri.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The House bill admitting Maine was immediately referred to the +Judiciary committee, which committee already had the Missouri bill in +its charge, and on January 6th, Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, the +chairman of this committee, reported from it to the Senate the House +bill admitting Maine, with an amendment authorizing the people of +Missouri, within the general geographical boundaries already +described, to form a constitution and Commonwealth government. The +amendment contained no restrictions or conditions with regard to +slavery.</p> + +<p>On January 13th, the day fixed for considering the report of the +committee, Mr. Roberts, of Pennsylvania, moved the recommitment of the +Maine bill to the <a name="page83"></a>Judiciary committee, with the instruction that the +bill should be divested of the amendment in regard to Missouri. The +vote upon this motion would, therefore, reveal the attitude of the +Senate upon the question of tacking the two subjects together. Such +men as Mr. Roberts, Mr. Mellen, Mr. Burrill, and Mr. Otis argued that +they should be disconnected, on the ground of the discordance of the +two provisions. The people of Maine, they said, had already formed +their constitution and government, and were simply asking for +admission, while the Missouri bill was a measure for enabling the +people of a part of the Missouri Territory to form a constitution and +government, under which they might be admitted later, provided that +constitution should prove satisfactory to Congress.</p> + +<p>On the other hand, such men as Mr. Barbour, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Macon +contended that the two subjects were entirely germane, and that any +contrary appearance was caused by the unwarranted action of the people +of Maine in proceeding so far as they had done without asking the +consent of Congress, for which wrongful procedure presumptuous Maine +should not be rewarded and respectful Missouri punished.</p> +<a name="side114"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote114"> + <tr> + <td><small>The refusal of the<br> + Senate to disconnect<br> + the two measures.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On the 14th, the vote was taken upon the motion to recommit, and it +was lost by a majority of seven votes in forty-three. A number of the +Senators from the Northern Commonwealths voted with the Southerners in +refusing to separate the two subjects.</p> + +<p>The question then came upon the contents of the bill as reported by +the Judiciary committee. Mr. Roberts immediately moved to amend the +bill by a provision prohibiting the further introduction of slavery +into Missouri. The arguments upon this motion were substantially a +repetition of what had already been said <a name="page84"></a>upon the subject in the House +of Representatives. The amendment was voted down, on February 1st, by +a large majority.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote115"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Thomas'<br> + amendment to<br> + the joint measure.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On the 3rd, Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, offered an amendment, which was +destined to play a very important part in the further development of +the subject. It was the proposition to exclude slavery from the +Louisiana territory above thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, +except within the limits of the proposed Commonwealth of Missouri. The +Senate was not yet prepared, however, to consider this, the question +before it, at the moment, being the question of procedure, the +question whether the two subjects should be united in one bill. The +Senate had only voted not to recommit the bill to the Judiciary +committee with instructions, and it was thought necessary to take a +formal vote upon the question of the connection of the two subjects as +proposed by the committee before considering any further amendments to +it. Mr. Thomas, therefore, withdrew his motion for the moment.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote116"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Pinkney's great argument<br> + against the power of Congress<br> + to lay restrictions on new<br> + Commonwealths not imposed<br> + by the Constitution on the<br> + original Commonwealths.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was at this stage of the proceedings, when apparently there was +nothing before the Senate but the question of the union of the two +subjects, that Mr. Pinkney of Maryland made his brilliant and +unanswerable argument upon the question of the powers of Congress in +the premises. It differed logically very little from Mr. McLane's +powerful analysis of the subject in the House, but it was elaborated +and embellished as only Mr. Pinkney's beautiful diction could do it. +The gist of the reasoning was, however, contained in a few sentences +which ran as follows: "What, then, is the professed result? To admit a +State into this Union. What is this Union? A confederation of States, +equal <a name="page85"></a>in sovereignty, capable of everything which the Constitution +does not forbid, or authorize Congress to forbid. It is an equal union +between parties equally sovereign. They were sovereign, independent of +the Union. The object of the Union was common protection for the +exercise of already existing sovereignty. The parties gave up a +portion of that sovereignty to insure the remainder. As far as they +gave it up by the common compact, they have ceased to be sovereign. +The Union provides the means for securing the residue; and it is into +<i>that</i> Union that a new State is to come. By acceding to it, the new +State is placed on the same footing with the original States. It +accedes for the same purpose, that is, protection for its +unsurrendered sovereignty. If it comes in shorn of its beams, crippled +and disparaged beyond the original States, it is not into the original +Union that it comes. For it is a different sort of Union. The first +was a Union <i>inter pares</i>. This is a Union <i>inter disparates,</i> between +giants and a dwarf, between power and feebleness, between full +proportioned sovereignties and a miserable image of power—a thing +which that very Union has shrunk and shrivelled from its just size +instead of preserving it in its true dimensions. It is into <i>this</i> +Union, that is the Union of the Federal Constitution, that you are to +admit or refuse to admit. You can admit into no other. You cannot make +the Union, as to the new States, what it is not as to the old; for +then it is not <i>this</i> Union that you open for the entrance of a new +party. If you make it enter into a new and additional compact is it +any longer the same Union?... But it is a State which you are to +admit. What is a <i>State</i> in the sense of the Constitution? It is not a +State in general, but a State as you find it in the Constitution.... +Ask the Constitution. It shows you <a name="page86"></a>what it means by a State by +reference to the parties to it. It must be such a State as +Massachusetts, Virginia, and the other members of the American +Confederacy—a State with full sovereignty except as the Constitution +restricts it. The whole amount of the argument on the other side is, +that you may refuse to admit a new State, and that, therefore, if you +admit, you may prescribe the terms. The answer to that argument is, +that even if you can refuse, you can prescribe no terms which are +inconsistent with the act you are to do. You can prescribe no +conditions which, if carried into effect, would make the new State +less a sovereign State than, under the Union as it stands, it would +be. You can prescribe no terms which will make the compact of Union +between it and the original States essentially different from that +compact among the original States. You may admit or refuse to admit, +but if you admit, you must admit a State in the sense of the +Constitution—a State with all such sovereignty as belongs to the +original parties; and it must be into <i>this</i> Union that you are to +admit it, not into a Union of your own dictating, formed out of the +existing Union by qualifications and new compacts, altering its +character and effect, and making it fall short of its protecting +energy in reference to the new State, whilst it requires an energy of +another sort—the energy of restraint and destruction."</p> + +<p>This is the old-fashioned political and rhetorical way of saying what +the modern publicist would state in such language as this: In a +federal system of government, all powers are distributed by the state, +the nation, the ultimate sovereignty, through the Constitution, +between the central Government and the Commonwealths. The assumption +by the central Government of the authority to redistribute these +powers in a different manner, in any <a name="page87"></a>given case, is an assumption of +sovereignty, the Constitution-making power, and the possession of any +such power by the central Government makes a federal system of +government impossible. It makes the Commonwealths only creatures and +agencies of the central Government. It changes the whole system from +federal government to centralized government. In the federal system of +government as it existed, in 1820, in the United States, the +determination of the question whether slavery should exist or not in +any Commonwealth was reserved through the Constitution to each +Commonwealth for itself, since this power was neither vested in the +central Government nor denied to the Commonwealths. If Congress could +assume this power, it could assume any and every other power and right +which the Commonwealths possessed. Such authority in the central +Government would destroy in principle the federal system, at once, and +make the government a centralized form.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote117"> + <tr> + <td><small>Pinkney's<br> + argument<br> + successful.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>There was nobody in the Senate who did, or could, answer this +argument. The amendments proposed after this to the bill as reported +from the Judiciary committee contained no further restrictions upon +the Commonwealth powers of Missouri, but had reference only to what +remained of the Louisiana territory north and west of the boundaries +of the proposed Commonwealth.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote118"> + <tr> + <td><small>The adoption of Mr.<br> + Thomas' amendment<br> + by the Senate, and<br> + the passage of the<br> + Maine-Missouri bill<br> + thus amended.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The formal vote connecting the two subjects of Maine and Missouri was +taken in the Senate on February 16th, and after this was resolved +upon, Mr. Thomas immediately renewed his motion to amend the bill by +the addition of a clause prohibiting slavery in the Louisiana +territory above thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, outside of the +boundaries of the proposed Commonwealth of Missouri. After an attempt, +on the <a name="page88"></a>one side, to carry this line up to the fortieth parallel, and a +counter attempt on the other to make the prohibition extend to all the +territory west of the Mississippi, except that already under +Commonwealth government, or in process of being put under Commonwealth +government by the existing bill—the result of which would have been +the prohibition of slavery in the just organized Territory of +Arkansas—Mr. Thomas' amendment was adopted as the fair compromise. +The bill, as thus amended, passed the Senate on February 18th, 1820, +and was sent immediately to the House of Representatives.</p> +<a name="side119"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote119"> + <tr> + <td><small>The House of<br> + Representatives'<br> + refusal to agree<br> + to the combination.<br><br><br> + The conference on the<br> + subject, and the first<br> + Missouri compromise.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The form of the bill was now the House bill in regard to Maine, with +the Missouri bill and the Thomas proposition attached to it as +amendments. The House voted to disagree to these amendments, and sent +the bill, stripped of them, back to the Senate. The Senate voted +immediately to insist upon its amendments, and the House answered with +a vote insisting upon its position. Thereupon, the Senate requested a +conference with the House upon the subject, and appointed Mr. Pinkney, +Mr. Barbour, and Mr. Thomas as its representatives. The House acceded +to the request and appointed Mr. Holmes, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lowndes, Mr. +Parker, and Mr. Kinsey as its representatives. These gentlemen met and +agreed without much difficulty to the following points: That the +Senate should withdraw its amendments to the House bill for the +admission of Maine; that both the Senate and the House should pass the +Missouri bill, without the condition in reference to the restriction +of slavery in the proposed Commonwealth; and that both the Senate and +the House should add a provision to the Missouri bill prohibiting +slavery in the remainder of the Louisiana territory north of +thirty-six degrees and thirty <a name="page89"></a>minutes. That is, the House should gain +its point of order in the separation of the two subjects; the Senate +should gain its point of constitutional law in defending the new +Commonwealth against restrictions not imposed by the Constitution upon +the original Commonwealths; and the two should compromise upon a fair +division of the remaining parts of the Louisiana territory between the +interests of the North and those of the South. The Senate accepted the +recommendations of the committee without much difficulty, and voted +the measures contained in them. The House also accepted the +recommendations and voted the necessary provisions upon its part.</p> +<a name="side120"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote120"> + <tr> + <td><small>President Monroe's<br> + approval of<br> + the Compromise.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>When the measures were placed before President Monroe for his +approval, he called a meeting of the Cabinet to consider the subject. +There was no difficulty except upon a single point, the prohibition of +slavery in the remainder of the Louisiana territory above thirty-six +degrees and thirty minutes north latitude. Was this to be taken as +prohibiting slavery in the Commonwealths which might be formed upon +this territory in the future, or did the Congress only intend to lay +this restriction upon this territory merely for the period during +which it might continue subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the +general Government, the period of Territorial organization? If the +former, the Missouri question would have to be fought over again +whenever a new Commonwealth should be formed in this territory. The +Cabinet interpreted the prohibition as applying only during the period +before the Commonwealth organization should be established, and upon +the basis of this interpretation advised the President that the +measure was constitutional. The President signed the Maine bill on the +3rd of March and the Missouri bill on the 6th (1820).</p> +<a name="side121"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote121"> + <tr> + <td><small>Review of the<br> + points involved<br> + in the contest.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page90"></a> +<p>So far as the questions of constitutional and parliamentary law were +concerned, the settlement reached was in accordance with right +principles. It was right that the two subjects, which the Senate +united in one bill, should be separated. The only justification for +this act of the Senate was the manifest determination on the part of +the House to impose an unconstitutional restriction as the condition +upon which the people of Missouri should be allowed to assume the +status and the powers of a Commonwealth of the Union. It was the only +weapon left to the more conservative Senate, by which to defend the +Constitution against the rashness of the more radical House. It need +astonish no impartial student of our history that the Senate used it. +No such momentous question was involved in this point of parliamentary +procedure as there was in the exaggerated interpretation of the powers +of Congress by the House. The Senate showed its willingness to yield +its position upon this point so soon as the House would return to +sound constitutional principle in the Missouri question. It was +fortunate for the development of the parliamentary practice of +Congress that the House so changed its position in reference to the +greater question of constitutional law as to enable the Senate to +return to the true parliamentary principle of the separation of +subjects which differ in essence or in circumstances in the slightest +degree. While, therefore, the Senate should not be too strongly +criticised for using its power over its own rules of procedure, as a +means of retaliation, it is a matter of great satisfaction that +expedients were at last found for maintaining right principle and +sound parliamentary custom in the case. And it was surely right that +the attempt to make Congress the distributor of powers between the +general Government and the Commonwealths <a name="page91"></a>was abandoned. The power +which <i>made</i> the Constitution can alone set up the metes and bounds +between the realm of authority of the general Government and that of +the Commonwealths. This is the indispensable condition of federal +government. If the general Government possesses such power, the system +is centralized in theory, and may become so in fact at the pleasure of +the general Government. If, on the other hand, the Commonwealths +possess such power, the system is the loosest form of confederation, +an international league.</p> + +<p>It is true that the Constitution may authorize the general Government +to limit the powers of the Commonwealths in regard to certain +specified points and the federal system be still preserved, but a +general authority in the general Government to do so, such as was +claimed by the restrictionists from the vague provision vesting in +Congress the power to "admit new States into this Union," amounts to +nothing less than a claim of sovereignty by Congress over the new +Commonwealths. Such was not the system which those who framed and +ratified the Constitution intended to establish. Such is not the +system which comports with the vast territorial extent and the +climatic differences of the United States, and with the ethnical +variety of the population of the country.</p> + +<p>It is also true that those who resisted the restriction upon Missouri +used terms and propositions, in reference to the genesis of the Union +and the relation of the general Government to the Commonwealths, which +will hardly bear the test of correct history and exact political +science, but they had the true principle in respect to the point at +issue, when they held that "the State," in the sense of the +Constitution, is defined in the Constitution; that its powers are the +residue after what the Constitution vests exclusively in the general +<a name="page92"></a>Government and denies to the "States" shall have been subtracted from +sovereignty; and that Congress cannot vary these relations under an +interpretation of a general provision. They conceded that Congress +might, as the general principle, admit or not admit, as it might judge +proper, with all that this involved in reference to geographical +boundaries and ripeness of the population for self-government, but +they held that the thing admitted was created by the Constitution, +through the people inhabiting the district to be formed into a +Commonwealth, and not by Congress. And they repudiated the idea that +the Declaration of Independence is any part of the constitutional law +of the country, or that Congress can define the republican form of +government which the United States is obligated by the Constitution to +guarantee to every Commonwealth, in any other sense than that +concretely expressed in the original Commonwealths.</p> + +<p>They held this ground under enormous strain and pressure brought from +without. Cross-roads assemblies, town and city meetings, and +Commonwealth legislatures poured petitions and memorials in upon them +in behalf of slavery restriction. The excitement, throughout the +Northeast especially, was intense. They had to fight their battle +under an ignoble issue. But it will not be denied by any impartial +constitutional lawyer that they were, for this time, the upholders of +the Constitution against an unwarranted attempt to stretch +Congressional power.</p> + +<p>Finally, the compromise provision, drawing the line of thirty-six +degrees and thirty minutes through the Louisiana territory, and +securing all north of it, which was by far the greater part, against +the introduction of slavery during the period that it might remain +under the exclusive jurisdiction of the general Government, was +<a name="page93"></a>tantamount to a surrender, forever, of this vast domain to immigration +from the North almost exclusively, and to the creation therein of new +Commonwealths into which slaveholders could not take their slave +property. Many American historians treat the express exclusion of +slavery north of this line as no concession to the North, but as a +mask under which the real concession, the concession to the South, was +hidden. This they claim to have been the implied concession to hold +slaves south of that line. But slavery was legal by custom in the +whole of the province of Louisiana, when the United States received it +from France. That is, a master might have taken slaves into any part +of it, into which he might have gone himself, and would not thereby +have violated any law, and the United States Government had not, down +to 1820, changed this state of things by any act of its own.</p> + +<p>The compromise upon the line of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes +was, therefore, a very decided limitation upon the existing rights of +slave-masters. And even if slavery had not already penetrated into +this region, it can hardly be claimed that the balance of advantage +created by the compromise provision lay with the South, except upon +the principle that the South ought not to have had anything, and the +North ought to have had everything. Ethically, perhaps, this is the +correct principle from which to judge the question, but politically +and legally it was not, at that moment.</p> + +<p>The Union consisted of Commonwealths, in all of which slavery existed +at the time of and during the War for Independence, in almost all of +which it existed when the Constitution of 1787 was framed and adopted, +and in about half of which it existed, as the most important +institution, at the period of the Missouri controversy. Further, it +can hardly be denied that the Constitution contained recognition and +guarantees of slave property. <a name="page94"></a>The vague phrases of the Declaration of +Independence, even if intended to touch the relation of master and +slave within the country, were not law. It is true that slavery was +regarded both in the North and in the South as an evil, but men +differed in opinion as to whether confining the slaves to a particular +section was a better means for its mitigation than spreading them over +a larger area, and reducing thus their number relative to the white +population in any particular section.</p> + +<p>Surrounded in thought with the ideas and conditions of 1820, it is +difficult to see why the balance of advantage contained in the +compromise provision of the Missouri bill did not lie with the North. +Compromise or no compromise about the remainder of the Louisiana +territory, Missouri was bound to be admitted without restriction as to +slavery. The customary law of the region seeking to become a +Commonwealth permitted slaveholding. The population was sufficient to +warrant the assumption of Commonwealth powers. The Constitution did +not authorize Congress to impose the slavery restriction, and the +people of the region had protested against it. The admission of +Missouri was, therefore, no legitimate element in the compromise. +Neither was the agreement on the part of the Senate to separate Maine +from Missouri any proper element in the compromise. The restriction +placed by the House on Missouri rested on a false interpretation of +constitutional law, and the connection of the two subjects in the same +bill rested on a false interpretation of parliamentary law. In +principle both had to be abandoned. The compromise was in reality only +about the remainder of the Louisiana territory after the admission of +Missouri, in no part of which had slavery, to that moment, been +prohibited. How much of it should continue open to the further +introduction of slavery by the immigration of <a name="page95"></a>masters with their +slaves, and how much should be given over to practically exclusive +immigration from the North—these were the only proper terms of the +compromise. What the South finally obtained out of it was one +Commonwealth, while the vast region from which slavery was excluded +has produced eight or nine Commonwealths. In the light of these +considerations it certainly appears that the cause of free labor won a +substantial triumph in the Missouri compromise, and that, in place of +that shameful surrender of freedom to slavery, so emphasized by +certain historians, a mighty step forward in the progress of liberty +was taken.</p> + +<p>It was confidently hoped and believed that the compromise had solved +the slavery problem, in so far as Congress could solve it. The whole +country breathed more easily and the thoughts of men were turned to +other subjects.</p> +<a name="side122"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote122"> + <tr> + <td><small>The revival of the Missouri struggle.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>But the peace proved to be only an armistice. In less than twelve +months the battle was raging again with more than its former fury.</p> + +<p>The Missouri convention, which drew up and voted, in the middle of the +year 1820, the organic law for the new Commonwealth, inserted a +paragraph therein which made it the duty of the legislature, proposed +to be established by that law, to enact measures for preventing +mulattoes and free negroes from immigrating into and settling within +the Commonwealth.</p> +<a name="side123"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote123"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Missouri<br> + constitution<br> + in Congress.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On November 14th, 1820, this instrument was presented to the Senate of +the United States, and on the 16th to the House of Representatives, +for the purpose of moving these bodies to pass an act admitting +Missouri into the Union as a Commonwealth. The instrument was +immediately referred by each House to a committee; and on the 23rd, +Mr. Lowndes, the chairman of the House Committee, <a name="page96"></a>reported a bill for +effecting this result, and, on the 29th, Mr. Smith reported a bill of +like tenor to the Senate.</p> +<a name="side124"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote124"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Lowndes' bill<br> + for the admission<br> + of Missouri with<br> + the instrument<br> + unchanged.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Lowndes' bill was prefaced by a statement of views, which +presented the questions of constitutional interpretation to which the +provision referred to in the Missouri instrument gave rise. He alluded +to the possible repugnance of the provision to that clause in the +Constitution of the United States which guarantees to the citizens of +each Commonwealth all the privileges and immunities of citizens in +every other Commonwealth; but said that the provision in the Missouri +instrument could be interpreted to mean only such mulattoes and free +negroes as were not citizens in any Commonwealth. And he held that, +whether this be the true interpretation or not, the judiciary of the +United States, and not the Congress, should determine the question of +repugnance between the Missouri instrument and the Constitution of the +United States. He finally took the ground that Missouri was now +already a Commonwealth by virtue of the Act of Congress giving her +people permission to form Commonwealth government, and by virtue of +the act of her people in forming a Commonwealth constitution, and he +declared that the refusal or failure of Congress, at this time, to +pass a formal act of admission could not reduce her again to the +Territorial status.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote125"> + <tr> + <td><small>Serious opposition<br> + to the Lowndes bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Sergeant, the spokesman of the opposition to Mr. Lowndes' report, +met these propositions with the counter-propositions, that a Territory +becomes a Commonwealth of the Union only by a Congressional Act +admitting it to that status; that no other kind of a Commonwealth than +a Commonwealth in the Union is known to the political <a name="page97"></a>system of the +United States; that all the acts done by Congress and by the people +resident within a Territory before the Congressional Act of admission +are nothing more than preliminaries, and that a Territory remains a +Territory until the passage of this latter act; that the provision in +the Missouri instrument in regard to the exclusion of mulattoes and +free negroes was repugnant to that clause in the Constitution of the +United States which guarantees to the citizens of any Commonwealth the +privileges and immunities of citizens in every other Commonwealth of +the Union into which they may go; and that Congress, not the +Judiciary, is the body which should determine whether such repugnance +exists, and, if so, correct it.</p> + +<p>There is no doubt that, from the point of view of a correct political +logic, the opponents of Mr. Lowndes' propositions in regard to the +making of a Commonwealth of the Union stood upon the firmer ground, +despite the fact that the precedents did not sustain fully their +claims. As a fact, Congress had been guilty of such irregularities in +the admission of some of the Commonwealths as to give much support to +the notion that there could be a Commonwealth in the political system +of the United States before its formal admission into the Union. But +the argument is unanswerable, that a Commonwealth not in the Union is +a foreign state; that in order that a Territory shall attain this +latter position and status its constitutional right to secede from the +United States must be recognized, which is absurd; and that, +therefore, the Congressional Act of admission is what makes a +Territory of the Union into a Commonwealth of the Union, the only kind +of a Commonwealth known to the political system of the United States.</p> + +<p>They also stood upon the firmer ground in holding <a name="page98"></a>that it is the duty +of Congress to scrutinize closely the measures proposed for enactment +by it from the point of view of their constitutionality, and to pass +no act, of the constitutionality of which it is not reasonably +convinced, under the pretext that the Judiciary is the proper body to +correct the usurpation. The members of Congress take the same oath to +uphold the Constitution as the judges do. The revisory powers of the +Judiciary over the acts of Congress were not given in order to excuse +the Congress from exercising its preliminary judgment upon the +constitutionality of its own acts. They were given simply to correct +errors in judgment.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote126"> + <tr> + <td><small>The protection of the<br> + rights of citizens of one<br> + Commonwealth within<br> + the territory of another<br> + by the United States.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On the other hand, when a citizen of one Commonwealth immigrated into +and settled in another, it was a question whether he did not lose the +right to be treated as a citizen in the latter Commonwealth, in so far +as the Constitution of the United States, as it was in 1820, was +concerned, and become subject to the laws of the latter Commonwealth +as to his status. If he were only passing through, or sojourning +temporarily in, the latter Commonwealth, it was clear that the +Constitution of the United States protected him as a citizen of +another Commonwealth, but when he changed his residence and +citizenship to the latter Commonwealth, the question became much more +complicated. It was now whether the laws of one Commonwealth were, by +virtue of the Constitution of the United States, valid in another +Commonwealth for the protection of persons against the laws of the +latter Commonwealth, who had become citizens and residents of the +latter Commonwealth.</p> + +<p>It must be remembered, however, that the immediate question involved +in the provision of the Missouri instrument was whether a Commonwealth +could prohibit the citizens of other Commonwealths from immigrating +<a name="page99"></a>into, and gaining residence and citizenship within, itself. How it +might treat such persons after these things had been accomplished was +a subsequent matter. But even limiting the question to this point, it +was certainly a startling thing to the Southerners to be told that, by +virtue of the Constitution of the United States, a negro citizen of +Massachusetts had the right to immigrate into, and become a citizen +of, South Carolina, when the laws of South Carolina did not admit +negroes to citizenship.</p> +<a name="side127"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote127"> + <tr> + <td><small>Defeat of the Lowndes<br> + bill in the House.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On December 13th (1820), after a long, earnest, and, at times, +acrimonious debate, the Lowndes measure for the admission of Missouri +was defeated by a vote of ninety-three to seventy-nine.</p> +<a name="side128"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote128"> + <tr> + <td><small>Passage of the<br> + Senate bill<br> + with a proviso<br> + by the Senate.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The bill presented by Mr. Smith in the Senate was taken up for +consideration on December 4th. The arguments pro and con were about +the same as those offered in the House, but the bitterness of feeling +which seemed to animate the members of the opposition to the measure +in the House was not manifested by those adverse to it in the Senate. +Nevertheless, there was a majority in the Senate against passing a +simple measure for admission without any limitations. They finally +voted the bill, with the proviso attached: "That nothing herein +contained shall be so construed as to give the assent of Congress to +any provision in the constitution of Missouri, if any such there be, +which contravenes that clause in the Constitution of the United States +which declares that 'the citizens of each State shall be entitled to +all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.'"</p> +<a name="side129"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote129"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Senate bill<br> + tabled by the House.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The House tabled this bill on the same day that it rejected the +measure offered by its own committee. But what now was the status of +Missouri? Her people had <a name="page100"></a>elected a governor and members of the +legislature under the organic law formed in July, and it was +considered doubtful whether there still existed any Territorial +officials exercising governmental powers. The House, however, would +not even inquire into this fact. They said the question before them +was one of law and not of fact at all.</p> +<a name="side130"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote130"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Clay and the second<br> + Missouri Compromise.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>After some futile attempts made by Mr. Eustis, of Massachusetts, for +the admission of Missouri upon a future day, provided the obnoxious +clause should be expunged from her organic law before that day, Mr. +Clay came forward and assumed the management of the question.</p> + +<p>On January 29th, 1821, he asked the House to go into committee of the +Whole to consider the Senate bill admitting Missouri. This proposition +was naturally agreed to, and, after several unsuccessful attempts made +by others at an immediate amendment of the Senate bill in the +committee of the Whole House, Mr. Clay moved the reference of the bill +to a select committee of thirteen persons. This motion was passed, and +the committee was chosen, with Mr. Clay as its chairman.</p> + +<p>On February 10th, 1821, Mr. Clay reported the recommendations of the +committee. They were expressed in the proposition: That Missouri +should be "admitted into this Union on an equal footing with the +original States, in all respects whatever, upon the fundamental +condition that the said State shall never pass any law preventing any +description of persons from coming to and settling in the said State, +who may now be or hereafter become citizens of any of the States of +this Union; <i>and provided also,</i> that the legislature of the said +State, by a solemn public act, shall declare the assent of the said +State to the said fundamental condition, and shall transmit to the +President of the United States, on or before the fourth <a name="page101"></a>Monday of +November next, an authentic copy of the said act: upon the reception +whereof, the President, by proclamation, shall announce the fact: +whereupon, and without any further proceedings on the part of +Congress, the admission of the said State shall be considered as +complete: <i>and provided</i> further, that nothing herein contained shall +be construed to take from the said State of Missouri, when admitted +into this Union, the exercise of any right or power, which can now be +constitutionally exercised by any of the original States."</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote131"> + <tr> + <td><small>The failure of Mr.<br> + Clay's first attempt.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Tomlinson, of the committee, took the floor against the report, +and showed so conclusively that the legislature of a Commonwealth +could not bind the makers of the organic law of the Commonwealth, and +that, therefore, any obligation which the legislature of Missouri +might assume toward Congress might prove nugatory, that the Senate +bill, with the amendment offered by Mr. Clay's committee, was voted +down.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote132"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Clay's second attempt<br> + to secure a compromise.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Clay waited ten days after this in order to let the feelings of +the members become mollified, and on February 22nd, one of the most +significant days in American history, made his final attempt to secure +a compromise. He moved that members to a conference committee be +appointed by the House. The motion was carried, and on the next day +the members of the House contingent of the committee, consisting of +twenty-three persons, under the lead of Mr. Clay, were appointed. The +Senate met the advance promptly and appointed seven members to +represent it.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote133"> + <tr> + <td><small>The second<br> + Missouri<br> + Compromise.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On the 26th, Mr. Clay reported the results of the conference, in the +form of a resolution of the following tenor: "Resolved, by the Senate +and House of Representatives of the United States, in Congress +<a name="page102"></a>assembled, that Missouri shall be admitted into this Union on an equal +footing with the original States in all respects whatever, upon the +fundamental condition, that the fourth clause of the twenty-sixth +section of the third article of the constitution submitted on the part +of said State to Congress shall never be construed to authorize the +passage of any law, and that no law shall be passed in conformity +thereto, by which any citizen of either of the States of this Union +shall be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges and +immunities to which such citizen is entitled under the Constitution of +the United States: Provided that the legislature of the said State, by +a solemn public act, shall declare the assent of the said State to the +said fundamental condition, and shall transmit to the President of the +United States, on or before the fourth Monday in November next, an +authentic copy of the said act; upon the receipt whereof the +President, by proclamation, shall announce the fact; whereupon, and +without any further proceeding on the part of Congress, the admission +of the said State into this Union shall be considered as complete."</p> +<a name="side134"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote134"> + <tr> + <td><small>Passage of the<br> + second Missouri<br> + Compromise Act.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It will be seen that this recommendation contained the same +objectionable feature as did that of the committee of Thirteen of the +House, that is, the proposition to rely upon the Missouri legislature +to enter into an obligation to Congress, which should bind all future +legislatures and also the constituent power of the Commonwealth. It +was, therefore, attacked upon the same ground, but the supporters +urged so strongly that Congress should put a reasonable faith in the +honor of Missouri to keep the pledge made by her first legislature, +that the resolution was finally adopted by the House, by a very small +majority, on the same day that it was reported. It was immediately +sent to the <a name="page103"></a>Senate for concurrence, and, after a brief debate, was +voted by that body on the 28th, by a large majority.</p> + +<p>The great struggle was at last over, and it was sincerely hoped that +the "era of good feeling," so suddenly interrupted by it, had been +restored. Apparently it was so, but while the decision finally reached +saved the country from one great danger, it sowed the seeds of +another. A brief review of the effects of that decision upon the +constitutional law, political science, and social conditions of the +Republic will make this apparent.</p> +<a name="side135"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote135"> + <tr> + <td><small>The general effects<br> + of the decisions<br> + reached in the<br> + Missouri question.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In the first place, the decision involved the constitutional and +political principle that, in the federal system of government +generally, and in the system of the United States in particular, the +powers of government are, and must be, distributed by the sovereignty +behind, and supreme over, both the general Government and the +Commonwealths, and not by either of the two governments, unless +expressly empowered to do so, in specific cases, by the sovereignty +through the Constitution. This is undoubtedly a sound principle, both +of political science and constitutional law, but it taught the +Southerners that protection of their property in slaves would depend +upon strict construction of the Constitution. It caused their leaders +to desert the broad national ground in the interpretation of the +Constitution which they had occupied since 1812, and to seek more and +more to limit and restrict the powers of Congress, in which the +majority of the members of one House, at least, must always come from +the North, and in the other House of which no more than an exact +balance could be maintained.</p> + +<p>It introduced, therefore, the principle which led necessarily to a +division of the all-comprehending Republican party into two branches, +the one branch holding <a name="page104"></a>to the latitudinarian and national views of the +party from 1812 to 1819, and the other to the earlier creed of 1798 to +1812. The former finally coalesced with the remnants of the Federal +party and formed the National Republican or Whig party, while the +latter called itself the Democratic party.</p> + +<p>It is necessary to keep clearly in mind the cause of the division of +the Republican party into its two branches in order to understand the +principles which distinguished them, for their names are somewhat +misleading. For example, it is quite difficult to understand, upon +general principles, why the slaveholders of the South should be called +Democrats, while many of the little farmers and the artisans of the +North should be called Whigs. The element of democracy which was to be +found in the political creed of the Southern masters was strict +construction of governmental powers, the least possible interference +of government in private affairs, and the largest possible individual +autonomy—in a word, individual immunity against government. The +master could take care of himself, if left free to rule his slaves.</p> + +<p>In the second place, the Missouri decision involved the principle of +constitutional law that the Congress has general powers of legislation +in the Territories, and may do anything therein not forbidden by the +Constitution. This is also a sound and valuable principle. It was this +which won the great Northwest for free labor, so far as government +could affect the question, and gave the Union the strength to meet the +crisis of 1861-65. The Southerners eventually saw what they had lost +in conceding this interpretation of the powers of Congress, and, as +will be seen further on, sought to repudiate it; but their long +acquiescence in it had allowed it to gain the power of constitutional +precedent, too strong to be successfully overcome.</p> +<a name="page105"></a> +<p>In the third place, the Missouri decision involved the principle that +there was, before the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, an United +States citizenship which carried with it immunities and privileges +which no Commonwealth could lawfully deny or abridge, and which the +United States Government was bound to protect and defend against any +Commonwealth seeking to impair them. It demonstrated the difficulties +which could arise by allowing a Commonwealth to confer United States +citizenship, and thereby bind the United States Government to sustain +the acts of one Commonwealth within the jurisdiction of another +Commonwealth, whose laws might be directly contradictory to those of +the first Commonwealth upon the subject in point. It did not undertake +to solve the difficulty. It only held firmly to the principle, while +it made many of the best minds aware that this most national provision +of the Constitution would, sooner or later, certainly require an +advance all along the line in the further development of the +governmental system of the country.</p> + +<p>In the fourth place, the Missouri decision taught the inhabitants of +the older Commonwealths that the West could not be held in a +provincial or quasi-provincial status; that it must be carved up and +formed into Commonwealths having the same powers and privileges as the +older Commonwealths; and that, therefore, the political centre of the +United States was bound to move westward, and the East was ultimately +to come, in large degree, under the influence of the West. It was this +which has helped powerfully to carry the brain and the money of the +East to the West, and is making in the West a new, and, in some +respects, more enterprising, East.</p> + +<p>Finally, the Missouri decision taught the South that there was a +provision in the Constitution of the United <a name="page106"></a>States which probably made +it possible for the Northern Commonwealths to force, through the power +of the general Government, a class of persons upon the Southern +Commonwealths, in the enjoyment of the full rights of citizenship, +whom these Commonwealths did not and would not recognize as citizens +in any respect; and that there was a growing disposition at the North +to make an advance against slavery at every possible point. The effect +of this conviction was most baleful both upon the spirit of the +masters and the status of the slaves. It created that resentment in +the minds of the Southerners against interference in their domestic +affairs, which closed their ears to all arguments against slavery, and +it moved them to the enactment of measures in their several +Commonwealths for the purpose of keeping the slaves under stricter +discipline and in denser ignorance. It increased vastly, if it did not +introduce, that utter misunderstanding of each other's feelings and +motives between the people of the two sections, which made it possible +for the people of the North to believe, finally, that the story of +"Uncle Tom's Cabin" was the sober truth, and the general rule of +conduct of master toward slave in the South, and for the people of the +South to believe that jealousy of riches and comfort was the sole +spirit which prompted the attacks of the North upon slavery—a +misunderstanding, therefore, which proved irreconcilable so long as +the subject of it remained.</p> + +<p>The Missouri decision made thus both for good and for evil—for good, +surely, in that it produced clearer ideas upon the character of +federal government, and preserved the East from an illiberal political +policy toward the West; and in that it secured the great Northwest for +free labor;—for evil, possibly, in that it estranged the two sections +of the Union, and put a stop to any movement in the South for the +gradual and <a name="page107"></a>peaceable emancipation of the slaves, or for the +substantial amelioration of their condition. It is not very likely, +however, that any such movement would have proved successful, and it +is, therefore, probable that what appears on the outside to have been +an evil was in reality a good, in that it drove the disease in the +body politic of the South onward toward the crisis, which must be +passed in order that the permanent cure might be effected.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="chap5"></a><a name="page108"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER V.</h3> + +<center>THE BEGINNING OF THE PARTICULARISTIC REACTION</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side136">Slavery and the Industrial Policies of the +Union</a>—<a href="#side137">President Monroe and Protection after +1820</a>—<a href="#side138">The Committee on +Manufactures</a>—<a href="#side139">The Tariff Bill of +1823</a>—<a href="#side140">The General Character of the Bill, and its Failure to +Pass</a>—<a href="#side141">President Monroe's Message of 1823, and +Protection</a>—<a href="#side142">The Tariff Bill of +1824</a>—<a href="#side143">Mr. Clay's Argument in its +Support</a>—<a href="#side144">Mr. Clay's Argument +Answered</a>—<a href="#side144">The First Expression of the Doctrine that Protection and Slavery were Hostile +Interests</a>—<a href="#side145">The Bill Amended and +Passed</a>—<a href="#side146">The Tariff of 1824 not yet Considered Sectional +Legislation</a>—<a href="#side147">South Carolina and the Tariff of +1824</a>—<a href="#side148">The Historical Development of the Doctrine of Internal +Improvements</a>—<a href="#side149">Madison's Ideas upon Internal +Improvements</a>—<a href="#side150">The Bill of 1822 for Internal +Improvements</a>—<a href="#side151">Passage of the Bill, and Analysis of the Vote upon +it</a>—<a href="#side152">The Bill in the Interests of the +West</a>—<a href="#side153">President Monroe's Veto, and Communication of May 4th, +1822</a>—<a href="#side154">President Monroe's Argument, and the Vote upon the +Veto</a>—<a href="#side155">Congressional Act of 1824 for Distinguishing National from Local +Improvements</a>—<a href="#side156">Foreign Relations During Monroe's Second +Term</a>—<a href="#side157">Russia and the Northwest Coast of +America</a>—<a href="#side158">The Holy +Alliance</a>—<a href="#side159">The Congress at +Verona</a>—<a href="#side160">Mr. Adams' Declaration to Baron +Tuyl</a>—<a href="#side161">Mr. Canning's Proposal to Mr. +Rush</a>—<a href="#side162">Mr. Canning's Declaration to Prince +Polignac</a>—<a href="#side163">The "Monroe +Doctrine"</a>—<a href="#side164">The Meaning of the Monroe Propositions in +1824</a>—<a href="#side165">Failure to Commit Congress to these +Propositions</a>—<a href="#side166">The Particularistic Reaction Scarcely Discoverable before 1824.</a></blockquote> +<br> +<a name="side136"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote136"> + <tr> + <td><small>Slavery and the<br> + industrial policies<br> + of the Union.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was hoped and believed that the settlement of the Missouri question +and the compromise in reference to the remainder of the Louisiana +cession had put the problem of negro slavery out of the realm of +national politics. In fact, however, the struggle over these questions +had introduced it into that realm, and had <a name="page109"></a>first opened the eyes of +the slaveholders to the bearings of the slavery interest upon all the +questions of constitutional law and public policy. From the point of +view of that interest their attitude toward all these questions was +more and more determined as they came to understand more and more +clearly the relation of these questions to that interest. While, +therefore, the settlement and the compromise served to withdraw the +question of slavery from the direct and immediate issue, they, at the +same time, left it the secret influence over views and actions in +many, if not most, directions.</p> + +<p>At the next session, beginning in December of 1821, propositions were +introduced into the Senate to limit and decrease the admiralty +jurisdiction of the United States courts, to make the Senate itself a +court of appeal from the regular Judiciary in cases where a "State" +should be a party, and to limit to two hundred the number of members +in the House of Representatives.</p> + +<p>The purpose of all these projects is apparent. Indeed, their proposers +said openly and frankly that their purpose was to lessen and limit the +powers of the general Government in the interests of "States'-rights."</p> + +<p>It was natural, however, that the new spirit of particularism should +attack the policies of the Government rather than the structure of the +political system, or, more correctly, should undertake to control +these policies before it sought to transform that system.</p> +<a name="side137"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote137"> + <tr> + <td><small>President Monroe<br> + and protection<br> + after 1820.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>We have seen with what unanimity and national enthusiasm the +protection of home industries was regarded, in the half decade between +1815 and 1820, as a measure indispensable to the attainment and +maintenance of industrial independence. Not even Calhoun then +understood the relation between this policy and the interests of +slavery. The Presidents, Madison and <a name="page110"></a>Monroe, were utterly oblivious to +it. Even after the Missouri struggle, Mr. Monroe continued to +recommend the protection of manufactures for the attainment of +industrial independence as the true national policy. His annual +messages of 1821 and of 1822 contain this recommendation. He either +did not comprehend the relation of the slavery interests to the +protective system or disregarded it. It could hardly have been the +latter, for, although he was no radical supporter of slavery, he was a +slaveholder and a very conservative man.</p> +<a name="side138"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote138"> + <tr> + <td><small>The committee<br> + on Manufactures.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The House of Representatives, the body which had upheld even radically +national views of the character of the political system during the +Missouri struggle, very naturally responded to Mr. Monroe's +recommendation, and referred it to its committee on Manufactures for +consideration and support. Heretofore this subject had been referred +to the committee on Ways and Means, the regular revenue-raising +committee. Its reference now to the committee on Manufactures is good +evidence that the House of Representatives regarded a protective +tariff as a subject which Congress might deal with independently, and +without any necessary connection with the subject of the revenue. Such +a view is radically national. It rests upon the doctrine that Congress +may do anything in the regulation of foreign trade and commerce which, +in its own opinion, is conducive to the general welfare, regardless of +the pecuniary needs of the Government.</p> +<a name="side139"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote139"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Tariff<br> + Bill of 1823.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On January 9th, 1823, Mr. Tod, of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the +committee on Manufactures, reported a tariff bill. It proposed to +nearly double the existing duty upon iron, quadruple that upon coarse +woollens, and to increase the custom-house valuation of dyed cotton +goods by some forty per centum.</p> +<a name="page111"></a> +<p>Moreover, the bill made no provision for the future reduction of these +duties. It therefore indicated that protection was to be the permanent +policy, protection so high as to amount to the prohibition of the +importation of coarse cottons and woollens and bar iron. In fact, Mr. +Tod conceded that the prohibition of the importation of coarse +woollens was intended. He said that the tariff of 1816 on coarse +cotton goods had given a monopoly of the domestic markets for such +goods to the home manufacturers, while the price of the goods had been +reduced through home competition by one-half, and that his committee +desired to bring about the same result in regard to the manufacture of +coarse woollens.</p> +<a name="side140"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote140"> + <tr> + <td><small>The general character<br> + of the bill, and its<br> + failure to pass.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Tod was not able to get a vote upon his bill at this session of +the Congress. Three significant facts, however, were elicited in the +course of the debate upon it, facts which indicated the trend of +political history. These facts were that the bill was a Pennsylvania +measure, that the South would oppose it, and that Massachusetts and +New York City would unite with the South in this opposition. It was, +in fact, a Massachusetts man, Mr. Gorham, who denounced the bill as +sectional legislation, and advised the South to resist it to the +utmost. Cotton and commerce, and that meant slavery and commerce, were +beginning to discover their affinity.</p> +<a name="side141"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote141"> + <tr> + <td><small>President Monroe's<br> + Message of 1823,<br> + and protection.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>President Monroe, however, does not seem to have shared this view of +the subject. In his message of December 2nd, 1823, he again +recommended additional protection to "those articles which we are +prepared to manufacture, or which are more immediately connected with +the defence and independence of the country."</p> + +<p>Thus encouraged by the President, the House of <a name="page112"></a>Representatives again +referred the question of increasing the tariff to Mr. Tod's committee.</p> +<a name="side142"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote142"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Tariff Bill of 1824.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On January 9th, 1824, Mr. Tod brought in his new bill. It was a more +moderate proposition than that of the preceding session; still it +provided for a substantial increase of the duties on woollens and +iron.</p> + +<p>Mr. Tod assumed the constitutionality of the bill to be a settled +question, and supported the policy of it by arguments from the +necessity of attaining industrial independence in the manufacture of +the necessaries of life, from the necessity of creating new and more +remunerative employments for labor, and from the policy of developing +better home markets for agricultural products. He predicted that an +ultimate reduction of the prices of manufactured goods would be the +result of the increased home competition produced by higher duties. He +did not, however, make out any very satisfactory prospects for +commerce. This branch of the national pursuits was to make the +sacrifice.</p> +<a name="side143"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote143"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Clay's<br> + argument<br> + in its support.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Clay made the great argument in defence of the measure. He +elaborated the patriotic reason in every direction. He pointed out the +utter dependence of the country upon foreign markets, both for the +sale of its agricultural products and for the purchase of manufactured +goods. He demonstrated that these relations had been created by the +quarter of a century of war in Europe, forcing the European countries +to buy the agricultural products of the United States to an unusual +amount, and at high prices, and showed how the restoration of general +peace in Europe had reduced the demand for, and the price of, these +products, while it left the United States dependent upon Europe for +manufactured articles. And he urged the accomplishment of industrial +independence <a name="page113"></a>as a necessary corollary of political independence. He +contended that the aid granted to the manufacturing interests would +impose no sacrifice upon the agricultural and commercial interests; +that by the establishment of new manufacturing centres new home +markets for the products of agriculture would be created, which would +not only emancipate the country from the necessity of foreign markets +for these products, but would give the country steady and certain +markets, under its own control; and that the growth of manufactures +would speedily result in the establishment of an export trade in +manufactured goods to all parts of the world, and especially to South +America, which would ultimately more than compensate the commercial +interests for the temporary losses they might incur by reason of the +increased duties. This was a strongly tinted picture upon both sides. +It represented the distress of the country too darkly, and it painted +the speculative benefits of the high tariff in too vivid colors. +Moreover, Mr. Clay now omitted any reference to the temporary +character of protection. It now appeared to be a permanent article of +his creed.</p> +<a name="side144"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote144"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Clay's argument<br> + answered.<br><br><br> + The first expression of the<br> + doctrine that protection and<br> + slavery were hostile interests.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Webster for Massachusetts, Cambreleng for the city of New York, and +Barbour for the South, denied Mr. Clay's statement in regard to the +intense and general financial distress throughout the country, and +demonstrated the destructive effects of a high tariff upon agriculture +and commerce, and upon the existing manufacturing interests +themselves. They contended that such a tariff would so prohibit +importation of foreign products as to make it impossible for Europe to +buy the agricultural products of the United States, since Europe would +not be able to pay for them; that the promised increase of domestic +markets would not at all compensate for the loss of <a name="page114"></a>foreign markets; +that commerce would thus be destroyed both ways; and that even the +manufacturing industries already established would suffer from the +unnatural competition which would be created by the inducements which +the high tariff would hold out to capital otherwise employed. Mr. +Barbour frankly declared that the slave labor of the South could not +be used in the development of manufactures, and that, therefore, the +high tariff must inure to the benefit of the North, by making the +South tributary to the North for all manufactured goods.</p> + +<p>The theory accepted by all parties, however, at the moment, was, that +the duties were paid ultimately by the consumers of the imported +goods. Senator Hayne, of South Carolina, pronounced this doctrine +himself. Upon this view the North must pay the duties equally, at +least, with the South. So long, then, as this idea was held, and so +long as the commercial interests of Massachusetts, Maine, and the city +of New York made common cause with the agricultural interests of the +South against the bill, it could not be strictly regarded as sectional +legislation, it could not develop into a political and constitutional +question between the North and the South.</p> +<a name="side145"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote145"> + <tr> + <td><small>The bill amended<br> + and passed.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>While this combination of interests was not able to prevent the House +from finally passing the bill by a narrow majority, it did succeed in +imposing several very substantial modifications upon it in the +direction of more moderate protection.</p> + +<p>In the Senate the bill suffered still further modification in the same +direction. The burden of the Senate's amendments fell, however, on the +wool- and hemp-growing and liquor-distilling West. It was for this +reason that the House of Representatives refused to concur in <a name="page115"></a>them. +Recourse was then had to a conference committee, which arranged a +compromise that gave a little less protection than the House had +voted, and a little more than the Senate had voted.</p> + +<p>The tariff of May, 1824, was still only a moderately protective +tariff. It was certainly in only one particular anything like +prohibitory; it preserved the high tariff of 1816 on coarse cotton +goods. In other respects it was not much more than a continuation of +the reasonable duties already imposed.</p> +<a name="side146"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote146"> + <tr> + <td><small>The tariff of 1824<br> + not yet considered<br> + sectional legislation.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>So long as the tariff remained moderately protective, and was approved +in Kentucky and Missouri, and disapproved in Massachusetts, New +Hampshire, Maine, and the city of New York, and so long as its burdens +were generally believed to fall ultimately upon the consumers of the +dutiable articles, it could not take on the form of a sectional issue, +dominated by the question of slavery. Some of the Southerners had, +indeed, discovered that slave labor could not be employed in the +mills, and that, therefore, protection of manufactures would not +secure the establishment of these industries in the South, and had +begun to treat the tariff question in a manner to develop a party +issue out of it. But this tendency had not advanced far enough in 1824 +to produce a division of the all-comprehending Republican party. It +needed another four years of personal differences among the leaders, +another revision of the tariff in the direction of higher duties, and +a more complete consolidation of the North for protection, before this +result could be attained.</p> +<a name="side147"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote147"> + <tr> + <td><small>South Carolina and<br> + the tariff of 1824.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>During the passage of the bill public meetings had been held +throughout South Carolina protesting against it, and the year +subsequent to its enactment the South Carolina legislature denounced +it as unconstitutional, but the people <a name="page116"></a>of the Commonwealth acquiesced, +though with very bad temper, in the execution of the law.</p> + +<p>The other question of internal policy, to which certain of the +historians refer as suffering under the baleful influences of the +slavery interest immediately after 1820, was the question of national +internal improvements.</p> +<a name="side148"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote148"> + <tr> + <td><small>The historical development<br> + of the doctrine of<br> + internal improvements.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>This question became a definite issue in Congress for the first time +on December 19th, 1805, when a committee of the Senate, charged with +the duty of reporting to the Senate an opinion as to how the money +appropriated in the Enabling Act for Ohio ought to be applied, +recommended the use of it for the building of a road across the +Alleghanies from Cumberland, in Maryland, to a point upon the Ohio +River, near Wheeling, in Virginia.</p> + +<p>If we may take the first Act passed by Congress, that of March 29th, +1806, in regard to the matter as expressing the views of the +Government and the people upon the subject, we must conclude that the +first matured ideas were that the general Government had the power to +lay out and construct roads within and through the Commonwealths, by +and with the consent of the Commonwealths through which they might +pass. The Cumberland road was originally built by the general +Government, after the consent thereto of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and +Virginia had been obtained. The appropriations for subsequent repairs +upon the road were, however, not considered as requiring the consent +of those Commonwealths before being made or expended.</p> +<a name="side149"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote149"> + <tr> + <td><small>Madison's ideas<br> + upon internal<br> + improvements.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The second stage in the evolution of opinion upon the subject was +attained in the year 1817, when Mr. Madison vetoed Mr. Calhoun's bill +for setting aside the bonus and the dividends to be paid to the +Government by the United States Bank as a fund for constructing roads +and canals, and <a name="page117"></a>improving the navigation of water-courses in the +several Commonwealths. This bill proposed to authorize the general +Government to expend the money, thus appropriated, only with the +consent of the Commonwealth, or Commonwealths, in which the proposed +improvement might lay, antecedently given, and distributed the sum to +be spent among the Commonwealths according to the ratio of their +representation in the national House of Representatives. As has been +pointed out, Madison vetoed this bill on the ground that the power to +enact it was not to be found among the enumerated powers of Congress, +and could not be regarded as a necessary and proper means for carrying +out any of the enumerated powers.</p> + +<p>The President drew no distinction between the power to construct +internal improvements and the power to appropriate money for their +construction, nor between such powers and the power to administer +them, or to exercise jurisdiction over them. He regarded all, or any +of these things, as unwarranted by the Constitution. He furthermore +declared that the consent of the several Commonwealths to the exercise +of such powers by the general Government could not make the exercise +of them constitutional, unless that consent should be given in the +form of an amendment to the Constitution.</p> + +<p>The vote upon the vetoed bill in the House of Representatives +manifested the fact that a substantial majority of that body remained +unconvinced by the President's argument. It is reasonably certain that +Mr. Madison's views were not the views of the country at that moment. +A large majority of the people felt that he had abandoned his earlier +faith in regard to this subject. An analysis of the vote upon the +vetoed bill shows that New England was almost unanimous in opposing +the measure; that Virginia and North <a name="page118"></a>Carolina also opposed it, though +less decidedly; that New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the +Northwest, together with South Carolina and Georgia, favored it; and +that Kentucky and Tennessee inclined to favor it. Certainly, down to +1817, no influence of the slavery interest upon the question of +internal improvements is discoverable. It was evident that the general +opinion was, that the middle Atlantic section and the Northwest would +receive the larger share of the benefits of a national system of +internal improvements. It was also evident that New England viewed the +matter purely in that light, and that Virginia was impelled wholly by +her ancient principle of strict construction of the powers of the +general Government. It was South Carolina and Georgia whose actions +appeared at this juncture to spring from unselfish and patriotic +motives.</p> +<a name="side150"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote150"> + <tr> + <td><small>The bill of 1822<br> + for internal<br> + improvements.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The third stage in the development of constitutional interpretation in +reference to this subject was attained in the year 1822. In May of +that year Congress passed a bill appropriating money for the repair of +the Cumberland road, and authorizing the President to cause the +erection of toll-gates upon it, and to appoint toll-gatherers. The +toll charges, and penalties for attempting to avoid paying them, and +for not keeping to the left in passing, were fixed in the bill itself. +That is, this bill assumed for the general Government not only the +powers of appropriating and expending money for the construction of +the road, but the power of operating the road and jurisdiction over +it. The passage of such a bill is certainly very good evidence that +President Madison's views, as expressed in his veto message of March +3rd, 1817, were not the views of the country in 1822 upon the subject +of internal improvements.</p> +<a name="side151"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote151"> + <tr> + <td><small>Passage of the<br> + bill, and analysis of<br> + the vote upon it.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It is interesting and instructive to analyze the vote upon this bill. +In the House of Representatives the <a name="page119"></a>members from the New England +section were nearly evenly divided, pro and con. The majority of the +New Yorkers voted against it. The Pennsylvanians were nearly balanced. +The Marylanders voted for it. The Virginians were against it by a +decided majority. The North Carolinians were indifferent. The South +Carolinians and Georgians abandoned their high national ground of +1817, and voted unanimously against it. The Representatives from the +Northwest went unanimously for it; and those from Kentucky now wheeled +into line with them. Lastly, while the Tennesseeans still maintained +their attitude of indifference, the members from the Commonwealths +south of Tennessee, and west of Georgia, all voted for the bill.</p> + +<p>In the Senate the majority in favor of the measure was very large. +Only the Senators from the Carolinas and Alabama, and one Senator from +Missouri, voted against it.</p> + +<p>There is somewhat more of an appearance of slavery influence in the +vote upon this bill than upon the bill of 1817, in that South Carolina +showed herself practically a unit against this bill. Still it is +probable that this opposition rested upon other grounds. Certainly +when we read in the "Annals of Congress," that so stanch a friend of +free labor, so eminent a lawyer, and so honorable a man as John W. +Taylor, of New York, said of this bill that it was so important in its +character, and proposed such a violation of the Constitution, that he +felt obliged to call for the yeas and nays upon it, we must concede +that other motives may have influenced the statesmen of South Carolina +than such as might have sprung from subserviency to the interests of +slavery.</p> +<a name="side152"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote152"> + <tr> + <td><small>The bill in the<br> + interests of<br> + the West.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>If we review the analysis of the vote in the House of Representatives +we shall see that the entire <a name="page120"></a>West—taking the Appalachian range as the +dividing line, for that period, between the East and the West—was for +the bill, while the whole East, with the exception of Maryland, which +was specially interested in the road, was either against it or +indifferent to it. The Eastern Commonwealths had made their roads with +Commonwealth money, and did not wish to assist the Western +Commonwealths to make theirs by giving them national money with which +to do it. The West, on the other hand, was new and comparatively poor, +and wanted the nation to help it out of the mud. This is +unquestionably the plain statement of the situation from the point of +view of interests. The interests of slavery played but little part, if +any at all, in the distribution of the vote.</p> +<a name="side153"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote153"> + <tr> + <td><small>President Monroe's<br> + veto, and<br> + communication<br> + of May 4th, 1822.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>President Monroe promptly vetoed the bill, on the ground that it was +in excess of the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. He +also sent a communication, of the same date as the veto, to the House +of Representatives, explaining his views upon those principles of the +Constitution generally, and upon those provisions specially, which +could be regarded as vesting powers in the general Government +concerning internal improvements. The paper is prolix, confused, and +confusing, but, upon the specific question at issue, the propositions +advanced are definite and intelligible. He held that the power of +Congress in regard to internal improvements was to be found in the +Constitution only by implication, by implication from the power to +appropriate money, and that, therefore, its nature and limitations +were to be drawn from the character of the power to appropriate money. +He contended, on the one side, that the power of Congress to +appropriate money was not limited to the objects enumerated in the +<a name="page121"></a>Constitution, but was, on the other side, limited by the spirit of the +Constitution to national purposes. He concluded, therefore, that +Congress was empowered to appropriate money to internal improvements +of a national character. But he asserted that Congress could not, +under the power to appropriate money, establish jurisdiction over such +improvements, or authorize the executive department of the Government +to administer them. The bill in question did just that, and it was for +this reason that the President returned it with his objections.</p> +<a name="side154"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote154"> + <tr> + <td><small>President Monroe's<br> + argument, and the<br> + vote upon the veto.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The President's views were apparently convincing to many who had voted +for the bill. Upon its passage, the vote in the House of +Representatives was eighty-seven for, and sixty-eight against, the +measure. After the veto, it stood sixty-eight yeas and seventy-two +nays.</p> + +<p>It may be safely assumed that the view expressed by President Monroe +in the paper accompanying the veto of this bill was the view which +prevailed throughout the country in the year 1824. It may be also said +that the power of Congress to authorize the President to expend the +appropriation by causing the improvements to be planned and +constructed was generally regarded, in 1824, as a necessary +consequence of the power to appropriate money for the same. The acts +of Congress appropriating money for the construction and repair of +roads, canals, etc., after, as well as before, that date, seem to +proceed upon this theory.</p> +<a name="side155"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote155"> + <tr> + <td><small>Congressional Act of 1824<br> + for distinguishing national<br> + from local improvements.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The great difficulty which lay in the way of the realization of +President Monroe's principle of the appropriation of national money +for internal improvements of a national character was the proper +determination of the question as to what improvements were really of +that character. The danger was that the <a name="page122"></a>appropriation bills would +become log-rolling measures for the purpose of obtaining national +money for matters of local concern. This difficulty was distinctly +felt, and Congress undertook to meet it by the Act of April 30th, +1824, which authorized the President to cause "surveys, plans, and +estimates to be made of the routes of such roads and canals as he +might deem of national importance," and required him to lay the same +before Congress.</p> + +<p>From all this it is apparent that, down to the presidential election +of 1824, the development of a pro-slavery, strict-constructionist, +"States' rights" party is hardly to be discovered in the attitude of +the different sections of the country toward the question of internal +improvements. Despite the fact that the slaveholders had become +conscious during the Missouri struggle that their interests demanded +the establishment of a particularistic view of the Constitution and a +particularistic practice in the working of the governmental system of +the country, not much progress had been made, in the period between +1820 and 1824, in the way of twisting the policies developed during +the previous eight years into line with such a view. In fact the +foreign relations of the United States were again, in 1822, of a +somewhat threatening character, and the consideration of these +relations was acting as a certain hindrance to the development of +parties upon internal issues.</p> +<a name="side156"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote156"> + <tr> + <td><small>Foreign relations during<br> + Monroe's second term.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The menace, or perhaps it would be more correct to say the apparent +menace, came from two quarters; but in neither case did it relate +immediately to the territory or interests of the United States. In +both cases it was consequential and more or less remote.</p> +<a name="side157"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote157"> + <tr> + <td><small>Russia and the<br> + northwest coast<br> + of America.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page123"></a> +<p>In the first place, the movements of Russia in the North Pacific had +created grave apprehensions. At the close of the first decade of the +century the Russian American Company put forward a claim to the +territory of the North American continent along the Pacific coast from +Behring's Strait to the mouth of the Columbia River, and even to +points south of the Columbia. Really this claim came into conflict +only with the rights of Great Britain and Spain, but the United +States, having the presentiment of its future, if not a legal claim to +any part of this territory as a part of Louisiana, regarded the +Russian movement with jealous discontent. And when, on September 16th, +the Russian Czar issued an edict, asserting Russia's rights to the +North Pacific territory from Behring's Strait to the fifty-first +parallel of north latitude, it was natural that this discontent should +become hostile in its nature. The Government of the United States +declared its dissent from the Russian pretensions, and the matter +rested momentarily with that.</p> +<a name="side158"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote158"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Holy<br> + Alliance.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>At the same time the other danger was developing. The European +reaction against the terrible excesses of the Revolution and the +despotism of Bonaparte had assumed the form of an alliance between the +Governments of the great continental states, Russia, Austria, Prussia, +and France, for the purpose of maintaining each by the power of all +against the reappearance of revolutionary movements anywhere. Great +Britain had scented in this Holy Alliance a combination of continental +powers which might prove, in some degree at least, as dangerous to her +continental relations as the commercial system of Bonaparte had been. +There is no doubt, too, that there was a large party in England which +repudiated the fundamental <a name="page124"></a>political doctrine of the Holy Alliance +Powers, the doctrine of the <i>jure divino</i> monarchy. England had, in +fact, repudiated that doctrine at the close of the seventeenth +century. For these reasons the British Government had declined to +enter the Holy League, and regarded it with suspicion and +ill-concealed hostility.</p> +<a name="side159"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote159"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Congress<br> + at Verona.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The United States Government paid little attention to its workings so +long as they were confined to purely European relations, but when, in +1822, at the congress of these powers at Verona, which had been +assembled to consider the question of aiding the Spanish Government to +suppress the insurrection against its authority in Spain, the subject +of aiding that Government to re-establish its authority over Spain's +revolting colonies in North and South America was discussed, serious +apprehensions were roused in both Great Britain and the United States. +It was stated, and generally believed, in the United States, that the +plan was the re-establishment of the Spanish power over all of Spain's +American possessions, except Mexico and California, and the cession of +Mexico to France, and of California to Russia, in consideration of the +military aid to be rendered to Spain by these two great powers in the +work of restoration.</p> +<a name="side160"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote160"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Adams'<br> + declaration to<br> + Baron Tuyl.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>To the United States the supposed intentions of Russia in respect to +the Pacific coast appeared the more immediate danger, and the United +States Government addressed its diplomacy to this question first. On +July 17th, 1823, the Secretary of State, Mr. John Quincy Adams, +declared to the Russian Minister at Washington, Baron Tuyl, that "we +should contest the right of Russia to any territorial establishment on +this continent, and that we should assume distinctly the principle +that the American <a name="page125"></a>continents are no longer subjects for any new +European colonial establishments."</p> +<a name="side161"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote161"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Canning's<br> + proposal to<br> + Mr. Rush.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The following month, the British Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. +George Canning, proposed to the Minister of the United States at the +Court of St. James, Mr. Richard Rush, a joint declaration by the +British Government and the Government of the United States to Europe, +that the two Governments would not remain indifferent to an +intervention by the Holy Alliance Powers to restore the Spanish +authority over Spain's revolting American colonies. Both commercial +interests and political principles moved the British Government to +make this proposition.</p> +<a name="side162"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote162"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Canning's<br> + declaration to<br> + Prince Polignac.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Rush had not been instructed by his Government in anticipation of +the British advances, but he offered to assume the responsibility of +joining for the United States in the declaration, provided the British +Government would acknowledge the independence of the revolting Spanish +colonies in America, as the Government of the United States had +already done. The British minister was not then prepared to go so far, +and the plan of the joint declaration fell through. But Mr. Canning +declared for his Government to the French ambassador at St. James, +Prince Polignac, that Great Britain would resist any intervention on +the part of the Holy Alliance Powers in the question between Spain and +her revolting American colonies, and the President of the United +States, in his annual message of December 2nd, 1823, stated the +position which the United States Government and the people of the +United States ought, in his opinion, to assume, and would, in his +opinion, assume, in regard to the whole subject.</p> +<a name="side163"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote163"> + <tr> + <td><small>The "Monroe Doctrine."</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Monroe dealt first with the question of Russian <a name="page126"></a>colonization upon +the Pacific coast. After informing Congress of the instructions which +had been given to the Minister representing the United States at St. +Petersburg for negotiating with the Czar's Government, he said: "In +the discussions to which this interest has given rise, and in the +arrangements by which they may terminate, the occasion has been judged +proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests +of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by +the free and independent condition which they have assumed and +maintained, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future +colonization by any European powers."</p> + +<p>Toward the close of the message Mr. Monroe addressed himself to the +other question, the question of intervention by the Holy Alliance +Powers in the contest between Spain and her revolting American +colonies in the following language: "In the wars of European powers, +in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor +does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights +are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make +preparations for our defence. With the movements in this hemisphere we +are, of necessity, more immediately connected, and by causes which +must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The +political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this +respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which +exists in their respective governments, and to the defence of our own, +which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and +matured by the wisdom of our most enlightened citizens, and under +which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is +devoted. We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations +existing between the United <a name="page127"></a>States and those powers, to declare that +we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to +any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. +With the existing colonies of any European power we have not +interfered and shall not interfere, but with the Governments who have +declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence +we have on great consideration and on just principles acknowledged, we +could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, +or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European +power, in any other light than as a manifestation of an unfriendly +disposition toward the United States.... It is impossible that the +allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of +either continent without endangering our peace and happiness; nor can +anyone believe that our Southern brethren, if left to themselves, +would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, +therefore, that we should behold such interposition, in any form, with +indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of +Spain and these new Governments, and their distance from each other, +it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the +true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, +in the hope that other powers will pursue the same course."</p> +<a name="side164"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote164"> + <tr> + <td><small>The meaning of the<br> + Monroe propositions<br> + in 1824.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>These statements by Mr. Monroe of his opinion as to what the diplomacy +of the United States ought to be, and would be, upon the subjects of +the establishment of new European colonies in America, the +intervention of the Holy Alliance Powers in the question between Spain +and her revolting American colonies, and the forcible imposition by +these powers of the <i>jure divino</i> monarchy <a name="page128"></a>upon these peoples, who had +established republican forms of government for themselves, have had +the name fixed upon them by a later generation of "The Monroe +Doctrine." There is no difficulty in understanding these statements as +Mr. Monroe understood them.</p> + +<p>Neither he nor his Secretary of State ever called them a "Doctrine." +With them they were simply the opinions of the Administration in +regard to the course which the United States ought to pursue, and +would probably pursue, in meeting certain exigencies, the possibility +of the arising of which passed entirely away before the close of the +first half of this century. These opinions were simply that the United +States ought to resist, and would resist, the planting of any new +colonial establishments in America, or the intervention of the Holy +Alliance Powers in the question between Spain and her revolting +American colonies, or the forcible imposition of the <i>jure divino</i> +monarchy, the political system of these powers, upon the new +republican governments of South and Middle America.</p> +<a name="side165"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote165"> + <tr> + <td><small>Failure to commit<br> + Congress to<br> + these propositions.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The month following the publication of this message, January, 1824, +Mr. Clay attempted to move Congress to indorse that part of the +President's opinions which referred to the intervention of the Allied +Powers in the conflict between Spain and her revolting colonies, but +the resolution which he offered to that effect was laid on the table, +and never called up. Mr. Poinsett, of South Carolina, made a like +attempt later, but with no more success. The Congress of that day had +altogether too much intelligence to make diplomatic opinions, advanced +by the Administration, either laws of the land, or joint or concurrent +resolutions of the legislative department of the Government.</p> +<a name="side166"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote166"> + <tr> + <td><small>The particularistic<br> + reaction scarcely<br> + discoverable<br> + before 1824.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page129"></a> +<p>Thus neither in the question of the tariff, nor in that of internal +improvements, nor, naturally, in the diplomatic questions, is anything +more than the faint beginnings of the particularistic reaction to be +discovered in the period between 1820 and 1824. In fact, it may be +said that the year 1820 marks roughly the date of the extinction of +the old Federal party, and of the almost complete absorption of the +whole voting population in the Republican party. In the presidential +election of that year the candidate of the Republican party, Mr. +Monroe, received two hundred and thirty-one of the two hundred and +thirty-two electoral votes cast, and the one elector who did not vote +for him was a Republican. The Federal party did not even undertake to +present a ticket. From the point of view of the preservation of its +own dominance, the Federal party had committed two grave errors, one +of principle and one of policy. It had held to the principle that the +mass of men are not fit to govern themselves, but should be governed +by the few who are wise and good; and it had adopted the policy of too +close alliance with the commercial interests of the country. The +levelling, not to say debasing, influences of the French political +philosophy, which rolled like a tidal wave over the country during the +last decade of the eighteenth century, and was worked up into a +political dogma by Jefferson and his disciples, together with the +reflex influence of the practical equality which established itself +among the first adventurers who settled the lands beyond the +Alleghanies, destroyed the Federal party, upon the side of principle; +while the great extension of the agricultural interests, produced by +these same settlements, made it intolerable upon the side of policy. +The earlier advantage which the Federal party, as the upholder of +centralization, enjoyed <a name="page130"></a>over the Republican party, as the champion of +"States'-rights," had been lost by the nationalization of the +Republican party through the War of 1812, and the denationalization of +the Federal party through the same experiences. In 1820, therefore, +there was only one party in fact and in principle. It is undoubtedly +true that the struggle of the years 1819 and 1820 over the Missouri +question had sowed the seeds of dissension in this all-comprehending +party; but four years did not constitute a period of time sufficient +for their completed growth and fructification. The presidential +contest of 1824 could not, therefore, he fought under the issues of +party principles. It was little more, and, under the circumstances, it +could be little more, than a personal contest between the leaders of +the Republican party. The result of it, however, contributed very +largely to the development of political differences, and to the +organization of parties upon the basis of these differences. It must, +therefore, be described with some particularity.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="chap6"></a><a name="page131"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER VI.</h3> + +<center>THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1824</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side167">General Character of the Presidential Contest of +1824</a>—<a href="#side168">John Quincy +Adams</a>—<a href="#side169">DeWitt Clinton</a>—<a href="#side170">William H. +Crawford</a>—<a href="#side171">John C. Calhoun</a>—<a href="#side172">Daniel +Webster</a>—<a href="#side173">Henry Clay</a>—<a href="#side174">Andrew +Jackson</a>—<a href="#side175">The Nomination of Presidential Candidates in +1824</a>—<a href="#side176">Failure of the Electors to Elect the +President</a>—<a href="#side177">Territorial Distribution of the Electoral +Vote</a>—<a href="#side178">New York in the Election of +1824</a>—<a href="#side179">South Carolina in the Election of +1824</a>—<a href="#side180">Pennsylvania in the Election of +1824</a>—<a href="#side181">The Election in the House of +Representatives</a>—<a href="#side182">Clay Master of the +Situation</a>—<a href="#side183">Clay's Support of Adams, and Kremer's Charge of Bargain and +Corruption</a>—<a href="#side184">The Election of Adams by the House of +Representatives</a>—<a href="#side185">Clay and the Secretaryship of +State</a>—<a href="#side186">Threats of the Organization of an Anti-administration +Party</a>—<a href="#side187">The Bargain between Clay and Adams a mere +Suspicion</a>—<a href="#side188">Clay's Nomination to the Secretaryship of State in the +Senate</a>—<a href="#side189">The Composition of the new Anti-administration Party.</a></blockquote> +<br> +<a name="side167"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote167"> + <tr> + <td><small>General character<br> + of the presidential<br> + contest of 1824.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>As has been pointed out, from 1820 to 1824 the political arena was +clear of the combats of principles, and furnished the tilting-ground +for the jousts of personal ambition. The "Virginia dynasty" became +extinct with the expiration of Monroe's second term, and the way was +open for anyone to enter the lists who was willing to risk the shocks +of the encounter.</p> + +<p>At no time in our history has the roll of our political nobility been +more full of brilliant names and characters.</p> +<a name="side168"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote168"> + <tr> + <td><small>John<br> + Quincy<br> + Adams.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page132"></a> +<p>First of all, there was John Quincy Adams, the Secretary of State, the +"knight without fear and without reproach," blunt, grim, almost rude, +through an unconscious suspicion that politeness might encourage the +approach of temptation; now fifty-seven years old, and trained in +statecraft and diplomacy almost from childhood; the best equipped +statesman and the most experienced statesman that America had up to +that time produced; ready to serve his country in any honorable +capacity to which that country might freely call him, and just as +ready to withdraw from that service when his country indicated the +desire to dispense with him; puritanic, austere, and to the last +degree patriotic, his one qualification for the presidential office +was the capacity to discharge its duties wisely, honestly, and +loyally, a qualification which too rarely wins in popular elections.</p> +<a name="side169"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote169"> + <tr> + <td><small>DeWitt<br> + Clinton.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Then, there was DeWitt Clinton, noble in personal appearance, +dignified in manners, eloquent in debate, sagacious and far-sighted in +business, a lover of science and a scientist himself; the great +promoter of the Erie Canal, which was now on the point of completion, +and which was destined to revolutionize the commerce of the country; +still only fifty-five years of age, although he had been considered +more than twenty years before as the most promising man of the nation, +and had within that period been United States Senator, mayor of New +York City, candidate for the presidency against Mr. Madison, and twice +Governor of New York.</p> +<a name="side170"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote170"> + <tr> + <td><small>William H.<br> + Crawford.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Then, there was William H. Crawford, a Virginian by birth and a +Georgian by education; a man of large wealth and of imposing bearing; +enjoying a very great reputation for statesmanship without any easily +discoverable foundation therefor; now <a name="page133"></a>fifty-two years of age, and +having already been United States Senator, Minister to France, +Secretary of War, and Secretary of the Treasury, which latter office +he still held; with the exception, perhaps, of Martin Van Buren, the +most astute politician among the great men of his time. He had the +political friendship and support of Van Buren. The two seem to have +been attracted to each other by the similarity of their methods. He +was the author of the law of 1820, limiting the term of the officials +of the Treasury to four years, the first step in the direction of +making the United States civil service a political machine, such as +Van Buren and his fellows in the "Regency" had made out of the civil +service of the Commonwealth of New York. It is not astonishing that +he, rather than any of the other aspirants for the presidency, +procured the assembling of a caucus of the members of Congress, and +secured a nomination from it, thus making himself the "regular" +candidate. Not a third of the members, however, appeared at the +caucus, and the nomination did him more harm than good.</p> +<a name="side171"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote171"> + <tr> + <td><small>John C.<br> + Calhoun.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Then, there was Calhoun, grave, pure, and patriotic as Adams himself, +and almost as puritanic; South Carolinian by birth, Scotch-Irish by +blood, Presbyterian in religion, and New Englander by education; +great, both in dialectics and in the administration of affairs; rather +more given to introspection than to objective research; speculative, +therefore, rather than inductive in his mental processes; most +fascinating in conversation, kind and generous in his feelings, and a +gentleman everywhere and upon all occasions; a personality to be +looked up to with reverence, admiration, and confidence. He was still +only forty-two years of age, and yet he had already passed fourteen +years in public service, first as member of the South Carolina +Legislature, then as member of Congress, and <a name="page134"></a>then as Monroe's +Secretary of War for both terms, which office he still held.</p> +<a name="side172"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote172"> + <tr> + <td><small>Daniel<br> + Webster.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Then, there was Webster, of the same age with Calhoun, though as yet +only five years in public service; the most majestic personality which +America has ever produced, though born of the hardy yeomanry of New +England; profound in thought, grandly eloquent in speech, and royally +impressive in bearing; full of good cheer, in spite of the puritanism +of his ancestry, enjoying his friends and adored by his friends; a +splendid lawyer, a great statesman, and an incomparable orator—in a +word, a demigod; by no means so austere in character as in appearance; +liable, as genius too often is, to sometimes break over the restraints +of customary morality, but doing it in so grand and natural a manner +as to make the rule which he had broken seem narrow, insignificant, +and mean.</p> +<a name="side173"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote173"> + <tr> + <td><small>Henry<br> + Clay.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>And then, there was Clay, the most genuine American of them all; +rather superficial in thought, entrancing in his oratory, with a voice +as winning as the siren's song, elegant and gallant in his manners, +perfectly irresistible in conversation, jovial and cheery and happy, +the prince of good fellows, loved and worshipped by everybody who knew +him; enthusiastic in his patriotism, seeking to make his country not +only independent of the world in all its policies but the leader of +the world in civilization, a zealous propagandist of American +republicanism, the "lion-hearted knight" of American statesmen. He was +now in the prime of his manhood, forty-seven years of age. He had been +a member of the Senate of the United States at thirty, but it was upon +the floor of the House of Representatives, and as Speaker of the +House, which office he again held, that he had won his most brilliant +laurels. He was at the moment the great champion of the <a name="page135"></a>tariff, of +national internal improvements, and of the cause of the South American +States in their struggle for independence against Spain and +Portugal—of what he called the American system of political and +industrial independence. Of his competitors only Crawford differed +with him in regard to these principles in anything more than a slight +degree. Crawford was considered as rather more particularistic, +especially in his views on the question of internal improvements. But +Clay, with his genial self-confidence and irresistible self-assertion, +had assumed in the popular mind, as well as in the Congress, the part +of the leading representative of these policies. He had the advantage +or the disadvantage of that, whichever it might prove to be.</p> +<a name="side174"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote174"> + <tr> + <td><small>Andrew<br> + Jackson.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>And lastly, Jackson, the noblest Roman of them all; ignorant and +irascible indeed, but virtuous, brave, and patriotic beyond any cavil +or question; faithful and devoted in his domestic life, absolutely +unapproachable by pecuniary inducements; the best of friends and the +most implacable of enemies; quick, hasty in forming his judgments and +tenacious beyond expression in holding to them; prone to elevate every +whim and impulse to a behest of conscience; earnest, terrible in the +inflexibility of his purposes; excited by opposition to an +ever-increasing degree of determination; unflinching and recklessly +daring in the performance of what he felt to be his duty; restless +under the legal restraints which might appear to hinder him in the +discharge of duty and the accomplishment of any great enterprise +intrusted to him; hostile to all gradations of power and privilege, +and inclined to break through any official net-work interposed between +himself and the rank and file subject to his command; a great soldier, +and yet a man of the people; the military hero of the country and a +martyr to the persecutions of the <a name="page136"></a>politicians—here were certainly +qualities calculated to rouse the enthusiasm of the masses, if not of +the classes. He was now fifty-seven years of age, and was not in +strong health. He had shown no qualities of statesmanship, although he +had been twice a member of the Senate of the United States, and was at +the moment holding that most advantageous position for a display of +civic talent; but he had the fortune to live at a time and in a +country when and where the lower strata of society were just coming to +a full participation in political power, and when and where high +qualifications simply to discharge the duties of an office were +beginning to be regarded by the majority of the people as +disqualifications for holding the office.</p> + +<p>These were by no means all of the great characters from among whom the +nation had its choice in 1824, but they were unquestionably the first +on the list. Different as they were in personal qualities, they were +not yet far apart in political opinions. Crawford leaned more toward +"States' rights" than the others. Clay was more pronounced in the +opposite direction. While Jackson was rather more uncommitted.</p> +<a name="side175"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote175"> + <tr> + <td><small>The nomination<br> + of presidential<br> + candidates in 1824.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Webster was not put forward by anybody, and did not offer himself as a +candidate. Clay was nominated by the legislature of Kentucky. Jackson +was nominated by the legislature of Tennessee, and by two Pennsylvania +conventions. While Adams had the advantage of the precedent which, for +nearly a quarter of a century, had pointed to the Secretary of State +as the natural successor to the presidential office.</p> +<a name="side176"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote176"> + <tr> + <td><small>Failure of the<br> + electors to elect<br> + the President.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>As was to be expected, the electors did not choose any one of the +four, since the Constitution requires a majority of the whole number +of the electors for a choice. Jackson led with ninety-nine votes; +Adams was next with eighty-four; <a name="page137"></a>Crawford followed with forty-one; and +Clay came last with thirty-seven.</p> +<a name="side177"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote177"> + <tr> + <td><small>Territorial distribution<br> + of the electoral vote.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The electoral vote was distributed territorially as might have been +naturally anticipated, except in two particulars. These were, the +failure of Van Buren to secure the electoral vote of New York for +Crawford, and the solid vote of Pennsylvania and South Carolina for +Jackson. These facts had some significance in connection with +subsequent developments, and require a little explanation.</p> +<a name="side178"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote178"> + <tr> + <td><small>New York in<br> + the Election<br> + of 1824.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>New York was one of the Commonwealths which, down to 1824, permitted +the legislature to choose the presidential electors. In 1823 the +legislature was still under the control of Van Buren and his +colleagues in the "Regency," the Albany machine, and had the election +taken place in 1823 he could doubtless have delivered the electoral +vote entire to Crawford. But one of Jackson's shrewdest supporters, +probably Clinton, started the scheme for transferring the choice of +the electors from the legislature to the voters. This, if successful, +would destroy the control of the "Regency" over the electoral vote. +The opposition of the "Regency" to the bill, when it appeared in the +legislature, caused its rejection by that body; but the popular +indignation was roused to such a pitch against the "Regency" and its +adherents in the legislature, in consequence of this act, that, in the +Commonwealth elections of 1824, the "Regency" party was driven from +power, and the new legislature chose electors who cast the electoral +vote of the Commonwealth chiefly for Adams, as the Northern candidate.</p> +<a name="side179"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote179"> + <tr> + <td><small>South Carolina<br> + in the Election<br> + of 1824.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The fact that South Carolina cast her electoral vote for Jackson +instead of for Crawford is good evidence that there was still no +question of "States' rights" versus the powers of the Union at issue, +or that South <a name="page138"></a>Carolina was still nationally disposed; and that, either +there was no tariff question at issue, or South Carolina had not yet +clearly discovered the hostility of the tariff to her interests, or +she believed Jackson to be opposed to the tariff.</p> + +<p>Jackson, or rather his manager, William B. Lewis, a most astute +politician, had written a letter to a Dr. Coleman, of Warrenton, Va., +upon the subject of the tariff. The letter was ostensibly a reply to +one from Dr. Coleman, inquiring of Jackson his views upon this +question. Very probably, however, Dr. Coleman's letter was also +dictated by Mr. Lewis. Jackson's reply contained nothing definite in +regard to the subject. It was a first-class political document, that +is, it was a document which could be interpreted to mean anything +which might be made necessary or desirable by time, place, and +circumstances. In a word, Lewis had made for Jackson a sort of <i>tabula +rasa</i> record on the subject of the tariff. In such a state of things +it is certainly reasonable to ascribe South Carolina's preference for +Jackson to the facts that he claimed to be her son by birth, and that +Calhoun, rightly discerning Jackson to be the coming man, withdrew +from the race for the presidency, and was regarded as running for the +vice-presidency on the Jackson ticket.</p> +<a name="side180"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote180"> + <tr> + <td><small>Pennsylvania<br> + in the Election<br> + of 1824.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It is somewhat more difficult to account for the attitude of +Pennsylvania. We are now so accustomed to consider Pennsylvania the +"tariff State" <i>par excellence,</i> that it is difficult to conceive of a +time when she was not such. She was indeed, in 1824, for the tariff, +but her interests had not then become so completely linked together +with it as after 1840. In 1824 her vast beds of anthracite had not +been applied to the preparation of her iron ores, in fact <a name="page139"></a>had hardly +been discovered. Pennsylvania west of the Alleghanies was then an +agricultural country, and was filled with a population intensely +democratic and almost lawless. So far as they had any political +science it was based upon the most radical postulates of the French +philosophy. The principal "plank" of the platform of the Harrisburg +convention of March 4th, 1824, which nominated Jackson, read as +follows: "This artificial system of cabinet succession to the +presidency is little less dangerous and anti-republican than the +hereditary monarchies of Europe. If a link in this chain of successive +secretary dynasties be not broken now, then may we be fettered by it +forever. Andrew Jackson comes pure, untrammelled, and unpledged from +the people." Adams, Crawford, and Calhoun were then members of +President Monroe's cabinet, and Clay was Speaker of the House of +Representatives. Jackson alone of all the candidates seemed to possess +the qualifications required by the Harrisburg doctrine. While this may +explain the attachment of the Pennsylvania Republicans to Jackson, we +must not forget that the remnant of the Pennsylvania Federalists were +also for him. In 1816 Jackson had written some letters to President +Monroe advising him not to ignore the Federalists in his appointments +to office, but to unite the country by showing himself superior to the +distinctions of party in his Administration. These letters were now +drawn forth and published by Jackson's manager, and the inference +which they conveyed was that Jackson would follow this policy, in case +he should be chosen to the presidency. Even Webster was inclined to +him, and Mrs. Webster was entirely won by his gallantry. Jackson in +the rôle of a fascinating gentleman and a popular ladies' man is +hardly the usual character under which the imagination of this +generation pictures him. It is, <a name="page140"></a>nevertheless, strictly true that the +"Old Hero" knew how to make himself very acceptable to the ladies. +Pennsylvania was, chiefly, by this conjunction of influences, carried +for Jackson by an overwhelming majority.</p> +<a name="side181"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote181"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Election in the House<br> + of Representatives.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The failure of the electors to give a majority to any one of the +candidates threw the election into the House of Representatives, which +is empowered by the Constitution to choose, in such a case, one of the +three who shall have received the highest number of electoral votes.</p> +<a name="side182"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote182"> + <tr> + <td><small>Clay<br> + master<br> + of the<br> + situation.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>From the day when it became known that the new President must be +chosen in this manner to the day of the election by the House, that +is, from about the middle of December to the ninth day of February, +the politicians in Washington were "laying pipe," "pulling wires," and +"making deals." It soon became manifest that Clay, while he could not +be chosen himself, since he could not be legally voted for, was the +master of the situation. So great was his popularity with the House +that, it is almost certain, he would have been chosen to the great +office himself had he been among the three having the highest number +of electoral votes. Everybody reasoned, therefore, that not only the +Representatives from the Commonwealths which had given their electoral +votes to Clay would follow his lead in voting in the House, but that +many others from other Commonwealths would act under inspiration from +him. After a good deal of talk among the members of the House and the +politicians generally as to whether the members were bound to vote as +the electors from their respective Commonwealths had voted, and as to +whether the legislatures of the respective Commonwealths possessed any +power to instruct the members of the House of Representatives from the +several Commonwealths in regard to <a name="page141"></a>the casting of their votes, the +opinion finally prevailed that each Representative was entirely free +to vote according to his own judgment and preference; and that meant +that the popular and persuasive Speaker would be able to carry enough +votes with him to elect the candidate upon whom his favor might fall.</p> +<a name="side183"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote183"> + <tr> + <td><small>Clay's support of<br> + Adams, and Kremer's<br> + charge of bargain<br> + and corruption.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Propositions were made to him from the friends of the different +candidates, but he held them all at arm's length. It might have been +easily foreseen that he would support Adams. Crawford was a man of +exhausted powers, unfit physically and mentally to discharge the +duties of the great office. Jackson was only a military chieftain, +according to Clay's view a very dangerous character for the +presidency. There remained only Adams, probably the best-fitted man in +the country for the office. It was generally felt, for several days +before the election, that these considerations would determine Clay's +course of action. There were those, however, who were ready to ascribe +Clay's supposed attitude to other, and more selfish, motives. An +insignificant member from Pennsylvania, Kremer by name, gave it out in +public print that there was a bargain between Adams and Clay, +according to which Clay was to support Adams, and to receive in return +the secretaryship of State. This happened on January 28th, 1825, just +after the delegations from Ohio and Kentucky in the House had declared +their intention of supporting Adams. The small mind of Kremer could +not conceive of this attitude on the part of Clay save from the point +of view of selfish interests. Clay immediately called for an +investigation of the charge by the House, but Kremer sneaked out of +it.</p> +<a name="side184"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote184"> + <tr> + <td><small>The election of<br> + Adams by the House<br> + of Representatives.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On February 9th, 1825, the two Houses of Congress met in joint +assembly to count the electoral vote. It <a name="page142"></a>was immediately found that no +candidate had a majority, and that, therefore, the choice lay with the +House. The House, on the same day, and on the first ballot, elected +Adams. The delegations from thirteen of the twenty-four Commonwealths +voted for him. The delegations from seven voted for Jackson; and those +from four for Crawford. Adams received the votes of the delegations +from all of the Commonwealths which had given their electoral votes, +or the majority of their electoral votes, to himself and to Clay, and +from three of the Commonwealths which had given the majority of their +electoral vote to Jackson.</p> +<a name="side185"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote185"> + <tr> + <td><small>Clay and the<br> + Secretaryship<br> + of State.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The twelfth day of February, 1825, is the date in Mr. Adams' diary +under which he recorded his offer of the secretaryship of State to Mr. +Clay. We find in the diary, for the day before this, an account of a +visit from a Mr. G. Sullivan, who told Mr. Adams "that the Calhounites +said that if Mr. Clay should be appointed Secretary of State, a +determined opposition to the administration would be organized from +the outset; that the opposition would use the name of General Jackson +as its head; and that the administration would be supported only by +the New England States—New York being doubtful, the West much +divided, and strongly favoring Jackson as a Western man, Virginia +already in opposition, and all the South decidedly adverse."</p> +<a name="side186"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote186"> + <tr> + <td><small>Threats of the<br> + organization of an<br> + anti-administration<br> + party.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Exactly who the Calhounites were at that moment, as distinct from the +followers of Adams and Clay, is difficult to determine, since all the +electors who voted for Adams for President also voted for Calhoun for +Vice-President, except eight electors from Connecticut and one from +New Hampshire, and of the thirty-seven electors who voted <a name="page143"></a>for Clay, at +least seven of them voted also for Calhoun. It was Crawford's +supporters who had opposed Calhoun for the second place, not one of +them having voted for him. This declaration made by Mr. Sullivan +meant, therefore, that Jackson's friends were going to organize an +opposition party to the Adams-Clay Administration and that the +Vice-President was going to cast his lot with them.</p> + +<p>This was certainly a threat of danger, but Adams was not the man to be +frightened from the course which he had chosen as just and politic. He +immediately offered the first position in the cabinet to Clay, and, +after some six days of reflection and of consultation with friends, +Clay accepted.</p> +<a name="side187"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote187"> + <tr> + <td><small>The bargain between<br> + Clay and Adams<br> + a mere suspicion.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>No sufficient evidence has ever been produced to convince a judicial +mind that Adams and Clay had come to any understanding in regard to +this matter either before Clay announced publicly that he should +support Adams, or afterward. But men generally do not have judicial +minds. "Diffused distrust and indiscriminate suspicion" mark the +attitude of the vulgar mind toward personages in high station. +Politicians know only too well that this is one of the most potent +forces which can be called into play, and they know only too well how +to take advantage of it. Conscious as both Adams and Clay doubtless +were of their own rectitude, they did not sufficiently appreciate the +proneness of the masses to believe in the corruption of their +superiors. Neither did they correctly appreciate the ungenerous and +uncandid spirit of the leaders among their opponents in clinging to +this charge, and reiterating it, after they had failed to substantiate +it by any credible evidence. They certainly did not comprehend that +they had given their opponents a shibboleth which would lead them to +certain victory.</p> +<a name="side188"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote188"> + <tr> + <td><small>Clay's nomination<br> + to the secretaryship<br> + of State in the Senate.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page144"></a> +<p>The opposition began at once their attack in the Senate under the +issue of Clay's appointment. Fifteen of the forty-one Senators present +voted against it. Among the fifteen was Jackson, who, upon his way, a +few days later, from Washington to his home in Tennessee, repeated and +re-enlivened the charge of "bargain and corruption." It is more than +probable that Jackson believed in it himself. He was so convinced of +his own honesty that he believed every one who differed with him to be +dishonest. This is a trait of character frequently met with, and it is +a most dangerous force with which to deal. The "Old Hero" possessed it +in an extraordinary degree.</p> +<a name="side189"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote189"> + <tr> + <td><small>The composition<br> + of the new<br> + Anti-administration<br> + party.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Despite the fact that there were no material differences in political +principles, and the further fact that Adams retained Monroe's cabinet +so far as he could, appointing new members only to positions made +vacant therein by his own and Calhoun's promotion to the presidency +and the vice-presidency, and by Crawford's refusal to accept the +Treasury for another term, it was now perfectly evident that Jackson, +Calhoun, and Crawford, with their followers, were determined upon an +organized opposition to the Adams-Clay Administration, no matter what +principles and policies that Administration should follow; that +Jackson would, on account of his popularity with the masses, be put +forward as the head of the new party; and that the cry of "bargain and +corruption" between the President and the chief officer of his +Administration, for robbing the "Old Hero" of his rights and the +people of their choice, was to be their watchword in the conflict.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="chap7"></a><a name="page145"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER VII.</h3> + +<center>THE DIVISION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side190">Personal Differences, and Party +Division</a>—<a href="#side192">Military Confederation of the Spanish-American +States</a>—<a href="#side193">Invitation to the United States to send Representatives to +the Congress at Panama</a>—<a href="#side195">The Acceptance of the +Invitation</a>—<a href="#side197">Opposition in the Senate to the sending of Representatives +to Panama</a>—<a href="#side198">Popular Sympathy in the United States for the +South-American States</a>—<a href="#side199">The President's Nominations +Confirmed</a>—<a href="#side200">The Haytian Question at the +Congress</a>—<a href="#side201">Cuba and Porto Rico</a>—<a href="#side202">Real Nature of +the Opposition to the Panama Mission</a>—<a href="#side203">The Failure of the Panama +Congress</a>—<a href="#side204">Adams on Internal Improvements in his Message of December +6th, 1825</a>—<a href="#side204">Van Buren's Resolution against Internal +Improvements</a>—<a href="#side205">The Practices of the Adams Administration in respect to Internal +Improvements</a>—<a href="#side206">The Chief Practical Difficulty in the way of a National +System of Internal Improvements</a>—<a href="#side207">The Tariff of 1824 a +Failure</a>—<a href="#side208">The Tariff Bill of +1827</a>—<a href="#side209">Development of the Industrial Antithesis between the North and the +South</a>—<a href="#side211">Hostility to the Measure in South +Carolina</a>—<a href="#side213">The Tariff of +1828</a>—<a href="#side214">The Character of the Bill as Reflected +in the Analysis of the Vote Upon It</a>—<a href="#side215">The Tariff of 1828 not a Complete +Party Measure</a>—<a href="#side216">The Presidential Campaign of 1828 still Dominated by +Personal Considerations</a>—<a href="#side217">Election of +Jackson</a>—<a href="#side218">Advent of the +Parvenus</a>—<a href="#side219">Foreign Affairs under Jackson's +Administration</a>—<a href="#side220">The Democratic Party and its Divisions.</a></blockquote> +<br> +<a name="side190"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote190"> + <tr> + <td><small>Personal differences,<br> + and party division.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In the absence of any well defined differences in political opinions, +and in the state of determined <a name="page146"></a>personal hostility between the leaders +developed by the election of 1824, the fact that Adams and Clay took +broad national views, placed a liberal construction upon the +Constitution, and insisted upon the employment of all the powers +vested by it in the general Government to the highest point of their +usefulness in the promotion of the general welfare, had the natural +effect of forcing the opposition upon the opposite grounds, and, +therefore, tended to make a particularistic party, the so-called +"States' rights" party, out of the Jackson-Calhoun-Crawford faction.</p> + +<p>One of the most patent indications of the correctness of the +proposition that the opposition in principle between the National +Republican party and the Democratic party, as the Administrationists +and the Anti-administrationists were soon termed, took its rise +largely in the personal hostility of the leaders, is to be found in +the history of the chief question of the foreign relations with which +the Adams Administration had to deal in the years 1825 and 1826.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote191"> + <tr> + <td><small>Spanish-American<br> + interpretations of<br> + "the Monroe Doctrine."</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Spanish Americans had taken the cautious utterances of President +Monroe, in his December message of 1823, for much more than he meant +them. They thought, or professed to think, that the Government had +pledged itself to meet any intervention of the Allied Powers of Europe +in American affairs by any resistance necessary to defeat it. They +were also acquainted with the fact that both Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay +were more pronounced than President Monroe in favor of going to the +support of the new republics of South and Middle America. Naturally +then, when these two men came to the head of the Government, on March +4th, 1825, the Spanish Americans felt encouraged to expect some +<a name="page147"></a>substantial aid from the United States in the further course of their +struggle with Spain and her possible allies.</p> +<a name="side192"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote192"> + <tr> + <td><small>Military<br> + Confederation<br> + of the<br> + Spanish-American<br> + states.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Already in the summer of 1822 the Republic of Colombia had initiated +the plan of a Confederation of the Spanish-American states. By a +treaty with Peru, bearing date of July 12th, 1823, by another with +Chili of the same date, by another with the United Provinces of +Central America, of April 12th, 1825, and by another with Mexico, of +September 20th, 1825, the Republic of Colombia had established a +military confederation between these five states, and had pledged them +to send plenipotentiaries to a "general assembly of American states +... with the charge of cementing, in the most solid and stable manner, +the intimate relations which ought to exist between all and every one +of them." According to this agreement the assembly of +plenipotentiaries was to serve as a council in conflicts, as a +rallying-point in common dangers, as a faithful interpreter of +treaties between their respective states, and as an umpire and +conciliator in the disputes and differences which might arise between +their respective states.</p> +<a name="side193"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote193"> + <tr> + <td><small>Invitation to the<br> + United States to<br> + send representatives<br> + to the congress at<br> + Panama.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>During the spring of the year 1825 the Ministers of Colombia and +Mexico sought Mr. Clay, and communicated to him the desires of their +respective governments to have the United States send +representatives to this proposed congress; but before giving the +formal invitation they asked to know if it would be accepted. They +stated to Mr. Clay that they did not expect the United States to +abandon the attitude of neutrality, or to take part in those +deliberations of the congress which might relate to the prosecution of +the existing war.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote194"> + <tr> + <td><small>The President's<br> + hesitation to<br> + accept the<br> + invitation.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Clay's genial spirit was much excited by the grand prospect of a +league of the American states under the <a name="page148"></a>hegemony of the United States. +It satisfied the plan of his daring imagination. It filled the bounds +of his far-reaching vision. He immediately communicated the +propositions of the two ministers, Mr. Salazar and Mr. Obregon, to +President Adams, and urged the President to allow him to give them the +assurance that the invitation to send representatives to the congress, +to be held the following October at Panama, would be accepted by the +United States. The President, however, proceeded rather cautiously. He +was, indeed, very friendly in his feelings toward the Spanish-American +states, and was ready to aid their cause in any manner consistent with +the duties of a neutral. But he had a calmer way of regarding things +than his brilliant Secretary of State, and, moreover, upon him rested +the ultimate responsibility. He required Mr. Clay to procure from +Messrs. Salazar and Obregon some information in regard to the subjects +which would be considered by the congress, the nature and form of the +powers to be given to the diplomatic agents which were to compose it, +and the mode of its organization and procedure. At the same time he +allowed Mr. Clay to encourage them to believe that, if satisfactory +answers should be returned to these inquiries, their invitation would +be accepted. He also caused Mr. Clay to warn them that the United +States could not become a party to the existing war with Spain, or +give any counsel in regard to its further prosecution.</p> +<a name="side195"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote195"> + <tr> + <td><small>The acceptance<br> + of the invitation.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The answers to these inquiries were not received until the following +November, and in Mr. Clay's letter acknowledging their receipt, they +were said to be not entirely satisfactory to the President. The +ministers were informed, however, that the President had resolved to +send <a name="page149"></a>commissioners to the congress at Panama, in case the Senate, +which was to assemble in a few days, should assent to it; but that the +commissioners would not be empowered to do or say anything which would +compromise the neutrality of the United States.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote196"> + <tr> + <td><small>The President too<br> + hasty after all.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>As a matter of fact, the replies from the Governments of Colombia and +Mexico to President Adams' questions would have been regarded as +highly unsatisfactory by any judicious mind, entirely uncommitted; +for, while they left the President's second and third questions +entirely unanswered, they suggested a joint resistance of all the +American states to European interference in American affairs, and to +any further European colonization upon the American continents, as the +principal subjects in the discussion and determination of which the +United States would be expected to take part. They referred to the +fact that President Monroe in his noted message had characterized +these things as being matters of common interest to both North and +South America.</p> +<a name="side197"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote197"> + <tr> + <td><small>Opposition in<br> + the Senate to<br> + the sending of<br> + representatives<br> + to Panama.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Here was certainly a fine opportunity for all sorts of entanglements; +and it is not at all astonishing that, when the subject was brought +before the Senate of the United States by the President's message of +December 26th, 1825, asking the Senate to approve his nominations of +Richard C. Anderson and John Sergeant as ministers from the United +States to the "Assembly of American Nations at Panama," a very strong +opposition to the project was developed in that body. The Senate +referred the nominations to a committee, and called for the diplomatic +correspondence and other papers relating to the subject, which, upon +examination, revealed the facts briefly stated above.</p> + +<p>The committee, which was the regular committee on <a name="page150"></a>Foreign Relations, +reported against the nominations, or rather against the policy of +having representatives at the congress at all, on the ground that it +might compromise the neutrality of the United States, and involve the +United States in entangling connections with foreign powers. This +report was made to the Senate on January 16th, 1826. The Senate +debated, in secret session, the questions involved in the report +during the latter half of February and the first half of March. The +view held by those who favored the report was that the Panama congress +was to have the character of a military confederation, and that +membership in it would be inconsistent with a status of neutrality +toward Spain and her revolting American colonies. The view of those +who opposed the report and desired to send representatives to the +congress was, that the congress was only a meeting, in one place, of +the plenipotentiaries of the different states for an interchange of +opinions, and would not necessarily alter the attitude of any of the +powers taking part in it upon any subject, or toward any other power.</p> +<a name="side198"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote198"> + <tr> + <td><small>Popular sympathy in the<br> + United States for the<br> + South-American states.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The strong sympathy of the people of the United States for the cause +of independence in Middle and South America really violated the spirit +of neutrality, and the influence of this sympathy upon the Senators +and Representatives in Congress was very disturbing to a cool and +judicial consideration of the attitude which the Government should +preserve in the matter of the Panama mission.</p> +<a name="side199"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote199"> + <tr> + <td><small>The President's<br> + nominations<br> + confirmed.<br> + <br> + <br> + No influence of<br> + slavery perceptible<br> + in the vote upon<br> + the nominations.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The friends of the mission at last won the day by a vote of +twenty-four to nineteen. Fifteen Northern Senators voted to send +representatives to the congress, and seven voted against doing so. +Nine Southern Senators voted to send representatives, and twelve voted +against doing so. This <a name="page151"></a>vote hardly sustains the claim of certain of +the historians, that the slavery interest was the primal cause of the +opposition to the Panama mission. One of the most eminent among these +says that the historical significance of the contest over the question +was that slavery threw aside its municipal character, its character as +a Commonwealth institution, and demanded to prescribe both the +internal and external policies of the nation. This sounds dramatic, +but if it means, as it appears to mean, that when, in a federal system +of government, any interest or institution regulated by Commonwealth +law asks protection from the general Government against foreign +influence and interference it thereby asserts command over the nation, +it is a proposition which also sounds decidedly <i>outré</i> to an American +lawyer. The Constitution of the United States imposed the +international protection of all such interests and institutions upon +the general Government when it reserved such interests and +institutions to the jurisdiction of the Commonwealths and gave the +general Government alone international standing. When, then, such +interests and institutions claim that protection, they are only asking +for a right guaranteed to them by the Constitution, and are by no +means asserting an authority over the Constitution and the country.</p> +<a name="side200"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote200"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Haytian<br> + question at<br> + the congress.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It is true that Mr. Salazar said in his communication something about +the status of Hayti being a subject of deliberation for the congress. +It was also true that Hayti had been for thirty years in a state of +chronic insurrection and revolution, and that the former negro slave +population had, by the assassination of their former masters and +mistresses, freed themselves from bondage, taken possession of the +country, and were reducing it to barbarism at a rapid <a name="page152"></a>pace. It is +furthermore true that the slaveholders in the United States did not +wish their own homes to be made the scenes of any such ruin and +savagery, or themselves or their families to be made subject to any +such fate; and, it may be confidently hazarded, that no Northerner, at +that day, viewed such possibilities with anything but aversion and +horror. It required a quarter of a century of radical abolition +recklessness, the blunder-crime of secession, and the desperation of +long-continued, and at first unsuccessful, war, to make the men of the +North regard without sympathy such dangers to their Southern brethren. +The North and the South simply could not have divided, at that time, +upon the question of the relation to Hayti. There was only one view +upon that subject, and that was that the example and influence of +Hayti must be held far away from these shores. This could have been +accomplished, however, as well by attending the congress as by staying +away, perhaps better. At least, the Haytian question was no chief +ground of opposition to the mission, and certainly no chief ground in +favor of the mission.</p> +<a name="side201"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote201"> + <tr> + <td><small>Cuba and<br> + Porto Rico.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It is more probable that one of the reasons which moved President +Adams and Mr. Clay to urge attendance upon the congress was to be in a +position to restrain the Spanish-American states from attempting to +seize Cuba and Porto Rico. During the latter half of the year 1825, at +the very moment when the Government was communicating with the +Spanish-American states in regard to the congress, Mr. Clay was urging +the Czar of Russia, on the one side, to exercise his influence upon +the Spanish court for the cessation of hostilities on the part of +Spain against the revolting American colonies, on the ground that +Spain could never resubjugate them, and would by a continuance of +hostilities exasperate them and excite them to attack <a name="page153"></a>Cuba and Porto +Rico with the purpose of expelling the Spanish power from these +islands, and was urging the Spanish-American states, on the other +side, to refrain from such an attack, on the ground that if they did +attempt to seize these islands the Czar would not only cease his good +offices with the Spanish King to end the war, but might bring the +entire power of the Holy Alliance to the aid of the Spanish King for +the resubjection of his former American colonies. The policy of +President Adams' Administration was clearly opposed to the occupation +of Cuba and Porto Rico, either by the Spanish Americans or by any +European state other than Spain herself. In this matter, also, the +Administration and the opposition held the same view.</p> +<a name="side202"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote202"> + <tr> + <td><small>Real nature of the<br> + opposition to the<br> + Panama mission.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The only natural explanations of the determined opposition to the +Panama mission were, thus, either the dread of embarrassing +entanglements with the Spanish-American states, and the consequent +compromise of the status of neutrality toward them and their +motherland, or the spirit of personal hostility to the Administration. +From the merits of the question the former would seem the more likely. +It was certainly, to any candid mind, a sufficient reason. On the +other hand, an expression uttered by Mr. Van Buren as he left the +Senate chamber, after having just made a most earnest appeal against +the mission and cast his vote against it, would indicate that the +opposition fought the Administration in this matter from factional +motives purely. He is reported to have said: "They have beaten us by a +few votes, after a hard battle; but if they had only taken the other +side and refused the mission, we should have had them."</p> +<a name="side203"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote203"> + <tr> + <td><small>The failure of the<br> + Panama congress.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The debate continued so long, however, that the congress at Panama +adjourned to Tacubaya before the <a name="page154"></a>representatives from the United +States appeared. Spain ceased to wage war against her former colonies. +The Holy Alliance did not interfere. The Spanish-American states +suspended their operations against Cuba and Porto Rico. Hayti remained +in isolated barbarism. And the congress of the American nations never +reassembled.</p> + +<p>It is possible that the jingo policy of the Administration may have +helped to produce all these results. It is probable that the same +results would have followed had the Senate refused the mission to +Panama. It is certainly most fortunate that these results were +attained without the attendance of the representatives of the United +States upon the congress. All possible entanglements were thus +avoided, while the purposes of the Administration, in so far at least +as they subserved the true interests of the country, were +substantially accomplished.</p> + +<p>It is true that the special commercial advantages which Clay had hoped +for were not secured, nor his dream of an American Confederacy under +the protectorate of the United States realized. Neither were the +President's ideas in regard to methods for settling mooted questions +of international relations, nor those in regard to the advancement of +religious liberty, fulfilled. But these things were all premature, to +say the least, and none of them would, probably, have been helped +onward by any discussion in the congress of the American nations. With +the exception of the United States, those nations were altogether too +immature to deal with such problems; and the United States itself was +not sufficiently consolidated and powerful to assume the duties of +instructor and guardian over them. It is not probable that any +opportunity for doing good or receiving good was lost by the +non-attendance of representatives <a name="page155"></a>from the United States upon the +deliberations of the Panama congress. It is far more probable that +both the doing and the suffering of injury were escaped.</p> + +<p>While the question of the relation of the United States to the other +states upon the American continents is by no means transitory, the +question of the Panama mission was so, at least so much so as not to +serve well as an issue for the division of the Republican party into +two permanently hostile forces.</p> +<a name="side204"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote204"> + <tr> + <td><small>Adams on<br> + internal improvements<br> + in his message of<br> + December 6th, 1825.<br> + <br> + <br> + Van Buren's<br> + resolution against<br> + internal improvements.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The question of internal improvements was a better issue, from this +point of view. In his first annual message President Adams took high +national ground upon this subject. He seemed to attribute to the +general Government unlimited power to construct roads and canals, +establish universities and observatories, and to do any and every +thing conducive to the improvement of the people. Clay himself, it is +said, was a little staggered by the exceeding broadness of Mr. Adams' +ideas. While Mr. Van Buren, the leader of the opposition in the +Senate, offered a resolution in that body, a fortnight after the +message, which declared that Congress did not possess the power to +make roads and canals within the respective Commonwealths, and +proposed the formation of an amendment to the Constitution, which +should prescribe the powers that the general Government should have +over the subject of internal improvements.</p> +<a name="side205"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote205"> + <tr> + <td><small>The practices<br> + of the Adams<br> + Administration<br> + in respect to<br> + internal<br> + improvements.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Adams seems to have yielded before the opposition in this matter, +and to have thus avoided making it a further issue. In his subsequent +messages he confined himself chiefly to observations upon the work +done by the engineers appointed under the Congressional Act of April +30th, 1824, for making surveys, plans, <a name="page156"></a>and estimates for national +routes. The Administration and Congress simply put into practice the +Monroe ideas upon the subject. Money was appropriated by Congress for +the construction and repair of roads, and was expended under the +supervision of the President, and stock was taken by the Government in +private corporations, organized under Commonwealth law, and subject to +Commonwealth jurisdiction, for the construction of canals; but no +jurisdiction and no administrative powers were exercised or asserted +by the general Government over such improvements, except, perhaps, the +power of eminent domain.</p> + +<p>The opposition, however, which had been excited at first by Mr. Adams' +proposition to make a large advance upon Mr. Monroe's principles, was +not satisfied with his return in practice to those principles. They +professed to entertain the fear that the Administration had a settled +policy of encroachment upon the reserved rights and powers of the +Commonwealths, and they now began to watch and combat the movements of +the Administration chiefly from this point of view. This attitude must +not yet, however, be ascribed wholly or chiefly to the conscious +influences of the slavery interest. Factional hostility to the +Administration, and the general settling back into the "States' +rights" view of the Constitution, which manifests itself all through +the history of the United States as a reaction from the tension of war +and the enthusiasm of strong national exertion, did more to determine +it than the views of the slaveholders in regard to the interests of +their peculiar institution.</p> +<a name="side206"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote206"> + <tr> + <td><small>The chief practical<br> + difficulty in the way<br> + of a national system of<br> + internal improvements.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The great practical difficulty in regard to the subject was in making +such determinations as to the national or local character of the +proposed improvements as would be satisfactory to the mass of the +people. <a name="page157"></a>Naturally every Congressman considered the roads of his +district as matters of national concern; and, in spite of the law of +1824 vesting in the President and his board of engineers the laying +out of such routes as the President might decide to be required by the +general welfare, the scramble for national money to be expended for +local purposes increased from one session to another.</p> + +<p>It was the question of the tariff which showed more clearly than +anything else the influence of the interests of slavery in the +attitude which the slaveholders would finally take toward the +industrial policies of the nation, and which would contribute more +than anything else to the division of the Republican party from the +point of view of principle.</p> +<a name="side207"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote207"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Tariff<br> + of 1824<br> + a failure.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The great purpose of the Tariff of 1824 was to give the American +manufacturers of coarse woollens a substantial control of the home +markets. In two years of trial this result had not been realized. A +vast amount of capital had been transferred from other enterprises to +build new woollen mills, and the markets were so glutted with their +fabrics that sale for them could only be found by virtually excluding +foreign goods of the same material and grade. It was claimed that the +foreign goods were sold upon foreign account, and not by <i>bona fide</i> +American merchants, and that the goods were thus undervalued by the +fictitious parties to the importation, and the duty thus so largely +avoided as to make the importation practically free. It was, +therefore, contended that the agent of the foreign manufacturer or +merchant was ruining the American manufacturer, on the one hand, and +the American merchant, on the other. President Adams himself, in his +message of December 5th, 1826, referred to the frauds thus committed +on the revenue. The <a name="page158"></a>manufacturers of woollens in New England and +Pennsylvania memorialized Congress, during the latter part of the year +1826, representing themselves to be in dire distress and praying for +aid. These memorials were referred to the Committee on Manufactures of +the House of Representatives for report. On January 10th, 1827, the +chairman of this committee, Mr. Mallary, of Vermont, introduced a bill +to meet the difficulties above described.</p> +<a name="side208"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote208"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Tariff<br> + Bill of 1827.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>This bill proposed to introduce a system of minimal valuations at the +custom-house instead of taking the foreign invoice as the basis for +the levy of the duty, as was the existing practice, and it placed the +valuation of coarse woollens so high as practically to prohibit their +importation. The bill proposed, however, to raise the tariff on wool +to such a rate as would deprive the manufacturers very largely of the +benefit to be secured by the system of minimal valuations. It was +questionable whether the manufacturers would get any very material aid +out of this bill, which contained so high a rate of duty upon the raw +material, but it was necessary to incorporate the provision in order +to secure the support of the West to the measure.</p> +<a name="side209"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote209"> + <tr> + <td><small>Development of the<br> + industrial antithesis<br> + between the North<br> + and the South.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The industrial antithesis between the North and the South became more +exactly organized under the issue presented by this bill. +Massachusetts joined the high protection ranks, and Kentucky went over +to the side of the South. Missouri, however, still voted for the +tariff, while New York City still preserved its attitude of +opposition, and Maine's Representatives were evenly divided in the +final vote on the bill. The protection phalanx from Pennsylvania was +broken, too, by the defection of her two most important +Representatives, Ingham and Buchanan. The attitude of <a name="page159"></a>Buchanan was a +matter of especial note. He held that the constitutionality of the +tariff and the policy of a moderate protection had been completely +settled by the founders of the Constitution and by the uniform +practice of the Government, but that so high a tariff as the one now +proposed on woollens was impolitic, from the point of view of the +general welfare, and unjust, from that of an equal distribution of the +burdens of taxation. Mr. Buchanan owed much of his subsequent success +to the moderate views which he advanced and adhered to at this +juncture.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote210"> + <tr> + <td><small>The bill passed by the<br> + House of Representatives.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It will be seen, however, that the support of, and the opposition to, +the tariff respectively had not yet become entirely sectional, though +an advance had been made since 1824 toward that result. The bill +passed the House on February 10th, 1827, but the Senate did not reach +its consideration before the conclusion of the session.</p> +<a name="side211"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote211"> + <tr> + <td><small>Hostility to<br> + the measure in<br> + South Carolina.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It had the effect, however, of arousing most intense excitement and +bitter opposition in South Carolina. In fact, it is from this date and +issue that we must trace the history of nullification in South +Carolina. In the summer following the Congressional session of 1826-27 +the chief personages of the Commonwealth assembled at Columbia. The +Governor, Mr. Taylor, presided, and the principal orator of the +occasion was the President of the College of the Commonwealth, Dr. +Cooper, a man of rare powers and great learning, an Englishman by +birth and education, a free-trader in his political economy, and a +"States' rights" man in his political science. In his speech he +suggested disunion as preferable to submission to the tariff +legislation of Congress. The resolutions passed by the assembly were +not so inflammatory as the Doctor's speech, but they declared that +such legislation <a name="page160"></a>was calculated to give rise to the inquiry whether +the Union was of any benefit, under such conditions, to the Southern +Commonwealths.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote212"> + <tr> + <td><small>The bill neglected<br> + by the Senate.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Copies of these resolutions were sent to the legislative bodies of the +several Southern Commonwealths, but they evoked no response +whatsoever. The proposed tariff had, by the inaction of the Senate, +been virtually abandoned, and it was therefore unnecessary to protest +against its passage as law, or make threats against its execution.</p> +<a name="side213"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote213"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Tariff<br> + of 1828.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>At the beginning of the next session of Congress, that of 1827-28, the +committee on Manufactures brought in another bill. It advanced the +duty on iron by from ten to fifteen per centum; it advanced the duty +on wool by from about fifty to more than one hundred per centum, +imposing both a specific and an <i>ad valorem</i> duty upon it. It changed +the duty upon woollen goods costing less than $2.50 a square yard from +an <i>ad valorem</i> to a specific duty, and increased the duty by about +twenty per centum. It retained the <i>ad valorem</i> duty on woollens +costing more than $2.50 a square yard, and increased the same by about +twenty per centum, and in addition thereto it imposed a minimum +valuation of $4 a square yard upon all such goods costing between +$2.50 and $4 a square yard, which would effect an additional increase +of duty of about fifty per centum on the average. It finally increased +the duty on hemp by about twenty-five per centum immediately, and by +about eighty per centum in three years.</p> + +<p>This was a far more moderate protection upon woollen fabrics than that +proposed at the previous session, on account of the fact that the duty +on the raw material was so greatly increased. It was at least +questionable whether the manufacturers would receive any substantial +benefit out of the measure. Mr. Mallary, the <a name="page161"></a>chairman of the +committee, felt so dubious about this that he dissented from the +committee's report in regard to woollen fabrics, and offered an +amendment to the bill for the purpose of curing this defect. He could +not, however, bring the House to accept his proposition, but his +opposition to the committee's report opened the way for some +modification of the bill to the advantage of the manufacturers. It was +still, however, no great boon to the manufacturers. It was about as +much a wool- and hemp-grower's bill as a manufacturer's bill. Nobody +could tell whether it would be more beneficial to the manufacturers +than to the wool- and hemp-growers.</p> + +<p>One thing alone was certain, and that was, that the cotton-planters +and those engaged in foreign commerce would have no direct share in +the benefits of the measure. And it was also very difficult to figure +out any indirect benefits for them. It would not widen the domestic +market for raw cotton. It would increase the price of woollen fabrics. +It would increase the domestic demand for the products of Western +agriculture, and thereby increase the price of these products to the +Southern consumers of them. And it would discourage the importation of +woollen goods. These were all the results easily discernible, and +every one of them bore hard upon the planting and shipping interests. +The representatives from the Southern Commonwealths pointed out these +things, but they were told to establish manufactures themselves, and +then they would be tributary to nobody.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote213a"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Southerners not<br> + yet agreed that slave<br> + labor could not be<br> + employed in manufacture.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Some of the Southerners, like Colonel Hayne, frankly replied that they +could not establish manufactures with slave labor; while others, like +Mr. McDuffie, threatened ruin to the Northern manufacturers if they +succeeded in having the duties raised so high as to drive the South, +with its cheap slave labor, into manufactures.</p> +<a name="side214"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote214"> + <tr> + <td><small>The character of the bill<br> + as reflected in the analysis<br> + of the vote upon it.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page162"></a> +<p>The vote in the House of Representatives reflects quite perfectly the +character of the bill. The members from the wool- and hemp-growing +sections supported the bill; those from the manufacturing section were +indifferent; those from the shipping and commercial sections opposed +it; and those from the planting section opposed it unanimously.</p> + +<p>In the Senate, amendments were made to the bill which altered it in +the direction of a slightly increased protection to the manufacturers. +Still, Mr. Webster, who had become a champion of protection since his +section had become a manufacturing section, claimed that the bill was +of little worth to the manufacturers, while the increased duty on hemp +would bear heavily on the shipping interests of New England. He voted +for the bill, however, while his colleague, Mr. Silsbee, voted against +it. The vote in the Senate differed only slightly, as regards +sectional distribution, from that in the House. It was finally passed +by both Houses as amended by the Senate, and was signed by the +President on the nineteenth day of May, 1828; and opposition to it +thereafter must take on the form of petition for its repeal, or that +of resistance to its execution. Before it could come to the latter, +however, three things must be accomplished. The first was the +invention of the morale of such resistance. The second was the +creation of the party of resistance. And the last was the capture of +some existing governmental organization by that party.</p> +<a name="side215"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote215"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Tariff of 1828<br> + not a complete<br> + party measure.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>While thus it cannot be said that the "Jackson men" voted against this +bill and the Administration men for it, still there was something +which looked like an approach toward this relation. Certainly the +Southern wing of the Jacksonians, or of the Democratic party, as the +Jacksonians now called <a name="page163"></a>themselves in distinction from the National +Republicans, opposed the measure with something like unanimity. Many +of Jackson's Northern supporters, however, voted for the bill, and it +may be said that the Democratic party of the North was then in favor +of moderate protection to all the interests of the country.</p> + +<p>The party divisions of 1828 were still largely dominated by +considerations of personal partisanship, and the organization of the +two parties, which had now emerged from the all-comprehending +Republican party, upon the basis of different political creeds, still +lacked much of completion.</p> +<a name="side216"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote216"> + <tr> + <td><small>The presidential campaign<br> + of 1828 still dominated by<br> + personal considerations.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The campaign of 1828 was not fought upon the issues of any well +established differences in political and economic policies. Jackson +and his followers simply appealed to the mass of the people, +especially to the lower classes, "to turn the rascals out," on the +ground that the "Old Hero," the friend of the people, had been +cheated, by a corrupt bargain between the two chiefs of the +Administration, out of his rights in 1824, and that the whole pack of +officials serving under them had been corrupted by the venality of +their superiors. The people must take possession of their Government +and send the wicked aristocracy of office holders to the right about, +was the chief demand of the Democracy of 1828, and it was with the +empty phrases, with which they rang the changes upon this demand, that +they won the battle.</p> +<a name="side217"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote217"> + <tr> + <td><small>Election of<br> + Jackson.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Jackson and Calhoun were elected by an electoral vote of more than two +to one. Every Commonwealth west of the Alleghanies, and every one +south of Mason and Dixon's line, except Delaware and Maryland, gave +its electoral vote entire to Jackson and Calhoun; and in addition +thereto Pennsylvania <a name="page164"></a>gave them its entire vote, New York gave them +twenty of its thirty-six votes, Maine one of its nine, and Maryland +five of its eleven.</p> +<a name="side218"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote218"> + <tr> + <td><small>Advent of<br> + the parvenus.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was a tremendous <i>bouleversement</i>. The mob of malcontents had +gotten together, had pulled together, and had accomplished their +purpose. The old ruling class in American society was driven from +place and power, and a new, untried, and inexperienced set of men +seized the reins of Government. It looked something like a combination +of the South and West against the East. They had, however, secured the +two most important Eastern Commonwealths through Van Buren's activity +in New York and Jackson's own popularity in Pennsylvania. It was not +yet, however, a socialistic uprising against the wealth of the East. +It was a political uprising against the monopoly of office-holding by +the old official aristocracy. It was the introduction of a new class +of eligibles into the official positions. Whether the subsequent +effects of this change would be a modification of the structure of the +Union or the policies of the Government remained to be seen.</p> +<a name="side219"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote219"> + <tr> + <td><small>Foreign affairs<br> + under Jackson's<br> + Administration.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Jackson placed Van Buren at the head of the Department of State, and +under the influence of this most astute politician started out upon +his presidential career. The foreign diplomacy of the Administration +was naturally successful. The disputes with Great Britain in regard to +the northeast boundary of the United States, and in regard to trade +between the United States and the British colonies, and the dispute +with France in regard to indemnity for the spoliations committed by +the French upon American commerce in the first years of the century, +were successfully dealt with, by a judicious admixture of shrewdness, +conciliatoriness, and firmness. These questions were not, however, of +sufficient importance to <a name="page165"></a>turn the attention from the internal +questions of constitutional interpretation and governmental policies.</p> +<a name="side220"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote220"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Democratic<br> + party and its<br> + divisions.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Jackson party, or the Democratic party, must make its creed, both +political and economic, and it must adjust that creed both to the +Constitution and to the working of the Government. The party was +composed of three tolerably distinct divisions, which may be termed +the Southern, the Western, and the Eastern divisions. Of these, the +Western division alone was a real democracy. The Southern and Eastern +divisions were rather aristocracies. The Southern division was +emphatically so. And when it came to policies, the Western division +favored internal improvements, and the Eastern and Southern divisions +opposed them; the Western division favored a tariff on wool and hemp, +the Eastern favored moderate protection of manufactures, and the +Southern division wanted as nearly free trade as the revenues of the +Government would allow. It was a great task for the Administration to +maintain the combination, and keep a reliable majority in Congress.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="chap8"></a><a name="page166"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER VIII.</h3> + +<center>DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION TO INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PROTECTION</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side221">Jackson's Ideas Concerning Internal +Improvements</a>—<a href="#side222">The Maysville Road +Bill</a>—<a href="#side224">The Slavery Question not Involved in the Vote on the Bill or in +the Veto</a>—<a href="#side226">Railway Building +Begun</a>—<a href="#side227">The Commencement of the Struggle for the Repeal of the Tariff of +1828</a>—<a href="#side228">Jackson on the Tariff of 1828, in +his First Annual Message</a>—<a href="#side229">George McDuffie as South Carolina's +Political Economist</a>—<a href="#side229">Dr. Thomas +Cooper</a>—<a href="#side230">Mr. McDuffie's Tariff +Bill</a>—<a href="#side231">The Tariff Bill of +1830</a>—<a href="#side232">McDuffie's +Amendment</a>—<a href="#side233">McDuffie's Doctrine that the Producers of Exports Pay Finally the Duties on the +Imports</a>—<a href="#side235">The Acceptance of Mr. McDuffie's Doctrine at the +South</a>—<a href="#side236">Growing Belief in the Incapacity of Slave Labor for +Manufacture</a>—<a href="#side237">The Tariff Pronounced +Unconstitutional</a>—<a href="#side239">Growth of the Protection +Idea</a>—<a href="#side240">Jackson on the Tariff and the Surplus Revenue Derived therefrom, in the +Message of December, 1830</a>—<a href="#side241">Southern +Disappointment</a>—<a href="#side242">"The South Carolina +Exposition"</a>—<a href="#side242">Calhoun's Doctrine of "States' +rights"</a>—<a href="#side243">Nullification in +Theory</a>—<a href="#side244">The Nullification and Anti-nullification Parties in South +Carolina</a>—<a href="#side246">First Attempt to try the Validity of the Tariff in the United States +Courts</a>—<a href="#side247">Nullification and +Rebellion</a>—<a href="#side248">Jackson's Message of December, 1831, on the Tariff +Issue</a>—<a href="#side250">The Bill from the Committee on Ways and +Means</a>—<a href="#side251">The Tariff Bill of 1832 from the Committee on +Manufactures</a>—<a href="#side252">Passage of the Tariff of 1832 by the House of +Representatives</a>—<a href="#side253">The "American System."</a></blockquote> +<br> +<a name="side221"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote221"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson's ideas<br> + concerning<br> + internal<br> + improvements.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In his first annual message President Jackson referred to the general +dissatisfaction with the manner of <a name="page167"></a>dealing with the question of +internal improvements which had prevailed to that time, and proposed +that the general Government should abandon the subject entirely and +should distribute the surplus of the revenue, above the wants of the +Government, among the Commonwealths, and leave to them the expenditure +of the money upon internal improvements.</p> +<a name="side222"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote222"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Maysville<br> + Road Bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Congress, however, paid no regard to the President's +recommendation. In May, 1830, it sent up to the President for his +approval a bill authorizing and requiring the Government to take stock +in a Kentucky turnpike, running from Maysville on the Ohio River to +Lexington, some sixty miles inward.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote223"> + <tr> + <td><small>The veto<br> + of the Bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The President vetoed the bill, May 27th. His special reason was that +the road was not a national, but a local, matter. He did not attack +the Monroe principle upon the general subject of internal +improvements, but he referred to the recommendation contained in his +annual message as still expressing his view of the manner in which the +Government should rid itself of the embarrassments into which it was +being farther and farther drawn by the practice of voting national +money for internal improvements. He argued that the subject must be +considered upon its own merits, and not brought into connection with +the tariff policy. He thus saw the prospect of the expenditure of +millions of national money upon internal improvements in order to +relieve the protectionists of the embarrassment of a great surplus, +and denounced it. He contended that the Government should adopt its +policy upon each of these subjects as if the other did not exist. He +urged, finally, that, if the people wanted the general Government to +undertake internal improvements, they should <a name="page168"></a>so amend the Constitution +as to give the Government sufficient jurisdiction over the roads and +canals, which it might build, to protect them against wanton injury, +and to collect the tolls necessary to keep them in repair. This he +declared to be necessary to any satisfactory exercise of powers upon +the general subject by the Government.</p> + +<p>The veto certainly exerted some influence upon the minds of the +Representatives. A majority still voted for the bill, but it was a +much reduced majority. The vote upon the vetoed bill stood ninety-six +to ninety. The bill was therefore lost.</p> +<a name="side224"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote224"> + <tr> + <td><small>The slavery question<br> + not involved in the<br> + vote on the bill or<br> + in the veto.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The exact question at issue was not, as we have seen, the general +policy of internal improvements, but it was whether the Maysville road +was a national improvement. An analysis of the vote upon the subject +may not, therefore, have any significance, from the point of view of +the general question. Roughly, we may say that a majority of the +Representatives from the South voted against the bill, a large +majority of those from the Northwest voted for it, a majority of those +from Pennsylvania and New Jersey voted for it, while a majority of +those from New York voted against it, and, lastly, the Representatives +from New England were divided. It thus appears rather far fetched to +ascribe the attitude of the opponents of the bill, in any section, to +the influence of the slavery interest. Those who voted against the +bill said they did so because the object for which the appropriation +was sought was a local affair, managed by a private corporation, for +private gain. That uncompromising enemy of slavery, Mr. John W. +Taylor, of New York, was prominent among those who took this position +and voted against the bill. He even pronounced it unconstitutional, +and was inclined to the <a name="page169"></a>view, as we have seen, that internal +improvements generally were left by the Constitution for the +Commonwealths to construct and control.</p> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote225"> + <tr> + <td><small>Too much influence in<br> + determining the national<br> + policy toward internal<br> + improvements usually<br> + ascribed to the veto.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It is usual to attribute to the veto of this bill the overthrow of the +policy of internal improvements by the general Government. This +proposition will hardly bear close examination. Congress continued to +make appropriations for internal improvements, which the President +usually vetoed, if they were in separate bills, and usually approved, +if they were included in the general appropriation bills. It is +calculated that while Adams signed appropriations for internal +improvements to the amount of less than two millions and a half of +dollars, Jackson approved disbursements for these purposes to the +amount of more than ten millions of dollars.</p> +<a name="side226"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote226"> + <tr> + <td><small>Railway<br> + building<br> + begun.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The fact is that the building of railways was the chief force which +put an end to road- and canal-making by the general Government. The +construction of the Mohawk and Hudson Railroad, the parent of the New +York Central system, was begun in 1825. In 1827 the survey of the +Boston and Albany line was begun. The same year the Pennsylvania +system had its origin. One year later the Baltimore and Ohio system +was founded. The year of the veto of the Maysville road bill forty-one +miles of railroad were being operated in the United States, and at the +close of the decade more than two thousand miles. As the railway +system spread over the country, through private enterprise, the +appropriations of national money for internal improvements became more +and more confined to the specific improvements of rivers and harbors. +The roads and canals of a national character were being made +unnecessary by the extension of <a name="page170"></a>the railways. It is undoubtedly, then, +far more plausible and natural to attribute the overthrow of the +policy of internal improvements by the general Government to the +growth of the railways, constructed and operated by private +corporations under Commonwealth charters, on the one side, and, on the +other, to the settled conviction that the general Government did not +have the constitutional powers adequate to the successful +establishment and protection of a system of works based upon that +policy, and to the unsatisfactory experience which the country had had +in attempting to distinguish local from national enterprises and to +confine appropriations to those of the latter character.</p> + +<p>It is difficult to see any special connection of the interests of +slavery with the decline of the policy. It is true that the +slaveholders were becoming strict constructionists generally. They had +learned from the Missouri struggle that Congress must not be allowed +to magnify its powers when forming the Territories into Commonwealths, +and they had learned from the tariff struggles that Congress must not +be allowed to magnify its powers in regard to the regulation of +foreign commerce and the raising of revenue, but, as to internal +improvements, no reliable evidence of a consciousness, on the part of +the slaveholders, of any particular connection between their peculiar +interest and a policy upon this subject by the general Government is +discoverable.</p> + +<p>On the contrary, in the struggle for the repeal of the Tariff of 1828 +the influence of the slavery interest is easily remarked, and is +clearly seen to have been controlling.</p> +<a name="side227"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote227"> + <tr> + <td><small>The commencement<br> + of the struggle for<br> + the repeal of the<br> + Tariff of 1828.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On February 10th, 1829, Mr. William Smith, the senior Senator from +South Carolina, presented to the Senate the protest of the legislature +of South <a name="page171"></a>Carolina against Congressional protection to domestic +manufactures. This memorial pronounced all such acts to be +unconstitutional, except as incidental to raising the revenue or +regulating commerce, and impolitic even then, when their operation +would be unequal upon the different sections of the country, and felt +by any section to be oppressive. The language of the paper was +respectful, moderate, dignified, and forcible, and it contained no +threats of disunion, or of violent or unlawful resistance. The +legislature asked that the protest should be entered on the journal of +the Senate. The Senate, however, only ordered it to be printed.</p> + +<p>The South Carolinians promised themselves, nevertheless, some measure +of relief from what they supposed would be the policy of the newly +elected President. Being a Southern man, it was naturally supposed +that he would recognize Southern interests in the policy upon this +subject which he would recommend. But, while Jackson had not committed +himself to protection for the sake of the manufacturers or of the +producers of raw material, he was a strong Union man and an American, +and the argument for the tariff from the point of view of national +industrial independence exercised a prevailing influence in +determining his attitude toward the subject.</p> +<a name="side228"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote228"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson on the Tariff<br> + of 1828, in his<br> + first annual message.<br> + <br> + <br> + Jackson's views on<br> + the Tariff as<br> + a general policy.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In his message of December 8th, 1829, he wrote that the Tariff of 1828 +had not proved itself so beneficial to the manufacturers or so +injurious to commerce and agriculture as had been anticipated; that he +regretted that all nations would not abolish restrictions, and refer +the management of trade to individual enterprise; that since, however, +they would not do so, a tariff was the necessary policy of the United +States; but that in the <a name="page172"></a>face of the fact that the national debt would +soon be paid, and the sinking fund would not be much longer required, +a modification of the existing tariff in the direction of a reduction +of duties would soon be the true and necessary policy; and that the +principle to be followed in making such a modification ought to be to +reduce the duties upon such articles as might come into competition +with home products no further than would leave to the latter a fair +chance in such competition; and that from the general principle of a +reduction to this point must be excepted the duties on the implements +and prime necessities of war, all of which should enjoy a higher +protection than that accorded to other articles. Evidently, according +to this doctrine, the chief reductions should fall upon articles not +coming into competition with home products, such articles as tea, +coffee, etc., at that time termed the unprotected articles. Jackson +had thus anticipated Clay's American system of the tariff by nearly +three years, as we shall see.</p> + +<p>The South Carolinians were greatly disappointed by this expression of +the President's views, although they claimed that the message +recommended substantial tariff reduction. This part of the message was +referred to the committee on Manufactures, according to the rule of +procedure which had prevailed in the House of Representatives for +nearly a decade, and which showed that the matter of the tariff was +not regarded as something purely incidental to the raising of revenue.</p> +<a name="side229"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote229"> + <tr> + <td><small>George McDuffie<br> + as South Carolina's<br> + political economist.<br> + <br> + <br> + Dr. Thomas Cooper.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The claim was now put forward, however, that the subject properly +belonged to the domain of the committee on Ways and Means. Mr. George +McDuffie, of South Carolina, was at this moment the chairman of this +committee. He was a man of keen intelligence, strong <a name="page173"></a>courage, and +great persistence. He was the political economist of the slave-labor +system, as Calhoun was its political scientist and constitutional +lawyer. It is to be surmised, at least, that he learned much of his +political economy from the notorious, if not famous, Dr. Thomas +Cooper, the British President of South Carolina College. It is true +that Mr. McDuffie's college days had passed before Dr. Cooper taught +in the institution, but the Doctor wrote and published much upon +economic and political subjects between 1820 and 1830. In fact, he set +the direction of thought upon such subjects in South Carolina and +throughout a large portion of the South during that period. As has +been already mentioned, he was an Englishman by birth. He had spent a +part of his earlier life in France, and had imbibed the doctrines of +French republicanism. For this reason he was disliked and shunned by +conservative men in England to such a degree as to make longer +residence in his native country uncomfortable to him. He came to the +United States in the last decade of the eighteenth century. His +radical views and his violent expressions of them soon drew attention +to him here. He was one of the men prosecuted under the Alien and +Sedition laws of 1798. He made his way to South Carolina about the +beginning of the third decade of this century, and found there a well +prepared soil for his Girondist views of federal Government and his +free-trade views in political economy. A true estimate of +responsibilities for the events of 1832 in South Carolina would +probably hold him more culpable than Calhoun himself. It was from such +a thinker, and he was a keen and vigorous thinker, that Mr. McDuffie +received impulse, if not actual instruction, in his reasoning.</p> + +<p>Mr. McDuffie argued that the power to impose a tariff <a name="page174"></a>was not +expressly vested by the Constitution in the Government; that, +therefore, if it existed at all, as a power of the Government, it must +be incidental to some express provision; and that it could be +incidental only to the power for raising the revenue. He, therefore, +contended further that all tariff bills must originate in the House of +Representatives, and in the regular revenue committee of that House, +the committee of Ways and Means.</p> +<a name="side230"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote230"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. McDuffie's<br> + Tariff Bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Congress had disregarded the protest of the South Carolina Legislature +of the previous February. It was well known that the committee on +Manufactures in the House was favorable to the maintenance of the +existing duties. It seemed, therefore, to Mr. McDuffie, and those who +thought with him, both natural and necessary that the committee of +Ways and Means should claim their constitutional prerogative, and make +an effort to get the ear of Congress to their representations. +Consequently, on February 5th, 1830, Mr. McDuffie reported a tariff +bill from his committee, without having had the subject specifically +referred to them by the House. The bill provided for a moderate +reduction of the tariff all around, but still left a duty of +thirty-three and one-third per centum <i>ad valorem</i> upon woollen +fabrics.</p> + +<p>The interest attaching to this proposition lies in the fact that it +contains substantially the terms upon which the South Carolinians were +willing to compromise the tariff question. It shows them to have been +still moderate tariff men, rather than out and out free-traders. To +the unprejudiced mind of the present day it certainly appears to have +been an offer which merited some consideration, but, after a single +reading, it was ordered to lie on the table, from which it was never +taken up.</p> +<a name="side231"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote231"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Tariff<br> + Bill of 1830.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page175"></a> +<p>Meanwhile the committee on Manufactures were very deliberately +maturing a measure. It was reported to the House early in April, and +taken up for consideration on the 15th. It was nothing more than an +administrative measure for the purpose of securing a stricter +execution of the existing tariff.</p> +<a name="side232"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote232"> + <tr> + <td><small>McDuffie's<br> + Amendment.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. McDuffie made another effort to move the House to consider a +reduction of duties, in the form of an amendment to this bill. He +offered such an amendment, which provided for a return to the duties +imposed before 1824 upon woollens, cottons, iron, hemp, etc.</p> +<a name="side233"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote233"> + <tr> + <td><small>McDuffie's doctrine<br> + that the producers<br> + of exports pay<br> + finally the duties<br> + on the imports.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was in support of this amendment that he made his famous argument +of April 29th, 1830, in which he developed, for the first time, the +doctrine in regard to the final payment of the duties which furnished +the economic basis of nullification. That doctrine was that the +producers of the exports, which are exchanged in the foreign markets +for the imports, pay, finally, the duty upon the imports. His course +of reasoning in the establishment of this doctrine was as follows: He +reduced all trade ultimately to barter between producers, and then +declared it to be self-evident that when a producer of exports should +be obliged to pay a duty of twenty-five per centum upon the imports, +which he had received in pay for his exports, before he could bring +them into the country of his residence, he had received finally +twenty-five per centum less for his exports than he would have +received had he not been compelled to pay any duty upon his imports.</p> + +<p>Mr. McDuffie then drew from the statistics of the foreign trade of the +United States the fact that the sections cultivating cotton and rice, +constituting less than <a name="page176"></a>one-fifth of the Union, both in territory and +population, produced thirty of the fifty-eight millions' worth of +annual exports; and finally drew the conclusion from these premises +that one-fifth of the people, the population of the planting sections, +paid more than one-half of the duties on the imports of the country.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote234"> + <tr> + <td><small>The danger in<br> + Mr. McDuffie's<br> + conclusions.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>If this were true it was indeed a grievous burden. And if the people +of the South, or that part of the South devoted to the production of +these staples, believed it to be true, then would the reason for one +great scruple against resistance to the execution of the tariff laws +be removed, namely, the general belief theretofore prevailing, from +the doctrine that the consumers of the imports ultimately pay the +duties, that the burden of the duties fell nearly equally upon the +different sections. So long as this belief was general the sense of +oppression in any particular part or section of the country could not +become very keen. Substitute for this old idea, however, the new +doctrine advanced by Mr. McDuffie, and, under the existing +distribution of the articles of export, there could not fail to be +developed a most bitter sense of wrong and oppression on the part of +the producers of the Southern staples.</p> +<a name="side235"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote235"> + <tr> + <td><small>The acceptance of<br> + Mr. McDuffie's<br> + doctrine at the South.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Southerners, especially the South Carolinians, did embrace the new +doctrine, apparently, at least, with all sincerity. It was utterly +futile that Mr. Gorham and Mr. Everett pointed out to them the fact +that they consumed only a comparatively small portion of the imports +received in exchange for their exports, and sold the rest to the +people of the other sections with the duties added on, thus shifting +the duties upon the other sections. They clung to the new doctrine as +if it were something for which they had long been seeking, and to +which their <a name="page177"></a>hearts were already too much attached to be drawn away by +argument.</p> +<a name="side236"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote236"> + <tr> + <td><small>Growing belief in the<br> + incapacity of slave<br> + labor for manufacture.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was in this speech, furthermore, that Mr. McDuffie abandoned his +former view of the capacity of slave labor for manufacturing industry, +and embraced and enounced the doctrine held before this by Colonel +Hayne upon that subject, which was that slave labor could only be +employed successfully in agriculture. This was, of course, another +necessary element in the consolidation of the interests of the South +against the tariff.</p> +<a name="side237"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote237"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Tariff<br> + pronounced<br> + unconstitutional.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was in this speech, also, that Mr. McDuffie, for the first time, +pronounced the tariff unconstitutional. He did not yet declare any and +every tariff unconstitutional, but only such a tariff as sacrificed +one interest to another, or the interests of one section to those of +another. This he claimed the existing tariff did do. The belief in the +unconstitutionality of the tariff was, of course, another necessary +element in the preparation for resistance to its execution.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote238"> + <tr> + <td><small>McDuffie's threat of<br> + resistance to the execution<br> + of the Tariff laws.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Finally, Mr. McDuffie uttered, in this speech, the threat of +resistance to the execution of the tariff laws, the threat of +nullification. It was ill timed, as threats generally are, and it had +the effect of producing the large majority by which Mr. McDuffie's +amendment was voted down.</p> + +<p>The bill suffered some modification in the course of its passage, but +its principle remained the same. It reduced the duty on no article +whatever, but only provided for a stricter enforcement of the existing +laws.</p> +<a name="side239"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote239"> + <tr> + <td><small>Growth of the<br> + protection idea.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>By another bill, which received the President's approval on May 20th +(1830), eight days before this administrative bill was signed, the +duties on tea, coffee, and cocoa had been reduced. This meant that the +protectionists were very <a name="page178"></a>willing to free those articles from duty +which did not come into competition with home productions, in order to +preserve and increase the duties on those that did. This was the +direction in which the tariff system was growing. It became, two years +later, the pronounced principle of the "American system," as we shall +see.</p> +<a name="side240"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote240"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson on the Tariff and<br> + the surplus revenue derived<br> + therefrom, in the message<br> + of December, 1830.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In the message of December 7th, 1830, President Jackson defended the +constitutionality of the protective system, said that the existing +tariff needed some corrections in details, and expressed the opinion +that no law reducing duties could be made which would be satisfactory +to the American people that would not leave a considerable surplus in +the Treasury. He suggested the employment of such surplus upon +internal improvements under the direction of the legislatures of the +several Commonwealths.</p> +<a name="side241"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote241"> + <tr> + <td><small>Southern<br> + disappointment.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>This was a stunning blow to the hopes of the Southerners. The +extinction of the debt and the existence of an unemployed surplus were +the conditions to which they had looked forward as necessitating in +all conservative minds the reduction of the duties. But here was a +plan, suggested by a Southern President, for relieving the Treasury of +any amount of surplus for an indefinite period, without the reduction +of a single penny of duty upon a single article. Thus encouraged the +protectionists in both Houses of Congress refused, during the session +of 1830-31, to consider any propositions looking toward a reduction of +duties.</p> + +<p>It is hardly a cause of wonder that the South Carolinians began to +despair of obtaining through Congress any relief from what they +regarded as dire oppression, and that some of them were reviewing the +Constitution, and the political principles upon which it was founded, +with <a name="page179"></a>the purpose of finding other means with which to meet the great +emergency. It was in this part of the work that Mr. Calhoun took the +lead.</p> +<a name="side242"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote242"> + <tr> + <td><small>"The South Carolina<br> + Exposition."<br> + <br> + <br> + Calhoun's doctrine<br> + of "States' rights."</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>As far back as 1828, just after the enactment of the tariff measure +which was giving so much offence, Mr. Calhoun had started out in this +direction in the paper which he furnished the South Carolina +legislature, which served as the basis of the first pronunciamento +from that body upon the subject, the so-called South Carolina +Exposition. This document by Mr. Calhoun was comparatively temperate +in its language and not very clear in its political doctrines and its +constitutional interpretation. The great debate between Hayne and +Webster on the floor of the Senate, over which body Mr. Calhoun, as +Vice-President, presided, in regard to the fundamental principles of +the Union, taught Mr. Calhoun several very important points in the +evolution of his doctrine of "States' rights." Especially was he +warned against the great error, made by Mr. Hayne, of representing the +United States Government as one of the parties to the "constitutional +pact" and the "States" as the other. Mr. Webster so completely +demolished this theory that Mr. Calhoun was preserved from introducing +this fallacy or any of its corollaries into his reasoning, if he had +ever been inclined to do so. In his "Address on the Relations of the +States and Federal Government," and in his "Address to the People of +South Carolina," both published in the summer of 1831, he shows that +he had maturely reflected upon all that had been said and written upon +the fundamental question of the relation of the "States" to the Union +and to the general Government. He had given up his hope both in the +Congress and in the President. With him the question of the tariff had +now, <a name="page180"></a>therefore, been removed from the domain of governmental policy +into that of constitutional powers and political principle. This was +the point of view which he took in the documents just mentioned.</p> + +<p>He began, as innovators generally do, with the assertion that his +interpretation of the Constitution was no new invention of his own, +but was the ancient principle of the Constitution. That principle was, +he contended, that the Constitution was made by the "States," as +sovereign bodies, and that through it the "States" created only a +governmental agent for their general affairs. The term or phrase +United States was only the name of the general governmental agent of +the "States." Sovereignty was in the "States" only. Consequently, when +the United States assumed powers not conferred by the "States" in the +Constitution, the "States," by virtue of the sovereign attribute, +might and should interpose, interpose individually, not collectively +as they, of course, might do constitutionally through the regular form +of procedure for amending the Constitution.</p> +<a name="side243"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote243"> + <tr> + <td><small>Nullification<br> + in theory.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Calhoun, like every other real statesman of his day, held that there +is a domain of liberty secured not only to the minority, but to the +individual, by the Constitution, upon which the majority shall not +encroach. The practical question was how to prevent the majority, in +possession of the powers and machinery of the Government, from doing +so. The answer to this question developed by precedent, and formulated +clearly by Webster at that very moment, was that it could be done only +by invoking the aid of the judicial power of the United States. But +Calhoun said in reply to this, that the United States courts were a +part of the Government, substantially under the control of Congress +and the President, through the power of Congress to constitute +judgeships at pleasure, and of the President and the <a name="page181"></a>Senate to fill +them, and that they were interested, therefore, in the usurpations of +power by the Government. He further held that these courts could not +decide political questions, although these questions might +incidentally involve the most sacred rights of individuals, and that, +anyhow, they were as much subject to the "States," acting in their +sovereign capacities, as any other part of the Government. He could +see no way for preserving the rights of the minority and of +individuals, in last resort, against governmental usurpation, save +through the power of "<i>each of the parties</i> to the compact" to prevent +the execution within the territory subject to its jurisdiction of such +governmental measures as it might deem usurpations.</p> +<a name="side244"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote244"> + <tr> + <td><small>The nullification and<br> + anti-nullification<br> + parties in<br> + South Carolina.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Down to the time of these utterances of Calhoun the party in South +Carolina opposed to any resistance, by force, to the execution of the +tariff laws, had been able to prevent the outbreak of nullification. +The leaders of this party were among the most distinguished and +influential men of the Commonwealth. They were Mr. Drayton, the member +of Congress from the Charleston district, Judge Johnson of the United +States Supreme Court, Mr. Petigru, Mr. Grimke, the Lowndes, and others +of scarcely less note. In the first half of the year 1831 they still +held control of the municipal government of Charleston, and of the +legislature of the Commonwealth, although the "States' rights" men had +obtained the governorship. Nearly all of the opponents of +nullification denounced the tariff laws as unjust and oppressive to +the South, but they also denounced the doctrine that the execution of +any law of the United States could be constitutionally resisted, +except by means of the judicial processes provided for the case by the +Constitution itself. Resistance in any other <a name="page182"></a>manner, they declared, +would be rebellion at the outset, revolution if successful. They said +that they were not willing to assume any such responsibilities in +opposing the tariff laws, and that they regarded the blessings of the +Union as too great and manifold to hazard disunion, even if it could +be successfully and peaceably accomplished.</p> + +<p>Their views were so candid and reasonable that, in spite of the +intense excitement which prevailed during the legislative session +following the failure of the attempt to modify the tariff, they +prevented the nullifiers from securing a sufficient majority in the +legislature to order the call of a convention. The nullifiers had +committed themselves to the doctrine that the nullifying power was a +power of sovereignty, not of government, and that it resided, +therefore, in the convention, not in the legislature. So long, then, +as the assembly of the convention could be prevented, nullification +could be certainly thwarted.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote245"> + <tr> + <td><small>Capture of the municipal government<br> + of Charleston by the nullifiers.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>But the publication of Calhoun's new doctrine in the summer of 1831 +gave great strength to the nullifiers, and in the municipal election +of the latter part of the year they captured the mayorship of +Charleston.</p> +<a name="side246"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote246"> + <tr> + <td><small>First attempt to try<br> + the validity of the<br> + Tariff in the United<br> + States courts.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>One of the strongest moral forces in the hands of the opponents of +nullification against which the nullifiers had to contend was the +generally received doctrine that the constitutional means for meeting +Congressional usurpation in any given case was a process in the United +States courts. Unless they could say that they had tried this means in +vain, they would still have to suffer the imputation of too hasty +action, if nothing more. In order to escape this, two Charleston +lawyers imported a package of dutiable goods, gave bonds for the +payment of the duty, <a name="page183"></a>refused payment, and were sued upon their bonds +in the United States District Court. The plan was to have the question +of the constitutionality of the tariff submitted to the jury, but the +court refused to allow the jury to decide any question except that +which pertained to the due execution of the bond.</p> +<a name="side247"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote247"> + <tr> + <td><small>Nullification<br> + and rebellion.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The nullifiers could now declare that every means suggested by their +opponents as regular and lawful had been tried and had failed, and +that there now remained only submission to oppression, or +nullification, or rebellion. They said that no true South Carolinian +could accept the first, and that, therefore, the choice lay between +nullification and rebellion. Calhoun taught that there was a vast +difference between the two; that the former was a constitutional, as +well as a sovereign, method of resistance. He asserted that it was the +great conservative principle of the Constitution, and defined it to be +that reserved right whereby a "State," in convention assembled, might +suspend the operation of a Congressional act upon its citizens which +it considered unconstitutional, until conventions in three-fourths of +the "States" should pronounce the Congressional act to be +constitutional. He did not claim that this right was reserved +specifically, but by implication from the general language of the +Tenth Amendment. He was doubtless sincere, or at least thought he was. +Many of his followers certainly were, and the masses, who could not +understand the doctrine, but took it on faith, were so certain of its +truth that they were ready to risk anything for its vindication.</p> + +<p>The Unionists, however, branded the doctrine as a deception. An +editorial in one of their principal newspapers contained this +sentence: "But this everlasting cant of devotion to the Union, +accompanied by a recommendation to do those acts that must necessarily +destroy <a name="page184"></a>it, is beyond patient endurance from a people not absolutely +confined in their own mad-houses." It was clear to them, at the +outset, that nullification was piecemeal secession and rebellion.</p> +<a name="side248"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote248"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson's message of<br> + December, 1831,<br> + on the Tariff issue.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>This was the state of things in South Carolina when Congress assembled +on the first Monday of December, 1831. On the 6th the President's +annual message was laid before the two Houses. It contained a much +more distinct and decided recommendation for the reduction of duties +than he had ever before expressed. He called attention to the prospect +of the early extinguishment of the public debt, when the annual +instalment to the sinking fund would be no longer needed, and +recommended that Congress should at once deal with the question of the +reduction of the duties to a point where they would produce no more +revenue than would be necessary for an economical administration of +the Government. He farther recommended the readjustment of the duties +with a view to equal justice to all national interests, and said that +the interests of both merchant and manufacturer required that the +change should be prospective.</p> + +<p>There was no suggestion in the message of increasing the expenditures +of the Government for internal improvements, or for any other purpose. +The plain inference from the message was that by March 4th, 1833, the +debt would all be paid, and the revenue could then be reduced by ten +or twelve millions a year, and should be.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote249"> + <tr> + <td><small>The question of the<br> + proper committee to<br> + frame Tariff Bills.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>This was all that the South Carolinians had asked, and it would have +been the height of folly for them to have pursued extraordinary means +to relieve themselves when regular methods promised at last a prospect +of success. This part of the message was referred to the committee on +Manufactures, of which ex-President John Quincy Adams was then +chairman. Mr. Adams <a name="page185"></a>had far more moderate views in regard to the +tariff than the majority of his protectionist brethren, and it could +be reasonably hoped that he would report a bill from his committee +which would be conciliatory in character. The Southerners were not +quite willing, however, to rest entirely on his own good will, and +raised the contention that the subject of the tariff ought to be +referred either to the committee on Ways and Means, or to the +committee on Commerce, since the power to impose duties was incident +either to the raising of revenue or to the regulation of commerce. The +result of the contention was that a resolution was introduced, and +taken up, requesting the committee on Commerce to make a report on the +working of the tariff, and the committee on Ways and Means was allowed +to report a tariff bill, which was read twice and referred to the +committee of the Whole House.</p> +<a name="side250"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote250"> + <tr> + <td><small>The bill from the Committee<br> + on Ways and Means.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The bill from the committee on Ways and Means provided for the +reduction of the duty to twelve and one-half per centum <i>ad valorem</i> +on all articles; on some, immediately and totally, but on the more +important articles gradually, and in a period of a little more than +three years.</p> + +<p>This was undoubtedly an ill digested measure. It was not only a +radical reduction of duties, but it was an indiscriminate reduction. +Mr. McDuffie's own committee were not unanimous in recommending it.</p> +<a name="side251"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote251"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Tariff Bill of 1832<br> + from the Committee<br> + on Manufactures.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On May 23rd Mr. Adams reported the bill from the committee on +Manufactures. Mr. Adams based his bill on the report of the Secretary +of the Treasury, of December 7th, 1831, and proposed the repeal of the +existing system of minimal valuations and the duty on coarse wool +altogether, and a slight reduction of the duties on fine wool and +woollen fabrics.</p> +<a name="page186"></a> +<p>It was calculated that Mr. Adams' bill would reduce the receipts from +the customs by about five or six millions of dollars, leaving thus +still an annual surplus of some five or six millions after the +extinguishment of the debt.</p> + +<p>Mr. McDuffie's bill was taken up first in the committee of the Whole +House. Mr. McDuffie defended it with his argument, already stated, +that the producers of the exports pay finally the duties on the +imports for which the exports are exchanged in the foreign markets, +and cited recent utterances of Professor Senior, the noted political +economist of Oxford University, in support of his position. He could +not, however, convince the House, and his bill was finally disposed of +in less than a week. Mr. Adams' bill was then taken up. It was +understood as proposing a slight reduction all around. It was intended +to do so. But Mr. McDuffie made an argument against it, in which he +undertook to prove, and declared that he did prove, that it +discriminated still further against the South, and imposed a heavier +burden upon that section than it was even then bearing, grievous as +that was. He declared, finally, that he would not submit to it.</p> +<a name="side252"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote252"> + <tr> + <td><small>Passage of the Tariff of 1832<br> + by the House of Representatives.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The House, however, was neither convinced by his argument nor +intimidated by his threat. It passed the bill on June 28th, by a large +majority, a majority of more than two to one.</p> + +<p>Meanwhile the Senate had been occupying itself with an exhaustive +discussion of the principle of the tariff. On January 9th, 1832, Mr. +Clay introduced the famous resolution for making the tariff upon +articles coming into competition with home manufactures a system of +permanent high duties, and for abolishing, or greatly reducing, the +duties upon all other articles.</p> +<a name="page187"></a> +<p>Senator Hayne immediately grasped the import of this proposition. He +declared that it marked a new era in the tariff system. He +demonstrated that down to that time the protection of manufactures had +been regarded by all persons and parties as a temporary policy and had +been justified as such, while this proposition looked to its +establishment as a permanent principle of the policy of the country, +which neither revenue surplus nor manufacturing experience should +affect.</p> +<a name="side253"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote253"> + <tr> + <td><small>The "American<br> + System."</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Clay, who had himself spoken of protection before this as only a +temporary policy, acknowledged the truth of Colonel Hayne's criticism, +and proceeded, in his famous three days' speech, to develop the +arguments for the permanent protective system, the "American System," +as he termed it, which made up the text-book for the later supporters +of that system. His idea was simply to collect the duties from those +foreign products which come into competition in the home markets with +domestic products, and prevent the accumulation of a Treasury surplus +by fixing the duties so high in rate as to make them largely +prohibitory. As we have seen, this idea had been already foreshadowed +in one of President Jackson's earlier messages. It now received its +complete formulation and its economic justification.</p> + +<p>But it was a sad prospect for the South. The South had looked forward +to the extinguishment of the debt as necessarily bringing in its train +the decrease of duties to the gross amount of at least ten millions of +dollars per annum, and now it was called upon to consider the plan for +a decrease of revenue by an increase of duties. It is hardly +astonishing that the disappointment should have been bitter, and that +passionate men should have thought of resistance to what appeared to +them so grievously unjust.</p> +<a name="page188"></a> +<p>The Senate referred Mr. Clay's resolution, together with an amendment +to it, proposed by Colonel Hayne, for a general reduction of duties, +to its committee on Manufactures. The committee reported a bill based +on Mr. Clay's principle. The Constitution does not, however, allow the +Senate to originate a bill for raising revenue, and the majority of +the Senators voted to lay the bill on the table, and await the +movements in the House.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote254"> + <tr> + <td><small>The bill in<br> + the Senate.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On June 29th the House bill appeared in the Senate, and was referred +by that body to its committee on Manufactures. On July 2nd Mr. +Dickerson reported from this committee the House bill, with a series +of amendments to it, proposed by the committee. These amendments were +all in the direction of Mr. Clay's idea, and were adopted by the +Senate. The bill as thus amended passed the Senate on July 9th, the +Senators from every Northern Commonwealth voting for it, and those +from every Southern Commonwealth, except Kentucky, Missouri, and +Louisiana, voting against it. Missouri was hardly to be then classed +as a Southern Commonwealth. Louisiana was won by an increase of the +duty on sugar. And only one of the Senators from Kentucky voted +against the measure.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote255"> + <tr> + <td><small>The bill as<br> + finally passed.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The House of Representatives refused to concur in some of the +amendments, and the measure was sent to a Conference committee. This +committee patched up a compromise, and the bill became a law on July +14th.</p> + +<p>On the whole, it was doubtful if the bill, with the changes imposed +upon it by the Senate, would prove to be any relief to the South. Many +of the Southerners claimed that it would increase the burden upon that +section, while none of them appeared to think it would lighten it.</p> +<a name="page189"></a> +<p>What now were the planters to do? They had waited for the +extinguishment of the debt, and for the period when the Treasury would +no longer require the sixteen millions of dollars per annum applied to +its cancellation, hoping for a general reduction of duties by +something like this sum as the necessary result; but instead of this +they were now offered, as a final solution of the tariff question, a +slight reduction of duties on articles coming into competition with +home products, a practical abolition of the duties on those which did +not come into competition with home products, and an increase in the +expenses of the Government to the amount of the receipts whatever they +might be. This was to be the permanent policy of the country, the +"American System."</p> + +<p>They were indeed wofully disappointed, not to say deceived. There +seemed now no further hope of aid to them, from either Congress, the +President, or the courts. They must yield unconditionally and +hopelessly, or resist the execution of the law. The former course was +too much to expect from the proud barons of South Carolina. The only +question was whether some legal basis for the resistance could be +found, or whether it must take on the form of rebellion. We have +already considered Calhoun's doctrine of nullification, and his claim +that it was a constitutional remedy; it now remains for us to trace +briefly the history of the attempt to apply it. Before, however, we +can do this intelligently, we must consider the other political +developments of the year 1832, occasioned chiefly by the presidential +election of that year, but affecting directly or indirectly the +attitude of the Administration toward events in South Carolina, and +the attitude of Congress toward the President in dealing with +nullification.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="chap9"></a><a name="page190"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER IX.</h3> + +<center>THE UNITED STATES BANK AND THE PRESIDENTIAL CONTEST OF 1832</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side256">Jackson and the Bank in his First Annual +Message</a>—<a href="#side257">Jackson's Relations to the Portsmouth Branch of the +Bank</a>—<a href="#side258">Jackson's Opposition in Principle to the +Bank</a>—<a href="#side259">The Political Science of the Constitution of +1787</a>—<a href="#side259">Western Democracy</a>—<a href="#side259">The West and the "Money Power" of the +East</a>—<a href="#side260">"States' rights" and the +Bank</a>—<a href="#side261">The Case of Brown and +Maryland</a>—<a href="#side262">Democracy and +Socialism</a>—<a href="#side263">Benton's Attack on the +Bank</a>—<a href="#side264">Benton +Repulsed</a>—<a href="#side265">Jackson and +Benton</a>—<a href="#side266">The Bank and the +People</a>—<a href="#side267">The Existence of the Bank made a Political +Issue</a>—<a href="#side268">Jackson's Second Attack on the +Bank</a>—<a href="#side269">Jackson's Plan for a +Bank</a>—<a href="#side270">Benton's Resolution against the Re-charter of the +Bank</a>—<a href="#side271">Jackson's Challenge to make the Continued +Existence of the Bank the Issue in the Campaign of 1832</a>—<a href="#side272">The Challenge +Accepted</a>—<a href="#side273">The Bank's Petition for +Re-charter</a>—<a href="#side274">Benton's Charge of Illegal +Practices</a>—<a href="#side275">Passage of the Bill for +Re-charter</a>—<a href="#side276">The Veto of the Bank +Bill</a>—<a href="#side276">The Bank and Foreign +Powers</a>—<a href="#side277">The Bank and the West</a>—<a href="#side278">The +Bank and the Rich</a>—<a href="#side279">Structure and Powers of the +Bank</a>—<a href="#side280">Jackson on Executive +Independence</a>—<a href="#side281">Von Holst's Criticism of the Veto +Message</a>—<a href="#side281">The President's Real Meaning.</a></blockquote> +<br> +<a name="side256"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote256"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson and the<br> + Bank in his first<br> + annual message.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In his first annual message, that of December 8th, 1829, President +Jackson began his war upon the United States Bank. He declared in it +that the constitutionality and expediency of the law creating the Bank +were well questioned by a large portion of the people, and that its +failure to establish a sound and uniform currency, the great end of +its existence, must be admitted by all.</p> +<a name="side257"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote257"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson's relations<br> + to the Portsmouth<br> + branch of the Bank.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page191"></a> +<p>Basing themselves chiefly upon an individual report made by Mr. John +Quincy Adams on May 14th, 1832, in regard to the condition of the +Bank, and upon documents referred to in that report, recent historians +attribute President Jackson's first attack upon the United States Bank +to a personal feud between his friends in New Hampshire and Mr. +Webster's friends there.</p> + +<p>Senator Levi Woodbury, of New Hampshire, the leader of the Jackson +party in New Hampshire, endeavored, in the summer of 1829, to have +Jeremiah Mason, Mr. Webster's great friend, removed from the +presidency of the branch of the United States Bank at Portsmouth, N. +H., and Isaac Hill, another New Hampshire friend of the President, +attempted at the same time to have the United States pension agency, +connected with the Portsmouth branch of the United States Bank, +removed to Concord, and connected with a little bank there of which +Hill had been president, and in which he was still interested. +Jackson's Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Ingham, asked Mr. Biddle, the +president of the United States Bank, to have Mason removed, and his +Secretary of War, Mr. Eaton, ordered Mason to transfer the pension +agency to Hill's bank in Concord. Mr. Biddle looked into the matter, +and being convinced that the whole thing was a political scheme, +refused to have Mason removed from office, and prevented the execution +of Eaton's order in regard to the transfer of the pension agency.</p> + +<p>These are, very briefly stated, the facts upon which some of the +American historians found the theory that Jackson, entertaining no +opposition in principle to the Bank at the beginning of his +Administration, became so enraged at its managers, because of their +success in these petty bouts with his Cabinet officers, that he +<a name="page192"></a>resolved upon its destruction. The treatment which Adams and Clay had +received at the hands of Jackson and his friends from 1824 onward had +led them to feel that Jackson's whole nature was full of personal +rancor, and that he could see nothing except from a personal point of +view. There is little doubt that this feeling largely determined +Adams' ideas of Jackson's attitude in the Bank question, and that the +historians have written the account of the Bank controversy under the +influence of Adams' representations.</p> +<a name="side258"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote258"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson's<br> + opposition<br> + in principle<br> + to the Bank.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>There is undoubtedly some truth in this view of the matter, but it is +far from being the whole truth. It is not even that part of the truth +which is most valuable to the student of American history. There was +an opposition in principle to the United States Bank, as well as a +personal conflict between leaders in regard to it. That opposition in +principle was the opposition of "States' rights" democracy to +centralized privilege.</p> + +<p>In all political systems there is a political science as well as a +public, or constitutional, law. The political science of a state is +based chiefly upon the actual social conditions and relations of its +population, and its public or constitutional law ought to be based +upon its political science. In fact, however, we seldom see social +conditions, political theory, and public law in a state of perfect +harmony. It is the prime problem of political and legal progress to +work out this great result.</p> +<a name="side259"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote259"> + <tr> + <td><small>The political science<br> + of the Constitution<br> + of 1787.<br> + <br> + <br> + Western Democracy.<br> + <br> + <br> + The West and the<br> + "money power"<br> + of the East.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The political science or theory upon which the Constitution of 1787 +was founded was thoroughly English. It recognized social distinctions, +and its most fundamental principle was compromise between conflicting +interests. It was substantially in harmony with social conditions, on +the one side, <a name="page193"></a>and was fairly expressed through the Constitution of +1787, on the other. Without the interposition of other forces it would +have made out of the United States a new England. But French political +science had already gained a foothold in the country. It was contained +in the Declaration of Independence, and its prime postulate was "the +equality of all men." It did not then comport with the social +condition of the country, and the Constitution did not make its +principle into positive law. It was, therefore, at the beginning, +abstract, and theoretical. The man who taught it, however, became +President, and the party which embraced it became the governing party. +But their practice was not made consistent with their theory, and +could not be, so long as the social conditions of the country +contradicted their theory. It was the settlement of the country west +of the Alleghanies which first created social conditions in harmony +with their theory. The distinction between master and slave was not +permitted to enter the larger portion of it; the distinction between +the rich and the poor could not at first exist, or be, for many years, +developed; and the distinction between the cultivated and the ignorant +was likewise obliged to remain long in abeyance; while the dangers and +the hardships of frontier life developed, speedily, a strong sense of +self-reliance and self-esteem. General equality and practical +self-help were the first social results of the levelling experiences +of the camp, the wilderness, and the prairie. With such influences +operating upon such characters as undertook the making of the West, +the most adventurous part of the population of the East, that bold and +boastful Democracy was produced, which began after 1820 to make itself +powerfully felt in modifying the original conservative principles of +the institutions of the country. Connect with these new social +conditions, and the <a name="page194"></a>political principles evolved out of them, the fact +that the West, like all new countries, had little money or capital, +and was a constant borrower from the East, in order to furnish itself +with roads, implements, means of transportation, and manufactured +articles, and we have the forces and the interests which were bound, +under the first general financial pressure, to make an onslaught upon +the "money power and privilege" of the East, as embodied in the United +States Bank.</p> +<a name="side260"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote260"> + <tr> + <td><small>"States' rights"<br> + and the Bank.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The "States' rights" opposition to the Bank had been aroused more than +a decade before Jackson's message of 1829. The Bank and its branches +were the sole depositories of the funds of the Government. By refusing +to accept on deposit the bills of Commonwealth banks which did not +redeem their bills in specie on demand, the Bank could prevent the +officers of the Government from accepting such bills for dues to the +Government. The Bank used this power to force the Commonwealth banks +to specie payment. It was one of the purposes for which Congress +created the Bank. It made the Bank, however, very unpopular with the +officers and stockholders of the banks chartered by the Commonwealths. +These persons were, as a rule, men of influence in their respective +communities, and they succeeded in persuading many of the people that +the United States Bank was a centralized monopoly, and was using its +powers and privileges to oppress the institutions of the +Commonwealths.</p> + +<p>In 1818 the legislatures of Ohio and Maryland imposed a heavy tax on +the branches of the Bank located within their respective +jurisdictions. The purpose was to drive them out. The Bank resisted +payment, and was sustained by the United States courts.</p> +<a name="side261"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote261"> + <tr> + <td><small>The case of Brown<br> + and Maryland.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page195"></a> +<p>In the February term of 1819 the Supreme Court of the United States +decided the famous case of McCulloch and Maryland, declaring the act +of Congress creating the Bank constitutional, and the act of the +Maryland legislature undertaking to tax it unconstitutional. Maryland +submitted at once, but the officers of the government of Ohio forced +their way into the branch of the Bank in that State, at Chillicothe, +and took one hundred thousand dollars out of the vault, and that too +in the face of an injunction issued by the United States Circuit +Court. The directors sued the officers of the Commonwealth for +trespass, and the Commonwealth refused the use of its jails to confine +the persons arrested. At the same time the Commonwealth reduced the +tax to ten thousand dollars, and refunded ninety thousand, and finally +receded entirely from its unlawful demand.</p> + +<p>This defeat of the "States' rights" attack, and the excellent +management of the Bank by Langdon Cheves, and then by Nicholas Biddle, +seem to have silenced the complaints against the Bank from 1823 to +1828.</p> +<a name="side262"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote262"> + <tr> + <td><small>Democracy<br> + and Socialism.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was during this period, however, that the "State socialistic" +characteristic of radical democracy received a strong development in +the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the relief measures for debtors; +which measures threatened to destroy the constitutional guarantees of +private property. The "relief party" secured the legislature and the +executive of the Commonwealth. The judiciary, however, stood out +against them, and they did not have the necessary two-thirds majority +in the legislature to remove the judges. The legislature, however, +passed a new judiciary act, and created another supreme court of the +Commonwealth. This scandal of judicial anarchy existed for nearly two +years, when, at last, in 1826, the <a name="page196"></a>"anti-relief" party elected a +majority of the legislative members, and the new legislature repealed +the act establishing the new court.</p> + +<p>Jackson's friends in Kentucky belonged almost exclusively to the +"relief party," and it is hardly fanciful to attribute to this +movement in Kentucky some influence in the formation of Jackson's +ideas in regard to the United States Bank, and in regard to his plan +for a Government bank, responsible to the people and managed for the +benefit of the people.</p> +<a name="side263"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote263"> + <tr> + <td><small>Benton's attack<br> + on the Bank.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On March 3rd, 1828, Senator Benton began his warfare upon the Bank. He +attacked its privilege of being the depository of Government money. He +claimed that there were two or three millions of dollars of Government +money used in loans by the Bank, which earned about one hundred and +fifty thousand dollars a year of interest, all of which went to the +stockholders of the Bank and none of it to the Government, while the +Government was all the time paying interest on the public debt and +taxing the people for the purpose. He wanted to take the surplus +deposits out of the Bank and pay a part of the public debt with them. +This was the first charge of the Western Democracy upon privilege, as +being opposed to the principle of universal equality.</p> +<a name="side264"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote264"> + <tr> + <td><small>Benton<br> + repulsed.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>There were, however, enough practical men in the Senate who considered +this privilege as only a fair compensation for the service rendered by +the Bank to the Government in transporting the Government funds +without any specific return therefor, and who knew that it is not good +banking to pay interest on deposits, to reject Mr. Benton's +resolution. Benton repeated his motion on January 1st, 1829, but with +no greater success.</p> +<a name="side265"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote265"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson<br> + and Benton.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>After March 4th, 1829, the leadership of the party was <a name="page197"></a>in the hands of +the President, and Benton became Jackson's lieutenant in the Senate. +There had been personal feuds between the two men, but they now +harmonized politically, and in no point did that harmony become more +complete than in the war against the Bank.</p> + +<p>It is probable that at the moment of his accession to power Jackson +had not thought out the relation of the democratic principle to the +Bank, but he undoubtedly felt it, and the feeling guided him to the +position which he assumed, first toward the questions of detail in the +Bank's policy and management, and then toward the general question of +its existence. The controversy between his Secretaries and the Bank's +officers, upon which Mr. Adams laid so much stress, probably +precipitated matters, but the crisis would have developed under other +circumstances had not these existed. The social and political forces +at play were bound to bring it about under one issue or another. It +may have astonished the politicians and statesmen of the East then, +and it may astonish the casual reader of American history now, that +Jackson attacked the question of the future existence of the Bank in +his first annual message, but there is nothing surprising in it to the +careful student of American history, who comprehends the development +of the democratic spirit of the West during the third decade of the +century.</p> +<a name="side266"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote266"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Bank and<br> + the people.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It is doubtful whether the President was correct in saying, as he did +in his message of 1829, that a large portion of the people questioned +the constitutionality and expediency of the law creating the Bank, and +it is certain that the Bank was not considered by all to have failed +in the establishment of a sound and uniform currency. It is far more +probable that the people generally acquiesced in <a name="page198"></a>the decision of the +Court pronouncing the Bank law constitutional, and that the majority +of the people, at that moment, regarded it as good policy, and +believed that the Bank had fairly fulfilled the purpose of its +creation. The President was simply assuming that the people thought as +he did, as democratic leaders usually do. Taken in that sense there +was nothing extraordinary in what he said. He had a right to disagree +in opinion with the Court, and to say so, and to make any +recommendation to Congress which seemed wise to him, in regard to the +re-charter of the Bank. That an expiring law is constitutional is not +always a convincing argument for its re-enactment.</p> +<a name="side267"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote267"> + <tr> + <td><small>The existence of the Bank<br> + made a political issue.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The President's criticism occasioned an investigation into the +principle and status of the Bank, and brought the Bank question into +the politics of the day.</p> + +<p>The committee on Finance of the Senate, and the committee on Ways and +Means of the House, made reports, in March and April of 1830, +vigorously defending the constitutionality, the expediency, and the +management of the Bank, and demonstrating the great political and +financial dangers of such a Government bank as the President +suggested. The chairman of the committee on Ways and Means was, it +will be remembered, Mr. McDuffie, the political economist of the +slavery interest. To his mind the Bank question had evidently little +connection with the slavery question.</p> +<a name="side268"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote268"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson's second<br> + attack on the Bank.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The President, however, returned to the attack in his message of +December 10th, 1830. He also presented, in this message, an +elaboration of his idea of a Government bank. His proposition was for +a bank as a branch of the Treasury Department, based on the deposits +of the funds of the Government and also on those made by individuals, +but <a name="page199"></a>having no power to issue notes or make loans or purchase property. +Its chief purpose would be to do the business of the Government, and +its expenses might be met by selling exchange to private persons at a +small rate.</p> +<a name="side269"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote269"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson's plan<br> + for a bank.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The President thought that this scheme avoided all the objections to +the existing Bank, and yet preserved all of the latter's advantages. +It would require no charter of incorporation, would have neither +stockholders, nor debtors, nor property, would require few officers, +and would leave to the Commonwealths the creation of their own local +paper currency through their own banks, while the new Government bank +would be able to check the issues of the Commonwealth banks through +its power to refuse to take their bills on deposit or for exchange, +unless they redeemed them with specie. In a sentence, his doctrine now +was that banking must be left as far as possible to Commonwealth law, +and that such powers as the general Government had received from the +Constitution over the subject should be exercised by the Government, +if at all, through its own officials, for the benefit of the people, +and not be conferred as privileges upon a corporation of private +persons, to be exercised for their private gain. This will be at once +recognized as a democratic, "States' rights," socialistic scheme in +the essential elements of its composition.</p> +<a name="side270"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote270"> + <tr> + <td><small>Benton's resolution<br> + against the re-charter<br> + of the Bank.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Before the report of the Finance committee of the Senate upon this +part of the message was presented Senator Benton offered a resolution, +on February 2nd, 1831, which provided that the charter of the Bank +ought not to be renewed. In his speech supporting the resolution the +senator developed the whole "States' rights," socialistic, democratic +argument against the Bank with great elaboration, both in principle +and in detail.</p> +<a name="page200"></a> +<p>It is true that Benton did not go so far as Jackson in the socialistic +direction. He said that he was willing to vote for the President's +Government bank scheme, since it would substitute for the existing +Bank an institution which would be divested of the essential features +of a bank, the power to make loans and discounts, but that he would +prefer to see the charter of the Bank expire without any substitute +being created for it.</p> + +<p>The Senate was not, however, convinced by Mr. Benton's argument, and +refused to allow him to introduce his resolution.</p> +<a name="side271"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote271"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson's challenge to<br> + make the continued<br> + existence of the Bank<br> + the issue in the<br> + campaign of 1832.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In his message of December 6th, 1831, President Jackson referred to +what he had said in former messages concerning the Bank, and closed +his allusion with the following significant words: "Having thus +conscientiously discharged a constitutional duty, I deem it proper, on +this occasion, without a more particular reference to the views of the +subject then expressed, to leave it for the present to the +investigation of an enlightened people and their representatives."</p> +<a name="side272"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote272"> + <tr> + <td><small>The challenge<br> + accepted.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>This language certainly seemed to imply that the President would, so +far as he was able, make the question of the re-charter of the Bank +one of the issues of the election campaign of 1832. His opponents so +interpreted him, and they gladly accepted the challenge, for they +believed the Bank to be popular with the voters. They thought that the +Senators and Representatives in Congress, a majority of whom favored +the Bank, truly represented the views of their constituencies, and +they calculated to be able to split the Democratic party itself on the +issue.</p> + +<p>The president and directors of the Bank, however, were most reluctant +to have the existence of the Bank made a party question. The leaders +of the National <a name="page201"></a>Republicans, on the other hand, insisted upon it. +Clay, who, six days after the appearance of the President's message, +had been nominated by a national convention at Baltimore as the +candidate of the National Republicans for the presidency, was certain +that under the issue of the renewal of the Bank's charter Jackson +would be signally defeated. The Bank's officers yielded to his advice, +enforced by that of Mr. Webster, and on January 9th, 1832, sent in the +memorial for a re-charter.</p> +<a name="side273"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote273"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Bank's petition<br> + for re-charter.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Senator Dallas presented the memorial, but said that he personally had +discouraged its presentation at that juncture out of apprehension that +the question of the re-charter of the Bank might, at the moment, be +drawn into real or imagined conflict with "some higher, some more +favorite, some more immediate wish or purpose of the American people." +Senator Dallas was a Bank Democrat. The more favorite wish to which he +referred was the re-election of Jackson, and the inference to be drawn +from his words was that the Bank Democrats did not want to be obliged +to choose between the Bank and Jackson at the next election.</p> + +<p>The Senate referred the petition for re-charter to a committee +composed of Mr. Dallas, Mr. Webster, Mr. Ewing, Mr. Hayne, and Mr. +Johnston.</p> +<a name="side274"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote274"> + <tr> + <td><small>Benton's charge of<br> + illegal practices.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Before the committee made its report Mr. Benton made another attack +upon the Bank. This time he charged it with illegal practices in +issuing drafts which passed as currency. The Senate, however, repelled +the attack and refused to allow Mr. Benton to introduce his resolution +declaring such drafts illegal.</p> +<a name="side275"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote275"> + <tr> + <td><small>Passage of the bill<br> + for re-charter.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On March 13th Mr. Dallas brought in the bill from his committee for +the re-charter of the Bank for fifteen years from the expiration of +its existing charter in 1836.</p> +<a name="page202"></a> +<p>While the bill was passing through the Senate a demonstration against +the Bank was in progress in the House. Mr. Clayton, of Georgia, an +enemy of the Bank, secured the appointment of a committee by the +Speaker of the House, Mr. Stevenson, another enemy of the Bank, to +inquire into the affairs of the Bank, and make report thereof to the +House. A majority report was offered by Mr. Clayton severely +criticising the Bank, and a minority report by Mr. McDuffie defending +the Bank most ably and vigorously, and, if we may judge from the vote +of the House upon the Senate bill for re-charter, which had passed the +Senate, and appeared at this moment in the House for concurrence, most +successfully. The House passed the Senate bill, with a few immaterial +changes, by a vote of one hundred and seven to eighty-five.</p> + +<p>The National Republicans felt sure that they had driven Jackson into a +blind alley. But the "Old Hero" stood his ground and hurled a veto at +the bill, which both killed it and conquered the National Republican +party in the election of 1832 with its own chosen weapon.</p> +<a name="side276"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote276"> + <tr> + <td><small>The veto of<br> + the Bank Bill.<br> + <br> + <br> + The Bank and<br> + foreign powers.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The veto message was a curious <i>pot-pourri</i> of strength and weakness, +of sound statesmanship and cheap demagogism, of shrewd politics and +silly commonplaces. We may arrange its score of points under five +principal heads, or rather ends in view. The first was the attempt to +rouse the national spirit against the Bank, on account of the fact +that some eight millions of dollars' worth of the stock was in the +hands of foreigners. The President made out that this was a great +danger to the United States, both in war and peace. In war, he said, +the Bank would be an internal enemy, more terrible than the army and +navy of the external foe. Just how the possession of the certificates +of stock by foreigners, whose money, which had been paid for <a name="page203"></a>them, was +in the United States, and therefore under the control of the United +States Government, could endanger the United States in case of a war +between the United States and the country or countries to which these +foreign stockholders belonged, the President failed to explain. It +would seem to the ordinary mind that this would be an advantage to the +United States, in that the Government of the United States would have +within its grasp a part of the money power of the enemy. Moreover, the +Bank law prevented the foreign stockholders from voting in the +election of the directors of the Bank. How these stockholders could +possibly exercise any hostile influence then, except by selling their +stock to citizens of the United States, and taking the money which +they might receive for it out of the country, was not only not +explained but is inexplicable.</p> +<a name="side277"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote277"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Bank<br> + and the West.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The second object was apparently the excitement of the West against +the East. The President declared that the West was being made +financially tributary to the East by the Bank. He presented the +statistics of stockholding and interest-paying throughout the +different sections of the country in proof of this statement. He +affirmed that thirteen millions five hundred and twenty-two thousand +dollars' worth of the stock was owned in the Northeastern and Middle +Commonwealths, that five millions six hundred and twenty-three +thousand dollars' worth of it was held in Virginia, the Carolinas, and +Georgia, and that only one hundred and forty thousand and two hundred +dollars' worth of it was held in the nine Western Commonwealths; while +one million six hundred and forty thousand and forty-eight dollars of +the profits of the Bank came from these Western Commonwealths, one +million four hundred and sixty-three thousand and forty-one dollars of +them <a name="page204"></a>from the Northeastern and Middle Commonwealths, and three hundred +and fifty-two thousand and five hundred and seven dollars of them from +the Southern Commonwealths. This seems to ordinary intelligence to +prove that the Bank was accommodating Western borrowers with Eastern +money; and as the Bank was limited by its charter to a maximum of six +per centum interest on its loans, it seems that the accommodation was +being rendered upon quite moderate consideration. But the President +said it proved that the "Eastern money power" was oppressing the West, +and the West was quite willing to believe anything against the persons +or institutions to whom or to which it owed money.</p> +<a name="side278"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote278"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Bank<br> + and the rich.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The third object to which the President addressed himself in the +message was to call the attention of the poor to the proposition that +the Government was favoring the rich through the Bank. The President +called the Bank a monopoly, which means privilege conferred by +Government on a few at the expense of the many. He calculated that the +privilege to be granted to the existing stockholders by the re-charter +of the Bank was worth seventeen millions of dollars, while the bonus +which they would be required to pay was but three millions. Fourteen +millions of dollars would thus be presented by the Government to the +Bank, which sum the Government must take by taxation from the people. +He arrived at these statistics and results by assuming that the Bank +stock, after the re-charter and in consequence of it, would be worth +about one hundred and fifty dollars for one hundred par, that some +other body of stockholders could be found who would pay seventeen +millions for the charter, and that the money thus acquired from the +supposed stockholders by the Government would effect the remission of +just so much taxation upon the people. The President saw also, <a name="page205"></a>with +Senator Benton, that the use of the Government deposits by the Bank +was a source of income to the stockholders at the popular expense. And +he denounced the feature in the new bill, which allowed the +Commonwealth banks to pay their indebtedness to any branch of the +United States Bank with the notes of any other branch, but did not +accord the same privilege to individuals, as favoring the rich and +powerful against the poor and weak.</p> + +<p>The entire argumentation in this part of the message seems extravagant +and exaggerated, to say the least, but it sounded convincing and +sympathetic to the masses. It was something which brought the question +home to each one of them, and made it appear related to each one's +personal interest. The statement was a powerful vote-catcher. It took +wonderfully.</p> +<a name="side279"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote279"> + <tr> + <td><small>Structure<br> + and powers<br> + of the Bank.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The fourth proposition, as we have arranged them, was the criticism on +the structure and powers of the Bank provided in the new bill. The +President objected to the unnecessarily large amount of the capital +stock, to the right to be given the Bank to locate its own branches, +to the power of the Government, as a stockholder, to own real estate +for general purposes, and to the power of the Bank to coin money, as +he called the power to issue its notes.</p> +<a name="side280"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote280"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson on<br> + executive<br> + independence.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The final division of the message, according to our arrangement, +contains the disquisition upon the relation of the departments of the +Government to each other in operating the Constitution, and the +relation of the general Government to the Commonwealths in regard to +jurisdiction over the business of banking. The President held, upon +the first of these points, that "if the opinion of the Supreme Court," +in the case of McCulloch and Maryland, "covered the whole ground of +this act, it ought not to control the <a name="page206"></a>co-ordinate authorities of the +Government." "The Congress, the Executive, and the Court," he said, +"must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the +Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the +Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and +not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House +of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President, to decide +upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be +presented to them for passage or approval, as it is of the Supreme +Judges when it may be brought before them for decision. The opinion of +the Judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of +Congress has over the Judges; and, on that point, the President is +independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, +therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when +acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such +influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve."</p> + +<p>The President also said that he could have furnished a plan for a +bank, had it been requested of him, which would have been equal to all +the duties required by the Government, a plan which might have been +enacted by Congress without straining or overstepping its powers, and +without infringing the powers of the Commonwealths; and he complained +that the Bank, as an agent of the Executive Department, should be +thrust upon the Department without the Department being consulted as +to whether it needed or wanted any such agent.</p> +<a name="side281"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote281"> + <tr> + <td><small>Von Holst's<br> + criticism of<br> + the veto message.<br> + <br> + <br> + The President's<br> + real meaning.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>One of the most celebrated historians of American politics has +indulged in a very severe criticism upon this part of the message, +claiming that President Jackson virtually asserted therein the power +to initiate legislation, full co-ordination with the Houses of +Congress in legislation, and an <a name="page207"></a>independence of Congress, and +especially of the Judiciary, which, in practice, would render +constitutional law an impossibility. An impartial examination of the +text of the message in all its parts will hardly warrant any such +conclusions. It is quite clear, from such examination, that the +President meant that in the formation of administrative measures by +the Congressional committees in charge of the same, the views of the +Administration ought to be obtained; that the President is not limited +by the Constitution to any class of subjects in the use of his veto +power upon proposed legislation; and that when the Congress and the +President are legislating they are not obliged to re-enact a law +simply because the Judiciary have declared it constitutional, nor even +prevented from repealing a law, simply because the Judiciary have +declared it constitutional, and certainly not prohibited from +differing in opinion with the Judiciary in regard to the +constitutionality of any law already on the statute book, or any +proposed measure. Conservative American lawyers, jurists, and +publicists approve all of this as not only the letter but also the +spirit of the Constitution.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote282"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson's<br> + vindication<br> + of executive<br> + independence.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Instead of destroying the Constitution in theory by the doctrine of +this veto, it looks more as if the President did something to rescue +the "check and balance" system of government, provided in the +Constitution, from the threatened domination of a single department +over the others in it. The fact is, Congress had succeeded, during the +régime of the old Republican party in American politics, in winning a +power over the President which the Constitution did not authorize. The +members of Congress had selected all of the Presidents, from Jefferson +to Jackson, either by nomination or by actual election. <a name="page208"></a>The machinery +constructed by the Constitution for the election of the President was +wanting in its most necessary part. It contained no means of +connection between the electoral colleges in the several Commonwealths +in voting for the President and Vice-President, at the same time that +it required a majority of all the electoral votes to elect. The +members of Congress being the only national assembly of persons in the +country, and being the chosen political leaders from the different +Commonwealths, naturally glided into the habit of constituting +themselves, in caucus, the connecting link between the electoral +colleges in the several Commonwealths, and thus the Congressional +caucus, or caucuses, as the case might be, became the nominating body +or bodies to the electoral colleges. If the caucus nominated anybody, +it left to the electors the alternative of ratifying the nomination, +or of so scattering their votes as to give no person a majority, in +which latter case the election of the President passed into the hands +of the members of the House of Representatives. If, on the other hand, +the caucus did not nominate anybody, the electors were nearly sure to +fail to unite a majority of their votes upon the same person, in which +case again the House of Representatives obtained possession of the +election. With such an increasing control over the tenure of the +President, it is not astonishing that the Congress, and even the +individual members of Congress, exercised an ever increasing control +over his acts and his policy. The encroaching legislature was fast +developing the principle of parliamentary government as the principle +of the American system, while the Constitution provides the principle +of executive independence and presidential administration.</p> + +<p>Again, the judicial department had appeared to assume the position +that it possessed the supreme <a name="page209"></a>interpreting power of the Constitution +upon every point. It had not then, as it has now, clearly confined +itself to questions immediately involving questions of private rights. +It appeared to be claiming jurisdiction in regard to questions +primarily of political science, public law, and even public policy.</p> + +<p>The President's Bank veto called a halt in these tendencies, and +exerted an influence for the restoration of executive independence, +and of the "check and balance" system, provided in the Constitution; +and it called the people into a closer and more immediate relation to +the President than they had before occupied, in that the President now +appealed to them to decide the question between him and the Congress, +in the election which was then about to take place.</p> + +<p>These were the political principles contained in the Bank veto, and +whether they, or the more democratic principle of anti-monopoly, or +the more socialistic principle of government banking, moved the +masses, certainly they were profoundly moved. Had the popular vote +been taken, the day before the appearance of the veto, upon the +question of the Bank's re-charter, it is altogether probable that an +overwhelming majority would have been found in its favor. Against the +veto, however, no sufficient majority could be united in Congress, and +when the results of the presidential election became known, it was +found that Jackson had carried the country with him in the unequal +contest, and that the people had made the principles of the Jacksonian +democracy the ruling spirit of the Constitution.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="chap10"></a><a name="page210"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER X.</h3> + +<center>NULLIFICATION</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side283">The Indian Question in +Georgia</a>—<a href="#side284">The Indian Springs +Convention</a>—<a href="#side285">The Repudiation of the +Agreement</a>—<a href="#side286">The Controversy between the Administration and +Georgia</a>—<a href="#side287">The Creek Convention of +1826</a>—<a href="#side288">The Governor of Georgia Repudiates the Convention of +1826</a>—<a href="#side289">The President Submits the Matter to +Congress</a>—<a href="#side290">Georgia and the +Cherokees</a>—<a href="#side291">Jackson and the Indian +Question</a>—<a href="#side292">Indian Policy before +Jackson</a>—<a href="#side293">The Case of the Cherokee +Nation</a>—<a href="#side294">The Case of Worcester against +Georgia</a>—<a href="#side295">The Failure of the President to Execute the Decision in the Worcester +Case</a>—<a href="#side296">Jackson and +Calhoun</a>—<a href="#side297">The Call of the Convention of 1832 in South +Carolina</a>—<a href="#side299">The Nullification +Ordinance</a>—<a href="#side300">The Addresses Issued by the +Convention</a>—<a href="#side302">The Acts of the Legislature of South Carolina for the Execution of the +Ordinance</a>—<a href="#side303">The Meaning of Nullification as Understood by the +Nullifiers</a>—<a href="#side304">Jackson's View of +Nullification</a>—<a href="#side306">The President's Proclamation of December +10th</a>—<a href="#side307">The President's Military +Preparations</a>—<a href="#side308">The President's Instructions to the Customs Officers in +South Carolina</a>—<a href="#side309">The Popular Approval of the President's +Course</a>—<a href="#side310">The Verplanck Tariff +Bill</a>—<a href="#side311">Governor Hayne's +Counter-Proclamation</a>—<a href="#side312">The President's Message of January 16th, +1833</a>—<a href="#side313">Calhoun's Explanations in the +Senate</a>—<a href="#side314">The "Force +Bill"</a>—<a href="#side315">The Postponement of the Execution of +Nullification</a>—<a href="#side316">The Compromise +Tariff</a>—<a href="#side318">Mr. Calhoun's Support of Mr. Clay's +Bill</a>—<a href="#side319">The Opposition to the +Bill</a>—<a href="#side320">Passage of the "Force Bill" +by the Senate</a>—<a href="#side321">Passage of the Compromise Tariff Bill and the "Force +Bill" by Congress</a>—<a href="#side322">The Nullification Ordinance Withdrawn.</a></blockquote> +<br> +<a name="side283"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote283"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Indian<br> + question<br> + in Georgia.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Before nullification was resolved upon in South Carolina, something +like it had been applied in Georgia. <a name="page211"></a>In the year 1802 Georgia formally +ceded the lands claimed by the Commonwealth west of the Chattahoochee +River to the United States for the sum of one million two hundred and +fifty thousand dollars, and upon the condition that the United States +Government would, at its own expense, extinguish the Indian claims to +any lands in Georgia so soon as this could be done peacefully and upon +reasonable terms.</p> + +<p>Between 1802 and 1820 the Government made some advance in the +discharge of this obligation. By this latter date, however, designing +white men had joined with the Indian tribes located within the +Commonwealth, and were seeking to organize an Indian State for the +purposes of their own political ambition, and many well disposed white +persons were aiding them from humanitarian motives. The Georgians even +accused the Government of doing things that would contribute to the +same result. The Georgians were forced to face a very serious +question, the question of an Indian State, controlled chiefly by white +adventurers and sentimentalists, within the legal limits of the +Commonwealth.</p> + +<p>Under this pressure the Georgians reviewed the whole question of +Indian organization, and rights to territory. They advanced the +propositions, that the Indian tribal organizations were not States and +could not, therefore, exercise dominion, and give title to real +property; that the Indians living within the legal limits of the +Commonwealth were subject to its jurisdiction in the same manner as +other persons, and to the same extent; that the original title to all +land within the limits of Georgia was in the Commonwealth, and every +valid title must be derived from the Commonwealth; that the claim of +the Indians to the lands on which the tribes lived was simply an +incumbrance upon Georgia's <a name="page212"></a>title, an incumbrance which the general +Government was obligated to remove; and that, after the Government +should discharge this duty, Georgia's title would be perfect, without +any formal transfer of these lands to Georgia by the Government.</p> +<a name="side284"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote284"> + <tr> + <td><small>The demand of Georgia<br> + for the extinguishment<br> + of the Indian claims.<br> + <br> + <br> + The Indian Springs<br> + Convention.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In 1819 the legislature of Georgia memorialized President Monroe to +hasten the work of the Government in extinguishing the Indian claims. +In the year 1824 the Creek chiefs in council resolved that not a foot +of the lands claimed by the Creeks should be relinquished. +Nevertheless, President Monroe's administration succeeded, in February +of 1825, in negotiating an agreement with certain of the Creek +chieftains according to which they relinquished to the United States +the Creek claims to all lands lying within the limits of Georgia, and +also to lands lying to the northwest and to the west of the +Commonwealth. This agreement was ratified by the Senate of the United +States in March of the same year.</p> +<a name="side285"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote285"> + <tr> + <td><small>The repudiation<br> + of the agreement.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Governor of Georgia, Mr. Troup, immediately despatched the public +surveyors to lay out the relinquished territory. They were resisted by +the Indians, who declared their repudiation of the agreement of +February 12th with the general Government.</p> + +<p>At the same moment a number of the chiefs were representing to the new +President, Mr. Adams, that that agreement was a fraud upon the +Indians, and that the chiefs who signed were not properly authorized +to do so. The agent of the Government to the Creeks supported their +protest, despite the fact that he was present at the execution of the +agreement. Under these circumstances the Secretary of War, Mr. James +Barbour, wrote to Governor Troup that the President <a name="page213"></a>expected him to +abandon the survey until it could be made in accordance with the +provisions of the agreement which allowed the Indians until September +1st, 1826, for their removal, and guaranteed them against all +encroachments before that date.</p> +<a name="side286"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote286"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Controversy<br> + between the<br> + Administration<br> + and Georgia.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The communication from Secretary Barbour gave rise to a spirited +controversy between the Governor of Georgia and himself, in which the +Governor assumed an extreme "States' rights" attitude in defence of +his position. He claimed that Georgia's jurisdiction over, and title +to, the lands formally relinquished by the Creeks to the United States +were not originated by this act, but were only relieved by it of an +incumbrance, and that, therefore, no additional act was necessary on +the part of the Government to authorize Georgia to take possession and +exercise jurisdiction. He declared that he would not postpone the +survey, and advised the legislature of the Commonwealth to defend +Georgia's rights by armed resistance, which recommendation the +legislature seemed about to approve.</p> + +<p>The President sent General Gaines to the scene of action, and +authorized him to place the militia of the Commonwealths adjoining +Georgia in readiness for service. The Governor was highly excited by +the approach of the military power of the United States, and wrote to +Secretary Barbour virtually accusing the Government of inciting the +Indians to violence against Georgia and her people, and demanding to +be informed of the purposes of the Administration. Mr. Barbour replied +that the President had decided that the survey should not proceed, and +had sent General Gaines with orders to prevent it, with military power +if necessary. The Governor now turned to the President himself, with +both protest and threat, but the President remained <a name="page214"></a>firm, and the +Governor was obliged to yield for the moment.</p> +<a name="side287"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote287"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Creek<br> + Convention<br> + of 1826.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Administration was apparently convinced that the agreement of 1825 +was not fairly obtained, and, in January of 1826, entered into another +agreement with the Creeks, which, while recognizing the nullity of the +agreement of 1825, secured the extinguishment of their claims to all +lands in Georgia lying east of the Chattahoochee, and to a +considerable tract north and west of this river. The Administration +asserted that all the Creek lands lying within the limits of Georgia +were secured. Senator Berrien of Georgia, who represented the +interests of his Commonwealth when the agreement came before the +Senate for ratification, said, on the contrary, that it failed by a +million of acres of having done so.</p> +<a name="side288"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote288"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Governor<br> + of Georgia<br> + repudiates<br> + the Convention<br> + of 1826.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Governor Troup declared that the general Government could not by an +agreement with the Creeks rob Georgia of vested rights, which had +been, once for all, perfected by the agreement of 1825. He ordered the +public surveyors to include in their surveys the lands claimed by +Georgia west of the line designated in the agreement of 1826. The +Indians resisted them, and appealed to the President to protect their +rights as recognized by the latter agreement. The President ordered +the United States District Attorney and Marshal for Georgia to arrest +any one caught in the act of surveying the lands west of the line +fixed by the agreement of 1826. The Governor was informed of this +order, and was given to understand that the President would uphold the +agreement of 1826 by any and all power necessary. The Governor, +however, defied the Administration, ordered the law officers of the +Commonwealth to effect, by any means necessary, the release of the +arrested surveyors, and to <a name="page215"></a>secure the arrest and trial of those +persons who had taken or held them in custody, ordered the commanders +of the militia of the Commonwealth to hold their forces in readiness +to resist the threatened invasion by the military power of the United +States, and sent a message to the legislature informing that body of +what he had done in the premises. In this message he took the ground +that questions of jurisdiction—he called them questions of +sovereignty—between the general Government and the Commonwealths +could not be determined by the judicial power of that Government, but +must be settled by agreement between the two parties.</p> +<a name="side289"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote289"> + <tr> + <td><small>The President<br> + submits the matter<br> + to Congress.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>President Adams was deeply impressed with the seriousness of the +situation. He felt that he must uphold the dignity and authority of +the Government at all hazards and by all the means intrusted to him by +the Constitution and the laws; and yet he was unwilling to provoke +civil war, if it could be avoided, or to enter upon the work of +coercion without the practically unanimous support of the country. He +resolved, therefore, to lay the matter before Congress, and await its +action. Congress did practically nothing, and the President was +convinced that the nation was not prepared to have the Indian problem +fought out under the issue of "States' rights" versus the Union.</p> +<a name="side290"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote290"> + <tr> + <td><small>Georgia and<br> + the Cherokees.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Encouraged by this success the Georgians now resolved to subject the +Cherokees living within the limits of the Commonwealth to the laws +thereof or force them to emigrate. In December of 1827, the +legislature passed a law extending the criminal jurisdiction of the +Commonwealth over a part of the lands occupied by the Cherokees. The +Indians appealed to the President. The appeal came before the +President during the last month of his official term, and he +<a name="page216"></a>discreetly and courteously resolved not to embarrass the new +Administration by committing the Government to any position in the +question.</p> +<a name="side291"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote291"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson and<br> + the Indian<br> + question.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>President Jackson was even less inclined than his predecessor to allow +the Indian question to resolve itself into the question of the +constitutional spheres of authority between the Union and the +Commonwealths. Moreover, he believed that Georgia was in the right in +the Indian question. He replied to the Cherokee memorial that he knew +of no alternative to submission to the jurisdiction of Georgia except +emigration beyond the limits of the Commonwealth. His view was that +the general Government could not hinder a Commonwealth from exercising +jurisdiction over every person within its limits, except in such cases +as were reserved from that jurisdiction by the Constitution of the +United States, and could not lend its countenance to the creation of a +new political organization within these limits against the will of the +Commonwealth. This was the latter part of April, 1829. The Cherokees, +influenced largely by the whites among them, resented the President's +advice, and the council of chiefs resolved that no lands claimed by +the Cherokees should be relinquished, except by consent of the tribe +or tribes, under penalty of death for violation of their resolve, and +rejected the overtures of the Government for the relinquishment of +their claims.</p> + +<p>In his message of December 8th, 1829, President Jackson devoted much +space to the Indian problem in general, and to it, as it affected +Georgia and Alabama, in particular. He repeated to Congress the views +which he had expressed to the Cherokees themselves, which were, as we +have seen, that the general Government could not lend its countenance +to the creation of an <a name="page217"></a>Indian State within the confines of any +Commonwealth of the Union against the will of that Commonwealth, and +that the only alternative to subjection to the laws of the +Commonwealth on the part of the Indians was emigration beyond the +limits of the same. He also suggested the setting apart of a district +in the far West for the permanent home of such Indian tribes as should +prefer to continue in tribal organization, independent of the +jurisdiction of any Commonwealth of the Union, where they might work +out their own customs unmolested.</p> + +<p>This was the democratic, "States' rights" view of the subject. It +denied all exemptions from the supremacy of the laws, and it also +denied to the general Government any power to restrain a Commonwealth +from the assertion of its jurisdiction over all persons within its +legal limits, except in cases specially reserved by the Constitution.</p> +<a name="side292"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote292"> + <tr> + <td><small>Indian policy<br> + before Jackson.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Administration of Mr. Adams, and the Administrations of all of his +predecessors, had apparently inclined to the view that the Indian +tribes were already states, having dominion over, and property in, the +territory of the continent when the Europeans arrived upon it; that +the titles of the European states to it were only valid as against +each other, and meant, in relation to the aborigines, only a right of +pre-emption; and that after the Constitution was established no +government except the general Government of the United States could +have anything to do with them.</p> + +<p>This was a crude and an impracticable view of the relation. It +contained more of sentiment and humanitarianism than of common sense +and inductive wisdom. The theory broke down completely in the Georgia +case, and could not be re-enlivened for practical purposes <a name="page218"></a>even by +judicial decisions. The necessities of civilization have forced the +country to follow the course outlined by President Jackson, and that +is certainly good evidence of its correctness.</p> + +<p>The Georgians must have been encouraged by his message, for the +legislature of Georgia immediately passed an act connecting the +Cherokee lands with the counties which they adjoined, and imposing the +full jurisdiction of the Commonwealth upon all persons living or being +within the same.</p> +<a name="side293"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote293"> + <tr> + <td><small>The case of the<br> + Cherokee Nation.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Indians then caused an original bill to be filed in the Supreme +Court of the United States against Georgia, together with a +supplemental bill praying for a temporary injunction to restrain the +Commonwealth from enforcing its jurisdiction, and for the issuing of a +subpoena to Georgia to appear before the Court. The Court issued its +summons, but the Commonwealth made no answer, and the Court decided, +in its January term of 1831, that the Cherokee nation was not a +"State" in the sense of that provision of the Constitution which +designates the parties qualified to sue in the United States Courts. +This decision was pronounced immediately after the execution of the +Cherokee Tassells by the Georgia authorities, in defiance of a writ of +error addressed to the Commonwealth by a United States court, +requiring the Commonwealth to show cause why he should not be +discharged from custody. It is probable that the Supreme Court was +impressed by this demonstration of the impotence of the judiciary to +interfere successfully with the political policy of a Commonwealth, +even in behalf of personal liberty.</p> +<a name="side294"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote294"> + <tr> + <td><small>The case of<br> + Worcester<br> + against<br> + Georgia.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>A year later the Court took a more national view and stand. A +Presbyterian missionary to the Cherokees, the Rev. Samuel A. +Worcester, of Vermont, had <a name="page219"></a>violated the Georgia statute, which made it +a criminal offence to reside among the Cherokees after March 1st, +1831, without a license from the Governor, and without having taken an +oath to support and defend the laws of the Commonwealth. He was +indicted and tried by a Georgia court, found guilty, and condemned to +imprisonment in the penitentiary of the Commonwealth. A writ of error +was issued by one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United +States, requiring the Commonwealth of Georgia to show cause why the +prisoner should not be discharged. The writ was served on the Governor +and the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth. The only answer which +the Commonwealth gave to the summons was the sending up of the record +of the case, signed by the clerk of the court which pronounced the +judgment, and authenticated by the seal of the court. The judge of the +Georgia court did not sign the record. Nevertheless the Supreme Court +of the United States decided that the record of the Georgia court was +properly before it, and the Chief Justice proceeded to make, in the +Court's opinion of the case, an exhaustive review of the Indian +relations of the United States, in accord with the principles of the +Adams Administration, and to pronounce the statute of Georgia, +asserting the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth over the Cherokee lands +and over all persons residing or being on them, unconstitutional, +null, and void, and the arrest, trial, and sentence of Mr. Worcester +under the same to have been, therefore, without warrant of law.</p> + +<p>But the Georgia authorities paid no attention to the decision. They +did not liberate the prisoner or accord him a new trial. Later on, the +Governor of the Commonwealth pardoned him as his own act of grace.</p> +<a name="side295"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote295"> + <tr> + <td><small>The failure of the<br> + President to execute<br> + the decision in the<br> + Worcester case.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was certainly the duty of the President of the <a name="page220"></a>United States to +have executed this decision of the Court with all the power necessary +for the purpose which the Constitution conferred upon him. He did not +do it. It is said on very good authority that he intimated, at least, +that he would not do it. The Commonwealth simply defied the Court +successfully, and the President and Congress acquiesced in the result. +The President agreed in opinion with the Georgians upon the subject, +and the doctrine which here triumphed was one more plank in the +platform of the Jacksonian democracy, a real "States' rights" +principle.</p> +<a name="side296"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote296"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson<br> + and<br> + Calhoun.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>There is no doubt that the South Carolinians were encouraged by the +course of events in Georgia to believe that they would have something +like the same experiences and results in their contest with the +Government. In this they do not seem to have fully realized the fact +that President Jackson did not agree with them in their view of the +unconstitutionality of the tariff, as he agreed with the Georgians in +their view of the Indian question. Moreover, there was a personal +element in the controversy which they do not seem to have appreciated +at all. Jackson had, down to 1830, supposed that Mr. Crawford was the +member of the Cabinet of Mr. Monroe, in 1819, who wanted to have him +arrested and tried by a court-martial for disobeying orders, or acting +in excess of orders, during the Seminole War, and that Mr. Calhoun was +his defender. Jackson's hatred of Crawford had been intense during +these years for this reason. In 1830 Governor Forsyth, of Georgia, +revealed to Jackson the truth in regard to this matter, which was that +Calhoun was for arraigning him and Adams was his defender. Jackson +immediately demanded an explanation of Calhoun, but the reply did not +at all satisfy him, and the hostility which he had <a name="page221"></a>felt for Crawford +was now turned with redoubled force against Calhoun. Calhoun was now +regarded by Jackson as a traitor to Jackson, and that meant, in +Jackson's mind, that he was a traitor to his country. Any movement +against the Government or the laws of the United States headed by +Calhoun would be considered by Jackson as rebellion, most surely so +while Jackson was President.</p> +<a name="side297"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote297"> + <tr> + <td><small>The call of the<br> + Convention of 1832<br> + in South Carolina.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Following the principles developed in Mr. Calhoun's letter of August +28th, 1832, Governor Hamilton issued a call for a special session of +the legislature of South Carolina, in the autumn of 1832, for the +purpose of effecting through it the assembly of the convention of the +Commonwealth. The party in favor of nullification had at last secured +both branches of the legislature, and on October 24th, 1832, the +assembled legislature voted to issue the call for the convention, and +appointed November 19th as the day upon which it should meet.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote298"> + <tr> + <td><small>The work of the<br> + Nullification<br> + Convention.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The convention assembled at the time designated, elected Governor +Hamilton as its chairman, and appointed a committee of twenty-one +members to consider the situation and report a proposition to meet it. +In due time this committee made its report to the convention, in which +was contained, first, a review of the development of the tariff from a +revenue measure to a measure for the protection of manufactures, of +the ten years of fruitless struggle in Congress by the South against +the oppression inflicted by the protective system upon that section, +and of the theories advanced by the fathers of the Republic for +meeting, in last instance, such a condition of affairs; and, second, +the famous Ordinance of Nullification as the remedy of last resort. +The convention voted to receive the report and to adopt its +recommendations. <a name="page222"></a>On November 24th the convention passed, in solemn +form, the Ordinance of Nullification of the existing tariff laws of +the United States.</p> +<a name="side299"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote299"> + <tr> + <td><small>The<br> + Nullification<br> + Ordinance.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The convention declared and ordained in this instrument, that "the +several acts and parts of acts of the Congress of the United States, +purporting to be laws for the imposing of duties and imposts on the +importation of foreign commodities, and now having actual operation +and effect within the United States, and, more especially," the Act of +May 19th, 1828, and that of July 14th, 1832, "are unauthorized by the +Constitution of the United States and violate the true meaning and +intent thereof, and are null and void and no law, nor binding upon +this State, its officers or citizens; and all promises, contracts, and +obligations made or entered into, or to be made or entered into, with +purpose to secure the duties imposed by the said acts, and all +judicial proceedings which shall be hereafter had in affirmance +thereof, are and shall be held utterly null and void."</p> + +<p>It further ordained that no appeal should be allowed from the +decisions of the courts of the Commonwealth to the Supreme Court of +the United States in questions involving the validity of the aforesaid +Acts of Congress, or of the Ordinance of the convention annulling +them, or of the acts of the legislature giving effect to the +Ordinance, and that no copy of the proceedings in the courts of the +Commonwealth should be allowed for any such purpose, but that the +courts of the Commonwealth should proceed to execute their decisions +upon such issues without regard to any attempts to appeal therefrom, +and should deal with any person making such attempt as being guilty of +contempt of court. It then commanded that all the officers of the +Commonwealth, civil and military, and the jurors empanelled in the +courts should take the <a name="page223"></a>oath to obey, execute, and enforce the +Ordinance, under penalty of dismissal and disqualification; and +finally, it declared that South Carolina would regard her connection +with the Union as absolved, in case Congress should pass any act +authorizing the employment of military force to reduce her to +obedience to the nullified acts, or any act abolishing or closing the +ports, or obstructing the free ingress and egress of vessels, or in +case the United States should undertake to coerce the Commonwealth, or +enforce the nullified acts otherwise than through the civil tribunals +of the country.</p> + +<p>For the execution of the provisions of the Ordinance the convention +commanded the legislature to pass such measures as would prevent the +enforcement of the nullified acts, and give full effect to the +nullifying Ordinance, from and after February 1st, 1833, and commanded +the obedience of all persons within the limits of the Commonwealth to +the Ordinance and the legislative acts passed for its execution.</p> +<a name="side300"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote300"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Addresses<br> + issued by the<br> + Convention.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>With the Ordinance the convention issued two addresses, one to the +people of South Carolina, and the other to the peoples of the other +Commonwealths, naming each separately. The one to the people of South +Carolina contained the theory of nullification, as elaborated by +Calhoun, and the justification of its employment in the existing +situation. It closed with an appeal to their love of liberty and a +demand of obedience. The address to the peoples of the several +Commonwealths contained an announcement of the passage of the +nullifying Ordinance, the theory upon which it was based, an assertion +of the unconstitutionality of the protective tariff, and its +oppression upon the people of South Carolina, and a declaration of the +spirit and feeling of the convention, and of the people it +represented, toward the Union, the <a name="page224"></a>Constitution and the people of the +manufacturing Commonwealths. The latter part of this address contained +the only new point to be noticed. It was the offer of a plan for a +compromise tariff which would satisfy the South Carolinians. The plan +was the imposition of the same rate of duty upon all articles, those +not coming into competition with the products of the country and those +coming into such competition, and the raising of no more revenue than +should be necessary to meet the demands of the Government for +constitutional purposes.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote301"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Ordinance communicated to<br> + the Legislature of South Carolina.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In a message of November 27th, Governor Hamilton communicated to the +legislature of the Commonwealth the Ordinance of Nullification and +recommended the enactment of measures by that body for the execution +of the Ordinance.</p> + +<p>On December 13th, the new Governor, Colonel Hayne, who had resigned +his seat in the Senate in order that Mr. Calhoun, who had himself +resigned the vice-presidency, might be made South Carolina's +representative in the Senate, or, as the South Carolinians now +considered it, South Carolina's ambassador to the Government of the +United States, pronounced his inaugural address before the +legislature, dedicating himself to the service of the Commonwealth in +the execution of her Ordinance of Nullification.</p> +<a name="side302"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote302"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Acts of the<br> + Legislature for<br> + the execution<br> + of the Ordinance.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The legislature immediately passed the acts required by the convention +and recommended by the Governor.</p> + +<p>The first act, termed the Replevin Act, authorized any consignee of +merchandise, or any person lawfully entitled to the possession of +merchandise, held or detained for the payment of the duties imposed +upon the same by the nullified Acts of Congress, to recover possession +of the same, with <a name="page225"></a>damages for its detention, by a writ of replevin, +that is, by a summary procedure executed by an officer of the +Commonwealth; and the Act authorized this officer, on initiation of +the plaintiff in replevin, to seize the private property of the person +detaining the merchandise to double the value of the latter, in case +this person should refuse to deliver the detained merchandise to the +sheriff, or should put it out of the sheriff's way, and to hold the +property so seized until the merchandise in question should be +produced and delivered to the sheriff.</p> + +<p>This Act also authorized any person paying the nullified duties to +recover the money paid, with interest on the same, by an action, in a +court of the Commonwealth, for money had and received; and it +authorized any person suffering arrest or imprisonment by order of any +United States court, in execution of the nullified Acts, to demand the +privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, and to maintain an action for +unlawful arrest and imprisonment.</p> + +<p>It declared the sale of any property seized by a United States court, +in execution of the nullified Acts, to be illegal, and ordained that +such sale should convey no title to the purchaser. It forbade any +officer of a court of the Commonwealth to furnish the record, or a +copy of the record, or allow a copy of the record to be taken, of any +case in which the validity of the nullified Acts or the nullifying +Acts should be drawn in question, under penalty of both fine and +imprisonment, and it forbade any person to attempt to recapture the +goods delivered by the sheriff to the plaintiff in replevin, under +threat of the same punishment.</p> + +<p>It further forbade the keepers of the jails to receive and detain any +person arrested or committed by virtue of any proceeding for enforcing +the nullified Acts, under penalty of both fine and imprisonment; and +it imposed <a name="page226"></a>a similar penalty upon the offence of hiring, letting, or +procuring any place to be used as a place of confinement for such +person.</p> + +<p>Finally, it forbade any person to disobey, obstruct, prevent, or +resist any process allowed by this Act, under penalty of both fine and +imprisonment; and it threatened every plaintiff, who should bring suit +against any officer or person executing or aiding in the execution of +the provisions of this Act, with adverse judgment and double costs.</p> + +<p>The second Act of the legislature was a measure to provide for the +event of the employment of military power by the general Government to +enforce the nullified Acts in South Carolina. It authorized the +Governor of the Commonwealth to resist the same; and for this purpose +to order into service the whole military power of the Commonwealth at +his discretion, to purchase arms, accoutrements, and ammunitions, and +to appoint his military staff; and it authorized and obligated the +Governor to use military power in suppressing opposition to the laws +of the Commonwealth by combinations too powerful to be controlled by +the civil officers.</p> + +<p>The third Act was the test oath, the oath to obey, execute, and +enforce the Ordinance of Nullification, and all the acts of the +legislature for its enforcement, which every officer of the +Commonwealth must take before dealing with any question touching the +nullified Acts or the nullifying Acts, and which the Governor might +require of any officer whatever.</p> + +<p>These were the details and the forms of the issue which South Carolina +now offered to the United States. Was it rebellion, or was it +constitutional and legal opposition?</p> +<a name="side303"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote303"> + <tr> + <td><small>The meaning of<br> + Nullification<br> + as understood<br> + by the Nullifiers.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>As we have seen, Calhoun and the members of the <a name="page227"></a>nullifying convention +held it to be the latter. They argued that the reserved powers of the +Commonwealths are recognized by the Constitution; that every +conceivable power is reserved to the Commonwealths, except such as are +vested by the Constitution in the general Government exclusively, or +are denied by the Constitution to the Commonwealths; that the power to +pronounce an act of the general Government null and void had been +neither so vested nor so denied; that this was, therefore, a reserved +power of the Commonwealths, and was, like all other reserved powers, a +constitutional power; that South Carolina proposed to use this power +through judicial means only, which means were legally and +constitutionally at her disposal through the principle of the +governmental system of the United States that general criminal +jurisdiction belongs exclusively to the Commonwealths; and that the +employment of military power by the Commonwealth, indicated in the +Ordinance and the legislative acts for its enforcement, was to be +resorted to only in self-defence, only to repel the possible attack of +the military power of the general Government upon South Carolina.</p> + +<p>It is entirely evident that the South Carolina statesmen and lawyers +thought they had so fashioned the laws of the Commonwealth as to force +the general Government to the first violation of legal order in +attempting to execute the nullified Acts of Congress—that is, they +thought they had made it impossible for the general Government to +execute these Acts by regular legal methods; and that they had done so +without themselves violating any rule or principle of American +jurisprudence. They repeated the assertion, again and again, that they +did not rest their case on moral, or on revolutionary, principles, but +on strict constitutional <a name="page228"></a>right; and it is impossible to prove that +they were insincere.</p> + +<p>The great question now was, what attitude the general Government would +take toward the attempt of a Commonwealth to defeat the supremacy of +its laws. Naturally the Executive Department must act first, since +nullification was directed against the execution of existing laws.</p> +<a name="side304"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote304"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson's view<br> + of Nullification.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In his message of December 4th (1832), President Jackson referred +briefly to the events of the preceding month in South Carolina, but +did not seem to have fully appreciated their purport. He said he hoped +the United States courts would be able to cope successfully with the +difficulties in South Carolina, and that, if they were not, he thought +that the existing laws gave the President sufficient power to suppress +any attempts which might be immediately made against the supremacy of +the Government.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote305"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Tariff in the Annual<br> + Message of 1832.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>He devoted a much larger portion of the message to a consideration of +the tariff, and declared that the time had arrived for the United +States to enter upon the realization of the policy of a tariff for +revenue only, and of the ultimate limitation of protection to those +articles of domestic manufacture indispensable to the country in time +of war.</p> + +<p>It is possible that the President did, after all, understand the +serious nature of the situation from the outset, and hoped, by his +pronounced recommendations in regard to the tariff, and his very mild +utterances concerning nullification, to influence the South +Carolinians to a reconsideration of their hasty acts, and give them a +loophole of escape from their very dubious and embarrassing position.</p> +<a name="side306"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote306"> + <tr> + <td><small>The President's<br> + Proclamation of<br> + December 10th.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>He waited for six days, and then issued the noted proclamation of +December 10th, which presented the <a name="page229"></a>President's idea of the relation of +the United States, as a nation, and of the general Government, to the +Commonwealths, asserted the supremacy of United States law over +Commonwealth law, demonstrated the true character of nullification as +rebellion, and declared the President's intention to execute the laws +of the United States against any and all opposition.</p> + +<p>The President assumed as his cardinal principle that the Union +preceded independence, and that by a joint act the people of the +united colonies declared themselves a nation; that, as a nation, the +people of the United States established the Constitution of 1787, and +placed in that instrument the provision that the Constitution, and the +laws and treaties made in accordance therewith, are "the supreme law" +of the land, and that "the judges in every State shall be bound +thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the +contrary notwithstanding." From these principles the President derived +the conclusions that no legal processes, which South Carolina could +contrive, could prevent the execution of the laws of the United States +in South Carolina; that to accomplish this South Carolina would be +obliged to have recourse to violence; and that this necessity stamped +nullification as rebellion.</p> + +<p>The President stopped the loophole of escape from this reasoning, made +by the claim of the nullifiers that the nullified Acts were not laws +made in accordance with the Constitution, by the declaration that the +Judicial Department of the general Government was the body designated +by the Constitution to determine that question, and not a Commonwealth +convention.</p> + +<p>After warning the nullifiers to desist from their unlawful enterprise, +the President closed his message with an eloquent appeal to the people +of South Carolina to <a name="page230"></a>withdraw from their unjustifiable and dangerous +position, and an equally eloquent appeal to the people of the United +States for aid and support in preserving the Union and maintaining the +supremacy of the Government and the laws.</p> +<a name="side307"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote307"> + <tr> + <td><small>The President's<br> + military preparations.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Already before the passage of the Ordinance of Nullification, the +President had caused the United States military officers stationed in +and about Charleston to be informed of their danger, had ordered two +artillery companies from Fort Monroe to Fort Moultrie, had commanded +General Scott to go to Charleston and do what might be necessary for a +successful defence of the forts and places held by the Army of the +United States, and had directed all the officers in command to defend +their possession of these forts and places to the last extremity.</p> +<a name="side308"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote308"> + <tr> + <td><small>The President's<br> + instructions to the<br> + customs officers<br> + in South Carolina.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The President had also caused the collectors of the customs at +Charleston, Georgetown, and Beaufort to be reminded of their powers +under the laws of the United States, and had authorized them to make +use of all the revenue cutters in the harbors, and of such other +vessels as they could secure, and to call to their assistance the +officers of the cutters, and to appoint a number of inspectors +sufficient to execute successfully the laws of the United States for +the collection of the duties. The collector at Charleston was +specially authorized to remove the custom-house to Castle Pinckney, at +his discretion; and the United States District Attorney at Charleston +was ordered to aid the collector with counsel and advice.</p> + +<p>After the passage of the Ordinance, the President ordered five more +companies of artillery from Fort Monroe to Fort Moultrie, commanded +the removal of the custom-house from Charleston to Castle Pinckney, +and sent General Scott to Charleston Harbor to take command, <a name="page231"></a>on the +spot, of all the forts and garrisons there, instructing him to avoid +collision with the forces of the Commonwealth so long as possible, +but, in case the exigency should arise requiring the exercise of +military power, to act with firmness and decision, and to hold +possession of the forts by all means and at every hazard.</p> +<a name="side309"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote309"> + <tr> + <td><small>The popular approval of<br> + the President's course.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The brave, loyal, and patriotic, yet wise and considerate, stand taken +by the President was supported with great unanimity and enthusiasm +throughout the North; and though the people of the Southern +Commonwealths felt more sympathy with their South Carolina brethren, +yet the dissent from the President's views and attitude in that +section was rare and feeble. The nation was with the President, and +the President had done his duty nobly and fearlessly.</p> +<a name="side310"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote310"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Verplanck<br> + Tariff Bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The turn now came upon Congress. Would Congress sustain the President, +and give him all the means necessary to conquer nullification and +secession in fact, and destroy them in principle? Unfortunately, so +far as finite reason can judge, the first movements made in Congress +were in the opposite direction. That part of the President's message +which dealt with the question of the tariff was referred by the House +of Representatives to its committee on Ways and Means, and on December +27th, 1832, the chairman of that committee, Mr. Verplanck, of New +York, reported a bill from the committee which proposed to reduce and +equalize duties largely, and in the direction of the South Carolina +principle. If this bill should pass, the nullifiers could well assume +that their Ordinance had accomplished its purpose without being +applied, and could with triumphant dignity desist from the application +of it; and they could defer with almost equal dignity the application +of the Ordinance, <a name="page232"></a>so long as there was any probability of the passage +of this bill.</p> +<a name="side311"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote311"> + <tr> + <td><small>Governor Hayne's<br> + Counter-proclamation.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Seven days before the introduction of this bill, Governor Hayne had +issued a counter-proclamation to the President's proclamation of +December 10th, in which he went over again the ground of nullification +and secession, warned the citizens of South Carolina against the +President's "pernicious" doctrines, and accused the President of +indulging in unwarrantable imputations upon South Carolina. He gave +notice, on the same day, that he would accept the service of +volunteers. The legislature supported the Governor in defiant +resolutions, which it sent to Congress, and caused to be read in that +body.</p> +<a name="side312"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote312"> + <tr> + <td><small>The President's<br> + Message of<br> + January 16th, 1833.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The President was much ruffled by the arrogant language of the +Governor and legislature, and when the Verplanck bill appeared, it +must have looked to him too much like surrendering the entire field, +which he was not now in any mood to do. He felt that something more +must be done to vindicate the authority and the dignity of the +Government. On January 16th, 1833, he sent another message to +Congress, demonstrating and denouncing again the pernicious character +of the nullification doctrine, informing Congress that he had removed +the custom-house from Charleston to Castle Pinckney, and asking +Congress for the power to change the customs districts and ports of +entry, to exact the payment of duties in cash, and to use the land and +naval forces when necessary for the execution of the revenue laws.</p> +<a name="side313"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote313"> + <tr> + <td><small>Calhoun's<br> + explanations<br> + in the Senate.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The message was referred by the Houses of Congress to their respective +committees on the Judiciary; but immediately upon the reading of the +message, and before the Senate had passed the motion to refer, Mr. +Calhoun said, in that body, that there was no foundation whatever for +the <a name="page233"></a>statement in the message that the movements made by South Carolina +were intended as hostile to the Union, or were so. He called the +attention of the Senate to the fact that before the Ordinance of +Nullification was passed, before the convention had assembled, United +States troops had been sent to Charleston Harbor; and he declared +that, previous to this circumstance, South Carolina had looked to +nothing beyond a civil process, and had intended to give effect to her +opposition merely in the form of a suit at law, and that it was only +when a military force had been displayed on her borders, and in her +limits, and when a menace was thrown out against the lives of her +citizens, that they found themselves driven to an attitude of +resistance.</p> +<a name="side314"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote314"> + <tr> + <td><small>The "Force Bill."</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On the 21st of the month (January), Mr. Wilkins, the chairman of the +Judiciary committee of the Senate, reported from his committee the +bill for the collection of the revenue. This bill provided for +extending the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the United States +over all cases in law or equity arising under the revenue laws of the +United States; for making all property taken or detained by any +officer or person under authority of any law of the United States +irrepleviable by any order or process of the tribunals of a +Commonwealth; for effecting the removal of suits commenced in a +Commonwealth court against any officer or person for any act done +under the laws of the United States, or on account of any right, +authority, or title claimed under those laws, to the Circuit Courts of +the United States, by means of proof laid before the Circuit Court +that the defendant had petitioned the Commonwealth court for the +removal of the cause. The bill provided, further, for substituting for +a copy of the record of the proceedings in the <a name="page234"></a>Commonwealth court, in +case of the failure of that court to furnish a copy, an affidavit, or +other evidence, as the circumstances of the case might require; for +giving to the United States judges the power to grant writs of habeas +corpus in all cases where persons were in confinement for acts done in +pursuance of a law of the United States, or of an order, process, or +decree of any United States court or judge; for empowering the United +States marshals, under direction of the United States judges, to +provide places of confinement for persons arrested or committed under +the laws of the United States, where any Commonwealth should refuse +the use of its jails for the confinement of such persons; for allowing +the President to change the custom-house from one place in a +collection district to another, and to require the duties to be paid +in cash; and for empowering the President to use the land and naval +forces for suppressing any resistance to the execution of the revenue +laws too powerful to be overcome by the civil officers of the general +Government.</p> + +<p>It was a good, stiff measure, but it was constitutional at every +point, and it was demanded by the exigencies of the situation. It was +a complete answer to the Replevin Act of South Carolina, and it would +inevitably throw the responsibility for committing the first act of +violence upon the Commonwealth in any resistance to the collection of +the duties. It pricked the bubble completely of South Carolina's +proposed legal resistance to the execution of the laws of the United +States.</p> + +<p>Of course the bill was denounced at once by the South Carolinians as a +"Force Bill." Calhoun attacked it as a measure for coercing a +sovereign "State," and offered a series of "States' rights" +propositions, which he declared to be indisputable, and which must, +therefore, prevent the passage of the bill. The discussion upon <a name="page235"></a>these +resolutions, and upon the bill which they were meant to destroy, +dragged on from day to day in the Senate, while that upon the +Verplanck bill in the House proceeded even more slowly.</p> +<a name="side315"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote315"> + <tr> + <td><small>The postponement of the<br> + execution of nullification.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The chiefs of the nullifiers, professing to feel that the Government +was yielding, reassembled in convention in the last days of January, +and postponed the execution of their Ordinance until the end of the +existing Congressional session.</p> + +<p>On February 8th, Mr. Bell, the chairman of the Judiciary committee of +the House of Representatives, reported to that body that his committee +did not recommend vesting the President with any further powers for +the execution of the revenue laws than those already possessed by him, +and that they could not approve of the employment of military force +for the purpose.</p> +<a name="side316"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote316"> + <tr> + <td><small>The<br> + Compromise<br> + Tariff.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Such was the situation when, on February 12th, Mr. Clay astonished the +Senate with the noted proposition for compromise. This was his bill +for the gradual reduction of the duties to a revenue basis. The +revenue basis was fixed in the bill at twenty per centum <i>ad valorem</i> +on all articles then paying a higher duty, and the excess was to be +remitted in biennial instalments, and entirely abolished from and +after June 30th, 1842. The free list was slightly extended, and cash +payments, from and after June 30th, 1842, were provided.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote317"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Clay on<br> + the situation.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Clay said, in introducing this bill, that he had two purposes in +view: one to save what could be saved of the protective tariff, and +the other to allow South Carolina to withdraw with dignity from the +position which she had rashly assumed. He claimed that his feeling +toward the action of South Carolina had changed since her +Representatives and Senators in Congress had disavowed rebellion and +had <a name="page236"></a>asserted that they were only trying to invent legal methods for +protecting themselves against the oppression of the tariff Acts. He +demonstrated very clearly the error of supposing that they could do +any such thing, and then urged his brother Senators to join him in the +proposed measure of conciliation.</p> +<a name="side318"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote318"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Calhoun's support<br> + of Mr. Clay's bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Calhoun immediately indicated that the bill would have his +support, and would solve the difficulties between South Carolina and +the general Government. He professed to see in it the concession of +about all that South Carolina had asked.</p> +<a name="side319"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote319"> + <tr> + <td><small>The opposition<br> + to the bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The opposition to the bill came from three quarters—from the +protectionists, who clung to the existing law, from the strong +nationalists, who were against any show of compromise with +nullification, and from the strict parliamentarians, who held that any +bill touching the tariff must originate in the House of +Representatives.</p> + +<p>The protectionists were answered, and many of them won over, by the +argument that the Verplanck bill would pass if they did not accept Mr. +Clay's bill. The strong nationalists were told that if Congress should +pass the Wilkins bill before the Clay bill a sufficient vindication of +their position would be attained. They were inclined to accept that +view, but the South Carolinians set themselves against this order of +procedure with all their strength. Mr. Calhoun came forward again with +his "States' sovereignty" exposition of the Constitution, and +denounced the Wilkins bill in the most vehement language as "utterly +unconstitutional, as an attempt to enforce robbery by murder, an +attempt to decree the massacre of the citizens of South Carolina," and +declared that the citizens of South Carolina would, should it become +law, resist its execution "at every hazard, even that of death +itself."</p> +<a name="side320"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote320"> + <tr> + <td><small>Passage of the<br> + "Force Bill"<br> + by the Senate.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page237"></a> +<p>On the following day Mr. Webster answered Mr. Calhoun's argument, and +demonstrated so clearly the nationality of the Constitution, the +supremacy of the laws of the United States, and the rebellious +character of nullification, that the Senate was convinced of the +necessity of passing the Wilkins bill before voting upon Mr. Clay's +bill. On the 20th of the month (February), the Senate passed the +Wilkins bill by a vote of thirty-two to one. The objections of the +strong nationalists to Mr. Clay's bill were now substantially +satisfied; but the high protectionists still held out in considerable +number for some modification of the bill in their favor, and on the +day after the passage of the Wilkins bill by the Senate, Mr. Clay +moved to amend his own bill by the proposition to base the duties on +home valuation instead of on the foreign invoice. The protectionists +were satisfied by this, but Mr. Calhoun immediately declared that +South Carolina would not accept the bill with this change. The +protectionists, in sufficient number to defeat the bill, declared that +they would not accept it without the change. Mr. Calhoun had at last +come to see the peril which lay in South Carolina's course, and to +understand the feeling of the nation toward her. He wisely concluded +to abandon his opposition to the amendment, and to vote for the bill.</p> +<a name="side321"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote321"> + <tr> + <td><small>Passage of the<br> + Compromise<br> + Tariff bill and<br> + the "Force Bill"<br> + by Congress.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The opposition of the strict parliamentarians, on the ground that the +Senate could not originate a revenue bill, was overcome by the action +of the House of Representatives in substituting the Clay bill for the +Verplanck bill, and passing it on the 26th, and sending it to the +Senate for concurrence. The Senate now passed the House bill on March +1st, and the House immediately passed the Wilkins bill, against the +protest <a name="page238"></a>of the South Carolinians that it could now have no purpose +since every member of Congress from South Carolina had voted for the +new Tariff Act.</p> +<a name="side322"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote322"> + <tr> + <td><small>The nullification ordinance withdrawn.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The President signed both bills at the same time, March 2nd, and South +Carolina rescinded the Nullification Ordinance.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote323"> + <tr> + <td><small>Motives and<br> + general results.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It is not easy to see what principles or what party finally triumphed +in this contest, or to comprehend all the motives of the chief actors +in it. It has been said, or hinted, that Mr. Calhoun, chagrined and +disappointed at not gaining the presidency in 1832, was induced to +take the course which he followed in reference to nullification by the +hope of breaking up the Union and winning, thus, the presidency of a +Southern confederacy; that President Jackson was largely influenced, +in the decided attitude which he assumed, by the desire to take +revenge on Mr. Calhoun and South Carolina for Mr. Calhoun's attempt to +court-martial him more than a dozen years before, and for South +Carolina's slight upon him in the election of 1832; and that Mr. Clay +was moved far more by his jealousy of President Jackson, and his fear +of trusting him with extraordinary powers, than by any dread of the +destruction of the Union.</p> + +<p>There is probably some truth in certain, if not in all, of these +speculations, but such things are not the matters of chief value in +the search for the line of development of the constitutional history +of this country. They do indeed help us to appreciate the motives for +the particular form of adjustment put upon that development at any +stage of its course; but our chief concern must be with the advance or +retrogression in principle of that development, our question must be +whether the Union and the Constitution were strengthened or weakened +by <a name="page239"></a>the events of 1832 and 1833, whether the political nationality of +the country was cemented or suffered disintegration, and whether +strength was gathered, or the seeds of weakness were sown, in the +results attained.</p> + +<p>From the point of view of the present, a point so much more national +than any reached before 1860, the settlement of 1833 is usually +regarded as a great misfortune, as a fateful error, which led the +country finally into civil war. It is now usually said that the +national cause lost everything in principle, and that nullification +was virtually acknowledged by the Act of Congress in repealing the +nullified laws, at the same moment that it enacted the measure for +upholding the supremacy of the laws of the United States.</p> + +<p>From a purely historical view of the development of the constitutional +law of the country, this proposition does not seem to be true, at +least not without great modification. From such a point of view it +seems more correct to say, that the doctrine formulated by Mr. Calhoun +and his colleagues in South Carolina was only the exact logical +statement of the principles advanced by Mr. Jefferson in 1798, +principles through the advocacy of which Mr. Jefferson and the +Republicans turned the Federalists out of power and captured the +Government; that under the pressure of foreign war and through its +results, the Republican practice in administering the Government had +been driven into lines almost, if not quite, contradictory to the +Republican doctrine; that in the gradual relapse, after 1815, into the +humdrum of peace and business, the conditions were being revived for +the reassertion of the principles of 1800; and that, under such +conditions and in such a period, the doctrines advanced by President +Jackson, doctrines of a far more completely national system of +sovereignty, government, and liberty than were ever expressed <a name="page240"></a>by any +preceding President, certainly mark a great advance in the development +of the national theory of the Constitution.</p> + +<p>The South Carolinians said that John Quincy Adams invented these +doctrines, and that Jackson first essayed their application. Even Clay +declared that they were an advance upon his own views. And some of +Jackson's friends undertook, it was said with authority from Jackson +himself, to explain them away, so startled were they by their strong +nationalism.</p> + +<p>But the spoken word cannot be recalled. It had gone forth, and the +nation had approved it. The politicians might split hairs in its +interpretation, but the people had heard from the highest authority +which they recognized that the United States was a sovereign nation, +and that the attempt of any combination of persons, whether calling +themselves a "State" or not, to resist by violence the execution of +the laws of the United States, or to withdraw themselves from their +operation, was rebellion, which the President was empowered and +required by the Constitution to suppress with the whole physical power +of the nation.</p> + +<p>And besides the Proclamation there was the "Force Bill," which rested +upon the same theory of the political system of the country as the +Proclamation. The Congress as well as the President was now +inculcating the national doctrine. Calhoun and his friends knew what +an influence this would exert. He said that he and they would never +rest content until this measure was expunged from among the Acts of +Congress.</p> + +<p>It is true that the passage of the new Tariff Act appeared to take the +virtue out of the Proclamation and the "Force Bill;" but it is not at +all probable that the nullifiers would have retreated from their +ground so promptly, to say the least, except for the determined <a name="page241"></a>words +of the President and the Congress, and the popular approval with which +they were received; and it is almost certain that, when it came to the +great crisis, twenty-eight years later, the people would not have +understood and supported the great principle that the general +Government has the right of self-preservation, in the exercise of all +its powers, throughout the whole territory of the Union, against +everything and everybody but the sovereign nation itself, except for +the great education in national principles which they received from +the Proclamation, and through the enactment of the law which gave the +sanction of Congress to the enforcement of its principles.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="chap11"></a><a name="page242"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER XI.</h3> + +<center>ABOLITION</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side327">The Philosophy of +Abolition</a>—<a href="#side328">William Lloyd +Garrison</a>—<a href="#side329">The Civil Status under the Constitution of +1787</a>—<a href="#side330">Points at which Slavery Could be Legally +Attacked</a>—<a href="#side330">Garrison's +Methods</a>—<a href="#side331">The Southampton +Massacre</a>—<a href="#side332">The Attempt to Suppress the Abolition Movement at the +North</a>—<a href="#side333">Growth of the Abolition +Movement</a>—<a href="#side334">The Methods of the Moderate +Abolitionists</a>—<a href="#side335">The Abolition +Petitions</a>—<a href="#side336">The Earlier Method of Dealing with the +Petitions</a>—<a href="#side337">Beginning of the Conflict over the Abolition +Petitions</a>—<a href="#side339">The New Method for Dealing with Petitions in the House of +Representatives</a>—<a href="#side340">True View of the Right of +Petition</a>—<a href="#side342">Mr. Polk's Fatal Error in Regard to the Right of +Petition</a>—<a href="#side344">The Pinckney +Resolutions</a>—<a href="#side345">The New Rule of the House of Representatives in Regard to +the Abolition Petitions</a>—<a href="#side346">The Increase of Petitions, and the Denunciation of +the Pinckney Rule</a>—<a href="#side347">The Final Denial of the Right of +Petition on the Subject of Slavery by the House of +Representatives</a>—<a href="#side348">The Abolition Petitions in the +Senate</a>—<a href="#side349">Mr. Rives and Mr. Calhoun in Regard to the Morality of +Slavery</a>—<a href="#side351">Mr. Calhoun's Resolutions in Regard to the Political Relations of +Slavery</a>—<a href="#side352">The Anti-Slavery Petition from the Vermont +Legislature</a>—<a href="#side353">The Abolition Documents and the United States +Mails</a>—<a href="#side354">The Postmaster-General's Ruling in Regard to the Abolition Documents in the +Mails</a>—<a href="#side355">Jackson on the Use of the Mails by the +Abolitionists</a>—<a href="#side356">Mr. Calhoun's Report and Bill on the +Subject</a>—<a href="#side357">Clay's Criticism of Calhoun's +Proposition</a>—<a href="#side358">The Act of Congress Protecting the Abolition Documents in the +Mails</a>—<a href="#side359">General Results of the Struggle over the Right of Petition and the Freedom of +the Mails.</a></blockquote> +<br> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote324"> + <tr> + <td><small>The ends of<br> + the state.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>When a state has fairly accomplished the primal end of establishing +its governmental system, its <a name="page243"></a>public policy will be found to be +pursuing, in ultimate generalization, two great all-comprehending +purposes, namely, national development and universal human progress. +Rarely, if ever, will any state be found to have succeeded in so +balancing these two principal objects of its public policy as to make +the resultant of its two main lines of progress follow an unchanging +angle. At one period, the principle of national development will +prevail, even to the point of national exclusiveness; at another, an +enthusiastic humanism will almost threaten the existence of national +distinctions. But in all the convulsions of political history, +described as advance and reaction, the scientific student of history +is able to discover that the zigzags of progress are ever bearing in +the general direction which the combined impulses toward nationalism +and humanism compel.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote325"> + <tr> + <td><small>The purposes of the<br> + state, as seen in<br> + the history of<br> + the United States.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>After the humanitarian outburst of the revolutionary period in the +latter part of the eighteenth century had expended its force, the +states of the world veered in their policies toward the line of +national development. The United States, which had been excessively +humanitarian during that period, both in its doctrine of rights and in +its policy, became, in the succeeding period, the first three decades +of the nineteenth century, more and more national in disposition and +in practice, until industrial exclusiveness and race domination +appeared, at the close of the period, to be the sole principles of the +policy of the country.</p> + +<p>Had the two elements of this policy been equally, or almost equally, +sustained throughout the whole country, there is little question that +the human purpose, the world-purpose, as Hegel calls it, of state +existence, would have been ignored to a higher degree, and for a +<a name="page244"></a>longer period, than it was. But curiously and fortunately, the race +domination in the South produced economic conditions which demanded +trade and commerce with the world, and which finally forced upon the +North the conviction that the cause of those conditions—race +domination, slavery—must be removed, in order to secure the +industrial interests of the North against the competition of the +world's markets. The destruction of that domination must proceed, +however, upon a humanitarian principle, namely, the right of man to +personal liberty. Thus it clearly appears that the two elements of the +national exclusiveness of the United States in 1830 were, in the +peculiar relation which finally obtained between them, preparing the +nation for a new advance in the direction of world intercourse and +human rights.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote326"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Revolution<br> + of 1830.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In the summer of 1830 the wave of revolution rolled again over Europe. +The rights of man, the brotherhood of man, and the sovereignty of the +people, were the principles which pressed again to the front. While no +actual connection can be established between the Revolution of 1830 in +Europe and the rise of Abolition in the United States, yet they belong +to the same period of time, and harmonize in principle. The impulses +which move the human race, or those parts of the human race which +stand upon the same plane of civilization, are not broken by mountain +heights or broad seas. Their manifestations appear spontaneously and +coetaneously in widely separated places.</p> + +<p>Before 1830, indeed, as we have so often seen, slavery in the United +States had been regarded as a grievous evil by most of the great +spirits of the age and country, and schemes for gradual emancipation +had been invented, and, in some slight degree, had been put into +<a name="page245"></a>operation. It was, however, the humanitarian outburst of 1830, and the +succeeding years, which represented slavery as a sin and a crime +against the universal principle of human liberty and the rights of +man, a sin which called for immediate expiation by instantaneous, +unqualified, and uncompensated abolition.</p> +<a name="side327"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote327"> + <tr> + <td><small>The philosophy<br> + of Abolition.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>There is nothing strange about the philosophy of Abolition. It is +simply the idealistic view of the beginning and the progress of human +history. It assumes liberty as the original state of man, condemns +every species of modification of liberty suffered by any human being, +or any class of human beings, as resulting from the unrighteous act of +some other human being, or class or race of human beings, and demands +the immediate discontinuance of the tyranny as the only approximately +adequate satisfaction which can be made to those who have suffered +that tyranny. It is the orthodox, paradisaical view of the origin, +unity, and primal perfection of the human race. It is the literal +interpretation of the Declaration of Independence. It is +thorough-going, radical humanitarianism. Its political principle, in +the language of its chief exponent, was: "The world our country, and +all mankind our countrymen."</p> + +<p>Over against it stands the pessimistic view of man and of +civilization, which divides the human race into the few intelligent +and good, and the great mass of the ignorant and vicious, and +considers the permanent subjection of the latter to the former as the +divinely constituted, and therefore the permanent, order of the world.</p> + +<p>And between the two lies the true historical view, which regards +liberty, equality, and brotherhood as the products of civilization, as +the final, not the primal, status of the human race, and determines +the character of every stage of development from barbarism to +<a name="page246"></a>civilization, not by its distance from the perfect condition, but by +the fact of its advance upon, or its retrogression from, the stage +immediately antecedent.</p> + +<p>The latter is, unquestionably, the true philosophy of history, but the +former has its uses as well as its abuses. It contains those forces of +mystical enthusiasm, self-sacrifice, and reckless disregard of +consequences so necessary, at times, to drag the world out of the ruts +of materialism and the love of peace. Such was its mission in the +fourth decade of the nineteenth century in American history.</p> +<a name="side328"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote328"> + <tr> + <td><small>William Lloyd<br> + Garrison.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>If we must give a name, a date, and a place to the first open +appearance of a movement which was a product of the age, that name is +Garrison; the date, the beginning of the year 1831; and the place, +Boston. The character of William Lloyd Garrison, whether noble or +vulgar; his purposes, whether generous or selfish; and the motives +which impelled him, whether narrow and personal or grandly humane, are +not subjects for treatment in a work upon constitutional history. +Constitutional history has to do only with the doctrines of political +ethics and public jurisprudence which he formulated, and with the +means proposed by him, and those who thought and acted with him, for +their realization; and the historian does neither him nor them any +injustice in saying that, while those doctrines are to be justified +from the point of view of an extreme idealism, the means for their +realization, at first only indicated, but later boldly and rudely +expressed, were revolutionary, almost anarchic.</p> +<a name="side329"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote329"> + <tr> + <td><small>The civil status<br> + under the<br> + Constitution<br> + of 1787.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>There is now certainly little question that the determination of the +civil status of all persons is, from an ethical point of view, a +matter of national concern, and that that status must be fixed, in +general principle, by a national act. There is just as little question +that <a name="page247"></a>the denial of personal liberty to any human being of adult years +does not comport with the civilization of the nineteenth century. In +espousing these principles the Abolitionists were only prophets ahead +of their time, and must be accorded the honor which belongs to such. +On the other hand, it is entirely unquestionable that the Constitution +of the United States recognized to the Commonwealths, respectively, +the exclusive control of the civil status of persons belonging within +their several jurisdictions, and it is entirely improbable that the +Constitution of 1787 could ever have been established without the +guarantees, expressed and implied in it, of such power to the +Commonwealths. There is no question at all that the slavery or freedom +of the negro race within the several Commonwealths was, under the +Constitution of 1787, not only left, as it had been before, a matter +for each Commonwealth to determine for itself, but that the exclusive +power of determination in regard to it was guaranteed by the +Constitution to the several Commonwealths. The Commonwealths in which +slaveholding generally and extensively prevailed regarded the +guarantee as the principal consideration for their assent to the +"compact." The attempt to violate, or weaken, or even to cast doubt +upon, these guarantees appeared to them to be an attack upon the +fundamental covenants of the Union. The Constitution might, indeed, be +so amended as to withdraw these powers and guarantees from the +Commonwealths, by the regular procedure provided in the Constitution +itself; and the general Government was vested by the Constitution with +the general powers of exclusive government in the Territories, the +District of Columbia, and the places owned by the United States within +Commonwealths and used by the general Government for <a name="page248"></a>governmental +purposes. But so long as the Constitution remained what it was, there +was no constitutional power in the general Government to attack +slavery in the Commonwealths; and the slaveholders could certainly +claim that, in the exercise of its powers in the Territories, the +District, and other places where those powers were exclusive, the +general Government should act fairly toward all the members of the +Union.</p> +<a name="side330"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote330"> + <tr> + <td><small>Points at which<br> + slavery could be<br> + legally attacked.<br> + <br> + <br> + Garrison's<br> + methods.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Nevertheless, here were legal points of attack for the Abolitionists. +They might memorialize Congress for the abolition of slavery in the +Territories and in the District, and for the initiation of an +amendment which would abolish slavery in the Commonwealths or would +give Congress the power to do so, and they might appeal to the +legislatures of the Commonwealths to demand of Congress the calling of +a constitutional convention of the United States to initiate such an +amendment. But Garrison would have nothing to do with the +Constitution, or with existing legal methods. He denounced the +Constitution, "as a covenant with death and an agreement with hell," +and declared that he wanted "no union with slaveholders." His violent +language, his repudiation of vested rights and constitutional +agreements, and his fanatical disregard of other men's opinions and +feelings, led the people both of the North and the South to believe +that his methods were incendiary and his morals loose; that he and his +co-workers were planning and plotting slave insurrection, and thereby +the wholesale massacre of slaveholders; and that he and they were +endeavoring to attain, through violence and anarchy, a leadership +which they could not otherwise reach.</p> +<a name="side331"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote331"> + <tr> + <td><small>The<br> + Southampton<br> + massacre.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In August of 1831, a slave insurrection broke out in Southampton +County, Va., under the leadership of a <a name="page249"></a>negro named Nat Turner, and +more than sixty white persons, most of them women and children, were +massacred in cold blood. The Southerners said, no doubt believed, that +the insurrection was incited by the Abolitionists in the North. +Governor Floyd, of Virginia, declared, in his message to the +legislature upon the subject, that there was ample proof of it in the +documents accompanying the message. The great mass of the people at +the North believed the same thing. The Abolitionist historians assert, +on the contrary, that there was no connection between the work of the +Abolitionists and this event. We shall probably never know whether +there was or not. This much we can say, that the radical character of +the Abolition doctrines and the violence of the language in which they +were expressed—not so much before as after this event, +indeed—produced the universal feeling, both in the North and in the +South, that these doctrines and this event were in perfect harmony, +and that the latter might very naturally be the outcome of the former. +The moral sentiment of the North was not prepared for the destruction +of slavery by any such means. It considered these methods as +containing ten times more evil and barbarism than slavery itself. It +is just to say that what appeared to be the methods of the +Abolitionists were revolting to the moral feelings of all the decent +people of the North, and to ninety-nine one-hundredths of all the +people of the North, while the Southerners saw in them nothing but the +destruction of all law and order, the plunder of their property, the +burning of their firesides, and the massacre of their families. The +pronounced and determined manner in which the people of the North went +about the work of suppressing the agitation occasioned by the +Abolitionists is ample evidence to any sane mind that the indignation +of a <a name="page250"></a>righteous conscience was fully aroused, and not the fury of a +guilty conscience.</p> +<a name="side332"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote332"> + <tr> + <td><small>The attempt to suppress<br> + the Abolition movement<br> + at the North.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The details of the breaking up of the Abolition meetings and of the +destruction of the Abolition printing-presses by the citizens of the +Northern Commonwealths, as well as those of the Southampton massacre, +may be passed over, in a work like this, with a single remark that +only one person, the Rev. Mr. Lovejoy, was murdered in these +collisions; that this happened under circumstances of some +aggravation; and that, if the excitement at the South over the +massacre of sixty-one innocent persons was out of proportion with the +event, then not too much should be made out of the killing of a single +person, who was not entirely guiltless on his part of giving +provocation.</p> + +<p>The things of importance to the student of constitutional history in +connection with these events are the increase of the Abolitionists in +number, their organization into societies, the dissatisfaction of the +Southerners with the unofficial, merely popular, way of dealing with +the agitation at the North, and their demands upon the governments of +the Northern Commonwealths to deal with the Abolitionists through the +processes of their criminal law.</p> + +<p>So long as men only talk and write, it is the impulse of our +Anglo-Saxon character to place no further restraint upon them than the +law of slander and libel of private character imposes, no matter what +may be, or may be thought to be, the ultimate consequences of acting +according to what they may say or write. To deny this privilege to +anybody appears like a deprivation of the liberty of speech and of the +press, appears like persecution. There is no country in the world in +which the making of martyrs is an easier procedure than in <a name="page251"></a>the United +States. Persecution is the soil in which new movements grow best, no +matter what may be the character of the movement.</p> +<a name="side333"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote333"> + <tr> + <td><small>Growth of the<br> + Abolition<br> + movement.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In a single year from the date of the first number of Garrison's +newspaper, <i>The Liberator,</i> that is, in January of 1832, the New +England Anti-slavery Society was formed, and in December of 1833 the +American Anti-slavery Society was organized, which soon established +branches in many quarters. The exaggerated demands of the Southerners, +that the Northern Commonwealths should forbid Abolition agitation by +law, thus identifying the interests of slavery with the denial of the +freedom of speaking and writing in the Northern Commonwealths, helped +greatly to swell the ranks of the Abolitionists, and to mollify public +opinion in the North against them.</p> +<a name="side334"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote334"> + <tr> + <td><small>The methods of<br> + the moderate<br> + Abolitionists.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The new Abolitionists were naturally of a more moderate type than +Garrison, and most of them would listen only to regular legal methods +for the accomplishment of their purposes. The quickening of the public +opinion in the North, the conviction of the slaveholders themselves of +the error, if not the sin, of slavery, and the appeal to the +Government to do all within its constitutional powers against slavery, +were the only means which many of them were willing to employ. Their +petitions to Congress, and the transmission of their literature of +Abolition to the Southerners through the United States mails, brought +the whole question of their rights and purposes before the Government, +and before the nation, for which that Government was bound to act with +impartial justice to all its parts.</p> +<a name="side335"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote335"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Abolition<br> + petitions.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia had +been sent to Congress, generally from <a name="page252"></a>Quaker sources, almost from the +day that the capital of the country was established there, but they +were not numerous and were not pushed by any anti-slavery +organization. In the session of 1826-27, a petition from citizens of +Baltimore, probably instigated by Benjamin Lundy, was presented, which +contained the same prayer; and in the session of 1827-28, one of like +tenor from citizens of the District itself was presented. Such +petitions were usually read and referred to the committee on the +District. They were irritating to the slaveholders from the first, but +it was not until after the excitement of the Southampton massacre that +they were angrily resented as an interference with the domestic +institutions of the slaveholding Commonwealths.</p> + +<p>It was in the session of 1831-32, that the first mutterings of the +petition storm were heard. On December 12th, 1831, Mr. John Quincy +Adams presented, in the House of Representatives, fifteen petitions +from sundry inhabitants of Pennsylvania, the chief prayer of all of +which was for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. +Mr. Adams said that he would give no countenance to that prayer, but +that there was a prayer in the petitions for the abolition of the +slave-trade in the District, which, he thought, might properly be +considered, and he moved the reference of the petitions, for this +purpose, to the regular committee of the House for the District.</p> + +<p>There was in this little to indicate the terrible earnestness which +Mr. Adams later displayed in behalf of the Abolition petitions. He +seemed at this time to be annoyed at being asked to present them, and +to feel that there were superior moral reasons why a slavery agitation +should not be excited within the halls of Congress. But all this was +soon to change. Mr. Adams's advance <a name="page253"></a>toward radical Abolitionism is as +marked a feature of the struggle over the right of petition as Mr. +Calhoun's declaration of the righteousness of slavery.</p> +<a name="side336"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote336"> + <tr> + <td><small>The earlier method<br> + of dealing with<br> + the petitions.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The committee on the District reported, on December 19th, that as the +District was composed of cessions of territory from Maryland and +Virginia, it would, in the opinion of the members of the committee, be +unwise, if not unjust, for Congress to interfere in the question of +the relation of slave to master in the District, until Virginia and +Maryland should take steps to eradicate the evil from their respective +territories. This report seemed to settle the question for the +session, and no more petitions appeared in either House.</p> + +<p>In the middle of the next session, Mr. Hiester, of Pennsylvania, +presented a petition to the House of Representatives from sundry +citizens of Pennsylvania praying for the abolition of slavery in the +District of Columbia. This was again a Quaker petition, as were the +petitions presented by Mr. Adams. Mr. Hiester moved to refer the +petition to the committee on the District, and Mr. Mason, of Virginia, +rashly called for the yeas and nays, which opened the question to +debate. Mr. Adams immediately pointed out this fact to Mr. Mason, and +advised him to withdraw his motion, which advice Mr. Mason wisely +adopted. The petition went to the Committee, and nothing further was +heard of it.</p> + +<p>It was first in the session of 1833-34, that petitions for the +abolition of slavery in the District from others than Quakers, +presumably from the members of the new anti-slavery societies, +appeared in both Houses of Congress. Those presented in the Senate +were referred to the committee of the Senate for the District, and +nothing more was heard of them. Those presented in the House of +Representatives were dealt with in the same manner.</p> + +<p>It was not until the session of 1834-35, that the first real note of +the conflict wa<a name="page254"></a>s sounded. On January 26th, 1835, Mr. Dickson, of New +York, presented several petitions praying for the abolition of the +slave-trade and of slavery in the District. They were laid over until +February 2nd, when Mr. Dickson called them up, made a rather +irritating speech, in which he said that the committee on the District +had smothered all such petitions referred to it, and moved the +reference of those offered by him to a select committee.</p> + +<p>Mr. Chinn, of Virginia, the chairman of the regular committee on the +District, resented Mr. Dickson's rude assault, and moved to lay the +petitions and Mr. Dickson's motion on the table. The House voted Mr. +Chinn's motion by a large majority.</p> +<a name="side337"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote337"> + <tr> + <td><small>Beginning of the<br> + conflict over the<br> + Abolition petitions.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>At length, in the session of 1835-36, the storm broke in all its fury, +in both the Senate and the House. It began in the House, December +16th, 1835, upon the presentation of a petition, containing the usual +prayer in regard to slavery in the District, by Mr. Fairfield, of +Maine. Mr. Cramer, of New York, moved to lay the petition on the +table, and the motion was voted. Mr. Fairfield immediately presented +another petition of like purport, and himself moved that it be laid +upon the table. Mr. Boon, of Indiana, asked that the petition be read, +which was done. Thereupon Mr. Slade, of Vermont, moved that it be +printed. This meant, of course, that Mr. Slade was determined to have +the slavery question agitated in Congress, if he could. Upon him +rather than upon Mr. Adams rests the honor, or the blame, whichever it +may be, of provoking the excitement over the Abolition petitions, and +of upholding the right of petition in the most extreme degree.</p> + +<p>The House first voted to lay the petition on the table. <a name="page255"></a>The Speaker, +Mr. James K. Polk, then put Mr. Slade's motion to print. Whereupon Mr. +Slade attempted to debate the whole question of slavery in the +District under the motion. The Speaker ruled that the contents of the +petition could not be debated under the motion to print. Mr. +Vanderpoel, of New York, then moved to lay Mr. Slade's motion on the +table, and the House voted to do so by a large majority.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote338"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Hammond's motion<br> + involving the denial of<br> + the right of petition.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Two days later the play was on again. Mr. Jackson, of Massachusetts, +presented a petition from sundry citizens of Massachusetts, containing +the usual prayer, and moved its reference to a select committee. +Whereupon Mr. Hammond, South Carolina, moved that the petition should +not be received. This was the ultra-Southern position in regard to the +anti-slavery petitions, and Mr. Hammond's enunciation of it in the +House antedates Mr. Calhoun's in the Senate by more than a fortnight.</p> + +<p>The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to assemble +peaceably and petition the Government for redress of grievances. The +right to petition certainly includes the right to have the petitions +heard by the body petitioned. If the body refuses to receive the +petition, it prevents its being heard, and by preventing its being +heard it makes the right itself a mockery. On the other hand, the +Constitution vests in each House of Congress the power to make its own +rules of procedure. This power must, of course, be so used as not to +violate any other clause of the Constitution. Under this power, +however, each House may and should protect itself against all obstacles +thrown by outsiders in the way of the discharge of its duties in +legislating for the country. If any number of people undertake, by an +abuse of the right of petition, to obstruct the legitimate work of the +Congress for the whole people, each House <a name="page256"></a>certainly has the right to +meet this attempt in any way which will not deny the right of +petition, the right of any one or any number of the people to be heard +in asking for a redress of grievances.</p> +<a name="side339"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote339"> + <tr> + <td><small>The new method for<br> + dealing with petitions<br> + in the House<br> + of Representatives.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Down to 1834, the custom of procedure in Congress had been to receive, +hear, and refer all petitions. That was going one step farther than +was required by the constitutional right of petition; still it was the +regular course, and such men as Mr. Adams thought it unwise to depart +from the custom in the case of the Abolition petitions. At any rate, +Mr. Hammond's motion was a new proposition. The Speaker said that he +was "not aware that such a motion had ever been sustained by the +former practice of the House," and appeared to rule Mr. Hammond's +motion out of order. A confused wrangle ensued over the attitude +assumed by the Speaker, during which Mr. Hammond made a motion to +reject the petition, and the Speaker, becoming confused by the two +motions, the one not to receive, and the other to reject, and knowing +that the House could of course reject the prayer of a petition, +yielded to the representations of Mr. Hammond, and put Mr. Hammond's +motion not to <i>receive</i> the petition to the House. The House voted not +to refuse to receive the petition, but the ruling of the Speaker in +putting the motion implied that the House possessed the power to +refuse to receive, that is, to refuse to hear, a petition. Another +confused wrangle ensued over the question whether the House had voted +merely not to refuse to receive the petition, or had voted to consider +its contents at once. After a day of heated debate and three days of +adjournment, during which excited feelings were somewhat calmed, the +House reversed all former action, and voted to lay the petition and +all the motions relating to it on the table.</p> +<a name="side340"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote340"> + <tr> + <td><small>True view<br> + of the right<br> + of petition.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page257"></a> +<p>Another petition, which, during this wrangle had been inadvertently +referred to the committee on the District, was now recalled by a +motion to reconsider the vote of reference. It was upon this motion +that Mr. Adams made his first great appeal for the right of petition. +As we have seen, his view before this was that petitions must be +received, heard, and referred. In this speech, however, he indicated +that there should be a report from the committee, and a vote upon the +report. Mr. Jones, of Virginia, met Mr. Adams' assertions quite +successfully, and showed conclusively that, if the right of petition +should be interpreted to reach any farther than the right to have the +petition received and heard, it would so modify the constitutional +right of the House to establish its own rules of procedure as to put +it in the power of a few determined obstructionists outside the House, +acting with a single member of the House, to prevent the House from +doing anything but consider petitions upon a single subject, +sacrificing thus the interests of the whole people to the obstinacy of +a small number of the people.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote341"> + <tr> + <td><small>The power of Congress<br> + over slavery in the<br> + District of Columbia.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Jones' argument was so sound and rational that it would probably +have settled the minds of almost all of the members in regard to the +complicated questions of the right of petition, and the powers of the +House over its rules of procedure, had not Mr. Granger, of New York, +and Mr. Ingersoll, of Pennsylvania, thrown another firebrand into the +House during this debate, in the form of an intimation that Congress +had the constitutional power to abolish slavery in the District of +Columbia. The Southerners now advanced to the position of denying that +power to Congress, and Mr. Wise, of Virginia, in a long and violent +speech, demanded that Congress <a name="page258"></a>should pass a resolution disclaiming +the possession of any such power. Mr. Slade immediately accepted the +challenge of Mr. Wise, and delivered an anti-slavery speech in reply, +such as had never before been heard upon the floors of Congress. He +not only vindicated the power of Congress over the question of slavery +in the District, but he discussed the whole question of slavery upon +its merits. His words were simply a declaration of relentless war upon +slavery in the halls of Congress. They created indescribable +consternation in all parts of the House, and roused the resentment and +anger of the slaveholders to a veritable fury. In the midst of the +confusion, Mr. Garland, of Virginia, gained the Speaker's recognition, +and made a good argument against some of Mr. Slade's more radical +statements. So soon as he had finished, Mr. Mann, of New York, moved +to stop the debate with the previous question. This was voted, and the +Speaker then put the motion for the reconsideration of the reference +of the petition, under which motion this debate had proceeded. This +was voted, and immediately the motion was made to lay the recalled +petition, with the reconsidered motion to refer it, on the table. This +was voted by a majority of more than two to one.</p> + +<p>Evidently the House thought that, in receiving and hearing the +petitions and then laying them on the table, it had found the solution +of the question, which neither violated the right of petition in the +people, nor encroached upon the power of the House over its rules of +procedure, nor opened the way for anti-slavery agitation in Congress.</p> +<a name="side342"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote342"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Polk's fatal error<br> + in regard to the<br> + right of petition.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It would have been wise for the slaveholders to have left this +solution of the question undisturbed, but they did not see it so. On +January 4th, 1836, Mr. Adams presented a petition from sundry citizens +of <a name="page259"></a>Massachusetts containing the usual prayer, and said that "in +conformity with the course heretofore adopted, he should move that the +petition, without reading, be laid on the table." Mr. Patton +interrupted Mr. Adams with an inquiry addressed to the Speaker as to +whether the petition had been received by the House, and the Speaker +replied that it had not. He said that, upon looking up the +authorities, he "had formed the opinion that the first question to be +decided, upon the motion of a member, was whether the petition be +received or not." The Speaker, Mr. Polk, had now come out of his +uncertainty about the right of petition including the reception of the +petition by the House, as a constitutional obligation, and now +definitely denied that the right of petition included the right to +have the petition received by the House. This was a fatal move, a +fatal mistake upon his part. The object professedly sought by all +parties, except such Abolitionists as Mr. Slade, was the prevention of +agitation upon the slavery question in the halls of Congress. Whether +all were sincere in this profession is questionable. It had been +insinuated that there were agitators upon this question from both +sections of the country, who were disingenuously claiming to be +classed with the maintainers of peace. It does really seem that the +innuendo was justified as to certain of the Southerners by the +position now assumed by Mr. Patton and Mr. Polk, and then by Mr. +Glascock, who, immediately after the ruling of the Speaker, moved that +this petition be not received. While Mr. Adams, who sincerely believed +that reference as well as reception was a necessary consequence of the +right of petition, had accommodated himself to the decision which the +House had made a fortnight before, these Southern gentlemen were now +proposing to drive the House from <a name="page260"></a>the solid middle ground, then +occupied, toward a position which the majority considered to be an +encroachment upon the constitutional right of petition, a movement +upon their part which was certain, and known by all to be certain, to +provoke an excited debate upon the question of slavery. It may be that +they thought the refusal to receive one of these anti-slavery +petitions would prevent any more from being presented, and that it was +better to have it out once for all than to be continually receiving, +and listening to the reading of, these petitions. If so, they were +wofully mistaken.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote343"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Adams' futile attempt<br> + to prevent slavery<br> + agitation in Congress.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Adams now made one more effort to preserve the Southerners against +the consequences of their own folly. He undertook to arrest the debate +by calling for the application of the forty-fifth rule of the House, +which required that no petition should be debated or decided on the +day of its presentation. But the Speaker now decided that this rule +could not apply to a petition until it had been received. The gates of +Janus were flung wide open, and the House went into an agitation upon +the subject, to which all that had gone before was only a prelude. The +struggle lasted for more than four months, during which period +petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District, signed by over +thirty thousand persons, were poured into the House. The slavery +question was at last brought before the people of the United States in +a way most highly satisfactory to the most radical Abolitionist, and +no matter what the immediate compromise upon the subject might be, it +was evident to all farseeing minds then that a death-blow had been +struck at slavery.</p> +<a name="side344"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote344"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Pinckney<br> + resolutions.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>There is not space in this work to recount the scenes enacted on the +floor of the House during these four exciting months, or even to give +a résumé of the debate. <a name="page261"></a>The conflict was ended for the moment by the +adoption, on May 25th (1836), of a series of resolutions reported by a +committee appointed for the purpose, of which Mr. Pinckney, of South +Carolina, was the chairman. These resolutions provided: "That Congress +possesses no constitutional authority to interfere in any way with the +institution of slavery in any of the States of this Confederacy; that +Congress ought not to interfere with slavery in the District of +Columbia; and whereas it is extremely important and desirable that the +agitation of this subject should be finally arrested, for the purpose +of restoring tranquillity to the public mind, ... that all petitions, +memorials, propositions, or papers, relating in any way, or to any +extent whatsoever, to the subject of slavery, or the abolition of +slavery, shall, without being printed or referred, be laid upon the +table, and that no further action whatever shall be had thereon."</p> +<a name="side345"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote345"> + <tr> + <td><small>The new rule of the House<br> + of Representatives in regard<br> + to the Abolition petitions.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The solution thus reached by the House of the question of the power of +the House to control its procedure, over against the right of a number +of individuals to excite interminable discussions and paralyze the +business of the House by flooding it with petitions upon one and the +same subject, was the laying of all such petitions on the table <i>as a +rule of the House</i>.</p> + +<p>Of course this rule must be readopted at the beginning of each +session, and a debate upon the readoption might be thus precipitated, +but, so long as a majority supported the rule, the previous question +could be voted after giving a reasonable opportunity to discuss the +question of readoption, and such discussion was then not likely to be +renewed during the session. It was possible also for petitions to be +<a name="page262"></a>presented, at the beginning of the session, before the readoption of +the rule, and these could be disposed of only by a special vote in +each case to lay upon the table. There were thus still opportunities +for the Abolitionists to cause the House to resolve itself into +something more like a bear-garden than an assembly of Witan, as was +evident from the scenes which were enacted on February 6th, 1837, when +Mr. Adams came into the House with a petition in regard to slavery +signed by some twenty slaves, and asked the Speaker if it came under +the rule for laying such petitions on the table. Everybody supposed +that the petition contained the usual prayer for the abolition of +slavery, and that the Abolitionists had incited the slaves to the act. +Mr. Adams allowed the excitement produced by this supposition to rage +for a time, and then coolly and derisively informed the House that the +prayer of the petition was not for abolition but against it. The +members now felt that Mr. Adams was playing with the peace, order, and +dignity of the House in a scandalous way, and for several days the +question of censuring him was considered, but the matter was finally +disposed of by a resolution declaring: "That slaves do not possess the +right of petition secured to the people of the United States by the +Constitution."</p> + +<p>At the beginning of the next session, that of 1837-38, Mr. Slade +seized the opportunity to present an abolition petition before the +re-enactment of the Pinckney rule, and to provoke a debate on the +subject of slavery. He was substantially foiled, however, by a vote to +adjourn, and, upon reassembly, by a suspension of the rules and a +re-enactment of the resolution to lay everything in reference to +slavery on the table. This rule covered all matters relating to +slavery in the Territories as well as in the Commonwealths and the +District.</p> +<a name="side346"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote346"> + <tr> + <td><small>The increase of petitions,<br> + and the denunciation<br> + of the Pinckney rule.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page263"></a> +<p>The more the House did to discourage the petitions the more they +increased. In two years from the adoption of the Pinckney resolutions +the number of petitioners was tenfold greater than it was before their +enactment. At the same time the legislatures of the New England +Commonwealths were passing resolutions declaring the rule of the House +of Representatives in regard to the abolition petitions to be a +violation of the people's constitutional right, and also declaring +that Congress possessed the power to abolish slavery in the District +of Columbia.</p> +<a name="side347"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote347"> + <tr> + <td><small>The final denial of the<br> + right of petition on the<br> + subject of Slavery by<br> + the House of<br> + Representatives.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>To meet these demonstrations of increasing strength and increasing +determination on the part of the Abolitionists, the House not only +repeated its rule, but made it more stringent, until, at last, +irritated beyond measure at the persistence of the petitioners, it +took the fatal step, and, on January 8th, 1840, enacted as a standing +rule of the House: "That no petition, memorial, resolution, or other +paper, praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, +or any State or Territory, or the slave-trade between the States or +Territories of the United States in which it now exists, <i>shall be +received by this House, or entertained in any way whatever</i>."</p> + +<p>At last the House had encroached upon the most essential part of the +right of petition, the right to have the petition heard. The moderate +men of the South and twenty-eight members from the North had given way +before the radical men of the South, and had fallen into the ranks +under their lead. The Southern radicals thought that they had won a +great victory, but it was not so. They had only identified the denial +of the right of petition with the interests of slavery. They <a name="page264"></a>had only +demonstrated that slavery was a matter of national concern, since its +interests required that limitations should be placed upon the well +understood rights of the people in the non-slaveholding Commonwealths. +They only made it manifest that, sooner or later, the nation must deal +with the question. Their most violent enemies could not have wished +them a more disastrous result.</p> +<a name="side348"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote348"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Abolition<br> + petitions in<br> + the Senate.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The proceedings in the Senate in regard to the Abolition petitions +must be even more concisely stated. The course pursued and the result +reached were similar to what has been described in the account of the +experiences of the House. The Senate first received and heard the +petitions, and voted immediately to deny their prayer. Then, when it +became evident that this would not prevent anti-slavery agitation on +the floor of the Senate, the body adopted the custom of hearing a +motion not to receive a petition, and voting immediately to lay the +motion not to receive, and along with it the petition itself, on the +table. This practice was modified a little later, by a ruling of the +presiding officer, to the effect that an objection to the petition by +any member would raise the question of the reception of the petition +without a formal motion. Mr. Calhoun had contended for this method of +raising the question in regard to the reception of the petitions from +the beginning of the struggle over the subject, in January of 1836. He +seemed, however, to desire to dispose of them by simply voting not to +receive them. In fact, he made a motion to this effect, at the very +outset of the contest, but without success. While thus the Senate did +not formally adopt the practice finally reached in the House of +refusing to receive the petitions, it arrived at about the same result +in practice. It is true that the presiding officer of the Senate +allowed the petitions to be <a name="page265"></a>read before putting the motion upon their +reception, which seems to have been an illogical practice indeed, and +that any member might move to call up the motion not to receive, and +with it the petition or petitions to which that motion referred; but +the reading before the motion not to receive, or before the objection +to receiving, was perfunctory, and there was no member of the Senate +who desired to call up the tabled petitions or persisted in so doing. +As a matter of fact, the public opinion which the Abolitionists +succeeded in creating in the North concerning the attitude of the +Senate toward the Abolition petitions was that the Senate had done the +same violence to the people's constitutional right of petition that +the House had done. It was held and believed throughout the North, in +1840, that the Congress of the United States, in both of its branches, +had set the interests of slavery above the liberties of the people of +the North.</p> + +<p>There were two incidents which happened during the course of the +proceedings in the Senate upon the subject to which brief reference +should be made. One was the noted passage of words between Mr. Calhoun +and Mr. Rives, of Virginia, in regard to the morality of slavery, and +the other was the petition from the legislature of Vermont for the +abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.</p> +<a name="side349"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote349"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Rives and<br> + Mr. Calhoun in<br> + regard to the<br> + morality of<br> + slavery.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Abolitionists had assumed to have the ethical principle entirely +upon their side, and this had not, down to 1836, been clearly disputed +by the slaveholders. The slaveholders had, themselves, as we have so +often seen, acknowledged slavery to be an evil, and had, therefore, +defended it chiefly from the point of view of positive law. Of course +so profound a thinker as Mr. Calhoun knew that positive law cannot +permanently withstand the <a name="page266"></a>assaults of ethical principle. He knew that +the moral arguments against slavery must be met upon moral grounds, as +well as upon legal grounds. The discussion was carried over upon +ethical premises by the remark of Mr. Rives that he, though a +slaveholder, was not in favor of slavery in the abstract, and differed +on that point with the gentleman from South Carolina. Mr. Calhoun +immediately denied that he had expressed any opinion in regard to the +question of slavery in the abstract, and said he had spoken of slavery +only "as existing where two races of men, of different color, and +striking dissimilarity in conformation, habits, and a thousand other +particulars, were placed in immediate juxtaposition." Mr. Calhoun +elaborated his argument in many directions, but the gist of it was +that where a civilized race and a barbarous race, nearly equal +numerically, must live together, the civilized race must, in the +interests of the civilization of both races, control the barbarous +race, through the relation of the slavery of the latter to the former, +and that the only alternative to this would be the barbarizing of the +whole society by the uncontrolled deeds and passions of the barbarous +race, if the two races are left to themselves, or the establishment of +a barbaric despotism over the civilized race, if the barbaric race be +aided by successful interference from without. In contrast with either +of these conditions, Mr. Calhoun contended that the slavery of the +barbarous race to the civilized race was a moral good.</p> + +<p>From a metaphysical point of view the only question between Mr. Rives +and Mr. Calhoun was whether every departure from the perfect good must +be considered an evil, or whether a nearer approximation to the +perfect good may be called a good in contrast with a lower +approximation. Mr. Rives was looking at the subject <a name="page267"></a>from an abstract, +transcendental point of view, while Mr. Calhoun was regarding it from +the historical point of view. Mr. Rives was with the Abolitionists +upon the abstract principle, but against them as to the time and means +of applying it. Mr. Calhoun was not against the Abolitionists upon the +abstract principle, but the time of its possible application appeared +to him so far distant, and the impropriety and unfairness of +interference by outsiders in the matter and the disastrous +consequences which must flow from such interference seemed to him so +plain and so certain, that he almost lost sight of the abstract height +upon which the Abolitionists stood behind the many intervening +elevations, which must be first attained and traversed in order to +reach their position.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote350"> + <tr> + <td><small>The moral ground<br> + upon which Calhoun<br> + and the Abolitionists<br> + could have met.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>There was a possible moral ground upon which Mr. Calhoun and the +Abolitionists might have met. Could the Abolitionists have conceived +that the existence of certain conditions would justify domestic +slavery as a relation which could <i>temporarily</i> produce a better state +of morals in a particularly constituted society than any other +relation, that is, could they have taken the historical view of +ethics, the evolutionary view of morals, and could Mr. Calhoun have +seen that the time had come for a modification of the existing form of +negro slavery in the South, for a step toward a greater degree of +personal liberty for the slave, an approach between him and them might +have been, at least, begun; but their implacable dogmatism, and his +stern resentment at their persistent interference in what he thought +no concern of theirs, widened the gulf between him and them from day +to day. They regarded him as a sinner and a criminal because he held +persons to service and labor who had not freely agreed to the same, +and he <a name="page268"></a>considered them to be greater sinners and criminals because +they would overturn the existing order of society in communities where +they had no personal interests to be affected, and would introduce +into these communities the reign of plunder, rapine, and murder.</p> +<a name="side351"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote351"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Calhoun's<br> + resolutions in<br> + regard to the<br> + political relations<br> + of slavery.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>When Mr. Calhoun saw that he could not bring the Senate to refuse +formally to receive the Abolition petitions, he undertook to bring the +Senate over to his views of the "States' sovereignty" character of the +Union, of the obligation of the general Government to protect slavery +in the slaveholding Commonwealths, of the ethical obligation of the +people of the non-slaveholding Commonwealths not to attack the +institution of slavery, and of the practical impotence of Congress to +deal with slavery in the District of Columbia and in the Territories. +He did not, however, succeed. The Senate did not repudiate his +"States' sovereignty" view of the Union, but, while it was willing to +say that neither the Northern Commonwealths nor the Northern people +had any legal right to attack slavery under moral or religious +pretexts, it would not say that they were under moral or religious +obligations to abstain from the attack. Neither would the Senate say +that the general Government must so exercise its powers as to give +increased security to slavery, nor that the general Government had no +power over the subject of slavery in the District and the Territories. +It modified these demands of Mr. Calhoun so as to make them read, that +the general Government should not so exercise its powers as to +interfere with the security of the domestic institutions of the +Commonwealths, and that the general Government ought not in good faith +to undertake to abolish slavery in the District or in the Territories, +except under certain conditions.</p> +<a name="side352"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote352"> + <tr> + <td><small>The anti-slavery<br> + petition from<br> + the Vermont<br> + legislature.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page269"></a> +<p>The immediate occasion of the presentation of these resolutions of +December 27th, 1837, by Mr. Calhoun, was probably the other incident +to which reference has been made, the introduction, by Senator Swift, +of Vermont, of a petition from the legislature of Vermont praying for +the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. This shaft had +struck Mr. Calhoun in his most vulnerable part. Here was, according to +his own doctrine, a "sovereign State" instructing its governmental +agent for general affairs. Could that agent refuse to receive the +instructions of one of his principals? There certainly was no +precedent for any such procedure as that in any system of +jurisprudence known to the world. Mr. Calhoun recognized fully the +embarrassment of his position. He begged that the communication from +the Vermont legislature might lay upon the table until he could +prepare his mind for action upon the subject, and pledged himself to +call it up very shortly, if no one else should do so. Mr. Swift helped +the Senate, and Mr. Calhoun especially, out of the dilemma by +withdrawing the petition for the time being. This incident occurred on +December 19th.</p> + +<p>Mr. Swift assumed that Mr. Calhoun's resolutions of the 27th contained +the results of his preparation of mind to meet the Vermont memorial, +and after the consideration of them by the Senate, Mr. Swift +reintroduced the memorial on January 16th (1838). The Southerners had +been thrown into such confusion by the <i>coup de surprise</i> sprung upon +them by the Vermonters that they had not been able to agree upon any +plan for meeting the exigency. Some of them denounced the action of +the Vermont legislature as incendiary, outrageous, and degrading. Mr. +King gave his "States' sovereignty" creed entirely away in saying: "We +<a name="page270"></a>defend the legitimate rights of the States, but we do not defend a +sovereign State when she asserts calumny and falsehood."</p> + +<p>Mr. Calhoun was measured in his language, but evidently greatly +disturbed in mind. He said that as a "States' rights" man, in the +strongest sense, he believed that the "State" of Vermont had a right +to come there and be heard; that, on the best reflection he could give +to the matter, he could not vote against receiving the petition; but +that, on the other hand, he considered the language of the memorial so +objectionable that he could not vote to receive it.</p> + +<p>It does seem as if this incident should have taught Mr. Calhoun the +fallacy of his logic in insisting upon the power of the Senate to +refuse to receive a petition. Here was a case in which his doctrine of +parliamentary procedure had absolutely broken down, according to his +own acknowledgment. Mr. Strange, of North Carolina, committed the +folly of objecting to the reception of the petition, and moving that +the question of reception, and with it the petition, be laid on the +table. The motion was defeated by a vote of twenty-six to twelve. The +memorial was received and the debate upon it was in order. The +Southerners were helpless, and had not Mr. Swift himself come to their +rescue, no man can say what would have happened. Mr. Swift moved that +the papers from the Vermont legislature be laid upon the table, +without being printed. They had accomplished their immediate purpose, +and it was wise as well as patriotic to let them rest in dignity and +honor.</p> +<a name="side353"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote353"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Abolition<br> + documents and the<br> + United States mails.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Abolitionists were more successful in their attempt to use the +United States mails for the distribution of their literature +throughout the South. During the course of the year 1835, it became +known that <a name="page271"></a>their opinions and doctrines were being disseminated by +this means. The Southerners considered these opinions to be incendiary +and dangerous to the peace and safety of their communities and their +firesides. They thought that they had the legal right to prevent the +delivery of such mail matter in their respective communities. They did +not wait, however, to deal with the subject through legal forms. On +the night of July 29th, 1835, a mob of respectables broke into the +post-office at Charleston, S. C., in search of Abolition documents. +They found a sack full of them, took it away with them, and publicly +burned its contents. On August 4th following, a meeting of the +citizens took place, at which a committee of public safety was +elected, which should, in understanding with the postmaster, determine +what mail matter should not be delivered by him to the addressees. The +postmaster apparently acquiesced in this arrangement, but he wrote, +upon his own responsibility, a letter to the postmaster of New York +City, whence the Abolition pamphlets had come, requesting him not to +forward any more such documents. The postmaster at New York endeavored +to induce the Abolitionists not to put any more of their literature +into the mails until he could receive instructions from the +Postmaster-General at Washington in regard to the question; and when +the Abolitionists repelled his request, he refused to forward their +documents, pending his conference with the Postmaster-General.</p> +<a name="side354"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote354"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Postmaster-General's<br> + ruling in regard to the<br> + Abolition documents<br> + in the mails.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Postmaster-General, Mr. Amos Kendall, one of the shrewdest of +politicians, though no great constitutional lawyer, answered the +appeal from the postmaster at New York immediately. He instructed his +subordinate that the executive power of the Government had no legal +authority to exclude mail matter, as defined by <a name="page272"></a>Congress, from the +mails on account of the character of its contents, real or supposed. +If Mr. Kendall had stopped with this he would have been entirely +correct; but he went on to say that he would not direct the postmaster +at New York to forward the Abolition documents or the postmaster at +Charleston to deliver them, commended their assumption of the +responsibility of withholding them from the addressees, and declared +that the United States officials owed an obligation to the laws of the +United States, but a higher one to the communities in which they +lived. Mr. Kendall probably meant this part of his communication as +the advice of one private citizen to another. Looked at in the most +charitable light possible, however, it was unjustifiable and +pernicious. It was nothing less than an encouragement to his +subordinates to suspend the execution of the laws which they were +appointed to execute and sworn to execute, when in their several +opinions the welfare of the communities in which they might live +should require it. This was nullification, not by a "State" +convention, but by an individual United States officer. How the +President, who had always so sternly denounced any attempt to prevent +the execution of the laws, could approve this is difficult to +understand. His indignation at the Abolitionists in persisting in what +he considered an abuse of the freedom of the mails probably blinded +him to the real significance of the matter.</p> +<a name="side355"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote355"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson on the use<br> + of the mails by<br> + the Abolitionists.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In his message of the following December, the President denounced the +methods of the Abolitionists in sending their incendiary literature +into the South as calculated and intended to excite a servile war with +all its horrors, and recommended Congress to pass a law prohibiting, +"under severe penalties, the circulation in the Southern States, +<a name="page273"></a>through the mail, of incendiary publications intended to instigate the +slaves to insurrection."</p> + +<p>Mr. Calhoun himself moved the reference of this part of the +President's message to a select committee in the Senate. Mr. Calhoun +was appointed the chairman of the committee, and on February 4th, +1836, he brought in a report and a bill.</p> +<a name="side356"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote356"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Calhoun's<br> + report and bill<br> + on the subject.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In the report Mr. Calhoun took the ground that the freedom of the +mails was a necessary part of the freedom of the press, and argued +that, as Congress was prohibited by the first amendment to the +Constitution from passing any law abridging the freedom of the press, +so Congress possessed no power to pass any law excluding mail matter +from the mails on account of the character of its contents or +authorizing such matter to be withheld from the addressees. Mr. +Calhoun's conclusion was that only the "States" could make such laws +as would effect these things. He proposed in his bill, therefore, that +no deputy postmaster in any "State," Territory, or district of the +Union should knowingly receive and put into the mail any printed or +written paper or pictorial representation touching the subject of +slavery, addressed to a person or a post-office within any "State," +Territory, or district in which the circulation of such papers and +representations was forbidden by the local laws; that the officers and +agents of the Post-Office Department should co-operate with the local +officials in preventing the circulation of such papers and +representations where their circulation was prohibited by the local +laws; that the matter so detained from transmission by a post-office +official should be burned, after one month's notice, if the person +depositing the same should not claim it within that period; and that +the post-office officials who should violate these duties should not +be <a name="page274"></a>protected by the laws of the United States against the jurisdiction +of the local law and government.</p> +<a name="side357"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote357"> + <tr> + <td><small>Clay's criticism<br> + of Calhoun's<br> + proposition.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Clay immediately pointed out the fatal weaknesses of this +proposition. He argued that it attributed to Congress either the power +to adopt the laws of the "States" upon subjects in regard to which +Congress itself had not the power to legislate, or the power to pass +laws in execution of laws which it had no power to make. The argument +was unanswerable, and the conclusion was unavoidable that if Congress +could not itself pass a law excluding the Abolition papers and +documents from the mail, or forbidding their delivery to the +addressees, it could not enact Mr. Calhoun's proposition. After four +months of deliberation the Senate rejected the proposed bill by a vote +of twenty-five to nineteen. Mr. Calhoun thus lost the aid of the +general Government in his contest with the Abolitionists over the use +of the mails chiefly through his exaggerated "States' rights" +doctrine.</p> +<a name="side358"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote358"> + <tr> + <td><small>The act of Congress<br> + protecting the Abolition<br> + documents in the mails.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Encouraged by this victory, the friends of free mails succeeded in +having a provision incorporated into the Act of July 2nd, 1836, for +changing the organization of the Post-Office Department, which ordains +that any postmaster intentionally detaining any mail matter from the +addressees shall be fined and imprisoned, and incapacitated to hold +thereafter the office of a postmaster in the United States.</p> +<a name="side359"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote359"> + <tr> + <td><small>General results of the struggle<br> + over the right of petition<br> + and the freedom of the mails.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It would not be extravagant to say that the whole course of the +internal history of the United States from 1836 to 1861 was more +largely determined by the struggle in Congress over the Abolition +petitions and the use of the mails for the distribution of the +Abolition literature than by anything else.</p> +<a name="page275"></a> +<p>In the first place, it did more than anything else to make a political +party out of the Abolitionists, through the conviction which it +produced throughout the North that the demands of the slavery system +in the South would ultimately destroy civil and political liberty in +the North, and it increased the strength of the Abolitionists an +hundredfold in less than four years. The development and ultimate +triumph of this party in the North became inevitable from the moment +that it was clearly recognized that the preservation of slavery at the +South required and demanded the denial of the freedom of speech and of +the press, and of the right of petition, to the people of the North.</p> + +<p>In the second place, it taught the South that there was a growing +party in the North which was determined to attack slavery at every +possible legal point, and prosecute its warfare at every hazard, and +that the only safety for the South, with its slavery system, in the +Union, was to hold at least equal power in the Congress with the +representation from the North. In self-defence the South must secure, +therefore, the formation of new slaveholding Commonwealths. At the +moment the representation in the Senate was evenly balanced, but in +the House it stood against the South, one hundred and forty-one to +ninety-nine. One more non-slaveholding Commonwealth, without an offset +on the other side, would destroy the balance in the Senate and enable +the North to undertake legislation hostile to slavery. The extension +of slavery to new Commonwealths was thus manifestly a necessity to its +permanent security, and even continuance, in the Commonwealths where +it already existed. The policy of the slaveholders must be to allow no +new non-slaveholding Commonwealth to be formed without another +slaveholding Commonwealth to match it, and to secure the <a name="page276"></a>extension of +the territory of the United States toward the South.</p> + +<p>In the third place, it aroused the apprehension of slave insurrection, +by Abolition incitement, throughout the South, and caused thereby two +marked movements in the South, the one legal and the other social. The +first was the legislation sharpening and increasing the police power +of the public authorities over the slaves, for the purpose of +preventing the access of the Abolition doctrines to their minds, and +of preventing communication and intercourse between strangers and +slaves, and between the slaves themselves. The control of the slave by +the master was thus more and more interfered with by the public +authorities, for the purpose indeed of aiding the master, which, +however, did not alter the fact that from being primarily for the most +part a household affair, slavery was becoming more and more an affair +of the community. This meant no improvement to the condition of the +slave; quite the contrary. The intervention of the whites in the South +who owned no slaves in the control of the slaves marks an increase of +rigor in the treatment of the slaves. In fact much of the cruelty +inflicted upon the slaves during the twenty years between 1840 and +1860 was executed by non-slaveholders, by virtue of the increased +control assumed by the public authorities over the relation between +master and slave, through the local legislation of that period. The +other movement was toward the development of a military caste in the +society. The slaveholders, and especially the sons of the +slaveholders, now began to understand that they must unite in military +organization and make themselves the exclusive military class. The +spirit of chivalry and the practices of knighthood were largely +developed during this period, with both their good and their bad +consequences. On the one side they produced <a name="page277"></a>a high-toned society of +proud, noble women, and courtly, haughty men, among the slaveholders. +On the other, they degraded all other classes, both white and black. +In fact they degraded the poor whites more than they did the blacks. +The blacks felt, and were proud of, the increased importance of their +masters. And, naturally, this spirit and life among the slaveholding +class made the generation which grew up under them eager for adventure +and war, intensely tenacious of rights, sensitive to every only +apparent discourtesy, and resentful of every semblance of interference +from without. The War with Mexico, the filibustering expeditions, and +the Civil War itself, were all national consequences of the social +development in the South after 1836.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="chap12"></a><a name="page278"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER XII.</h3> + +<center>THE BANK, THE SUB-TREASURY, AND PARTY DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN 1832 AND +1842</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side360">Jackson and the Bank after the Election of +1832</a>—<a href="#side361">The Power of the Secretary of the Treasury over the Government +Deposits</a>—<a href="#side362">Removal of McLane and +Duane</a>—<a href="#side363">Taney's Report to Congress of December 3rd, +1835</a>—<a href="#side364">Abuses of Power by Jackson and +Taney</a>—<a href="#side365">The Senate's Censure of the President and Secretary of the +Treasury</a>—<a href="#side366">National Republicans Take the Name of +Whigs</a>—<a href="#side367">The Cardinal Doctrine of the +Whigs</a>—<a href="#side368">The Change of the Deposits, and the Specie Order of +1836</a>—<a href="#side369">Van Buren's Election and the Panic of +"'37"</a>—<a href="#side370">The Sub-Treasury +Idea</a>—<a href="#side371">The Establishment of the Sub-Treasury +System</a>—<a href="#side372">The Election of +1840</a>—<a href="#side373">Whig Legislative Projects in Regard to the Bank and the +Tariff</a>—<a href="#side374">The Party Treason of Tyler and the Whig War upon the President's Veto +Power</a>—<a href="#side375">The Whigs Unable to Encounter the Questions of Territorial Extension and Slavery +Extension.</a></blockquote> +<br> + +<p>When the violent agitation of the slavery question, in the middle of +the fourth decade, came so suddenly upon the nation, it found the +great political parties divided upon issues which partook more of the +character of economic policies than that of rights, or of governmental +forms and powers. It is true that the protective tariff, the Bank, and +internal improvements had been denounced by some persons as +unconstitutional, but neither party held this view of these subjects +at the beginning of the fourth decade of the century. They were +regarded by the two great parties from the point <a name="page279"></a>of view of economic +policy, and were supported or opposed by them on the ground of +conduciveness or lack of conduciveness to the public welfare. More +exactly, the Bank was the chief political issue between 1832 and 1840. +It was in the conflict between Congress and the President in regard to +the Bank that the national Republicans took the title of Whigs, +anti-prerogative men.</p> +<a name="side360"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote360"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson and the<br> + Bank after the<br> + election of 1832.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>After the election of 1832 upon the Bank issue, President Jackson, +naturally for him, regarded himself as the only representative of the +present will of the people in the Government. The Congress, at the +time of the election, was, as we know, favorable to the Bank. The +newly elected members of the House of Representatives would not +assemble for a year probably, and the Senate would probably sustain +the Bank after that. The President, therefore, resolved to do by edict +what Congress would not do by statute—destroy the Bank.</p> +<a name="side361"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote361"> + <tr> + <td><small>The power of the<br> + Secretary of the<br> + Treasury over the<br> + Government deposits.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The sixteenth section of the Bank Act provided that the funds of the +United States should be deposited in the Bank or its branches, unless +the Secretary of the Treasury should at any time otherwise order and +direct. The Secretary of the Treasury was thus impliedly authorized by +Congress to cease depositing these funds in the Bank or its branches +at his own discretion, and was made directly responsible to Congress +in the exercise of this authority, by the provision that he must +report, so soon as possible, to Congress his reasons for making use of +the power. The President thus had no direct authority in the matter. +He could exercise only an indirect control through his power over the +tenure of the Secretary. At this period in the history of the tenure +of office in the United States, the power of removal was regarded as a +prerogative of the President alone.</p> +<a name="side362"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote362"> + <tr> + <td><small>Removal of<br> + McLane and<br> + Duane.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page280"></a> +<p>President Jackson was within the letter of his prerogative when, in +the spring of 1833, he removed Mr. McLane, and later, Mr. Duane, from +the secretaryship of the Treasury. That he did this because of their +refusal to be controlled by him in regard to the deposit of the funds +of the United States in the Bank and its branches was, legally, no +concern of anybody else.</p> +<a name="side363"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote363"> + <tr> + <td><small>Taney's report to Congress<br> + of December 3rd, 1835.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The new Secretary, Mr. Taney, appointed to succeed Mr. Duane, was also +acting within the letter of his authority when he ceased to make +deposit of the Government funds in the Bank and its branches, and +reported his action to Congress at the commencement of the session +following the recess of Congress during which he made this change.</p> +<a name="side364"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote364"> + <tr> + <td><small>Abuses of power by<br> + Jackson and Taney.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On the other hand, it was very questionable whether the President was +not abusing his power of dismissal from office, in spirit, by +requiring the obedience of the Secretary of the Treasury to himself in +regard to a subject concerning which Congress had vested discretionary +power in the Secretary, and in the use of which power Congress had +made the Secretary directly and exclusively responsible to itself. And +it was likewise very questionable whether the Secretary was not +abusing his authority, in spirit, in ceasing, during a recess of +Congress, to deposit the funds of the United States in the Bank and +its branches, when, less than a year before this, Congress had made a +full investigation of the condition of the Bank and had disapproved, +by large majorities in both Houses, of the President's recommendation +that the deposits be made elsewhere than in the Bank and its branches.</p> + +<p>Secretary Taney, afterward Chief Justice, to whose legal opinions, +therefore, great respect must be paid, <a name="page281"></a>contended that Congress itself +could not have caused the removal of the deposits without violating +the contract with the Bank, as expressed in the Bank's charter, and +that the Secretary of the Treasury alone was exempted from this +obligation by the provisions of the contract. The Secretary alone, he +said, could, therefore, act for the welfare of the people in the +matter, and by the oath which he had sworn upon the Constitution he +must so act. He declared it to be his conviction that the public +welfare would suffer by his continuing to deposit the funds of the +Government in the Bank and its branches, and that he felt, therefore, +in duty bound to make the order discontinuing the same.</p> +<a name="side365"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote365"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Senate's censure<br> + of the President and<br> + Secretary of the Treasury.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Senate, however, took a different view of the subject. It +considered the act of the Secretary to have been done under the order +of the President, and in condemnatory resolutions held the President +responsible therefor. These resolutions of censure connected the +Secretary with the President, however, by declaring the reasons +offered by the Secretary for the change in regard to the deposits to +be "unsatisfactory and insufficient." The President made a vigorous +protest against the Senate's resolution charging him with usurpation, +and flung the accusation back at the body. He certainly showed that +the Senate had no constitutional power to make any such charge against +the President; and Senator Benton immediately gave notice that he +should move the expunging of the resolutions from the journal at every +session of Congress until it should be accomplished.</p> +<a name="side366"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote366"> + <tr> + <td><small>National Republicans<br> + take the name of Whigs.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was in the midst of this conflict, and in consequence of it, a +conflict in principle between the legislative and executive +departments of the Government, in regard to the extent of their +respective powers, that Mr. James Watson <a name="page282"></a>Webb, the editor of the <i>New +York Courier and Enquirer,</i> began, about February, 1834, to +denominate, in his newspaper articles, the opposition party to the +President, led by Mr. Clay, Whigs. This title signified opposition to +high executive prerogative, and approval of strong Congressional +control over the President. The name was gradually substituted for +that of National Republicans, as the different members and factions of +the party came together upon the principle involved in the name.</p> +<a name="side367"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote367"> + <tr> + <td><small>The cardinal<br> + doctrine of<br> + the Whigs.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It seemed, for the moment, as if the parties had returned to the +condition of bands of retainers under the lead of Clay and Jackson +respectively, but this was more apparent than real. There was a real +and comprehensive question at issue, one of the most fundamental +questions of political science, the question of parliamentary +government or presidential government in the United States. The +triumph of President Jackson in this conflict—for the Bank was not +rechartered, the deposits were not restored, and the President was not +impeached, but the Senate's resolutions of censure were +expunged—settled that question, and preserved the American system of +government from further following the tendency which, from the +accession of Jefferson to that of Jackson, had been slowly asserting +itself, the tendency toward Congressional control over the +Administration.</p> + +<p>The original character of the Whig party explains many important +things in its composition and subsequent history. In the first place, +it explains why the party was composed, as to its leading element, of +high-toned, courteous gentlemen—the larger part of the aristocracy of +the land—since it is the instinct of the aristocracy to control the +executive through the legislature. It explains further why the Whig +party was unable to <a name="page283"></a>cope with the problem of slavery, since its +fundamental principle was not a doctrine of rights, but of +governmental form. It explains, lastly, why, in the development of the +country's history, the defeat of the Whig party was necessary to the +very existence of the country, when the great struggle should come, +since its principle of Congressional control of the Administration +would, if realized, have greatly weakened that executive independence, +power, and unity, without which victory could hardly have been won.</p> +<a name="side368"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote368"> + <tr> + <td><small>The change of the<br> + deposits, and the<br> + specie order of 1836.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The failure of the Whigs in the campaign of 1836, and their momentary +triumph in that of 1840, were experienced under the true issue of the +Whig principle. The modification of the tariff by the Act of 1833, and +the change of the place of deposit of the funds of the Government, +after October 1st, 1833, from the United States Bank and its branches +to certain Commonwealth banks, designated by the Secretary of the +Treasury, had brought about much business embarrassment, since the one +depressed the manufacturing interests, and the other forced the United +States Bank and its branches to call in the loans made upon the +strength of the Government's deposits. This embarrassment was greatly +increased by the issue of the executive order of July 11th, 1836, +directing that only specie should be taken at the land offices for +public lands. At the moment there was a general speculation in Western +lands, and only those banks which held Government deposits could +furnish their customers with specie; the others, when called upon for +gold and silver in exchange for their notes, were compelled to +suspend.</p> + +<p>The Congress, disapproving the favoritism shown by the Secretary of +the Treasury, and, probably foreseeing that a financial crisis of some +sort was impending, had, <a name="page284"></a>on June 23rd preceding, passed an Act +ordering a more general distribution of the deposits than the +Secretary of the Treasury had made. After the specie order, and a +little experience with its effect, the demand was raised from every +quarter for an immediate execution of the Act of Congress of June +23rd. The Secretary hastened to carry out the provision, with the +result of driving those banks into insolvency which had been able to +stand, the existing deposit banks, since they had loaned the money of +the Government deposited in them, and were compelled to call in these +loans in the proportion that they were called upon to give up these +deposits, and were left also without the gold and silver of the +Government to redeem their own notes. The sudden calling in of the +loans also forced a great number of the borrowers into insolvency.</p> +<a name="side369"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote369"> + <tr> + <td><small>Van Buren's<br> + election and the<br> + panic of "'37."</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Had the full force of the financial distress come in 1836, instead of +a year later, it might have turned the election against Jackson's +heir, Mr. Van Buren; but as things were, the Van Buren Administration +was established, and had had an opportunity to get a little foothold, +when the financial panic spread over the land. Mr. Van Buren and his +advisers decided very properly not to involve the Government, but to +let the people work themselves through the disaster by the natural +course of business. This, as is usual in such cases, turned hosts of +supporters into opponents.</p> +<a name="side370"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote370"> + <tr> + <td><small>The<br> + Sub-Treasury<br> + idea.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Administration, however, pursued the even tenor of its way, and +endeavored to draw the lesson of the experiences with banks as places +of deposit for the funds of the Government. In his message of +September 4th, 1837, President Van Buren recommended that the +Government should cut loose entirely from banks, and should keep its +funds in the <a name="page285"></a>United States Treasury, and in branches of the Treasury, +under the control of the officers of the Treasury. The idea was not +original with Mr. Van Buren. Mr. Gordon, of Virginia, had suggested it +in the House of Representatives, during the session of 1834-35, and +had offered a plan for its realization, in the form of an amendment to +the bill, then before the House, for regulating the deposits. Mr. +Gordon's amendment was rejected on February 11th, 1835. The +significant thing about it was that the plan was then supported by +Whigs almost exclusively, only one Democrat voting in favor of it. It +is true that only about one-half of the Whigs in the House supported +it, and that it could hardly, therefore, be called a Whig party +measure in 1835. On the other hand, it was certainly then opposed by +the Democratic party.</p> +<a name="side371"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote371"> + <tr> + <td><small>The establishment<br> + of the Sub-Treasury<br> + system.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Under these circumstances, it was a courageous thing in Mr. Van Buren +to take up the idea anew and recommend it to Congress. Not until the +session of 1839-40, however, was Congress brought to approve the plan +and pass the law of July 4th, 1840, establishing the Sub-Treasury +system for the keeping of the funds of the Government. During the +discussion of the bill in Congress, its principle developed into a +strict party question, the Democrats supporting it and the Whigs +opposing it. The Whigs represented the scheme as an attempt to break +down all the banks in the country, to keep the people's money locked +up in the vaults of the Treasury, instead of maintaining it in +circulation for their benefit, and to make the President the arbiter +of the business of the country, and thus develop still further his +autocratic power. The Whig protest was a capital piece of demagogism, +and it proved immediately and immensely attractive to the people. +Before the summer of 1840 wore <a name="page286"></a>away it was entirely clear that the +people had made up their minds to try a Whig administration, and had +arrived at this resolution under the issue of the financial questions.</p> +<a name="side372"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote372"> + <tr> + <td><small>The election<br> + of 1840.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Whig National Convention had met in December, 1839, and had +adopted no platform of principles. It had conciliated the factional +differences in the Whig ranks by dropping Clay and nominating General +Harrison, the military hero of the party, and the Whigs were now, +therefore, free to strike any note in the campaign which would please +the popular ear. The victory was a clean sweep, and the Whigs +immediately set about the financial legislation, which was, as they +thought, to redeem the country.</p> +<a name="side373"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote373"> + <tr> + <td><small>Whig legislative<br> + projects in regard<br> + to the Bank<br> + and the tariff.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>They had attributed the distress in the country chiefly to the failure +to re-charter the Bank and to the reduction of the tariff. +Consequently, they immediately passed a bill for the incorporation of +a bank, when, to their dismay and confusion, Mr. Tyler, elected +Vice-President, and, upon the sudden death of Mr. Harrison, successor +to the presidential office, vetoed the bill. The leaders of the party +in Congress consulted with the President in regard to a bank bill +which would be acceptable to him, and drafted one which followed his +suggestions in all essential principles, and contained only a few +divergent details, put in probably for the purpose of preserving a +show of legislative independence, but the President considered these +differences essential and vetoed the second bill. The bills for +suspending the reductions of the duties met with the same fate, two of +them being successively vetoed.</p> + +<p>After the Bank vetoes all the members of the Cabinet, except the +Secretary of State, Mr. Webster, resigned, and after the tariff vetoes +Mr. Webster retired, so soon <a name="page287"></a>as the diplomatic negotiations with Great +Britain, then in progress, permitted.</p> +<a name="side374"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote374"> + <tr> + <td><small>The party treason of Tyler<br> + and the Whig war upon the<br> + President's veto power.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Whigs regarded Mr. Tyler as a traitor to the party and began a war +upon the veto power of the President. They had come back again to +their original principle of government—the supremacy of the +legislature over the executive.</p> + +<p>From this account, it is clearly manifest that the Whig party did not +stand upon any fundamental principle which would enable it to meet +successfully those questions which, after the final settlement given +to the bank and tariff issues by the vetoes of President Tyler, came +to the front—the questions of territorial extension and of slavery +extension.</p> +<a name="side375"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote375"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Whigs unable to encounter<br> + the questions of territorial<br> + extension and slavery extension.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It might be thought, at first view, that the Democratic party of that +day was no better prepared than the Whig party to encounter these +questions, since it, too, had reached its distinctive position through +its attitude in economic issues. But the strength of the Democratic +party lay in the South, and the South had a strong interest in +territorial extension for the purpose of slavery extension, which, so +long as the Southern wing of the Democratic party ruled the party, +would furnish a clear and definite aim to the policy of the party, and +would, thereby, give it great advantage over the Whigs, whose Northern +and Southern contingents were much more evenly balanced, and, +therefore, as to these questions, less able, or, rather, entirely +unable, to gain a position upon which they might make a common stand. +In a word, as to the Whig party, there was, after 1842, nothing to +take the place of their overthrown economic policies, while, as to the +Democratic party, there was territorial extension for the sake of +slavery extension. When <a name="page288"></a>these latter questions came to the front, +therefore, they were destined, sooner or later, to disrupt the Whig +party and destroy it altogether. The whole South would be for +territorial extension, chiefly for the sake of slavery extension, and +a large party at the North would be for territorial extension <i>per +se</i>. The opposition to territorial extension must, therefore, become +sectional, and as that opposition came chiefly from the Whig party it +was the Whig party which would be degraded from its national character +by this question, and then destroyed by it and its attendant question +of slavery extension.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="chap13"></a><a name="page289"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER XIII.</h3> + +<center>TEXAS</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side376">Arkansas and +Michigan</a>—<a href="#side376">Florida and +Iowa</a>—<a href="#side377">Texas</a>—<a href="#side378">The Austin +Grant</a>—<a href="#side379">Local Government in +Texas</a>—<a href="#side380">The Attempts by the United States to +Purchase Texas</a>—<a href="#side382">The Texan +Revolution</a>—<a href="#side383">General Sam Houston</a>—<a href="#side383">San Jacinto +and Independence</a>—<a href="#side385">The Recognition of the Independence of +Texas</a>—<a href="#side386">Calhoun's frank Declaration in Regard to the Annexation of +Texas</a>—<a href="#side387">The Mission of Mr. Morfit to Texas, His Report and +Advice</a>—<a href="#side388">Jackson's Recommendation to Delay the Recognition of Texan +Independence</a>—<a href="#side390">Jackson's Request of Congress for Authority to Issue an +Ultimatum to Mexico in the Claims Question</a>—<a href="#side391">Texan Independence +Recognized by the United States</a>—<a href="#side392">The Question of +Annexation</a>—<a href="#side394">Texan Proposition for +Annexation</a>—<a href="#side395">The Mexican Claims Commission and its +Work</a>—<a href="#side396">Tyler as an Advocate of +Annexation</a>—<a href="#side397">Mr. Webster in the Way of +Annexation</a>—<a href="#side397">The Adams Address on +Annexation</a>—<a href="#side398">The Retirement of +Webster</a>—<a href="#side399">The Promotion of Upshur, and His Negotiations with the +Texans</a>—<a href="#side400">The Threat of the Mexican Government to Consider the +Annexation of Texas a Cause of War</a>—<a href="#side400">The Administration Proposes +Annexation to the Texan Agent</a>—<a href="#side401">The Difficulty in the Way of Acceptance +of the Proposition</a>—<a href="#side402">The Demand of the Texans for Protection in the +Interim</a>—<a href="#side403">Mr. Calhoun in the State +Department</a>—<a href="#side403">The Treaty of Annexation +Signed</a>—<a href="#side404">The Treaty in the Senate and its +Rejection</a>—<a href="#side404">Mr. Archer's +Opposition to the Treaty</a>—<a href="#side405">The New Plan for Annexation.</a></blockquote> +<br> + +<p>After the admission of Missouri there remained as territory, upon +which, according to existing law, it was <a name="page290"></a>probable that slaveholding +Commonwealths would be established, only Arkansas and Florida.</p> +<a name="side376"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote376"> + <tr> + <td><small>Arkansas<br> + and Michigan.<br> + <br> + <br> + Florida<br> + and Iowa.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In 1836, Arkansas was admitted as a slaveholding Commonwealth, and +Michigan as a non-slaveholding Commonwealth, thus keeping the exact +balance in the Senate. By a compact of the year 1832, the Seminoles in +Florida had agreed to emigrate within three years to the west bank of +the Mississippi. At the end of this period, one of their chiefs, +Osceola, repudiated the agreement, and with a large following began +hostilities. By a long and expensive war the Indians were at last +expelled; and the white inhabitants immediately chose delegates to a +convention, who met, in December of 1838, formed a Commonwealth +constitution, one of the provisions of which legalized slavery, and +demanded of Congress admission into the Union. Congress kept Florida +waiting, however, for six years, until Iowa was ready, and then +admitted the two at the same time and by the same Act.</p> +<a name="side377"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote377"> + <tr> + <td><small>Texas.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Meanwhile the events in the Southwest had been so shaping themselves +as to open up prospects for the long desired territorial extension in +that quarter. The long dispute between Spain and France, and then +after 1803, between Spain and the United States, in regard to the +territory between the Rio Grande del Norte and the Sabine Rivers, +called Texas, was first definitely settled in 1819, or rather in the +Treaty of that year, between the United States and Spain, which Treaty +was not executed, as we have seen, until a little later. In it this +territory was recognized by the United States as belonging to Spain. +It seems that a few persons from the United States had settled upon +this territory, while it was disputed ground, and raised some +complaint at having been left unprotected by the Government in the +Treaty with Spain.</p> +<a name="side378"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote378"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Austin grant.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page291"></a> +<p>The successful rebellion of Mexico against Spain made this territory a +part of the new Mexican state, and before Mexico had had time to +consolidate its powers or estimate the value of its northern +possessions, a shrewd Yankee from Connecticut, who had removed to +Missouri, and had become well skilled in the arts and practices of +border life, Moses Austin, went to Mexico, and representing himself, +it is said, as the leader of a company of Roman Catholics, who had +suffered persecution in the United States, for their religion's sake, +solicited a grant of land from the Catholic government of Mexico, and +permission to make a settlement upon it. The Mexicans gave ready ear +to his complaints and petition, and made him a large grant of land in +the central part of Texas on the Colorado River. Mr. Austin died +before effecting the settlement, and left the work to his son, S. F. +Austin, who, in 1822, colonized the grant, and received a ratification +of the same from the Mexican Government, the following year.</p> +<a name="side379"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote379"> + <tr> + <td><small>Local<br> + government<br> + in Texas.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>At that moment, Texas and Coahuila formed a single Mexican province, +and, after the establishment of the federal system of government in +Mexico, the province became, in 1827, a Commonwealth. In the Coahuila +part the population was Mexican, and as it was much larger than the +Anglo-American population in the Texas part, the government of the +Commonwealth was practically in the hands of Mexican officials. The +rule of these officials was arbitrary and uncertain, and the race +prejudice between Spaniard and Anglo-Saxon was immediately excited by +it. It was pretty evident that the expulsion of the Americans from +Texas was intended. In 1830, came at last the decree from the Mexican +President, Bustamente, prohibiting further immigration into Texas from +the United States.</p> +<a name="page292"></a> +<p>The Texan colonists now numbered some twenty thousand, mostly bold and +hardy men, and it was not to be expected that they would either give +up their lands, or assist in preventing further immigration, or submit +much longer to the foreign rule, as they felt it to be, of Mexico or +Coahuila.</p> +<a name="side380"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote380"> + <tr> + <td><small>The attempts by<br> + the United States<br> + to purchase Texas.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Both in 1827 and in 1829, the United States Government attempted to +purchase Texas, and in the latter year the proposition was actually +made to the Mexican Government to sell to the United States the +territory lying to the northwest of the watershed of the River Nueces. +It was, however, promptly rejected by that Government.</p> + +<p>Naturally these attempts encouraged the colonists in Texas to feel +that the United States sympathized with them in their desire for +emancipation from Mexican rule, and to hope that this sympathy might, +at some future time, lead to positive assistance.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote381"> + <tr> + <td><small>Overthrow of the<br> + federal system<br> + in Mexico.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Texans were, however, for the moment, left to their own devices. +They first tried to have Texas separated from Coahuila and made a +separate Commonwealth of the Mexican Union, but the Mexican central +government refused to assent to this. This was in 1833. Two years +later Santa Anna, the Mexican President, forcibly displaced the +federal system of government established in Mexico by the constitution +of 1824, and instituted the centralized system, virtually by a +presidential edict.</p> + +<p>Some of the Commonwealths of the Mexican Union resisted this +usurpation of the President, and among them, naturally, was +Coahuila-Texas. Moreover, some of the Coahuila members of the +legislature of the Commonwealth, partisans of Santa Anna, withdrew +from that body, and the Texan members found themselves, for the first +time, in a majority in it. Of course the feeling <a name="page293"></a>of resistance to the +overthrow of the right of local self-government became now a settled +and resolute purpose with them, and Santa Anna, upon learning their +attitude, resolved to reduce them to obedience by military power.</p> +<a name="side382"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote382"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Texan<br> + revolution.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In September of 1835, a Mexican war-ship appeared upon the Texan +coast, and its commander declared the Texan ports in a state of +blockade. About the same time, the Mexican General Cos appeared, with +a force of some fifteen hundred soldiers, at the Texan village of +Gonzales. The resistance of the inhabitants of the town to Cos' order +to surrender their arms precipitated the struggle. The Texans +immediately organized a temporary government, drove the Mexicans out +of the country before the close of the year, and, on March 2nd, 1836, +declared their independence of Mexico.</p> + +<p>While the Texan convention, which had declared independence and was +framing the constitution for the state of Texas, was still in session, +the Mexican soldiery, under the command of Santa Anna himself, +returned to Texas and committed the atrocities of the Alamo and of +Goliad. After these barbarous deeds there could no longer be any hope +of an accommodation between the Mexicans and the Texans. It was +independence or extermination.</p> +<a name="side383"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote383"> + <tr> + <td><small>General<br> + Sam Houston.<br> + <br> + <br> + San Jacinto<br> + and independence.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Happily for the Texans they had now found their proper leader, General +Sam Houston. Many of the descriptions of this hero are caricatures. Of +those which approach the truth, that given by Senator Benton is +perhaps most nearly correct. Benton was the lieutenant-colonel of the +regiment in which Houston served during the war with the Creeks; and +said later of his old comrade, "I then marked in him the same +soldierly and gentlemanly qualities which <a name="page294"></a>have since distinguished his +eventful career; frank, generous, and brave, ready to do, or to +suffer, whatever the obligations of civil or military duty imposed; +and always prompt to answer the call of honor, patriotism, and +friendship." He was a Virginian by birth, but an early resident of +Tennessee, and had been Governor of Tennessee before attaining his +thirty-fifth year. He appeared in Texas in 1833, and in 1835 was made +commander of the Texan army. It was chiefly his skill and bravery, +which effected the expulsion of Cos and his army in the winter of +1835-36. After the disasters at the Alamo and at Goliad, he, in +command of the remnants of the Texan army, retreated slowly before +Santa Anna's comparatively large force, until Santa Anna made the +blunder of dividing his army by the swollen waters of the San Jacinto, +when he turned suddenly upon the Mexicans, and inflicted upon them the +crushing defeat known as the battle of San Jacinto, in which the +Mexican loss was double the number of Houston's army, some sixteen +hundred men, including Santa Anna himself among the captives. The part +of the Mexican army which had not crossed the river retreated +precipitately from Texan soil, and the new state had won its +independence.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote384"> + <tr> + <td><small>Texas as a<br> + constitutional<br> + Republic.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The battle of San Jacinto was fought on April 21st, 1836. The +convention had finished the constitution more than a month before. In +September following, General Houston was elected President of the new +republic, and the constitution was almost immediately put into +operation. This constitution legalized the existence of slavery in +Texas, as a constitutional right of the masters, prohibited the +residence of free negroes within the State without special official +permission, and interdicted the importation of negro slaves, except +from the United States.</p> +<a name="side385"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote385"> + <tr> + <td><small>The<br> + recognition<br> + of the<br> + independence<br> + of Texas.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page295"></a> +<p>A little more than a month after the battle of San Jacinto, the +legislature of Connecticut set the ball in motion for the recognition +of the independence of Texas by the Government of the United States. +On May 27th, 1836, the two Houses of that body passed a resolution +instructing the Senators, and requesting the Representatives, in +Congress from Connecticut "to use their best endeavors to procure the +acknowledgment, on the part of the United States, of the independence +of Texas." Evidently the Yankee Commonwealth considered itself, in an +especial degree, the motherland of the new state. The founder of the +colony, which had now become an independent state, was one of its +children, and it hastened to anticipate Virginia, the birthplace of +Houston, in owning its offspring. A careful perusal of the whole of +this Connecticut document will certainly leave the impression upon the +mind of the impartial reader, at this day, that the people of the +North then considered the Texan revolution to have been provoked by +Mexican misrule and barbarism, and to have been fully justified in +political ethics as well as by practical success.</p> + +<p>On June 13th, Senator Niles, of Connecticut, presented the Connecticut +memorial to the Senate, and it was immediately referred to the +committee on Foreign Relations. On the 18th, Mr. Clay, the chairman of +the committee, reported a resolution: "That the independence of Texas +ought to be acknowledged by the United States whenever satisfactory +information shall be received that it has, in successful operation, a +civil government capable of performing the duties and fulfilling the +obligations of an independent Power." The resolution was adopted by +the Senate, on July 1st, without a dissenting voice.</p> +<a name="side386"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote386"> + <tr> + <td><small>Calhoun's frank<br> + declaration<br> + in regard to the<br> + annexation of Texas.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>During the course of the debate upon it, Mr. Calhoun <a name="page296"></a>frankly told the +Senate that he regarded the great importance of the recognition of the +independence of Texas to consist in the fact that it prepared the way +for the speedy admission of Texas into the Union, which would be a +necessity to the proper balance of power in the Union between the +slaveholding and the non-slaveholding Commonwealths, upon which the +preservation of the Union and the perpetuation of its institutions +rested. After such a statement it is difficult to see how anybody +could speak of the annexation of Texas being a slaveholders' secret +intrigue. Mr. Calhoun, the great leader of the slaveholders, the +director of their policy, here at the very outset openly proclaimed +their purpose. The fact is that, at the time of the Texan declaration +of independence, almost everybody would have favored the annexation of +Texas to the United States, out of race sympathy with the Texans and +desire for territorial extension, except for the international +complications with Mexico, which must inevitably result. It was the +struggle over the Abolition petitions in 1836, 1837, and 1838 which +turned the thoughts of men upon the internal questions involved in the +movement, and caused the North generally to reconsider its attitude +upon the question.</p> + +<p>On July 4th, 1836, the House of Representatives passed a resolution of +the same tenor, and expressed in nearly the same words, as the Senate +resolution of July 1st. It seems to have been called forth by +memorials from citizens of Ohio and Pennsylvania.</p> +<a name="map2"></a> +<table align="center" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" summary="map2"> + <tr> + <td width="511"> + <img src="images/3.jpg" alt="TEXAS, at the Time of Annexation"> + </td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<a name="side387"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote387"> + <tr> + <td><small>The mission of<br> + Mr. Morfit to Texas,<br> + his report and advice.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Assured thus of the feeling of Congress, the President sent an agent, +Mr. Henry M. Morfit, to Texas during the summer of 1836, in order to +procure exact information of the state of affairs there. Mr. Morfit +wrote to the Secretary of State, Mr. Forsyth, that the <a name="page297"></a>constitution of +March 17th was soon to be put into operation; that General Houston had +been elected President; that the constitution was fashioned after that +of the United States; that the desire for annexation to the United +States was universal; that the boundaries asserted by the new state +were the Rio Grande del Norte on the south and southwest, the +longitude from the source of the Rio Grande to the boundary of the +United States on the west, the southern boundary of the United States +on the north and northeast, and the Gulf of Mexico on the east; that +the population amounted to about sixty-five thousand souls, of whom +about fifty thousand were Anglo-Americans; that the standing army +numbered about twenty-two hundred men, and could be increased to seven +or eight thousand in an emergency; that the navy consisted of four +vessels, carrying twenty-nine guns; that the funds of the State +consisted of from fifty to one hundred millions of acres of public +lands, worth, at least, ten millions of dollars, and that +contributions were flowing in from private individuals in the United +States; that the debt was about twelve hundred and fifty thousand +dollars; that the supplies for the winter campaign were already +provided; and that there was not a Mexican soldier north of the Rio +Grande, although there were rumors that the Mexican government was +making preparations for a new invasion in the winter, which were not, +however, credited by the Texans.</p> + +<p>This was certainly a good showing for Texas. If with an army of seven +hundred men, under a provisory government, the Texans drove the +Mexicans out of Texas, they could, under well established government, +and with an army ten times as large, most surely keep them out. It +must also be remembered that Santa Anna was still a prisoner in their +hands. Mr. Morfit, <a name="page298"></a>however, expressed the belief that most of the men +and money for the army came from the United States, and, therefore, +advised delay in assuming a definite attitude toward the new state.</p> +<a name="side388"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote388"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson's recommendation<br> + to delay the recognition<br> + of Texan independence.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>President Jackson transmitted this information to Congress, in his +message of December 21st, 1836, and recommended delay in recognizing +the independence of Texas. On January 11th, 1837, however, Senator +Walker, of Mississippi, offered a resolution in the Senate to the +effect that it would be expedient and proper to recognize the +independence of Texas, and stated that he had information that the +projected invasion of Texas by a new Mexican army, the rumors of which +were reported by Mr. Morfit, had most probably been abandoned.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote389"> + <tr> + <td><small>The question<br> + of Mexico's<br> + obligations to the<br> + United States.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Before the resolution offered by Mr. Walker was taken up for +discussion, a message from the President was communicated to Congress +recommending the passage of an act, authorizing the President to make +reprisals upon Mexico, in case Mexico should refuse another demand +made upon her for an amicable adjustment of the matters in controversy +between her and the United States. The citizens and the Government of +the United States had many claims against Mexico and the Mexicans for +depredating the commerce, seizing the seamen, and insulting the flag +of the United States, and the demands for the satisfaction of these +claims had been almost uniformly disregarded. The relations between +the two Governments were already greatly strained on this account, and +when, in the autumn of 1836, President Jackson authorized General +Gaines to advance his troops into northwestern Texas, if he should +deem it necessary for the protection of the frontiers of the United +States against the Indians in Texas, who, on account of the <a name="page299"></a>War +between Mexico and Texas, had been thrown into a great state of +excitement and unrest, the Mexican Minister, Señor Gorastiza, demanded +his passports, issued a sort of manifesto to the people of the United +States, and left Washington.</p> +<a name="side390"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote390"> + <tr> + <td><small>Jackson's request of Congress<br> + for authority to issue an<br> + ultimatum to Mexico<br> + in the claims question.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was hardly to be expected that President Jackson would quietly +brook such defiance from a half civilized state and its agents. He +immediately caused Mr. Ellis, the Chargé d'Affaires of the Government +at the Mexican capital, to make a final demand on the Mexican +government. Mr. Ellis made his demand in writing, on September 26th. +After much delay the Mexican Minister of Foreign Affairs replied, +admitting the justice of some of the claims, and requiring more +information about others, but offering no reparation at all for +insults to the flag and to the consular officers of the United States. +The President's patience was exhausted, and he sent the message of +February 6th, 1837, to Congress, asking for authority to make a final +demand from the decks of a war-ship.</p> +<a name="side391"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote391"> + <tr> + <td><small>Texan independence<br> + recognized by<br> + the United States.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Congress was not, however, willing to invest the President with the +contingent power to make offensive war. The recommendation of the +President in the case had, nevertheless, considerable influence in +determining the minds of the Senators in regard to the question of +recognizing the independence of Texas. On March 1st, 1837, the Senate +adopted Mr. Walker's resolution. On the previous day the House of +Representatives had voted to insert in the civil and diplomatic +appropriation bill an item for the expenses of a diplomatic agent to +Texas, whenever the President should receive satisfactory evidence +that Texas was an independent Power and should consider it expedient +to appoint such a minister. President Jackson had invited this +expression of the <a name="page300"></a>views of Congress in his message of the previous +December, in which he expressed the view that Congress ought to +determine the expediency of recognizing the independence of Texas, +and, although the resolutions of the two Houses of February 28th and +March 1st, 1837, did not formally assume to recognize that +independence, the President evidently attributed to them some virtue, +since he soon opened diplomatic intercourse with the Texan agent at +Washington. The resolutions of the two Houses of Congress and this act +of the President, taken together, were regarded by the people of the +United States and by foreign Powers as a recognition of Texan +independence.</p> +<a name="side392"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote392"> + <tr> + <td><small>The question<br> + of annexation.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was clear to all thinking minds that the next step after +independence would be annexation to the United States. There is little +question that Texas was big enough and strong enough to stand alone +against Mexico, certainly with the aid which she was sure to receive +from without and with the growth which she was destined to enjoy; but +there was no natural boundary between the United States and Texas, and +the inhabitants of Texas were chiefly Anglo-Americans. The natural +boundary of the United States on the southwest is the desert between +the Nueces and the Rio Grande, and the territorial extension of the +United States to that limit was simply the fulfilment of the moral +order of the world, which tends to make the lines of states correspond +with the lines of physical geography and of ethnical differences. +Except for the connection of the question of slavery extension with +that of territorial extension after 1836, the question of the +annexation of Texas would have been generally viewed in this natural +and national light. That connection, however, made the North generally +assume the attitude <a name="page301"></a>of opposition to annexation, while it greatly +excited the desires of the South in favor of it.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote393"> + <tr> + <td><small>Webster on<br> + annexation.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On his way homeward from the Congress which voted in favor of +annexation, Mr. Webster made a great speech in New York, in which he +declared himself opposed to annexation on the ground that it would +extend slavery. Mr. Calhoun had, nearly a year before, as we have +seen, declared himself in favor of it for the same reason. After these +two declarations, from such leaders, the eyes of the people were open +to every feature of the question, and it could not have been any +longer a matter of intrigue.</p> +<a name="side394"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote394"> + <tr> + <td><small>Texan proposition<br> + for annexation.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In August, 1837, the Texan agent at Washington, General Hunt, proposed +to President Van Buren the annexation of Texas to the United States. +The President promptly and firmly declined, and the matter rested +during the remainder of his Administration.</p> + +<p>The sudden and unexpected accession of Vice-President Tyler to the +presidency, in 1841, was the event which opened the way for the +commencement of negotiations for annexation. The new President was +known to be favorable to the project.</p> +<a name="side395"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote395"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Mexican<br> + Claims<br> + Commission<br> + and its work.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Meanwhile the diplomatic relations between the United States and +Mexico, so suddenly broken off in the latter part of President +Jackson's Administration, had been renewed in the early part of +President Van Buren's Administration, and, after considerable +negotiation in regard to the claims against Mexico, a convention +between the two Powers had been arranged, and, on April 8th, 1840, +proclaimed by the President as definitely concluded. The convention +provided that the claims of the citizens of the United States against +Mexico should be submitted to, and decided by, a commission, which +should be <a name="page302"></a>composed of two members appointed by the President of the +United States, and of two other members appointed by the President of +Mexico; that the commissioners should meet in Washington within three +months from the date of the exchange of ratifications of the +convention; that the commission should terminate its duties within +eighteen months from the time of its first meeting; and that when the +commissioners could not come to any decision, the question upon which +they might disagree should be referred to an arbiter appointed by the +King of Prussia, etc. With this the question of the private claims +against Mexico, already submitted, was, momentarily, put at rest. The +claim of satisfaction for public injuries and affronts remained +unsettled, and no provision was made for the consideration of private +claims which had not been submitted before the ratification of the +convention, or of those which might arise after the same date. Plenty +of opportunities were thus left for the rise of difficulties in the +claims question which might lead to hostile relations between the two +Powers.</p> +<a name="side396"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote396"> + <tr> + <td><small>Tyler as an<br> + advocate of<br> + annexation.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>As early as the winter of 1841-42, it was suspected that President +Tyler's Administration was preparing to move in the matter of +annexation. In fact, Mr. Wise, of Virginia, the President's bosom +friend, and his organ in the House of Representatives, reiterated upon +the floor of the House, on January 26th, 1842, Mr. Calhoun's doctrine +about annexation, pronounced in 1836, that the annexation of Texas was +essential to slavery extension, that slavery extension was necessary +to preserve the balance of power between the North and the South in +the Union, and that the preservation of this balance of power was the +necessary condition of the perpetuity of the Union.</p> +<a name="page303"></a> +<p>Mr. Wise expressed this opinion in the midst of an acrimonious debate, +and whether he, in an unguarded moment, betrayed the policy of the +President, or simply gave vent to his own excited feelings, is still +one of the speculations of American history.</p> +<a name="side397"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote397"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Webster in the<br> + way of annexation.<br> + <br> + <br> + The Adams address<br> + on annexation.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>So long, however, as Mr. Webster remained at the head of the State +Department it was impossible for the President to make any progress +with a definite plan for annexation, even if he entertained one. +Nevertheless, thirteen anti-slavery Whig members of Congress, led by +Mr. John Quincy Adams, issued, on March 3rd, 1843, an address to the +people of the non-slaveholding Commonwealths, declaring that there was +a definite plan of annexation already settled upon, and about to be +consummated, and denouncing the execution of it as being tantamount to +a dissolution of the Union.</p> +<a name="side398"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote398"> + <tr> + <td><small>The retirement<br> + of Webster.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On May 8th, 1843, Mr. Webster resigned the secretaryship of State. It +was said by some that the President drove him out, in order to appoint +a Secretary who would carry out his plans for the annexation of Texas; +but Mr. Webster himself indicated by his acts and words that he had +determined to resign more than a year before, and had remained in +office only for the purpose of concluding the negotiations with Great +Britain which culminated in the Ashburton Treaty, an agreement in +which Mr. Webster's section had an especial interest.</p> + +<p>There is little question, however, that President Tyler was glad to +have him go, for the President placed the annexation of Texas before +every other policy of his Administration.</p> +<a name="side399"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote399"> + <tr> + <td><small>The promotion of Upshur,<br> + and his negotiations<br> + with the Texans.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Soon after Mr. Webster's resignation the President transferred Mr. +Upshur from the secretaryship of the <a name="page304"></a>Navy to that of State. Mr. Upshur +was the man whom suspicion had already marked as the confidant of the +President in the annexation scheme. This suspicion was speedily +confirmed by his entering, almost immediately, upon negotiations with +the Texan agent at Washington, Mr. Van Zandt, for annexation.</p> + +<p>Soon after the recognition of the independence of Texas by the United +States, Great Britain, France, and Belgium took the same step, +presumably for the purpose of establishing commercial relations with +the new state. But, in the summer of 1843, the British Government +appeared in the character of the most favored mediator between Mexico +and Texas for the recognition of the independence of Texas by Mexico; +and a friend of President Tyler's Administration wrote, from London, +that a representative of the anti-slavery men in Texas was in London, +negotiating a loan of money from an English company, with which to pay +for the liberation of all the slaves in Texas, and that the interest +upon the loan was to be guaranteed by the British Government, on the +condition that the Texan Government would abolish slavery.</p> + +<p>The Administration professed to credit this story, and Mr. Upshur +wrote to General Murphy, the diplomatic agent of the United States in +Texas, informing him of this communication from London, and arguing +the double danger to the United States of British interference in +Texas, and of the abolition of slavery there. This letter bears date +of August 8th, 1843, and is considered as marking the beginning of the +actual negotiations for annexation. It was certainly intended to +prompt General Murphy to sound the Texan Government upon the question +of annexation.</p> +<a name="side400"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote400"> + <tr> + <td><small>The threat of the Mexican<br> + Government to consider<br> + the annexation of<br> + Texas a cause of war.<br> + <br> + <br> + The Administration<br> + proposes annexation<br> + to the Texan agent.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Mexican Government evidently discovered the <a name="page305"></a>movement immediately, +for, on August 23rd, the Mexican Secretary of State declared to Mr. +Thompson, the Minister of the United States to Mexico, that the +Mexican Government would consider any act of the United States to +annex Texas as a declaration of war on Mexico. For seven years Mexico +had made no war on Texas, though professing to regard the new state as +only a rebellious province. In September of 1842, several marauding +expeditions had crossed the Rio Grande, raided around for a few days, +and then returned to Mexico. The Mexican Government called this a +continuance of the war, and demanded that the states of the world +should observe the attitude of neutrals toward a friendly Power +engaged in suppressing a rebellion on the part of certain of its +lawful subjects. This was absurd. From the point of view of +international law Texas had won her independence, and might make what +agreements she pleased with any other Power. The President paid no +attention to the Mexican threat. On October 16th, 1843, Mr. Upshur +formally proposed annexation to Mr. Van Zandt, and in his message to +Congress, at the beginning of the session of 1843-44, the President +indicated to Congress that the negotiations for annexation were in +progress, and referred to the fact that Mexico threatened war in case +the United States should resolve to annex Texas.</p> +<a name="side401"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote401"> + <tr> + <td><small>The difficulty<br> + in the way of<br> + acceptance of<br> + the proposition.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The great difficulty in the way of the negotiations was the fear on +the part of the Texans that, upon the signature of the Treaty by the +Presidents of the two countries, and before its ratification by the +respective Senates, as required by the respective Constitutions, the +Mexicans would collect all their forces and make one supreme effort to +reconquer Texas. The Texans wanted the <a name="page306"></a>protection of the United States +in this interim, and the embarrassing question for Mr. Tyler's +Administration was whether the President of the United States had the +constitutional power to extend it. Would not war, undertaken in +defence of one foreign Power against another, be offensive war, in the +sense of the Constitution of the United States, such war as Congress +alone can authorize? Or, could Texas be considered a part of the +United States from the moment that the two Presidents signed the +Treaty of annexation, and before its ratification by the respective +Senates, thus making war in her defence defensive war, such war as the +President of the United States may, of his own power, undertake?</p> +<a name="side402"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote402"> + <tr> + <td><small>The demand<br> + of the Texans<br> + for protection<br> + in the interim.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>About the middle of January, 1844, Mr. Van Zandt demanded of Mr. +Upshur whether, in case the President of Texas should agree to the +proposition of the President of the United States for annexation, the +President of the United States would protect Texas, from the moment of +this agreement between the two Presidents, against all foreign attack. +Mr. Upshur seems to have been greatly perplexed by the question, for +he made no reply.</p> + +<p>About the middle of February, the President of Texas caused the same +question to be put to the United States agent in Texas, General +Murphy. Murphy was a blunt, brave man, full of chivalry, but quite +empty of constitutional and international law. He immediately returned +an affirmative answer, whereupon President Houston sent a special +envoy to Washington, armed with plenary power to conclude a treaty of +annexation.</p> + +<p>Whether Secretary Upshur, and, of course, the President, knew of the +promise which Murphy had made for his Government to Texas, before the +sudden death of Mr. Upshur, on February 28th, has never been +determined.</p> +<a name="page307"></a> +<p>During the second week of March, Mr. John Nelson, the Secretary of the +Navy, was temporarily transferred to the State Department, and one of +his first acts was to officially disavow Murphy's promise to President +Houston. He very nearly informed Murphy, however, that President Tyler +was personally pleased with what he had done. The Texan agents at +Washington refused, however, to proceed with the negotiations until +President Tyler would ratify Murphy's promise. Mr. Nelson would not +risk his reputation as a constitutional lawyer by inventing an +interpretation of the Constitution which would warrant this. At the +end of the month Mr. Calhoun was put in his place, and he was remanded +to the Department of the Navy.</p> +<a name="side403"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote403"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Calhoun in the<br> + State Department.<br> + <br> + <br> + The Treaty of<br> + annexation signed.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>About a fortnight after taking possession of his office, Mr. Calhoun +officially informed the Texan agents at Washington that the President +had ordered the concentration of a strong squadron of war-vessels in +the Gulf of Mexico, and had commanded the movement of land forces to +the southwestern boundary of the United States to meet all +eventualities, and that the President would use "all the means placed +within his power by the Constitution" to protect Texas against foreign +invasion during the pendency of the Treaty of annexation. On the day +following this communication, the Treaty of annexation was signed by +the President of the United States and by the Texas plenipotentiary +for the President of Texas.</p> + +<p>Ten days after this, the Treaty was sent to the Senate of the United +States for ratification. In the message accompanying the Treaty the +President informed the Senate of the disposition he had made of the +troops and naval vessels, and justified the same by the claim that the +President <i>makes</i> the treaties, that the Senate only ratifies <a name="page308"></a>them, +that the validity of the treaties, therefore, dates from the +President's agreement, and that, therefore, in this case, Texas was, +from and after April 12th, 1844, a part of the territory of the United +States, all of which the President was bound to defend against foreign +attack. Whether this was President Tyler's constitutional law or Mr. +Calhoun's we do not know. If this doctrine is to be ascribed to Mr. +Calhoun it certainly marks a great departure from the general +principles taught by him after 1830. One would think that his "States' +sovereignty" theory of the Union would have led him to attribute as +little power as possible to the general Government, and as much of +that little as possible to the Senate, but here were both nationalism +and Cæsarism combined.</p> +<a name="side404"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote404"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Treaty in<br> + the Senate and<br> + its rejection.<br> + <br> + <br> + Mr. Archer's<br> + opposition<br> + to the Treaty.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Treaty was before the Senate, in secret session, from April 22nd +until June 8th, when it was rejected by a vote of thirty-five to +sixteen. It is not necessary to examine the reasons which moved the +Northern Senators to vote against it, but it is important to +understand some of the grounds upon which Senators from the +slaveholding Commonwealths opposed it. Senator Benton declared that +the Treaty annexed not only Texas but parts of four other Mexican +provinces, which would be an international outrage upon Mexico. Most +of the Southern Senators, however, were influenced by the fear of war +with Mexico. But the most significant objection to it, from the point +of view of subsequent events, was that urged by Mr. Archer, of +Virginia, the chairman of the Senate committee for Foreign Affairs. He +claimed that a foreign state could not be annexed to the United States +by means of a treaty, and that, if a foreign state could become +connected with the Union at all, it must be by means of an act of +Congress. A large number of the Senators approved of this <a name="page309"></a>doctrine. It +was a pregnant idea to the President and Mr. Calhoun. It indicated +that there was another way to accomplish annexation.</p> + +<p>While the Treaty was under consideration in the Senate, the national +conventions for the nomination of presidential candidates had +assembled. The Whigs had nominated Mr. Clay, who was regarded as +opposed to annexation. The friends to annexation in the Democratic +party had been able to put Mr. Van Buren aside, and had nominated +James K. Polk, of Tennessee, an outspoken advocate of immediate +annexation, and had made the "re-occupation of Oregon and the +re-annexation of Texas" the chief plank in the party platform.</p> +<a name="side405"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote405"> + <tr> + <td><small>The new plan<br> + for annexation.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Here now were all the elements of a new plan for annexation, which +promised more success. They were, the doctrine unwittingly advanced by +Mr. Archer, and as unwittingly approved by many of the Senators, that +Texas could be connected with the United States only by means of an +act of Congress admitting her as a Commonwealth into the Union, the +plank of the platform making annexation the chief issue of the +campaign for the election of a new President and a new House of +Representatives, and the connection of the Oregon question with that +of annexation, in order to get votes in the North for both projects at +once.</p> + +<p>On June 11th, President Tyler took the first step in the combination +of these elements. He sent a copy of the rejected Treaty, and all the +papers connected with it, to the House of Representatives, together +with a message, in which he reviewed the subject and justified his +position in regard to it, and declared, finally, that while he had +regarded a treaty as the most suitable means for accomplishing +annexation, he would <a name="page310"></a>co-operate with Congress in the use of any other +means compatible with the Constitution and likely to accomplish the +result.</p> + +<p>Before, however, following the history of the annexation of Texas +further, we must present briefly the main points in the development of +the Oregon question.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="chap14"></a><a name="page311"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER XIV.</h3> + +<center>OREGON</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side406">Extent of Oregon and Claims to +it</a>—<a href="#side407">The Nootka +Convention</a>—<a href="#side408">Louisiana and +Oregon</a>—<a href="#side409">Astoria</a>—<a href="#side410">The Joint Occupation +Agreement of 1818</a>—<a href="#side411">Spain's Claims on Oregon Ceded to the United +States</a>—<a href="#side412">Renewal of the Convention of +1818</a>—<a href="#side413">The British Policy in Reference to +Oregon</a>—<a href="#side414">The Ignorance of Oregon in the United +States</a>—<a href="#side415">Dr. Marcus Whitman</a>—<a href="#side416">Dr. Whitman's Mission +to the United States Government</a>—<a href="#side417">Dr. Whitman's +Colony</a>—<a href="#side418">The Democratic +Party on the Oregon Question.</a></blockquote> +<br> +<a name="side406"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote406"> + <tr> + <td><small>Extent of Oregon<br> + and claims to it.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>At the close of the eighteenth century, Oregon was universally +recognized as the territory lying along the North Pacific Ocean from +the forty-second parallel of latitude to that of fifty-four degrees +and forty minutes, and reaching inward to the Rocky Mountains. At that +time it was claimed by Spain both by discovery and first settlement.</p> +<a name="side407"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote407"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Nootka<br> + Convention.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In the year 1790, Great Britain advanced claims upon it. A diplomatic +discussion arose between the two Powers, which ended temporarily in an +agreement called the Nootka Convention, by which no territorial or +sovereign rights or powers were recognized by Spain to Great Britain, +but only certain easements, so to speak, in and upon this territory, +such as the right to navigate the waters and to fish in them, to trade +with the natives, and to make such temporary <a name="page312"></a>settlements as might be +necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of these rights.</p> + +<p>In the year 1796, war was waged between Spain and Great Britain, and, +according to the British principles of that day, every agreement +between the two Powers was abrogated in consequence thereof; so that +Spain, while retaining her sovereignty over Oregon, was now relieved +of the encumbrance of the British rights.</p> +<a name="side408"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote408"> + <tr> + <td><small>Louisiana<br> + and Oregon.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>This was the status of Oregon when Spain ceded Louisiana to France in +1800, and when France ceded the same territory to the United States in +1803; and the matter of first concern to the United States was the +question whether Louisiana contained Oregon or any part of it. It is +probable that President Jefferson thought it did, since the Lewis and +Clark expedition, sent out by him to examine the new purchase, crossed +the Rockies, discovered the sources of the Columbia River, followed +this stream to the Pacific, and made report thereof to the President. +But if he did, he was certainly mistaken. It is true that Louisiana +had no western boundary positively fixed by any agreement between the +Powers, but the general principles of international law, to which +recourse must always be had in the absence of specific agreements, +made the water shed of the Mississippi the western boundary, and the +Treaty of Utrecht, of 1713, to which France and Great Britain were +parties, made the forty-ninth parallel of latitude the northern +boundary, westward from the Lake of the Woods.</p> +<a name="map3"></a> +<table align="center" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" summary="map3"> + <tr> + <td width="632"> + <img src="images/4.jpg" alt="OREGON, as Determined by the Treaty of 1846"> + </td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<a name="side409"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote409"> + <tr> + <td><small>Astoria.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The founding of Astoria, in 1811, on the south bank of the Columbia +River, about nine miles from its mouth, is also evidence that the +Government of the United States thought it had a claim upon Oregon as +a part of Louisiana, since the undertaking <a name="page313"></a>proceeded upon an +understanding between Mr. John Jacob Astor and the Government.</p> +<a name="side410"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote410"> + <tr> + <td><small>The joint occupation<br> + agreement of 1818.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The British Government now did a thing which seemed to acknowledge a +claim of some sort by the United States upon Oregon, so far as Great +Britain could do so. Having taken forcible possession of Astoria in +the War of 1812, it restored the place, at the close of the War, to +the possession of the United States; and in a convention, concluded on +October 18th, 1818, the two Powers agreed upon the forty-ninth +parallel of north latitude as the boundary between their territories, +from the Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mountains, and upon joint +occupation, as it was termed, in all territories and waters claimed by +either party in North America west of the Rocky Mountains, without +prejudice to any claims which either party might have to any part of +the said territory, or to any claims which any other Power might have +to it, or to any part of it. This agreement was to run for ten years.</p> +<a name="side411"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote411"> + <tr> + <td><small>Spain's claims on<br> + Oregon ceded to<br> + the United States.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>An event happened the following year which made the Washington +Government doubt the wisdom of basing its claims upon the Louisiana +cession. It was the Treaty with Spain ceding the Floridas. As we have +seen in one of the earlier chapters of this work, this Treaty +contained a provision ceding to the United States all the rights and +sovereignty of Spain in and over the territory lying west of the Rocky +Mountains and north of the forty-second parallel of north latitude. +Here was a much better claim, both as to quantity of territory and +quality of right, than could be founded on the Louisiana cession. If +the United States had possessed this claim in 1803, it is doubtful if +we should ever have heard of the notion that Oregon was a part of +Louisiana.</p> +<a name="side412"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote412"> + <tr> + <td><small>Continuation of the<br> + convention of 1818.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page314"></a> +<p>In 1828, the agreement of 1818 was indefinitely continued, but might +be terminated by a twelvemonth's notice by either party, at any time. +The United States, was, however, in a better position than before, on +account of having now the Spanish claims to all territory above the +forty-second parallel on the Pacific.</p> + +<p>The element of greatest importance in the settlement of the question +was, of course, colonization within the territory, and neither party +had really undertaken that. The hunters and trappers and agents of the +Hudson's Bay Company had temporary abodes within the territory, +especially north of the Columbia, and there was one settlement on the +south bank under the protection of the United States, and that was +all.</p> +<a name="side413"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote413"> + <tr> + <td><small>The British policy in<br> + reference to Oregon.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>For some fourteen years longer, now, this indefinite status continued. +In the negotiations between Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton, in 1841 +and 1842, Mr. Webster sounded Lord Ashburton on the Oregon question, +and found that the Queen's agent had received no power to deal with +the matter, but drew the conclusion that the British policy in regard +to Oregon was to prolong the existing <i>modus vivendi,</i> give the +Hudson's Bay Company time to settle the country north of the Columbia, +and then agree to a division on the line of that river.</p> +<a name="side414"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote414"> + <tr> + <td><small>The ignorance of<br> + Oregon in the<br> + United States.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was well for the United States that the Oregon question did not +enter into those negotiations, for down to that moment the Government +at Washington knew almost nothing about the character of Oregon north +of the Columbia. The officers of the Hudson's Bay Company had +continually represented it as a worthless waste, fit only for hunting +and trapping ground, and almost worn out even for those purposes. It +is more than probable that the <a name="page315"></a>Government at Washington credited these +statements, and it is quite possible that, in 1842, it would have +compromised with England on the line of the Columbia. The delay in the +settlement of the question now gave the Government the opportunity to +learn something more about Oregon from one who knew the region better +than any other living man, and whose interests did not lie with those +of the Hudson's Bay Company and Great Britain.</p> +<a name="side415"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote415"> + <tr> + <td><small>Dr. Marcus<br> + Whitman.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The actor who now came upon the scene was Dr. Marcus Whitman, a man of +great intelligence, courage, energy, and high purpose. He had been +sent out by the American Board of Missions, in the year 1835, as one +of the exploring delegates among the Indians in Oregon. Dr. Whitman +soon made up his mind in regard to his life work. He returned to the +East in the summer of 1836, married, and went back to Oregon, +accompanied by his bride and by the Rev. H. H. Spaulding and wife. +This was the beginning of the settlement of Northern Oregon.</p> +<a name="side416"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote416"> + <tr> + <td><small>Dr. Whitman's mission to the<br> + United States Government.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In some way, we know not exactly how, Dr. Whitman learned that the +United States Government might be induced to sacrifice Northern Oregon +in ignorance of its true value; and, in the latter part of the year +1842, he set out from the mission on the Walla Walla to go to +Washington and inform the Government of the real character of the +country which he had explored. He arrived in Washington in March of +1843, and gave President Tyler such full and truthful information +concerning the great value of Oregon north of the Columbia as settled +the fate of that region.</p> +<a name="side417"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote417"> + <tr> + <td><small>Dr. Whitman's<br> + colony.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Dr. Whitman had come also for another purpose. He saw clearly that the +way to get Oregon was to colonize it. President Tyler's Administration +supported him <a name="page316"></a>in this view and purpose. The Administration caused Dr. +Whitman's descriptions of Oregon to be printed and distributed +throughout the United States, and also his offer to lead a colony to +take possession of the country. The place of rendezvous appointed by +him was Westport, near the site of the present Kansas City, and the +time was June of 1843. Nearly a thousand people, with two hundred +wagons, met him there, and were successfully led by him back to the +Walla Walla. He arrived there with this large colony in October of +1843; and news of his safe arrival reached Washington in January of +1844.</p> + +<p>The decisive movement for the possession of Oregon was thus made. +Claims based upon discovery, or treaty, or privileges for hunting, +trapping, or trading, must all give way before actual colonization. +British diplomacy was confused by the success of the movement, while +the people of the United States were filled with pride and enthusiasm +at the achievement.</p> + +<p>The moment had come, at last, when the United States could deal with +Great Britain from the basis of actual conditions, instead of from the +point of view of international theory. The connection of the Oregon +question with the question of the annexation of Texas in the +Democratic platform of 1844, was, therefore, by no means far fetched +or artificial. It was, indeed, a clever stroke of practical politics, +but it was suggested by existing conditions.</p> +<a name="side418"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote418"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Democratic<br> + party on the<br> + Oregon question.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Democrats had struck a high note in the international questions, +one which was bound to catch the ear of the younger men throughout the +country. Moreover, the policy in both cases rested upon sound national +principles. Texas, at least to the Nueces, and Oregon, at least to the +northern water shed of the Columbia, belonged <a name="page317"></a>geographically to the +United States, and they were settled, so far as they were settled at +all, by Anglo-Americans. On the other hand, the slaveholders of the +South were not particularly pleased with the connection of the two +questions. Some of them had already come to doubt whether the +annexation of Texas alone would subserve their interests, since the +slave population might be thereby drawn away from the border +slaveholding Commonwealths, and these Commonwealths might then abolish +slavery by their own several acts; and now that it must be paid for by +the addition of a region to the Northern side, large enough to hold a +dozen such Commonwealths as New York, the price appeared to them too +great. Mr. Waddy Thompson, of South Carolina, the Minister to the +Mexican Government, was decidedly of this opinion; and from an +original friend of annexation he became a determined opponent. To the +far-seeing mind, it was certainly very questionable whether the +annexation of Texas would prove any advantage to the slavery interest, +and it was certain that the possession of Oregon would not.</p> + +<p>But they would subserve, they have subserved, the interests of a true +national development. The Democrats of 1844 builded better than they +knew, when they made the "re-annexation of Texas and the re-occupation +of Oregon" the issues of the campaign of that year. In the platform +the Oregon question was given the precedence. The country, however, +understood the stratagem, and the question of annexation assumed the +foremost place in the great contest.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="chap15"></a><a name="page318"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER XV.</h3> + +<center>THE "RE-ANNEXATION OF TEXAS AND THE RE-OCCUPATION OF OREGON"</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side419">The Popularity of the Democratic Position, and Mr. Clay's Letter of +August 16th</a>—<a href="#side420">The Abolitionists Declare against Mr. +Clay</a>—<a href="#side421">The Triumph of +Polk</a>—<a href="#side422">Tyler's Recommendation to Annex Texas by a Joint Resolution +or an Act</a>—<a href="#side423">The Resolution for Annexation in the House of +Representatives</a>—<a href="#side424">Passage of an Enabling Act for Texas by the House of +Representatives</a>—<a href="#side425">The Resolution in the Senate, and Mr. Archer's +Inconsistencies</a>—<a href="#side426">The Senate's Amendment to the Resolution of the +House</a>—<a href="#side427">The Concurrence of the House in the Senate's Amendment, and the +Passage of the Act for Admission</a>—<a href="#side428">The British Proposition in Regard to +Oregon</a>—<a href="#side428">The American +Proposition</a>—<a href="#side429">Polk's recommendation in Regard to +the Matter</a>—<a href="#side430">The Debate upon the President's +Recommendation</a>—<a href="#side431">The Conclusion Reached by +Congress</a>—<a href="#side432">The President's Retort upon +Congress</a>—<a href="#side433">The Oregon Treaty.</a></blockquote> +<br> + +<p>The language of the Democratic platform signified that Texas had been +once annexed to the United States, as a part of Louisiana, by the +Treaty of 1803 with France, and had been sacrificed by the Treaty of +1819 with Spain, and that Oregon had been once occupied by the United +States, either under the Treaty of 1803, or under that of 1819, or by +the right of the prior discovery of the Columbia River and the +establishment of a settlement upon its banks. It is thus that mortal +men always seek to purge any movement which they undertake of the +taint of innovation, no matter how justifiable in reason that movement +may be.</p> +<a name="side419"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote419"> + <tr> + <td><small>The popularity of the<br> + Democratic position,<br> + and Mr. Clay's letter<br> + of August 16th.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page319"></a> +<p>In the beginning of June, the election of Mr. Clay seemed a certainty. +As the campaign wore on it became manifest that annexation was rapidly +growing in the popular favor, and that Mr. Clay would lose some of his +Southern support, unless the opinion which prevailed in that section +concerning his opposition to annexation should be modified. With this +in view, and under the belief that the state of feeling upon the +subject at the North had become less hostile, Mr. Clay caused to be +published in an Alabama newspaper, on August 16th, a letter defining +again his attitude toward annexation.</p> + +<p>No sane and impartial mind can, at this day, see any material +difference between the opinion expressed by Mr. Clay in his letter of +April 17th, and that in his letter of August 16th. In the former, he +took the ground that the United States ought not to annex Texas +without the consent of Mexico, or against the decided opposition of a +considerable and respectable portion of the Union. In the latter, he +said he should be glad to see Texas annexed, if it could be done +"without dishonor, without war, with the common consent of the Union, +and upon just and fair terms." He added that he did not think the +slavery question ought to enter into the consideration at all, that +slavery was destined to become extinct in the United States, and that +its duration would neither be lengthened nor shortened by the +acquisition of Texas.</p> +<a name="side420"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote420"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Abolitionists<br> + declare against<br> + Mr. Clay.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Abolitionists, however, could see the question only from a single +point of view. They wanted Mr. Clay to say that the annexation of +Texas meant permanent slavery extension, and that he opposed it upon +that ground. They were not satisfied by Mr. Clay's causing another +letter to be published, in the <i>National Intelligencer,</i> declaring +that <a name="page320"></a>his two former letters were entirely consistent with each other, +and that he held inflexibly to the principles of the first one. They +even went so far in their extravagant fanaticism as to represent to +the people that Mr. Clay's election would be more favorable to +annexation than that of Mr. Polk.</p> +<a name="side421"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote421"> + <tr> + <td><small>The triumph<br> + of Polk.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It is usually said that Mr. Clay's Alabama letter turned a sufficient +number of votes to the Abolitionist candidate, Mr. Birney, to cause +Mr. Clay to lose the electoral votes of New York and Michigan, and +thus insured the election of Mr. Polk, and consequently the annexation +of Texas and the War with Mexico. It is probably true that it did +cause the loss of New York and Michigan, but it is possible that it +held North Carolina, Kentucky, and Tennessee in line. The failure of +Mr. Clay is, therefore, more probably to be ascribed to Abolitionist +fanaticism than to his own blundering. At any rate, this was the view +held by Mr. Greeley, a very competent observer. He said that "the +triumph of annexation was secured by the indirect aid of the more +intense partisans of abolition."</p> +<a name="side422"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote422"> + <tr> + <td><small>Tyler's<br> + recommendation<br> + to annex Texas by<br> + a joint resolution<br> + or an act.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The result of the election was regarded as the plebiscite upon the +question of annexation, and also upon the Oregon question, but more +especially upon the former. In his message to Congress at the opening +of the session of 1844-45, President Tyler informed Congress that, +since the rejection of the Treaty for annexation by the Senate, Mexico +had threatened to renew war against Texas, and prosecute the same by +barbarous means and methods, and that he had caused the Minister of +the United States to Mexico to inform the Mexican Government that the +question of annexation was still before the American people, and that, +until their decision had been pronounced, any serious invasion of +Texas could not be <a name="page321"></a>regarded by them with indifference. He declared +that, in the late general election, the people had pronounced for +immediate annexation; and he recommended that Congress should +incorporate the terms of the late agreement for annexation into the +form of an act or a joint resolution, which should be binding upon +both parties when adopted in like manner by the Texan Congress. He +also informed Congress that negotiations had been opened with Great +Britain relative to the respective rights of the two Powers in, and +over, the Oregon territory.</p> +<a name="side423"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote423"> + <tr> + <td><small>The resolution<br> + for annexation<br> + in the House of<br> + Representatives.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>That part of the message relating to the question of annexation was +referred, in the House of Representatives, to the committee on Foreign +Affairs, and, on December 12th, Mr. Ingersoll, of Pennsylvania, +reported from that committee the draft of a joint resolution for the +annexation of Texas. It was simply the articles of the agreement of +April 12th preceding put into that form. The principal points of it +were, the cession of the territory of Texas to the United States, the +transfer of the public lands of Texas to the Government of the United +States, the pledge of the United States to assume the debt of Texas up +to ten millions of dollars, the guarantee of liberty and property to +the citizens of Texas, now to be citizens of the United States, and +the accordance of Commonwealth local government to Texas as soon as +consistent with the Constitution of the United States.</p> + +<p>As we have seen, the President and Mr. Calhoun had thought that the +proper way to annex a foreign state to the United States was by means +of a treaty, in which the foreign state should cede its territory to +the United States; and that the matter of local government for the +ceded territory and its population would then be a question of +legislation. We have also seen that the <a name="page322"></a>opponents of the proposed +Treaty in the Senate took the ground, among other things, that Texas +was already a state, seeking admission into the Union as a "State" +(Commonwealth), and that this could be effected only by an act of +Congress. But now the opposition in the House of Representatives to +the joint resolution, expressed in the very words of the proposed +Treaty, declared that the resolution provided for a cession of +territory by a foreign state to the United States, which cession could +be made and accepted only through the form of a treaty. The House had +never, however, committed itself to the view of the Senate, and the +friends of the resolution wasted no time in demonstrating the +inconsistency, but sought to so amend the resolution as to make it an +act for the formation of a new Commonwealth, or, as it is usually +phrased, an act for the admission of a new "State" into this Union.</p> +<a name="side424"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote424"> + <tr> + <td><small>Passage of an enabling act<br> + for Texas by the House<br> + of Representatives.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On January 25th, 1845, the House passed a substitute for the +committee's resolution, which substitute was a resolution for enabling +the people of Texas to form a Commonwealth constitution and +government, preparatory to admission into this Union, and prescribing +certain conditions for the assent of Congress to the same.</p> +<a name="side425"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote425"> + <tr> + <td><small>The resolution in the<br> + Senate, and Mr. Archer's<br> + inconsistencies.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>When this resolution reached the Senate, it was referred to the +committee of that body for Foreign Affairs, and on February 4th, Mr. +Archer, the chairman of the committee, presented a report from his +committee, and a recommendation that the proposition from the House be +rejected. The ground for this recommendation, as contained in the +report, was that the House had undertaken to do by an act of Congress +what could be done only by means of a treaty. And this was from that +same Mr. Archer, who, on June 8th preceding, had opposed the +<a name="page323"></a>ratification of the Treaty, on the ground that what was proposed to be +effected by a treaty could be done only by means of an act of +Congress.</p> +<a name="side426"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote426"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Senate's<br> + amendment to<br> + the resolution<br> + of the House.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was not to be expected that the Senate or the country would put up +with any such inconsistent trifling. The Senators were, however, much +concerned in preserving the treaty-making power of the Senate, and +hesitated long, attempting to find the way out of the embarrassment, +which they had prepared for themselves, by their attitude, during the +preceding session, toward the proposed Treaty. At last, on February +27th, Mr. Walker, of Mississippi, offered an apparent method of +escape. He moved to amend the resolution sent from the House by the +provision that, if the President should deem it more advisable to +negotiate with Texas for her admission into the Union than to submit +the joint resolution as an overture to her, he might do so, and then +might submit the agreements, which might thus be made, either to the +Senate to be approved of as a treaty, or to both Houses to be approved +of as an act. Everybody knew, of course, that this was a mere +subterfuge to save appearances, and that the President would +immediately communicate the joint resolution to the Texan authorities.</p> +<a name="side427"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote427"> + <tr> + <td><small>The concurrence of the House in the<br> + Senate's amendment, and the passage<br> + of the measure for Admission.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The House of Representatives concurred in the Senate's amendment, and +the President signed the measure on March 1st, 1845. He immediately +submitted the resolution to the Texan authorities, and on December +29th, 1845, Texas was formally admitted as a "State" into this Union.</p> + +<p>There is little question that the President and Mr. Calhoun were +correct as regards the manner in which a foreign state should be +annexed to the United States, but they can hardly be justly blamed or +criticised for <a name="page324"></a>following the method insisted upon by Congress as the +constitutional form and prescript.</p> +<a name="side428"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote428"> + <tr> + <td><small>The British proposition<br> + in regard to Oregon.<br> + <br> + <br> + The American proposition.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In his first annual message President Polk informed Congress that when +he came into office he found that Great Britain had proposed to settle +the Oregon question by making the divisional line between the +possessions of the two Powers, west of the Rocky Mountains, the +forty-ninth parallel of latitude to the northeasternmost branch of the +Columbia River, and, from this point, the course of the river to the +Pacific; that his predecessor had refused this; that he himself had, +upon invitation from the British plenipotentiary to make a +proposition, offered the forty-ninth parallel from the Rocky Mountains +to the Pacific, although he believed the claim of the United States to +the territory up to the parallel of fifty-four degrees and forty +minutes to be good; and that this proposition had been rejected by the +British minister.</p> +<a name="side429"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote429"> + <tr> + <td><small>Polk's<br> + recommendation<br> + in regard to<br> + the matter.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The President further declared that all attempts to compromise with +Great Britain had failed, and he recommended that Congress should give +the notice, required by the convention of joint occupancy, for the +termination of that agreement, as the first step toward asserting the +power of the Government over the whole of Oregon. He also recommended +the establishment of a line of posts along the Oregon route for the +protection of emigrants to Oregon, and the immediate extension of the +jurisdiction of the United States Government over the citizens of the +United States in Oregon.</p> + +<p>This was distinct enough and belligerent enough. The Abolitionists and +anti-slavery Whigs, who had been twitting the Administration with +indifference about Oregon, now that Texas had been secured, could +<a name="page325"></a>certainly find no fault with the President's attitude toward the +question. At any rate, it was a challenge to them which could not be +ignored.</p> +<a name="side430"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote430"> + <tr> + <td><small>The debate upon<br> + the President's<br> + recommendation.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Both Houses entered immediately upon the discussion of the question of +giving the notice. As the debate progressed the war fever became +allayed, and the conviction grew that the claim to the line of +fifty-four forty was extravagant. The majority, at least, saw that the +claim by occupation and settlement was the right basis for the +determination of the dispute, and that this claim would give the +United States the territory only to the line of the northern watershed +of the Columbia.</p> + +<p>This line does, indeed, reach at points above the forty-ninth +parallel, but the fact that this parallel was already the divisional +line between the possessions of the two Powers from the Great Lakes to +the Rockies, and that the United States had already proposed to Great +Britain the continuation of this line to the Pacific, produced the +general feeling that the United States should be satisfied with the +forty-ninth parallel as the northern boundary of Oregon, rather than +risk war for the more northern line. Still, the opponents of the +Administration had been so quick to charge the President with +indifference to the acquisition of territory, upon which +non-slaveholding Commonwealths would be established, that they were +now fairly ashamed to lag behind him.</p> +<a name="side431"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote431"> + <tr> + <td><small>The conclusion<br> + reached by<br> + Congress.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Owing to the course taken by the Senate, Congress did not, however, +come to any conclusion upon the recommendation of the President until +April 23rd, 1846, and then, in the resolution finally passed, it almost +emasculated the President's proposition. It empowered the President to +give the notice, but explained that the purpose of the same was <a name="page326"></a>to +direct the attention of the two Governments toward the adoption of +more earnest measures for the amicable settlement of the question, and +it threw upon the President the responsibility as to the time of +giving the notice, by placing that matter entirely within his +discretion.</p> +<a name="side432"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote432"> + <tr> + <td><small>The President's<br> + retort upon<br> + Congress.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The President had already reopened negotiations with Great Britain +upon the subject, and, on June 10th, he laid before the Senate a +proposal, from the British Envoy, of the forty-ninth parallel for the +boundary, and asked the Senate to advise him as to whether he should +close with the offer. It was not customary to consult the Senate at +this point of the negotiations, but there was precedent for it, and +the letter of the Constitution appears to warrant it, and the +President was determined to retort upon the Senate, for its action in +the matter of the notice, by throwing the responsibility upon that +body of sacrificing the claims of the United States to territory above +the forty-ninth parallel. He plainly informed the Senate that he would +reject the offer unless advised by it to accept.</p> +<a name="side433"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote433"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Oregon<br> + Treaty.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Senate was fairly caught in its own net, and had the good sense to +refrain from a resistance which would have been only an undignified +floundering in meshes prepared by itself. On the 12th, the Senate +advised the President to accept the British overture. On the 15th, the +President signed the treaty, and, on the 18th, the Senate ratified it +by a large majority.</p> + +<p>Not many realized, at the moment, that the extension of the +sovereignty of the United States to the Pacific above the forty-second +parallel of north latitude would require the like extension to the +south of it. Once across the Rockies it was inevitable that the +natural boundary in the southwest, as well as in the northwest, should +be ultimately attained. It came sooner than anybody expected.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="chap16"></a><a name="page327"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER XVI.</h3> + +<center>THE WAR WITH MEXICO</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side434">Slidell's Mission to +Mexico</a>—<a href="#side435">The Failure of the +Mission</a>—<a href="#side436">The Concentration of the Mexican Forces at +Matamoras</a>—<a href="#side437">The United States Forces Ordered to the Rio +Grande</a>—<a href="#side438">Hostilities +Opened</a>—<a href="#side439">The Battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la +Palma</a>—<a href="#side440">The Attitude of Congress toward the +War</a>—<a href="#side441">Congressional Approval of the +War</a>—<a href="#side442">The Occupation of New Mexico and Upper California, and the Advance into +Mexico</a>—<a href="#side443">California's +Importance</a>—<a href="#side444">The Battle of Buena +Vista</a>—<a href="#side445">Vera Cruz and Cerro +Gordo</a>—<a href="#side446">Contreras, San Antonio, and +Cherubusco</a>—<a href="#side447">The Plan for a Cession of Territory from +Mexico</a>—<a href="#side448">The Wilmot +Proviso</a>—<a href="#side448">The Fate of the Wilmot Proviso in the +Senate</a>—<a href="#side449">The Proviso Again Voted by the House of +Representatives</a>—<a href="#side450">The Upham Amendment in the +Senate</a>—<a href="#side450">The Amendment Defeated by the Efforts of Mr. +Cass</a>—<a href="#side450">The Wilmot Proviso Dropped in the +House</a>—<a href="#side451">The Mission of Mr. +Trist</a>—<a href="#side452">Rejection of Mr. Trist's Propositions by the +Mexicans</a>—<a href="#side453">Negotiations Broken off</a>—<a href="#side453">Molino del Rey, Chapultepec, +Mexico</a>—<a href="#side454">The Recall of Mr. Trist, and the Treaty of Guadalupe +Hidalgo</a>—<a href="#side455">Ratification of the Treaty.</a></blockquote> +<br> +<a name="side434"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote434"> + <tr> + <td><small>Slidell's<br> + mission to<br> + Mexico.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>As we have seen, the Mexican Government had announced to the +Government of the United States that the annexation of Texas would be +regarded by Mexico as a <i>casus belli</i>. Consequently, as soon as the +matter was concluded, the Mexican Envoy left Washington, and all +diplomatic relations between the two Powers were suspended. Some six +months later, President Polk made overtures for the resumption of +these relations, and, upon meeting a somewhat friendly response, +commissioned Mr. John Slidell, of Louisiana, to go to Mexico and +negotiate a treaty, which should settle all the differences between +the two Powers.</p> +<a name="page328"></a> +<p>Mr. Slidell arrived at Vera Cruz on November 30th, 1845, and found +that President Herrera's Administration was afraid to receive him, +because the military or war party in Mexico, led by General Paredes, +was greatly excited by the attitude of the Administration toward the +United States, and threatened revolution. The Mexican Government +actually refused audience to Mr. Slidell, on December 21st.</p> +<a name="side435"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote435"> + <tr> + <td><small>The failure of<br> + the mission.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Before the end of the year, President Herrera gave way to General +Paredes, who assumed the presidency of the Republic, and, under +direction from President Polk, Mr. Slidell announced himself to the +new Administration. This was March 1st, 1846. On the 12th, he received +the refusal of the Paredes Government to give him audience, and +immediately left Mexico.</p> +<a name="side436"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote436"> + <tr> + <td><small>The concentration of the<br> + Mexican forces at Matamoras.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>During the summer of 1845, the Mexican Government had begun to collect +troops and munitions of war at Matamoras, on the south bank of the Rio +Grande near its mouth. The purpose of all this was without question an +expedition across the Rio Grande, and into the region north of it.</p> + +<p>By an act of the Texan Congress, of December 19th, 1836, the Rio +Grande was designated as the southwestern boundary of Texas. The +United States took Texas with this boundary, reserving in the +resolution of annexation the right of adjusting the Texan boundaries +with foreign states. This meant, of course, that the United States +might change the boundary which Texas had given herself, as the result +of her successful rebellion, her revolution, against Mexico, by an +agreement with Mexico, in so far as Texas was concerned. It further +meant that any such change must be made either by an act of the +Congress of the United States or by a treaty between the United States +and Mexico. Until, <a name="page329"></a>however, this adjustment should take place, it was +the duty of the President of the United States to defend the boundary +with which Texas came into the Union. Moreover, Congress had passed an +act, on December 31st, 1845, in which Corpus Christi, a town situated +on the south side of the river Nueces, was made an United States port +of delivery. The town was, also, the head-quarters of the United States +army in Texas, and had been so from the period of annexation.</p> +<a name="side437"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote437"> + <tr> + <td><small>The United States forces<br> + ordered to the Rio Grande.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>When now the Mexican Government refused to receive Mr. Slidell, and +continued to increase the forces at Matamoras, President Polk felt it +to be his duty to defend the line of the Rio Grande. On January 13th, +he ordered General Taylor, then in command at Corpus Christi, to +advance to the northern bank of the Rio Grande. The General, with his +little army of about 2,000 men, arrived upon the Rio Grande, at a +point opposite Matamoras, on March 28th, and began fortifying his +position.</p> +<a name="side438"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote438"> + <tr> + <td><small>Hostilities<br> + opened.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On April 12th, the Mexican commander, General Ampudia, demanded the +withdrawal of Taylor's forces within twenty-four hours, and their +retirement across the Nueces, under threat of the appeal to arms. +Taylor paid no attention to the demand, and, on the 24th, he received +notice from General Arista, the successor of Ampudia, that hostilities +were opened.</p> +<a name="side439"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote439"> + <tr> + <td><small>The battles of Palo<br> + Alto and Resaca<br> + de la Palma.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On the same day, a reconnoitring party of United States dragoons +encountered a large detachment of Mexican soldiers, who had just +crossed the river farther up, and were all killed or captured. General +Taylor moved out from Fort Brown, opposite Matamoras, in order to +cover his base of supplies at Point Isabel, and, having accomplished +this, faced about again to relieve Fort Brown against assault from +Matamoras. <a name="page330"></a>While executing this movement he found himself, on May 8th, +face to face with a Mexican army numbering three times as many men as +his own. Nevertheless, he inflicted a crushing defeat upon the +Mexicans in this battle of Palo Alto, and struck them again the next +day at Resaca de la Palma, routing them completely, and driving the +remnants of this once apparently formidable force across the Rio +Grande.</p> + +<p>As soon as the news of these events reached Washington, the President +informed Congress of them, claimed that war existed by the act of +Mexican invasion, and asked for the means for its successful +prosecution.</p> +<a name="side440"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote440"> + <tr> + <td><small>The attitude<br> + of Congress<br> + toward the war.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>From the reception of this message to the end of the War, the Whigs in +both Houses condemned the War, but only a few of them voted against +furnishing the means for its prosecution. Strangely enough, they were +aided by Mr. Calhoun, who opposed the whole war policy from the +beginning to the end. He even opposed recognizing the existence of +war. He was getting old and more peaceable in disposition, and also +had probably seen, with Mr. Thompson, that any further slavery +extension toward the Southwest meant the extinction of slavery in the +border Commonwealths, and the greater exposure of the planting section +to the influences of Abolition. Some of the Whigs claimed that if war +existed at all, it was offensive war, and that the President had +exceeded his constitutional powers in bringing it on, and should be +impeached for so doing.</p> + +<p>The truth of this proposition depended, of course, upon the +recognition by the United States of Mexico's title to the territory +between the Rio Grande and the Nueces, or, at least, upon the +recognition of it as a free zone, a proposition difficult to reconcile +with the Acts <a name="page331"></a>of Congress annexing Texas, and extending the revenue +laws of the United States over this very district. The fact is, it was +a defensive war at the outset, and if the Mexicans were excited to +their move across the Rio Grande by the appearance of United States +troops on the northern bank, they had only to thank themselves for +bringing them there by previously massing their own troops on the +south bank.</p> +<a name="side441"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote441"> + <tr> + <td><small>Congressional<br> + approval<br> + of the war.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Of course the Abolitionists could see nothing in the matter but a +wicked scheme for the extension of slavery. Their attitude was, +however, too narrow and bigoted to win much attention. And, as the +debate on the President's message progressed, it became manifest that +all the elements of the opposition were getting deeper and deeper into +the quicksands. The bill for recognizing the existence of war, and +authorizing the President to call for 50,000 volunteers, and for +appropriating $10,000,000 to defray the expenses of the campaign, was +passed by an overwhelming majority, in both Houses, on May 11th and +12th, and approved by the President on the 13th.</p> + +<p>The President was now, certainly, authorized to carry the War into +Mexico, if, indeed, he needed Congressional authority, at all, after +the war had been once begun as defensive war. At any rate, General +Taylor's occupation of Matamoras did not occur until May 18th, six +days after Congress had recognized war.</p> +<a name="side442"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote442"> + <tr> + <td><small>The occupation of New Mexico<br> + and Upper California, and<br> + the advance into Mexico.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The President now ordered General Kearny to occupy New Mexico, +Commodores Sloat and Stockton to make sure of Upper California, and +General Taylor to prosecute the war upon Mexican soil. Kearny, Sloat, +and Stockton quickly accomplished the work assigned them, and without +much difficulty, and Taylor advanced, in September, from Matamoras +upon Monterey. After a <a name="page332"></a>three days siege, he captured the place, on the +24th, and established winter-quarters within its walls.</p> + +<p>At the same time, General Kearny sent Colonel Doniphan with a +detachment of his army to Monterey, by way of Chihuahua, and marched +himself with another detachment to San Diego in California. Doniphan's +capture of Chihuahua brought the entire southern valley of the upper +Rio Grande under the military control of the United States, and +Kearny's successful march into California secured that territory +against all eventualities.</p> +<a name="side443"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote443"> + <tr> + <td><small>California's<br> + importance.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The occupation of California was the matter of most vital importance +to the United States. It is the way to Asia. Its government by Mexico +was a farce. It would have been purchased or seized by Great Britain, +or some other commercial Power, if the United States had not taken +possession of it. Nothing was known of its vast mineral wealth at the +time. Mere greed, therefore, did not prompt the movement. It was a +great and correct stroke of public policy, supported by geographical, +commercial, and political reasons.</p> + +<p>Still Mexico would not yield, and the Administration at Washington now +determined to carry the war into the very vitals of the Mexican state. +The campaign against the Mexican capital, by way of Vera Cruz, was now +resolved on, and General Scott was directed to execute it.</p> + +<p>Santa Anna, who had now arrived in Mexico again from Cuba, and had +again taken up the reins of government, thought that the army of +General Scott would be unable to capture Vera Cruz without a long and +painful siege, and planned to advance rapidly from the capital with +the main body of his army to the north, crush Taylor, and return to +the capital before Scott could pass Vera Cruz.</p> +<a name="side444"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote444"> + <tr> + <td><small>The battle of<br> + Buena Vista.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On February 20th, 1847, General Taylor, whose advance was now some +hundred miles to the southwest of <a name="page333"></a>Monterey, suddenly discovered a +large Mexican force in front of him. It was Santa Anna, with about +twenty thousand of his best troops. Taylor ordered his little army of +about five thousand men to retire for a few miles, and take position +on the rising ground at Buena Vista. The Mexicans soon caught up, and +on the 23rd, Santa Anna demanded unconditional surrender. Taylor +promptly declined, and the battle immediately opened. Both sides knew +the serious character of the wager. California, New Mexico, and, +perhaps, a large part of Texas were staked upon the issue. Before the +day closed, Taylor and his little army had won a complete victory, and +the Mexicans were in full retreat, after the loss of some two thousand +men. Taylor lost about eight hundred men. With this the campaign in +the north was closed, and attention turned almost exclusively to the +operations of General Scott.</p> +<a name="side445"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote445"> + <tr> + <td><small>Vera Cruz and Cerro Gordo.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On March 9th, General Scott effected a landing near Vera Cruz, and on +the 29th captured that city. He immediately took up his line of march +for the city of Mexico.</p> + +<p>The first great difficulty which he was compelled to encounter was, +naturally, the forcing of the mountain pass of Cerro Gordo, through +which the national road from Vera Cruz to the city of Mexico led. +Santa Anna had gathered here an army of some fifteen thousand men, and +had thrown up strong earthworks commanding the defile. On the morning +of April 18th, General Scott stormed the heights of Cerro Gordo, and +in a sanguinary battle routed the Mexicans completely. Some three +thousand Mexicans were captured, with five thousand muskets and +forty-three pieces of artillery. Scott's loss was not over four +hundred men. Jalapa, Perote, and Puebla fell into his hands as the +immediate consequences of this victory.</p> +<a name="page334"></a> +<p>General Scott rested his army for two months at Puebla, and in the +beginning of August resumed his march upon the capital, with an army +of about eleven thousand men. On the 18th, he arrived within ten miles +of the city, and found himself confronted by an army of nearly thirty +thousand men, commanded by President Santa Anna himself.</p> +<a name="side446"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote446"> + <tr> + <td><small>Contreras, San<br> + Antonio, and<br> + Cherubusco.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On the morning of the 19th, the struggle began, and lasted through the +20th. Three distinct battles were fought—Contreras, San Antonio, and +Cherubusco. The Mexicans outnumbered Scott's army three to one, and +fought desperately to save their capital, but all to no avail. After +killing, wounding, and capturing between seven and eight thousand +Mexicans, General Scott dispersed the remainder of their army and +opened his way into the city. The General was willing, however, to +save the proud Mexicans from the humiliation of seeing their capital +in the hands of the invader, and agreed to an armistice for the +purpose of negotiating a peace.</p> +<a name="side447"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote447"> + <tr> + <td><small>The plan for<br> + a cession of<br> + territory<br> + from Mexico.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On August 8th, 1846, President Polk had asked of Congress that two +millions of dollars be placed at his disposal for use in negotiating a +treaty of peace with Mexico. It was quite evident from this that the +President was going to demand a large cession of territory from +Mexico. Mexico had not yet paid any of the claims awarded by the +Claims Commission of 1840 to the citizens of the United States. There +were also millions of dollars of claims unadjudged. And then there was +the war indemnity, which would undoubtedly be required. Two millions +of dollars, in addition to all this, to be paid by the victorious +party for peace, could mean nothing less, or other, than a vast +territorial cession from the vanquished. It was evident to all that +California and New Mexico, already in the possession of <a name="page335"></a>the United +States, must constitute the sacrifice which Mexico must make.</p> +<a name="side448"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote448"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Wilmot<br> + Proviso.<br> + <br> + <br> + The fate of the<br> + Wilmot Proviso<br> + in the Senate.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. McKay, of North Carolina, immediately introduced into the House of +Representatives a bill making the appropriation asked by the +President. Discussion upon the bill was scarcely under way, when a +Northern Democrat, a supporter of the War and of the policy of +territorial extension, Mr. David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, moved to +amend the bill by inserting in it the condition that neither slavery +nor involuntary servitude should exist in any territory acquired by +treaty from Mexico. The House passed the bill, with the Wilmot +proviso, as it was termed, on the day of its introduction, August 8th. +Territorial extension, but not slavery extension, was its principle, +and therefore the South voted almost solidly against it. The bill +appeared in the Senate on the 10th, which was the last day of the +session, and was still under discussion when the hour for the +adjournment of the body <i>sine die</i> arrived. It was thought by some +competent judges that the Senate would have passed the bill, if it had +then come to a vote, and would have thus settled, at the outset, the +question of slavery extension; but this is at least doubtful. At the +moment, the South had four more votes in the Senate than the North, +and it is probable that the Whig Senators from the South would have +united with their Democratic brethren upon this question.</p> +<a name="side449"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote449"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Proviso again<br> + voted by the House<br> + of Representatives.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>At the beginning of the session of 1846-47, the President again +preferred his request for an appropriation for the same purpose, and +during the month of January, 1847, bills were introduced into the two +Houses, providing an appropriation of three millions of dollars for +the President's use in his negotiations with Mexico.</p> +<a name="page336"></a> +<p>When the House took up its bill for consideration, on February 1st, +Mr. Wilmot immediately asked permission to move the attachment of his +proviso to the appropriation, and made a strong argument in favor of +the same. On the 15th, the proviso was again voted, but by a reduced +majority. The members from the South voted, this time, solidly against +it. A few Northern Democrats voted with them; among these was Stephen +A. Douglas.</p> +<a name="side450"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote450"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Upham<br> + amendment<br> + in the Senate.<br> + <br> + <br> + The amendment<br> + defeated<br> + by the efforts<br> + of Mr. Cass.<br> + <br> + <br> + The Wilmot Proviso<br> + dropped in the House.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On March 1st, Senator Upham, of Vermont, introduced an amendment to +the Senate bill, of the same tenor as the Wilmot proviso in the House, +and urged its adoption in a strong and convincing argument. It really +seemed as if the victory for Free-soil in the new acquisitions, +whatever they might be, was about to be won, when, to the surprise of +at least a considerable number of the Senators, General Cass, of +Michigan, who was thought to have indicated his favor to the Wilmot +proviso at the last session, made a determined effort against Mr. +Upham's motion. Mr. Cass declared the measure premature, and contended +that its only effect, if passed, at the moment would be to weaken the +Government by internal dissensions upon the slavery question, and +consequently encourage the Mexicans to continue the War. He urged the +Senators to stand solidly together for the vigorous prosecution of the +War to its successful close, and then, after the peace, take up the +internal questions arising out of the settlement. The Senate rejected +Mr. Upham's amendment, passed the bill without it, and, on the last +day of the session, the House accepted the bill as it passed the +Senate. Mr. Cass's idea that the anti-slavery proviso would embarrass +the President in his negotiations with Mexico, and would <a name="page337"></a>encourage the +Mexicans to continue the War seems to have convinced the House as well +as the Senate.</p> +<a name="map4"></a> +<table align="center" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" summary="map4"> + <tr> + <td width="628"> + <img src="images/5.jpg" alt="CALIFORNIA AND NEW MEXICO in 1850"> + </td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The President had now the tacit consent of Congress to the acquisition +of California and New Mexico, and the means to pay for them in hand. +And the greater military successes of General Scott from Vera Cruz to +the Mexican capital prepared the way for the President to make use of +his power.</p> +<a name="side451"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote451"> + <tr> + <td><small>The mission<br> + of Mr. Trist.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The President sent Mr. N. P. Trist, of Virginia, to the head-quarters +of General Scott with the draft of a treaty to be offered the Mexican +Government. It designated the Rio Grande from the Gulf to the point +where the River touched the line of New Mexico as the boundary between +Mexico and the United States from the Gulf to that point, and provided +for the cession of New Mexico and the Californias to the United +States, and the privilege of the right of way across the Isthmus of +Tehuantepec. Mr. Trist was instructed, however, that he might withdraw +the demands for Lower California and for the right of way across the +Isthmus, and might also offer a payment of money, if he should find +these things necessary.</p> +<a name="side452"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote452"> + <tr> + <td><small>Rejection of Mr.<br> + Trist's propositions<br> + by the Mexicans.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>After the armistice of August 24th, the Mexican Government sent +commissioners to meet Mr. Trist. They promptly rejected Mr. Trist's +propositions, and offered, as their ultimatum, the Nueces boundary, +the cession of Upper California above the thirty-seventh parallel of +latitude for a pecuniary consideration, the payment by the United +States of an indemnity for private injuries inflicted by the United +States troops during the invasion, etc. Nothing, moreover, was said in +their offer concerning the claims of the citizens of the United States +against Mexico.</p> +<a name="side453"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote453"> + <tr> + <td><small>Negotiations broken off.<br> + Molino del Rey,<br> + Chapultepec, Mexico.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The proposals were so far apart, and the Mexicans <a name="page338"></a>bore themselves with +so much arrogance, that the negotiations were broken off, the +armistice was terminated, and General Scott resumed military +operations. On September 8th, he inflicted a crushing defeat upon the +Mexicans at Molino del Rey. On the 13th, he stormed successfully the +heights of Chapultepec and two gates of the city. And on the 14th, he +captured the city.</p> + +<p>President Polk now recalled Mr. Trist, and informed Congress of the +failure of the negotiations, at the same time intimating that the +policy of the Administration would be war <i>à outrance</i>. The opposition +to the Administration in Congress declared that the total +dismemberment of the Mexican Republic was intended, and raised their +voices against it. The outcry helped the Administration, in that it +called the attention of the Mexicans to the great danger they were +incurring in not accepting the terms of peace which had been offered +them.</p> +<a name="side454"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote454"> + <tr> + <td><small>The recall of Mr. Trist,<br> + and the Treaty of<br> + Guadalupe Hidalgo.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Trist did not, however, return to the United States, but waited in +and around the City of Mexico for something to turn up. It seems that +he did not even acquaint the Mexican Government with the fact of his +recall. In the latter part of January, 1848, the Mexican commissioners +approached him, and, on February 2nd, they signed with him, at +Guadalupe Hidalgo, a treaty of peace, which provided for the Rio +Grande boundary between the two Powers, the cession of New Mexico and +Upper California to the United States, the payment of $15,000,000 by +the United States to Mexico, and the assumption by the United States +of all the obligations of Mexico to citizens of the United States +incurred before the conclusion of the Treaty.</p> +<a name="side455"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote455"> + <tr> + <td><small>Ratification<br> + of the Treaty.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Trist immediately took the proposed Treaty to <a name="page339"></a>Washington, and +President Polk immediately laid it before the Senate for ratification. +After three weeks of determined opposition by Senators from both +parties and both sections, ratification was voted by the requisite +two-thirds majority, on March 16th, 1848. With this the whole +political energy of the nation was turned away from the international +question to the internal questions involved in the organization of the +vast territorial empire upon the Pacific, which had now been added to +the United States by the Treaties with Great Britain and Mexico.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="chap17"></a><a name="page340"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER XVII.</h3> + +<center>THE ORGANIZATION OF OREGON TERRITORY AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1850</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side456">Bills for Oregon +Territory</a>—<a href="#side458">Thirty-six Degrees and Thirty Minutes to the +Pacific</a>—<a href="#side459">Mr. Rhett on the Rights of the South in the +Territories</a>—<a href="#side461">The Third Oregon +Bill</a>—<a href="#side464">The Party Platforms of +1848</a>—<a href="#side465">The President Urges the Organization of California and New +Mexico</a>—<a href="#side466">Mr. Clayton's Attempt at +Compromise</a>—<a href="#side468">Passage of the Oregon Bill by +Congress</a>—<a href="#side469">The Free-soil Party in +1848</a>—<a href="#side470">The President's Approval of the Oregon +Bill</a>—<a href="#side471">Gold and Silver in +California</a>—<a href="#side472">The Election of Taylor, and the Disaffection of the Northern +Democrats</a>—<a href="#side472">Plans for the Organization of California and New +Mexico</a>—<a href="#side475">The House Bill for the Territorial Organization of Upper +California</a>—<a href="#side476">Mr. Walker's Scheme in the +House</a>—<a href="#side477">Mr. Webster and Mr. Berrien on the Status of Slavery in the Territory Acquired from +Mexico</a>—<a href="#side478">Emigration to +California</a>—<a href="#side479">President Taylor's +Scheme</a>—<a href="#side480">The Convention at +Monterey</a>—<a href="#side481">The Policy of the +Administration</a>—<a href="#side482">The Policy of the Slavery +Extensionists</a>—<a href="#side483">The Elements of the Slavery Question in +Congress</a>—<a href="#side484">Mr. Clay's Plan of +Compromise</a>—<a href="#side485">Objections to Mr. Clay's +Plan</a>—<a href="#side487">California's Application for +Admission</a>—<a href="#side488">Mr. Calhoun's Last +Speech</a>—<a href="#side489">Mr. Webster's March 7th +Speech</a>—<a href="#side490">Mr. Bell's +Proposition</a>—<a href="#side491">The Death of Mr. +Calhoun</a>—<a href="#side492">Mr. Foote's Motion and the Committee of +Thirteen</a>—<a href="#side493">The Report and Recommendations of the +Committee</a>—<a href="#side494">The Debate Upon the Bills Proposed by the Committee, and the Failure to Pass +Them</a>—<a href="#side495">The Temper of the +Country</a>—<a href="#side496">The Succession of Fillmore and His Message of August +6th</a>—<a href="#side497">The Passage of Bills, Separately, Covering All Questions Contained in Mr. Clay's +Compromise Measures.</a></blockquote> +<br> +<a name="side456"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote456"> + <tr> + <td><small>First bill for<br> + Oregon Territory.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On August 6th, 1846, Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, chairman of the +committee on Territories, asked the House <a name="page341"></a>of Representatives to +consider a bill prepared by that committee for the organization of +Oregon as a Territory. The House consented, and immediately upon the +second reading of the bill, Mr. Thompson, of Pennsylvania, a Democrat +and friend of the Administration, moved to amend the bill by the +provision "that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever +exist in said Territory, except for crimes, whereof the party shall +have been duly convicted." The amendment was adopted by a very large +majority, and the bill, as thus amended, was passed. On the following +day, the bill was presented in the Senate, and referred by that body +to its Judiciary committee, which committee did not report the bill +during the session.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote457"> + <tr> + <td><small>The second bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>At the beginning of the next session, Mr. Douglas introduced a new +bill for the same purpose. This bill virtually contained the Thompson +amendment in the proviso that all the restrictions in the Ordinance of +1787, in regard to the Northwest Territory, should apply to Oregon.</p> +<a name="side458"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote458"> + <tr> + <td><small>Thirty-six degrees<br> + and thirty minutes<br> + to the Pacific.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On January 12th, 1847, Mr. Burt, of South Carolina, moved to insert +before this proviso the words, "inasmuch as the whole of the said +Territory lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north +latitude, known as the line of the Missouri Compromise." The purpose +of this was, of course, to commit Congress and the North to that line +to the Pacific. This was so evident that the Northern members voted +the amendment down. We can, however, hardly charge the invention of +this idea to the South Carolinian. On August 8th preceding, Mr. Wick, +of Indiana, had moved to amend the Wilmot proviso, so as to make it +read, that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should exist, in +any territory <a name="page342"></a>acquired from Mexico <i>north of thirty-six degrees and +thirty minutes</i>.</p> +<a name="side459"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote459"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Rhett on the rights<br> + of the South in<br> + the Territories.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was during the debate on this bill, just after Mr. Burt's amendment +had been rejected, that Mr. Rhett, of South Carolina, made his noted +speech, in which the new view, which the South was now beginning to +take upon the rights of the two sections in the Territories, was first +pronounced. That view was, briefly expressed, that the "States" were +joint owners of the Territories, and "co-Sovereigns" in them; that the +general Government was only the agent of the "States" therein, and had +only the power "to dispose of, and make all needful rules and +regulations respecting the territory, or other property of the United +States," from which power, the power to determine in what property +should consist within the Territories could not be derived; and that +the "ingress of the citizen" of any "State" into any Territory, "is +the ingress of his Sovereign," his "State," who is bound to protect +him in his settlement.</p> + +<p>Mr. Rhett qualified this conclusion by saying that it did not mean +that each "State" should set up government in the Territories over its +citizens immigrating into them, but that it meant that the citizens of +each "State" should have equal right to enter the Territories and +settle and occupy them with their property, with whatever was +recognized as property by their respective "States." Stated more +clearly, it meant that the general Government must execute the laws of +each "State;" defining and protecting property, in each Territory of +the Union—of each "State" from which citizens had emigrated into the +Territory concerned—and must execute these several "State" laws over +the immigrants from the several "States" separately.</p> +<a name="page343"></a> +<p>In plain, blunt Anglo-Saxon, it meant that the general Government must +recognize and protect, as property, in any Territory, anything which +was so recognized and protected by any "State" of the Union. It meant +the establishment of slavery in every Territory of the Union.</p> + +<p>This was a new doctrine in 1847, and it could not immediately prevail, +but its appearance is a mark of the progress which the political +system of the United States was making toward confederatism and +dissolution.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote460"> + <tr> + <td><small>The failure of the<br> + bill in the Senate.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The bill passed the House on January 16th, 1847, by a vote of nearly +four to one, and was immediately sent to the Senate. The Senate +referred it to its Judiciary committee. The committee reported on it, +and the bill was laid on the table, the last day of the session.</p> +<a name="side461"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote461"> + <tr> + <td><small>The third<br> + Oregon bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>During the next session, bills were introduced into both Houses for +organizing Oregon as a Territory. On January 10th, 1848, Mr. Douglas, +who had been transferred from the House to the Senate, presented in +the Senate a bill for the organization of a Territorial government for +Oregon, which provided, among other things, that the laws which the +Oregon settlers had constructed for themselves should, in so far as +they were compatible with the Constitution and laws of the United +States, remain in force until the Territorial legislature should +change them. These laws excluded slavery. Here was the germ of +"squatter-sovereignty," afterward developed by Mr. Douglas in his +Kansas-Nebraska bill.</p> + +<p>The House bill, containing substantially the same provision as the +bill of the preceding session, was introduced on February 9th, 1848, +but this time it met with much more opposition, and the discussion on +it revealed the fact that Mr. Rhett's doctrine had, within the year, +made many converts.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote462"> + <tr> + <td><small>The President urging<br> + action on the bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page344"></a> +<p>The bills were dragging along slowly in both Houses, when, on May +29th, the President sent a special message to Congress urging +immediate action on the subject. This gave some impetus to the +proceedings in both Houses.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote463"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Hale's<br> + amendment.<br> + <br> + <br> + Mr. Davis'<br> + amendment.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On May 21st, Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, moved to amend the Senate +bill by a provision excluding slavery, and insisted upon the power and +the duty of Congress to settle the question of slavery in the +Territories, and to settle it in the interest of freedom. The debate +in the Senate upon Mr. Hale's motion was long and acrimonious, during +which the Southerners advanced to more and more radical ground, until +Mr. Calhoun and his disciple, Mr. Jefferson Davis, expressed the same +constitutional doctrine upon the subject of the extension of slavery +to the Territories as Mr. Rhett had done, which was, in brief, that +neither Congress nor the inhabitants of a Territory had any +constitutional power to abolish slavery in, or exclude it from, a +Territory. On June 23rd, Mr. Davis moved to amend the Oregon bill by +the provision that nothing in the bill should be so construed as to +authorize the prohibition of domestic slavery in said Territory while +it remained in the condition of a Territory. The direct contradiction +between the two amendments expressed, at last, the difference of +attitude now assumed between the North and the South upon the question +of the extension of slavery.</p> +<a name="side464"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote464"> + <tr> + <td><small>The party<br> + platforms<br> + of 1848.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It cannot be said, however, that it represented the difference of +attitude of the two great parties upon the subject. The National +conventions of these parties for the nominations of candidates for the +presidency had just been held. The convention of the Democratic party +had refused to insert the declaration in its platform that Congress +had no <a name="page345"></a>power to interfere with slavery in the Territories, in spite of +the fact that the candidate nominated by it, General Cass, had +acknowledged a leaning to something akin to that view, some five +months previous, in a letter to Mr. Nicholson, of Tennessee, which was +probably intended for circulation in the South. The exact wording of +Mr. Cass' letter does not warrant us in representing him as holding to +anything more, at that time, than that it was sound policy for +Congress to leave the matter of the admission of slavery to, or its +exclusion from, the Territories to the people of the Territories +themselves. It was hardly time for Northern men to take the view of +Congressional impotence in the matter held by Messrs. Rhett, Calhoun, +and Davis.</p> + +<p>On the other hand, the convention of the Whig party had refused to +make the principle of the Wilmot proviso a plank in its platform, in +fact had dodged the whole question of principles by adopting no +platform at all, and by nominating a military man, with no political +record at all, for its candidate, the old hero of Buena Vista, General +Taylor.</p> + +<p>The contradiction of view upon the question of the extension of +slavery to the Territories was, thus, not one between the parties, but +one between the sections. The parties were yet to be transformed by +the differences between the sections. That this was to be the outcome +no far-seeing eye ought then to have failed to perceive.</p> +<a name="side465"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote465"> + <tr> + <td><small>The President urges<br> + the organization<br> + of California<br> + and New Mexico.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>For a fortnight more the confusion produced by the contradictory +propositions of Mr. Hale and Mr. Davis paralyzed the efforts of the +Senate to pass the Oregon bill, when, on July 6th, 1848, the President +sent a special message to Congress urging the immediate organization +of Territorial governments for California and New Mexico, <a name="page346"></a>which were +still under the military régime established at the time of their +occupation.</p> +<a name="side466"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote466"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Clayton's<br> + attempt at<br> + compromise.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It appeared to some of the Senators that here was now offered the +opportunity for settling the whole question of the extension of +slavery to the Territories, by compromise; and, on July 12th, Mr. +Bright, of Indiana, moved to refer the whole matter of the +organization of Territorial governments in Oregon, California, and New +Mexico, to a select committee, composed of four Whigs and four +Democrats, two of each party from the North and the South, +respectively. Mr. Bright's motion was in the form of an amendment or +suggestion to a motion made by Mr. Clayton, that the Oregon bill be +referred to such a committee. Mr. Clayton accepted Mr. Bright's +modification of his motion, and the Senate immediately voted the +resolution, and appointed the committee, with Mr. Clayton as chairman.</p> + +<p>On the 18th, Mr. Clayton reported the bill from his committee, which +provided for the organization of Oregon, with its existing +anti-slavery laws, and with the recognition of the power to the +Territorial legislature to change them; and for the organization of +California and New Mexico, referring the question of the legality of +slavery in them to the Territorial courts, with appeal to the Supreme +Court of the United States, as a constitutional question. That is, the +proposition with reference to slavery in California and New Mexico +was, that slaveholders might take their slaves into these Territories +upon their own responsibility, and that if any slaveholder should be +disturbed in the possession of his slave, he might bring an action in +the Territorial courts against the party disturbing him, with the +right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which final +tribunal should determine the question as a matter <a name="page347"></a>of constitutional +law, and, therefore, upon its own independent interpretation of the +Constitution.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote467"> + <tr> + <td><small>Passage of Mr. Clayton's<br> + bill in the Senate, and<br> + rejection of it in the House.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Senate debated this bill for a week, during which time the flimsy +character of the makeshifts became painfully apparent. The Senate +passed the bill, however, on the 26th, and sent it to the House.</p> + +<p>The House rejected it, and proceeded with its own bill, and, on August +2nd, passed the latter by a strict sectional vote, and sent it to the +Senate for concurrence.</p> +<a name="side468"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote468"> + <tr> + <td><small>The House bill in the<br> + Senate, and Mr.<br> + Douglas' amendment.<br> + <br> + <br> + Passage of the Oregon<br> + bill by Congress.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On the 10th, the Senate passed this bill, with an amendment, proposed +by Mr. Douglas, extending the Missouri Compromise line of thirty-six +degrees and thirty minutes to the Pacific. The House immediately +rejected the amendment, and the Senate was compelled to recede, or let +Oregon go without Territorial government. It wisely voted, on the +12th, to recede from its amendment, and passed the bill, with the +Congressional prohibition of slavery, and without compromise as to the +settlement of the slavery question in California and New Mexico. Among +the Senators who changed their votes upon the amendment were Douglas +from the North, and Benton and Houston from the South.</p> +<a name="side469"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote469"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Free-soil<br> + party in 1848.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The feeling aroused outside of Congress by the contest within the body +was most intense, and had, for its permanent result the organization +of the Anti-slavery-extension party. It called itself then the +"Free-soil" party. It held a National convention at Buffalo, New York, +on August 9th, and nominated Mr. Van Buren for the presidency, on a +platform which distinctly affirmed the power of Congress to exclude +slavery from the Territories, and its duty to exercise the power. Here +was, at last, the <a name="page348"></a>principle and the party of the future. Those who +composed it held to the Union and the Government, vindicated the +national character of both, and while they denied none of the +constitutional rights of the Southern Commonwealths, and none of the +compromises of the Constitution with the slaveholders, yet they +refused to allow the great evil under which the country suffered to +spread into regions uncontaminated by it.</p> +<a name="side470"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote470"> + <tr> + <td><small>The President's approval<br> + of the Oregon bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The President signed the Oregon bill, on August 14th, for the reason, +he said, among other reasons, that it preserved the principle of the +Missouri Compromise, making the territory north of thirty-six degrees +and thirty minutes free soil. And in his message of December 5th, +following, he urged the speedy organization of California and New +Mexico, either upon that principle, or upon the principle of +non-interference by Congress with the question of slaveholding in them, +or upon the basis of an appeal of the question to the Supreme Court of +the United States, which body should interpret the Constitution upon +the subject. He said he believed the first way contained the true +principle, and was the fair thing, but that he was willing to proceed +in either of the other two ways.</p> +<a name="side471"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote471"> + <tr> + <td><small>Gold and silver<br> + in California.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>At the same time, the President gave official verification to the +rumors of the discovery of great quantities of gold and silver in +California, which quickened the emigration of the bold and adventurous +spirits from all parts of the country to the new El Dorado.</p> +<a name="side472"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote472"> + <tr> + <td><small>The election of<br> + Taylor, and the<br> + disaffection of the<br> + Northern Democrats.<br> + <br> + <br> + Plans for the<br> + organization of<br> + California<br> + and New Mexico.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The temper of Congress against slavery extension was even stronger in +the session of 1848-49, than in the preceding session. The Whig +majority in the House of Representatives remained, and now came a +support to the anti-slavery-extension principle of the Northern <a name="page349"></a>Whigs +from Northern Democrats, which had not been before accorded. The +elections of 1848 had greatly surprised the Northern Democrats. The +Whig candidate, General Taylor, carried a majority of the Southern +Commonwealths, and was chosen President. The Democrats of the North +considered that they had been left in the lurch by the Democrats of +the South, and came to the session of 1848-49 with revenge in their +hearts. They were disposed to join hands with the Northern Whigs +against the extension of slavery into any more of the Territories of +the Union. This spirit was, however, far more manifest in the House of +Representatives than in the Senate. On December 11th, 1848, Mr. +Douglas brought into the Senate a plan for avoiding the question in +respect to slavery in California and New Mexico, by immediately +erecting the whole of the territory acquired from Mexico into a single +Commonwealth, and reserving the right to Congress to create new +Commonwealths in that part of this territory lying east of the Sierra +Nevada Mountains. This proposition was referred to the Judiciary +committee for report; but before the report was presented Mr. Smith, +of Indiana, chairman of the committee on Territories, brought in bills +for the organization of Upper California and New Mexico, with the +slavery restriction of the Ordinance of 1787 in them. On January 9th, +1849, Mr. Berrien, chairman of the Judiciary committee, reported +adversely upon Mr. Douglas' proposition, on the grounds, alleged by +him, that Congress could not create a Commonwealth, but could only +admit a Commonwealth into the Union after it had been created by the +sovereign act of the people residing in it, for the performance of +which act the status of Territorial organization was necessary, and +that Congress could never <a name="page350"></a>constitutionally disconnect from any +Commonwealth any portion of its territory for the purpose of forming +it into another Commonwealth, without the consent of the Commonwealth +itself.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote473"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Douglas'<br> + plan.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Douglas immediately modified his bill so as to meet the latter +objection; and on January 24th, offered a substitute for his former +proposition, which provided for a Commonwealth of California that +would not quite cover the territory which the Mexicans included under +the title of the Province of Upper California. On Mr. Douglas' own +motion, this proposition was referred to a select committee, of which +he was appointed chairman; and, on the 29th, he reported a bill from +the committee for forming the territory acquired from Mexico into two +Commonwealths, to be called California and New Mexico; but the Senate +showed so much opposition to the project that it was dropped. More +than half the session had now passed, and the Senate appeared to be +farther than ever from any consensus in regard to what should be done +for California and New Mexico. It was a serious condition of things. +The inhabitants of these Territories were importunately demanding the +establishment of civil government over them for the protection of +life, liberty, and property, and Congress was apparently to do nothing +for them during the current session.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote474"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Walker's<br> + expedient.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On February 19th, Mr. Walker, of Wisconsin, came forward in the Senate +with an expedient. He moved to attach to the Civil and Diplomatic +Appropriation Bill a provision for extending the Constitution, and the +laws of the United States naturally applicable, over all the territory +acquired from Mexico, and for authorizing the President to make all +needful rules and regulations, and to appoint civil officials, for +their execution. The Senate passed this amendment, <a name="page351"></a>and sent the +Appropriation Bill thus modified back to the House for concurrence.</p> +<a name="side475"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote475"> + <tr> + <td><small>The House bill for the<br> + Territorial organization<br> + of Upper California.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Meanwhile the bill in the House for the Territorial organization of +Upper California, with the slavery prohibition clause in it, was +proceeding through a most exciting debate, but with increasing +prospect of final passage. On February 27th, it was passed, by an +almost sectional vote, and sent to the Senate. The Senate referred it +to its committee on Territories, and there it slept as in "the tomb of +all the Capulets."</p> +<a name="side476"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote476"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Walker's<br> + scheme in<br> + the House.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On March 1st, the House took up the Senate's amendment to the Civil +and Diplomatic Appropriation Bill, and referred it to the committee on +Ways and Means. This committee reported, on March 2nd, an amendment to +the Senate's amendment, which provided for the continuance of the +status of military possession and of the Mexican laws in all the +territory acquired from Mexico, until six months after the close of +the next session of Congress. The purpose of this amendment was the +continuance of the Mexican law excluding slavery. The House did not, +however, adopt this proposition, but sent the Appropriation Bill back +to the Senate stripped of the Senate's amendment. The Senate asked a +conference upon the subject, which was granted by the House, but the +Conference committee could come to no agreement.</p> +<a name="side477"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote477"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Webster and Mr.<br> + Berrien on the status<br> + of slavery in the<br> + territory acquired<br> + from Mexico.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The House now passed the proposition of the Ways and Means committee, +slightly modified in form, and sent it to the Senate. Mr. Webster +moved concurrence with the House in this proposition, and said that it +meant no more than the existing status, which would continue if +nothing were done. Mr. Berrien contended, on the contrary, that only +the private law of the ceding country, <a name="page352"></a>the law regulating the +relations between individuals, remains in force in the territory +ceded, until changed by the positive acts of the country receiving the +cession; that the public law of the receiving country is extended at +once, by virtue of the occupation, over the cession; and that slavery +was a part of the public law of the United States, since both the +system of taxation and that of representation rested in part upon it. +Mr. Berrien concluded from these postulates of international and +constitutional law that, if Congress did nothing in the premises, the +President would continue to administer, by means of his military +officials, the private law of Mexico, and the public law of the United +States, in the territory acquired from Mexico, and that this would +allow slaveholders to take their slaves into this territory, and hold +them in slavery; but that if Congress, by a positive enactment, should +adopt the Mexican laws, <i>en bloc,</i> for this territory, slavery would +be thereby excluded from it. In a word, he demonstrated, or thought he +did, that the proposition of the House of Representatives contained +the principle of the Wilmot proviso. The Senate was so deeply +impressed by Mr. Berrien's argument, and so much opposition to the +proposition of the House was manifested, that Mr. Webster offered to +withdraw his motion, if the Southerners would agree to recede from the +Senate's amendment. The bargain was struck, and the Thirtieth Congress +expired without having done anything for the governmental organization +of California and New Mexico, and without having advanced, in the +slightest measure, toward the solution of the fateful question of +slavery extension in the vast empire conquered from Mexico.</p> +<a name="side478"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote478"> + <tr> + <td><small>Emigration to<br> + California.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The official announcement made by President Polk of the mineral wealth +of California had increased the excitement for emigration thither to a +fever, and by the <a name="page353"></a>close of the spring of 1849, California had a +population within her provincial limits numerous enough, according to +prevailing conceptions, to make a Commonwealth.</p> +<a name="side479"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote479"> + <tr> + <td><small>President<br> + Taylor's<br> + scheme.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The new President, Taylor, thought that all further controversy about +the Territorial organization of California might now be avoided, by +skipping the Territorial period and status altogether, and organizing +California immediately as a Commonwealth. He sent a commissioner to +examine the situation on the ground and make report. Whether the +commissioner imparted the President's scheme to General Riley, the +military Governor, or not, we are not informed. We have good reason, +however, to suspect it, since Riley immediately issued a call for a +convention of the people of California to frame a Commonwealth.</p> +<a name="side480"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote480"> + <tr> + <td><small>The convention<br> + at Monterey.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The people quickly responded by choosing delegates, and the delegates +met at Monterey on September 1st, 1849. By October 13th, their work +was completed, and the organic law which they drafted was ratified by +the people, on November 13th. One of its provisions was the +prohibition of slavery. The filling up of California by immigration +had been too sudden for the holders of slaves to take part in the +movement. It was accomplished, it could be accomplished, only by bold, +alert, shrewd adventurers, untrammelled by families or stupid African +retainers. It was reported that every delegate in the convention voted +for the prohibition of slavery, and the people ratified the instrument +containing it by a vote of fifteen to one.</p> +<a name="side481"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote481"> + <tr> + <td><small>The policy of the<br> + Administration.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The President informed Congress, in his message of December 4th, 1849, +of the proceedings in California, and manifested his desire to admit +California into the Union at once. He also predicted that the people +of <a name="page354"></a>New Mexico would soon follow the example of the Californians. The +policy of the Administration in reference to this question was thus +clearly defined, and was, whether intentional or not, a policy +favorable to the prohibition of slavery in both California and New +Mexico. The slaveholders, or rather the slavery extensionists, +regarded the President's position as treachery to his section.</p> +<a name="side482"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote482"> + <tr> + <td><small>The policy of the<br> + slavery extensionists.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The policy of the slavery extensionists was to organize California and +New Mexico as Territories, without the prohibition of slavery in them, +giving thus time and opportunity for slaveholders to settle in them, +with their slaves, and, when the time should come for the formation of +Commonwealth governments in them, to vote an organic law perpetuating +slavery. This policy was manifested anew in the bill introduced into +the Senate, on the last day of December, 1849, by Mr. Foote, of +Mississippi, for the organization of the entire Mexican cession into +three Territories—California, Deseret or Utah, and New Mexico.</p> +<a name="side483"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote483"> + <tr> + <td><small>The elements of<br> + the slavery question<br> + in Congress.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The slavery question in Congress had now come, however, to include +more than the matter of the governmental organization of the territory +acquired from Mexico. There was, in the first place, the question of +the Texas boundary, in that, by the Joint Resolution annexing Texas, +the adjustment of that boundary, as regarded foreign states, at least, +was reserved to Congress. Texas, as we know, claimed the Rio Grande +from mouth to source, and thence the longitude to the forty-second +parallel of latitude as her southwestern and western boundary. She +came into the Union with a law on her statute book asserting this +boundary. The Treaty with Mexico, recognizing the line of the Rio +Grande to the <a name="page355"></a>limits of New Mexico, and ceding New Mexico, made the +question of the Texan boundary a purely internal question for the +United States, if it was any longer a question. The Abolitionists and +anti-slavery-extensionists wanted to reduce Texas in area, since +slavery was established by the law of the Commonwealth throughout its +entire extent. They therefore interpreted the Resolution of annexation +as reserving that power to Congress, even after the question had +become purely internal. The slavery extensionists, on the contrary, +contended that the power reserved to Congress in reference to the +Texan boundary was now obsolete, since it expressly related only to +the adjustment of the same with Mexico, and that had been accomplished +by the Treaty. Then, there was the war debt of Texas, which was justly +a charge upon the United States—although the Resolution of annexation +repudiated it—since it was hypothecated upon revenue, the proceeds +from which were being covered into the United States Treasury, the +customs collected in the Texan ports. And, then, there was the +question of the rendition of fugitive slaves, since the execution of +the existing law, that of 1793, in regard to this matter, had been +rendered so difficult by the movements of the Abolitionists, after +1835, as to make a more strenuous measure necessary, unless the +slaveholders would abandon their constitutional rights to the +rendition of their escaped slaves. And, lastly, there was the +ever-recurring question of slavery and the slave-trade in the District +of Columbia, which was still clamoring for a hearing.</p> + +<p>Already, before the closing week of January, 1850, had bills been +brought forward, both in the Senate and in the House, touching all of +these subjects, except, perhaps, the last, when, on the 29th, Mr. Clay +came forward with his famous proposition for the adjustment of them +all in one grand scheme.</p> +<a name="side484"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote484"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Clay's plan<br> + of compromise.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page356"></a> +<p>This proposition provided, in the first place, for the immediate +admission of California as a Commonwealth, with suitable boundaries, +and without any restrictions as to slavery; in the second place, for +the establishment of Territorial governments in all of the remainder +of the Mexican cession, without any restrictions as to slavery; in the +third place, for fixing the western boundary of Texas, so as to +exclude any portion of New Mexico; in the fourth place, for the +assumption of the Texan debt contracted before annexation and +hypothecated upon the Texan customs, on condition of the +relinquishment by Texas of all claims on New Mexico; in the fifth +place, for the abolition of the slave-trade in the District of +Columbia, in slaves brought into the District from the outside for the +purpose of sale; and in the sixth place, for a more effective law for +the rendition of fugitive slaves. The resolutions also contained +declarations that slavery did not then exist in any of the territory +acquired from Mexico, and that Congress had no power to prohibit or +obstruct trade in slaves between the slaveholding Commonwealths.</p> +<a name="side485"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote485"> + <tr> + <td><small>Slaveholders' objections<br> + to Mr. Clay's plan.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In spite of the fact that Mr. Clay asked the Senators to consider his +propositions carefully before committing themselves, and suggested +that they should lay over for a week, the Southern Senators +immediately proceeded to attack the plan at several points. They +objected to California being allowed to jump the Territorial period of +probation and preparation for Commonwealth government. They declared +Mr. Clay's dictum about the existing illegality of slavery in the +territory acquired from Mexico to be an assumption, and asserted that +slavery was legal everywhere in the United States, unless a positive +law forbade it. They vindicated the claims of Texas to the boundaries +designated by the Act of the Texan <a name="page357"></a>Congress in 1836. And while some of +them were not decidedly opposed to the abolition of the slave-trade in +the District of Columbia, most of them deprecated meddling with the +subject at all, and wanted to substitute for Mr. Clay's proposition on +the subject a declaration of the lack of any power in Congress to deal +with slavery in the District. The improvement of the fugitive +slave-law was about the only thing in the entire plan which met with +their approval. Mr. Jefferson Davis said outright that he wanted a +positive recognition from Congress of the legality of slavery in the +new territory south of the parallel of thirty-six degrees and thirty +minutes.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote486"> + <tr> + <td><small>Anti-slavery objections<br> + to Mr. Clay's plan.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On the other hand, the Abolitionists and the anti-slavery-extensionists +insisted upon the immediate admission of California, with its +anti-slavery constitution; upon the insertion of the principle of the +Wilmot proviso in the Territorial organization of the remainder of the +acquisition from Mexico; upon the contraction of the Texan limits, +without any compensation to Texas; upon the abolition of the +slave-trade in the District of Columbia, and a declaration of the +power of Congress to deal with slavery in the District; and upon a +jury trial, at the place of apprehension, for every claimed fugitive +from labor.</p> +<a name="side487"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote487"> + <tr> + <td><small>California's application<br> + for admission.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The contradiction between these views appeared irreconcilable. We may +say, however, that a start toward an approach was caused by the +transmission of California's application to Congress for admission, as +a Commonwealth, into the Union.</p> + +<p>This happened on February 13th. On the following day, Mr. Douglas +moved to take up the President's message accompanying the application, +and thus to consider the California question separately from the +others. Mr. Clay agreed to this. Mr. Foote, of Mississippi, scolded +Mr. Clay for thus betraying the South, but the <a name="page358"></a>Southerners were made +to feel that they must modify their opposition to Mr. Clay's plan, if +they desired to avoid something like this.</p> +<a name="side488"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote488"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Calhoun's<br> + last speech.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On March 4th, Mr. Calhoun made his last great speech upon the whole +political situation, its threatening character, and its possible +rectification. He was too feeble to pronounce it himself, and it was +read for him by Senator Mason. Mr. Calhoun's propositions were, that +the Union was endangered; that the immediate cause of the danger was +the universal discontent prevailing in the South from the feeling that +the South could no longer remain with safety and honor in the Union; +and that the cause of this feeling was the fact that the balance of +power between the two sections of the country in the Government was +gone, and the stronger section was endeavoring to make the Government +an unlimited centralized democracy, and use it for interfering in the +internal affairs of the weaker, and for absorbing the substance, as +well as destroying the rights, of the weaker.</p> + +<p>He suggested as remedies for the evils, which he thought existed and +impended, an equal division of the territory to the Pacific between +the North and the South, an amendment to the Constitution restoring +the balance of power between the two sections, proper laws for the +rendition of fugitives from labor, and cessation of the agitation of +the slavery question.</p> + +<p>What should be the provisions of the amendment, restoring the balance +of power in the Government, and how the cessation of the agitation +could be compelled, were not explained. It was not easy to see how +these points could be advanced beyond the position of general +propositions. It was, however, a great and solemn presentation of the +whole question, and it made a great impression.</p> +<a name="side489"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote489"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Webster's<br> + March 7th speech.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page359"></a> +<p>On March 7th, Mr. Webster made his famous speech, giving his great +influence to pacification and compromise, and to the preservation of +the Constitution. He told the Northerners that they were bound by the +agreement with Texas to admit four new Commonwealths from Texan +territory, under the usual conditions; that they were bound by the +Constitution to deliver up fugitive slaves; and that since nature had +made slavery impossible in California and New Mexico, they ought not +to irritate the Southerners by demanding a Congressional prohibition +of slavery therein. He told the Southerners, on the other hand, that +they should desist from denying to citizens from Northern +Commonwealths, temporarily within the jurisdiction of Southern +Commonwealths, the rights of citizens. And he told the Abolitionists +that they should measure their ideas of right, in some degree at +least, by the standard of the common consciousness of the country, and +modify them, in some degree, thereby. His words were received with +great satisfaction by all moderate and prudent men. Of course, they +did not satisfy the extremists, either in the North or the South, but +they settled the minds of many who were wavering, and moved the work +of temporary pacification, at least, several stages onward.</p> +<a name="side490"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote490"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Bell's<br> + proposition.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>During the course of the debate upon Mr. Clay's resolutions, and +before the great efforts either of Mr. Calhoun or Mr. Webster, Mr. +Bell, of Tennessee, had offered some propositions, looking to the +admission of California as a Commonwealth, and to the formation of +Territorial government for New Mexico. On the day after Mr. Webster's +great speech, Mr. Foote moved the reference of Mr. Bell's resolutions +to a select committee of thirteen members. No vote, however, was +immediately taken, but the debate upon <a name="page360"></a>both sets of resolutions +dragged on from day to day, and was made more complicated by the +introduction of a bill from the committee on Territories, providing +for the immediate admission of California, and the formation of +Territorial governments for New Mexico and Utah.</p> +<a name="side491"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote491"> + <tr> + <td><small>The death of<br> + Mr. Calhoun.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On March 31st, Mr. Calhoun passed away. The announcement of his death, +the eulogies pronounced upon his memory, and the funeral rites, were +most solemn and impressive occasions. The influence of the sad event +seemed, for the moment, to soften the hearts of those who had +associated with him toward one another. It seemed as if political foes +would be willing to join hands across his bier.</p> +<a name="side492"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote492"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Foote's motion<br> + and the Committee<br> + of Thirteen.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On April 11th, Mr. Mangum, of North Carolina, moved to refer the +resolutions of Mr. Clay, along with those of Mr. Bell, to the +committee suggested by Mr. Foote. Mr. Foote accepted Mr. Mangum's +motion as an amendment to his own. After a most determined opposition +by Senator Benton to Mr. Foote's motion, during which temper rose so +high that Mr. Benton threatened to cudgel Mr. Foote, and Mr. Foote +actually drew a pistol upon Mr. Benton, both in the course of the +debate in the Senate chamber, Mr. Foote's motion was passed. On the +next day, April 19th, the members of the committee were chosen by +ballot. They were Mr. Clay, Mr. Bell, Mr. Berrien, Mr. Bright, Mr. +Cass, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Downs, Mr. King, Mr. Mason, Mr. +Mangum, Mr. Phelps, and Mr. Webster. Seven members, including the +chairman, Mr. Clay, were from the South and six from the North.</p> +<a name="side493"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote493"> + <tr> + <td><small>The report and<br> + recommendations<br> + of the committee.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On May 8th, Mr. Clay made the report, and offered the bills, from the +grand committee, covering all the <a name="page361"></a>subjects referred. The first bill +provided for the admission of California, with the Commonwealth +organization formed by her people the preceding autumn; for the +Territorial organization of Utah and New Mexico, without any slavery +restriction, and with restrictions upon the Territorial legislatures +against passing any acts in regard to slavery; for fixing the northern +boundary of Texas upon a line drawn from a point on the Rio Grande +twenty miles above El Paso to the point on the Red River where the +line of the one hundredth degree of longitude intersects this river; +for quit-claiming, so to speak, to Texas the claims of the United +States to the country between the Nueces and the Rio Grande; and for +paying Texas a sum of money, in consideration of the discharge of the +United States from all obligations to pay the Texan debt, and of the +surrender of all claims by Texas to country north of the northern +boundary as fixed in the bill.</p> + +<p>The second bill provided that a fugitive from labor must be delivered +up on the order of any judge or commissioner of the United States +authorized by the laws of the United States so to act, and that such +judge or commissioner was authorized to issue such order on +presentation to him, by the claimant of the fugitive, of a copy of the +record of a competent court in the Commonwealth, Territory, or +District from which the fugitive was said to have escaped, before +which the facts of ownership, identity, and escape had been +satisfactorily proven. The judge or commissioner issuing such order +was required, in case the fugitive declared himself to be a free man, +to demand of the claimant of the fugitive a bond, with surety, for +$1,000, pledging the claimant to accord the fugitive a trial by jury +of the question of his freedom, in a competent court of the +Commonwealth, <a name="page362"></a>Territory, or District from which he was said to have +escaped.</p> + +<p>The third bill provided for the abolition of the slave-trade in the +District of Columbia, and for the liberation of any slave brought into +the District for the purposes of sale or dépôt.</p> +<a name="side494"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote494"> + <tr> + <td><small>The debate upon the bills<br> + proposed by the committee,<br> + and the failure to pass them.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The debate began immediately upon the first bill, and the opposition +to it from both sections advanced about the same arguments as were +employed against these same subjects when presented in the form of Mr. +Clay's resolutions. The discussion continued through May, June, and +July, until, at the end of July, nothing remained of the bill but that +part of it which provided for the Territorial organization of Utah. +The general plan of the compromise was lost.</p> +<a name="side495"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote495"> + <tr> + <td><small>The temper of<br> + the country.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The whole country was amazed, disappointed, and angry. The Senators +were quickly and decidedly made to feel that they dare not separate +without doing something to heal the distractions of the land.</p> +<a name="side496"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote496"> + <tr> + <td><small>The succession of<br> + Fillmore and his<br> + message of August 6th.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The death of President Taylor, on July 9th, and the accession of Mr. +Fillmore, made the Administration more favorable to the measures +included in the compromise plan. On August 6th, he communicated to +Congress the fact that the Governor of Texas, P. H. Bell, in execution +of an act of the Texas legislature, was extending the jurisdiction of +Texas over the disputed territory on the eastern border of New Mexico, +and that the President, as military Governor, in highest instance, of +New Mexico, felt obliged to resist the movement, and that he had +informed the Governor of Texas of his purpose. He besought Congress to +avert the calamity which now threatened, by attending at once <a name="page363"></a>to the +matter of the boundary between Texas and New Mexico.</p> +<a name="side497"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote497"> + <tr> + <td><small>The passage of bills,<br> + separately, covering<br> + all the questions<br> + contained in Mr. Clay's<br> + compromise measures.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Under this pressure, the Senate took up the Texan boundary bill, +introduced by Mr. Pierce, of Maryland, which provided that the +northern boundary of Texas should be the parallel of thirty-six +degrees and thirty minutes from the one hundredth degree of longitude +to the one hundred and third degree; that the western and southwestern +boundary should be the one hundred and third parallel of longitude +from the northern line to latitude thirty-two degrees, thence along +this parallel westward to the Rio Grande, thence the Rio Grande to the +Gulf; and that ten millions of dollars should be paid Texas for +agreeing to this boundary, and for relinquishing all claims on the +United States in regard to the payment of her public debt. On August +9th, the bill passed the Senate.</p> + +<p>On the 13th, the Senate took up the bill for the immediate admission +of California, reported from the committee on Territories, and passed +it by a large majority.</p> + +<p>On August 15th, the Senate passed the bill from the committee on +Territories for the Territorial organization of New Mexico, without +any provision as to slavery. The bill for the organization of Utah had +passed, it will be remembered, on August 1st, as the remnant of the +compromise plan.</p> + +<p>The Senate then took up the Fugitive Slave Bill reported in March from +the Judiciary committee. Inasmuch as the United States Supreme Court +had given its opinion, in the case of Prigg versus Pennsylvania, that +Commonwealth officers were not required by the Constitution of the +United States to render any assistance in the rendition of fugitive +slaves, the Judiciary <a name="page364"></a>committee had so constructed its bill as to make +use of the machinery of the central Government alone in the execution +of the proposed law. The bill was a somewhat more stringent measure +than that proposed by Mr. Clay's committee. It did away with the right +of a fugitive claiming to be a freeman to a trial by jury of the +question of his freedom in a competent court of the Commonwealth, +Territory, or District from which he was said to have escaped. It made +it the duty of the marshals and deputy marshals of the United States +courts to obey and execute all of the warrants and precepts issued +under the provisions of the Act. It imposed a penalty of fine and +imprisonment upon any person knowingly hindering the arrest of a +fugitive, or attempting to rescue one from custody, or harboring one, +or aiding one to escape. And it made the fee of the commissioner $10 +in case he should issue the certificate of arrest to the claimant of +the fugitive, and only $5 in case he should not. Otherwise it was +substantially the same as the bill proposed by the Clay committee. The +Senate passed this bill, on August 26th.</p> + +<p>At last, on September 16th, the Senate passed the bill recommended by +Mr. Clay's committee, for the abolition of the slave-trade in the +District of Columbia.</p> + +<p>One after another, all these bills passed the House of +Representatives, against great opposition, but with no material +alteration, except the connection of the bill for the organization of +Territorial government in New Mexico with that for the adjustment of +the Texan boundary, in which change the Senate acquiesced, and were +all signed by the President; and before the first session of the +Thirty-first Congress expired, on September 30th, 1850, the great work +of pacification, as it was hoped and believed to be, had been +accomplished.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="chap18"></a><a name="page365"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER XVIII.</h3> + +<center>THE EXECUTION OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW, AND THE ELECTION OF 1852</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side498">Change of Attitude of the Slaveholders by the Fugitive Slave Law of +1850</a>—<a href="#side499">The First Cases Under the New +Law</a>—<a href="#side500">The Opposition to the Execution of the +Law</a>—<a href="#side501">Establishment of the +"Underground"</a>—<a href="#side502">The Support of the Law by the Political +Leaders</a>—<a href="#side503">The President's Support of the +Law</a>—<a href="#side504">Joshua R. +Giddings</a>—<a href="#side505">Petitions for the Repeal of the +Law</a>—<a href="#side505">The Shadrach +Case</a>—<a href="#side506">The Investigation of the Case by +Congress</a>—<a href="#side507">The Question of Increasing the Power of the President to Execute the +Law</a>—<a href="#side508">The Sims +Case</a>—<a href="#side509">Excitement in Boston Over the Rendition of +Sims</a>—<a href="#side510">The "Jerry +Rescue"</a>—<a href="#side511">The President's +Rebuke</a>—<a href="#side512">Mr. Foote's Finality +Resolutions</a>—<a href="#side513">The Failure of the Resolutions to Pass the Senate, but Their Success in the +House</a>—<a href="#side514">The National Conventions of 1852 and the Finality of the Compromise +Measures</a>—<a href="#side515">The Deaths of Clay and of Webster, and the Appearance of a Free-soil +Candidate</a>—<a href="#side516">The Overwhelming Democratic Victory of +1852</a>—<a href="#side517">The True Policy of the Slaveholders, and Their Failure to Discern It.</a></blockquote> +<br> +<a name="side498"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote498"> + <tr> + <td><small>Change of attitude<br> + of the slaveholders<br> + by the Fugitive<br> + Slave Law of 1850.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Down to the time of the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, +it may be said that the slaveholders were acting, in a certain sense, +on the defensive. Before 1787, slavery had been regarded as a +temporary relation, demanded by the moral and intellectual degradation +of the Africans, and by the necessities of the social structure in +which Anglo-Saxon and negro were brought together. It had been +considered that the rise of the negro in civilization, by his contact +with the white race, <a name="page366"></a>would gradually change this relation in the +direction of freedom. In fact it had done so, in a considerable +degree. But the formation of the Constitution of 1787, the invention +and use of the cotton-gin, the acquisition of Louisiana, and the +general subsidence of the revolutionary spirit of the eighteenth +century, were all unfavorable to further progress in this only proper +and correct direction. Between 1830 and 1840, a strong retrogressive +movement set in, as we have seen, provoked indeed, in a considerable +degree, by the Abolition propaganda; and in consequence of it, the +slaveholders abandoned the only moral principle upon which slavery +could be justified, and began to adopt the idea of the permanency of +the relation, and to undertake the adjustment of the laws, customs, +institutions, and policies of the country to this idea. And, at last, +by the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, they committed the whole country to +this course. In a word, they made slavery by this law a national +matter, and they did it from the property point of view of slavery, +the point of view which exhibits it in its most hateful light, and +from which no moral justification whatsoever for its existence can be +found.</p> + +<p>It is true that the Constitution commanded the return of fugitive +slaves, and that the Supreme Court of the United States had +interpreted the provision as vesting the power of executing this +command in, and imposing the duty of its execution exclusively upon, +the general Government, but it was a fatal policy for the slaveholders +to insist upon the realization of this right through the general +Government. In fact, it was a fatal policy to insist upon its +realization at all. There was no way to effect it without requiring +the aid of the North in the perpetuation of slavery. The attempt to +effect it was, therefore, the assumption of an offensive attitude on +the part of the slaveholders, an attitude which was bound to <a name="page367"></a>provoke a +general hostility to slavery throughout the North, instead of the +indifference which had prevailed under the idea that slavery was an +institution of the Southern Commonwealths, with which the North and +the general Government had no concern. Calhoun and Rhett and Davis had +seen this danger, and they were not supporters of a national fugitive +slave law. They preferred to consider the matter of the rendition of +fugitive slaves as a special compact between the "States," and treat +its non-fulfilment as a rupture of the Union. Possibly, protected as +their "States" were by the border slaveholding Commonwealths, they did +not feel the necessity of such a law. At any rate, it was the border +slaveholding Commonwealths which wanted the law.</p> +<a name="side499"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote499"> + <tr> + <td><small>The first cases<br> + under the new law.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The first apprehension of an escaped slave, under the new Act, was +made in the city of New York. One James Hamlet, who had three years +before left his mistress, Mary Brown, of Baltimore, was the victim. He +had a wife and children in New York. He was surprised at his work, +hastily tried, and delivered to Mrs. Brown's agent, who conducted him +back to Baltimore. When the news of the event spread abroad it created +great excitement among the negro population throughout the North, and +great indignation on the part of the white citizens in many quarters.</p> +<a name="side500"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote500"> + <tr> + <td><small>The opposition<br> + to the execution<br> + of the law.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was calculated that there were from fifteen to twenty thousand +escaped slaves living at that time in the non-slaveholding +Commonwealths who were liable to apprehension under the law; and every +person having any negro blood, whether escaped from slavery or not, +felt the insecurity created by the law. Meetings of persons belonging +to these classes were immediately held in Boston and New York, and +resolutions were passed at them, praying the white people to move for +the repeal of the law.</p> +<a name="page368"></a> +<p>In answer, so to speak, to these appeals, mass-meetings of white +people were held in Lowell, Syracuse, and Boston, at which the law was +denounced, its repeal demanded, and aid pledged to the negroes in the +North in resisting the execution of the law. Ministers of the Gospel, +such as Beecher, Storrs, Furness, Spear, and Cheever, rained down +denunciations upon the law from their pulpits, declared it to be in +direct contravention of the law of God, and counselled resistance to +its execution.</p> +<a name="side501"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote501"> + <tr> + <td><small>Establishment of<br> + the "Underground."</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In the midst of this excitement two Georgia slaves, named William and +Ellen Crafts, had succeeded in reaching Boston, and were concealed by +some of the most high-toned people of that city, the Hillards, +Lorings, and Parkers, from their pursuers, and aided in a successful +escape to England. The first branch of the "Underground," established +after the passage of the law, ran through very respectable quarters.</p> +<a name="side502"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote502"> + <tr> + <td><small>The support of<br> + the law by the<br> + political leaders.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The lawyers, politicians, and statesmen now felt that it was high time +for them to call the people back to the proper comprehension and +observance of their constitutional duties. Clay, Webster, Cass, +Douglas, Buchanan, Shields, Curtis, Choate, and many others, +instructed the people, both in speeches and written articles, in +regard to the constitutionality of the law, and their duty to obey its +requirements. With this the tide of public opinion began to change, +and the idea that it was the constitutional duty of the North to the +South to secure the execution of the law began to prevail. Such was +the state of feeling when the Congressional session of 1850-51 opened, +on December 2nd.</p> +<a name="side503"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote503"> + <tr> + <td><small>The President's<br> + support of the law.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In his message to Congress President Fillmore proclaimed his adherence +to the Compromise Measures, as a <a name="page369"></a>final settlement of the subjects to +which they related, said that he believed the great mass of the +American people sympathized with him, indicated that he would veto any +measure for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law, and declared that he +would execute the laws to the utmost of his ability and to the extent +of the power vested in him.</p> + +<p>This bold and determined language on the part of the President, who +had been considered in the North as personally hostile to the Fugitive +Slave Law, took the North somewhat by surprise, painfully so in some +quarters, while it was highly approved at the South. It undoubtedly +contributed, ultimately and in large degree, to the suppression of the +resistance in the North to the execution of the law. At the moment, +however, it drew out some of the bitterest denunciations of the law +which were ever pronounced.</p> +<a name="side504"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote504"> + <tr> + <td><small>Joshua R. Giddings.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Joshua R. Giddings, of Ohio, moved the reference of this part of +the message to the Judiciary committee in the House of +Representatives, and made a speech in support of his motion, which was +an anti-slavery harangue of the most radical and violent character, +and in the course of which he denounced the President and Mr. Webster +in unmeasured language as apostates from principle and suitors for +Southern favor. The reckless outburst of radical extravagance, +although somewhat balanced by many points of sound sense, disgusted +the House, and it voted down Mr. Giddings' motion by a large majority.</p> +<a name="side505"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote505"> + <tr> + <td><small>Petitions for the<br> + repeal of the law.<br> + <br> + <br> + The Shadrach case.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Petitions began now to flow into Congress for the repeal of the law. +Generally they were laid upon the table, but more than once a fierce +debate was opened, which threatened to precipitate another contest +over the right of petition. It was about the time that the Senate was +considering what <a name="page370"></a>to do with one of these petitions, offered by Mr. +Hamlin, of Maine, in February of 1851, that the news of the failure of +the law in the Shadrach case reached Washington. Shadrach, claimed +slave of John DeBree, of Norfolk, Va., was rescued by a negro mob, +while held in custody in the court-house in Boston under a warrant +from the United States Commissioner, Mr. George T. Curtis, and was +spirited away to Canada. The mob seems to have had no difficulty in +accomplishing its purpose.</p> +<a name="side506"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote506"> + <tr> + <td><small>The investigation<br> + of the case<br> + by Congress.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Senate, on motion of Mr. Clay, passed a resolution, on February +18th, 1851, calling upon the President for information concerning the +failure of the law in the Shadrach case, and the means he had adopted +to meet the occurrence, and asking the President if, in his opinion, +further means should be placed at his disposal by Congress for +enabling him to execute the laws with more success.</p> + +<p>On the 21st, the reply of the President was received. It contained an +account of the occurrence in Boston; a summary of the laws of the +United States and of Massachusetts on the subject of confining United +States prisoners in the jails of the Commonwealth, which demonstrated +the fact that Massachusetts had forbidden the use of her jails and the +aid of her officials in fugitive slave cases; a declaration of opinion +that the President was authorized by the Constitution to use the +regular army and navy, when, in his judgment, it was necessary for the +suppression of violence and the execution of the laws, and without +giving warning of his intention by any proclamation; and a suggestion +to Congress to confirm this opinion by a positive act, which would +include the militia as well as the regular army and navy, and would +authorize a marshal or commissioner of the <a name="page371"></a>United States to summon an +organized militia force as a part of the posse comitatus.</p> +<a name="side507"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote507"> + <tr> + <td><small>The question of increasing<br> + the power of the President<br> + to execute the law.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Clay immediately moved the reference of the communication to the +Judiciary committee. This motion called out a three days debate in the +Senate, during which it became manifest that the extremists, from both +the North and the South, had little faith in the power of the +Government to execute the law, and were unfavorable to the policy of +using the military power in its execution. Mr. Chase and Mr. Hale, on +the one side, and Mr. Butler, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Rhett, on the other, +contended that the provision of the Constitution guaranteeing the +rendition of fugitive slaves did not require a Congressional act, even +if it authorized one. Mr. Davis said that he would see Massachusetts +quit the Union rather than execute the law by military power within +her limits. It was evident that these men were not anxious to have the +law executed at all. Their motives for the same must have been very +different, but it would hardly be an unfair speculation if one should +imagine that the slaveholders were not averse to having the failure of +the law for another count in their indictment against the Union.</p> + +<p>The moderate men, however, of both the North and the South, claimed +that the law was constitutional, that it was politic and necessary, +that it had been successfully executed in a number of cases, that it +could be executed in practically all cases, that it must be, even +though it should require the whole military power of the country, and +that the great mass of the people would sustain it as carrying out the +pledges of the Constitution.</p> + +<p>Mr. Clay's motion was finally unanimously voted, and, on March 3rd, +two reports were presented to the <a name="page372"></a>Senate, one signed by all the +members of the Judiciary committee except Mr. Butler, of South +Carolina, and the other by Mr. Butler alone. The former expressed the +opinion that the President already possessed full and adequate powers +to execute the laws, and that no further legislation upon the subject +was necessary. It also held that the organized military could be +summoned and used by a civil officer as a part of the posse comitatus. +Mr. Butler, while agreeing with the other members in recommending no +further legislation for the execution of the law, denied that the +President had the power from the Constitution to use the regular army +and navy at his own discretion in suppressing insurrections and +executing the laws, and held that the President could employ these +forces for such purposes in the same manner only that he could employ +the militia, that is, under the Congressional Acts of 1795 and 1807, +which required, among other things, that a proclamation should precede +the actual employment of military power in such cases.</p> + +<p>Congress closed its session, on the next day, without having changed +or modified the law, and without having given the President any +additional means for its execution. The thoughts of men were turned +again upon the incidents of its execution.</p> +<a name="side508"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote508"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Sims case.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>During the spring of 1851, several cases of slave apprehension +occurred, the most exciting of which was that of Thomas Sims, claimed +in Boston by Mr. James Potter, of Georgia. He was arrested by the City +Marshal on the charge of having committed a larceny, and put under +guard in the Court House. Charles G. Loring, Robert Rantoul, Jr., and +Samuel E. Sewall, lawyers of much ability and men of high social +standing, offered their services in defence of the negro. After +applying to several judges of the <a name="page373"></a>supreme court of the Commonwealth, +without success, for a writ of habeas corpus, they finally obtained +one from Judge Woodbury, and argued the case before him. The Judge +finally refused to interfere with the possession of the negro by the +United States Marshal. The United States Commissioner, Mr. George T. +Curtis, then heard the case, and issued the certificate for the +rendition of the fugitive to his master. In the early morning of the +next day, the negro was conducted by three hundred armed policemen to +the wharf and placed on board a vessel bound for Savannah. The vessel +sailed safely out of port, and the Fugitive Slave Law was, at last, +executed in Boston.</p> +<a name="side509"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote509"> + <tr> + <td><small>Excitement in Boston<br> + over the rendition of Sims.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>During the trial, and for a week afterward, the city was in a fever of +excitement. Meetings of the citizens were held in Tremont Temple and +Washington Hall, and on the Common, at which the eloquence of +Phillips, Channing, Edmund Quincy, and Horace Mann, and the violent +words of Garrison and Parker, stirred the indignation of their hearers +and lashed it into an almost rebellious fury. A very large part of the +inhabitants felt that a stain had been put upon the city, which must +be wiped out by any means necessary to accomplish it.</p> + +<p>The summer months of 1851 now passed without any notable instances of +resistance to the law, and conservative men, of both the North and the +South, began to hope that the worst was over, and that the North would +acquiesce without further opposition in the execution of the odious +Act.</p> +<a name="side510"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote510"> + <tr> + <td><small>The "Jerry rescue."</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In the early autumn, however, violence again appeared. The minor +outbreaks were soon overshadowed by an event which occurred at +Syracuse, N. Y., in October, 1851. A negro, named Jerry McHenry, who +had lived for several years in Syracuse, was suddenly <a name="page374"></a>seized and +carried before the United States Commissioner. In the course of the +hearing he eluded the officer having him in charge, and bounded out of +the court-room. He was, however, overtaken and, after a fierce +struggle, recaptured and brought back. A little later, a party of +highly respectable men, led by Gerrit Smith and the Rev. S. J. May, +broke into the court-room, rescued the negro, and smuggled him safely +across the Canadian boundary. Eighteen of these gentlemen were +indicted and ordered to appear for trial. But the whole community +manifested so much active sympathy with them that the matter was +quietly dropped.</p> +<a name="side511"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote511"> + <tr> + <td><small>The President's rebuke.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In his message to Congress, of December 2nd, 1851, President Fillmore +referred to these cases of resistance to the execution of the law; +declared the law to be required by the Constitution; denounced the +opposition to its execution as directed against the Constitution and +the Union itself; repeated his dictum that the Compromise Measures +were a final settlement of the subjects embraced in them; and +congratulated the country upon the general acquiescence in these +Measures manifested throughout the Union.</p> +<a name="side512"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote512"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Foote's<br> + finality resolutions.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Two days later, Mr. Foote introduced into the Senate a resolution +declaring these Measures to be a definite settlement of the questions +embraced in them, and recommending acquiescence in them by all good +citizens.</p> +<a name="side513"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote513"> + <tr> + <td><small>The failure of the<br> + resolutions to<br> + pass the Senate,<br> + but their success<br> + in the House.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The debate upon this proposition, which began December 8th, and +lasted, off and on, until February 28th, was, in the main, a +discussion between four Southern members—Mr. Foote, Mr. Butler, Mr. +Rhett, and Mr. Clemens—during which the history of the movements of +the Southern leaders in 1850 and 1851 were brought to light, beginning +with the Southern Address, issued <a name="page375"></a>from Washington before the passage +of the Compromise Measures, for the purpose of producing a united +action on the part of the South in behalf of Southern rights, and the +call of the Nashville convention by the Mississippi legislature, and +ending with the demand of the convention for the line of thirty-six +degrees and thirty minutes to the Pacific Ocean, and the declaration +by the convention and by conventions in Mississippi, Georgia, and +South Carolina, of the abstract right of secession as a principle of +the political system of the Union. It was evident that these movements +had approached dangerously near to an attempt at something like +practical secession, and that the Southern leaders were now anxious to +underrate their significance. The Northern Senators allowed these +Southern brethren to proceed with criminations and recriminations +against each other, until they themselves were convinced that they +would lose more by the continuance of the debate than they could gain +by the passage of the resolution. After a fiery speech by Mr. Clemens, +on February 28th, 1852, the attempt to pass the resolution was +abandoned in the Senate.</p> + +<p>The House of Representatives, on the other hand, incited by memorials +sent into it by the legislatures of New Jersey and Iowa, actually +passed resolutions, on April 5th, 1852, by a large majority, declaring +the finality of the Measures.</p> + +<p>Petitions began again to pour into the Senate for the repeal of the +law. Mr. Seward, Mr. Hale, and Mr. Sumner presented such petitions and +tried to get a hearing upon them, but the Senate voted to lay them all +on the table.</p> +<a name="side514"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote514"> + <tr> + <td><small>The National<br> + conventions of 1852<br> + and the finality of the<br> + compromise measures.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Such was the situation when the two great parties assembled in their +National conventions for the <a name="page376"></a>nomination of their respective candidates +for the presidency and vice-presidency. It was indicated from the +first day of the Congressional session of 1851-52, that the finality +of the Compromise Acts would be a plank in the platforms of both +parties, although it was soon revealed that the Whig party leaders +were divided upon the subject.</p> + +<p>The Democratic convention met June 1st, at Baltimore, and, on account +of the three-cornered fight between Buchanan, Cass, and Douglas, was +obliged to produce a "dark horse." This proved to be General Franklin +Pierce, of New Hampshire, a good lawyer, a brave soldier, a fine +orator, and a courtly gentleman. He was known to be a true friend to +the Compromise Acts, and was entirely acceptable to the South. The +platform contained the finality plank.</p> + +<p>The Whig convention met fifteen days later, at the same place. The +Northern Whigs, under the lead of Seward, were determined to defeat +both Fillmore and Webster, chiefly on account of their fidelity in the +execution of the Fugitive Slave Law. The Southerners were for Fillmore +first, and then Webster, for the same reason. A sufficient number of +the Northern delegates voted with the Southerners to put the finality +plank into the platform, and then offered the Southerners one of their +own fellow-citizens, General Scott, the military hero of the country. +The Southerners finally accepted the offer.</p> + +<p>If Seward desired the defeat and destruction of the Whig party, he +could not have acted more adroitly. It was to be foreseen that the +Northern Whigs would not be wholly faithful to their own choice upon +that platform, and that many of the Southern Whigs would arrive at the +conclusion that the Democratic platform and the Democratic candidate +furnished stronger guarantees for <a name="page377"></a>the finality of the Compromise +Measures than the Whig platform and candidate did.</p> +<a name="side515"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote515"> + <tr> + <td><small>The deaths of Clay<br> + and of Webster, and<br> + the appearance of<br> + a Free-soil candidate.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Clay died at the beginning of the campaign, and Webster at the end of +it; and, in the midst of it, Sumner succeeded in getting in his +ferocious attack on the Fugitive Slave Law, in a four hours speech +before the Senate, and the Free-soilers set up a candidate, Mr. Hale, +for the suffrages of the Abolitionists and the +anti-slavery-extensionists. All of these events were unfavorable to +the Whigs; still, they did not probably determine the result. The +people were determined to have peace in regard to the slavery +question, and they felt that the Democratic party was more likely to +give them the peace they desired than the Whig party.</p> +<a name="side516"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote516"> + <tr> + <td><small>The overwhelming<br> + Democratic<br> + victory of 1852.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Democratic victory was overwhelming. Twenty-seven Commonwealths +gave their electoral vote for General Pierce, and only four gave +theirs for General Scott; while the popular vote cast for Mr. Hale was +only about one-half as large as that cast for Mr. Van Buren in 1848. +The Democrats themselves were surprised. Since the "era of good +feeling," no presidential candidate had received such a vote, either +popular or electoral, as that now given to General Pierce. The country +accepted the decision, and settled down into universal acquiescence in +the Compromise Measures, and in the execution of the Fugitive Slave +Law, in most sections cheerfully, but in some sullenly and with +bitterness of heart.</p> +<a name="side517"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote517"> + <tr> + <td><small>The true policy of the<br> + slaveholders, and their<br> + failure to discern it.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Had the slaveholders made a wise use of this, to them, most favorable +turn in affairs, there is little question that they might have +preserved indefinitely their peculiar institution where it existed. +But wisdom in the case meant that the slaveholders should themselves +give no further <a name="page378"></a>occasion for slavery agitation. It meant that they +should cease to claim the rendition of their fugitive slaves by the +general Government; that they should turn their attention to +perfecting the police administration in the slaveholding Commonwealths +for preventing the escape of their slaves, and let the few slaves who +might have cleverness enough to elude the police of these +Commonwealths go; and that they should, above all things, abstain from +any attempt to extend slavery beyond the limits placed upon it by +existing law. The status of every inch of the territory of the United +States, in reference to the legality or illegality of slavery, was now +fixed, and the public opinion of the country, of the world, and of the +age, would never permit that status to be altered to the advantage of +slavery.</p> + +<p>It is an interesting, though by no means an inexplicable, fact that +the slaveholders in the Commonwealths south of Virginia, Kentucky, and +Missouri, showed more tendency to follow this view of their best +policy than those within these border Commonwealths. These latter were +an efficient protection to the former in preventing the escape of +slaves, while they were themselves exposed in much higher degree to +loss. Still, it would have been the true policy for the slaveholders +in these also to have looked to their own police administration for +the recapture of their runaways before the latter had reached free +soil, and to have considered that a slave having sufficient +intelligence to elude this had already attained the point of mental +activity and of courage which required in good morals his liberation, +and made his further retention in slavery both a wrong to himself and +a danger to the peace of the slaveholding community in which he might +be held in bondage.</p> + +<p>We may fairly say that the slaveholders in the more southern +Commonwealths sustained the Fugitive Slave <a name="page379"></a>Law more out of +consideration for their brothers in the border Commonwealths than for +the sake of their own immediate interests, or from their own +convictions of its policy, while they would have greatly preferred the +restriction of slavery to the territory south of the line of +thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes to the Pacific, with some sort +of a guarantee of its existence there during the Territorial period, +to any chance of extending slavery north of that line by the repeal of +the prohibitions already existing. It is not at all surprising, in +view of this state of feeling in 1852, that, ten years later, the +Confederates considered themselves left in the lurch by the border +Commonwealths, in the support of whose views and interests they had +done so much to provoke the North to the contest.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="chap19"></a><a name="page380"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER XIX.</h3> + +<center>THE REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side518">The Connection of California with the Mississippi +Valley</a>—<a href="#side519">Nebraska</a>—<a href="#side520">Mr. Douglas' Nebraska Bill and +Report</a>—<a href="#side521">The Surprising Assumptions in the +Report</a>—<a href="#side522">Mr. Douglas' +Purpose</a>—<a href="#side524">The Report and Bill Together in Conflict with the Act of +1820</a>—<a href="#side525">The New +Section</a>—<a href="#side526">Mr. Dixon's Proposed +Amendment</a>—<a href="#side527">Mr. Blair's Letter in Reference to Mr. Seward's Connection with Dixon's +Proposition</a>—<a href="#side528">Douglas and +Dixon</a>—<a href="#side529">Mr. Douglas' New +Bill</a>—<a href="#side530">The Free-soil Protest Against the +Bill</a>—<a href="#side530">Mr. Douglas' Reply to the +Address</a>—<a href="#side531">Mr. Chase's First Amendment to the +Bill</a>—<a href="#side531">The Southern Whigs Aroused by Mr. Wade's +Accusations</a>—<a href="#side531">Mr. Chase's Amendment +Lost</a>—<a href="#side532">Mr. Douglas' Last Change in the Wording of the +Clause</a>—<a href="#side533">Mr. Everett's +Views</a>—<a href="#side534">Mr. Houston's Opposition to the +Bill</a>—<a href="#side535">Mr. Bell's Attitude Toward the +Bill</a>—<a href="#side536">Mr. Douglas' Amendment Passed by the +Senate</a>—<a href="#side537">Mr. Chase's +Amendments</a>—<a href="#side542">Mr. Bell's Argument Against the +Bill</a>—<a href="#side543">Mr. Douglas' Final +Argument</a>—<a href="#side544">The Passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill by the +Senate</a>—<a href="#side545">Analysis of the Vote Upon the +Bill</a>—<a href="#side546">Development of Popular Opposition to the +Bill</a>—<a href="#side547">The Kansas-Nebraska Bill in the +House</a>—<a href="#side548">The Relation of the Administration to the +Bill</a>—<a href="#side549">President Pierce and Mr. +Davis</a>—<a href="#side551">The Bill Taken up in the Committee of the Whole of the House of +Representatives</a>—<a href="#side551">Mr. A. H. Stephens' Management of the +Bill</a>—<a href="#side551">The Bill Passed and Signed by the +President</a>—<a href="#side552">Analysis of the Vote on the Bill in the +House</a>—<a href="#side553">What the Figures +Taught</a>—<a href="#side554">The Kansas-Nebraska Act a Stupendous Fallacy.</a></blockquote> +<br> + +<p>When President Fillmore's last annual message to Congress was sent in, +on December 6th, 1852, the quiet of the country in regard to the +slavery question was more <a name="page381"></a>complete than it had been since 1830. The +President did not even mention the subject. Evidently the people +believed that the Measures of 1850, and their cordial endorsement in +the elections just passed, had finally solved the great question, in +so far as the Congress could solve it at all. But never was there a +more deceptive peace. It was merely the dead calm before the dread +cyclone.</p> +<a name="side518"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote518"> + <tr> + <td><small>The connection of<br> + California with the<br> + Mississippi valley.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>This time the storm came from the Northwest. After the acquisitions of +the territory upon the Pacific coast, it was immediately apparent that +these new possessions must be connected, so soon as possible, with the +line of Commonwealths on the +west bank of the Mississippi by the Territorial organization of the +country lying between. Mr. Douglas had conceived this idea as far back +as 1847, and had endeavored from that time forward to secure the +attention of Congress for its realization. The seemingly more +important questions involved in the Compromise Measures gave little +room for the consideration of other subjects between 1848 and 1850. +Now, however, that these questions had apparently received their final +settlement, the moment seemed opportune for the solution of the +problem of binding the Pacific slope with the settled country of the +west valley of the Mississippi.</p> +<a name="side519"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote519"> + <tr> + <td><small>Nebraska.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In the Congressional session of 1852-53, a bill passed the House of +Representatives for organizing the region lying between Missouri and +the Rocky Mountains, and between the latitudes thirty-six degrees, +thirty minutes, and forty-three degrees, into the Territory of +Nebraska. A vote upon the measure was, however, not reached in the +Senate before the close of the session.</p> + +<p>During the consideration of the bill in the House, Mr. Howe, of +Pennsylvania, asked Mr. Giddings, of Ohio, <a name="page382"></a>who was a member of the +committee on Territories, from which the bill had come, why there was +no clause in the bill prohibiting slavery. Mr. Giddings replied that +the Act of 1820 did that for all of this territory. Whereupon Mr. Howe +used these significant words: "I should like to know of the gentleman +of Ohio, if he has not some recollection of a compromise made since +that time." Mr. Giddings quietly replied: "That does not affect this +question."</p> + +<p>During the discussion of the bill in the Senate, Mr. Atchison, of +Missouri, said that one of his objections to the organization of this +Territory was that Missouri would be surrounded on three sides by free +soil, into which the slaves of the citizens of Missouri could easily +escape, but that, as he could see no prospect of a repeal of the Act +of 1820 making this region free soil, he would not be willing to delay +the organization of the Territory on that account.</p> + +<p>There is no explanation of the language used by these three gentlemen, +except that Mr. Howe had conceived that, in some way or other, the +Measures of 1850 had modified the Act of 1820 prohibiting slavery in +the Louisiana territory above thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, +and that Mr. Giddings and Mr. Atchison had never thought of such a +thing.</p> + +<p>On December 14th, 1853, Mr. Dodge, of Iowa, introduced a bill into the +Senate for the organization of Nebraska Territory. It was referred to +the committee on Territories, of which Mr. Douglas was chairman.</p> +<a name="side520"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote520"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Douglas'<br> + Nebraska bill<br> + and report.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On January 4th, 1854, Mr. Douglas presented a bill from the committee, +with a special report, in which latter document the principles of the +laws of the United States in respect to slavery in the Territories, as +understood by the committee, or rather as Mr. Douglas <a name="page383"></a>understood them, +were stated. The report was a more important document than the bill, +since the bill, drawn in vague terms upon this subject, was to be +interpreted by the principles declared in the report. The first +paragraph of the report read: "The principal amendments which your +committee deem it their duty to commend to the favorable action of the +Senate, in a special report, are those in which the principles +established by the Compromise Measures of 1850, so far as they are +applicable to Territorial organization, are proposed to be affirmed +and carried into practical operation within the limits of the new +Territory." The report then declares these principles to be: "That all +questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories, and in the new +States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the +people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives, to be +chosen by them for that purpose: That all cases involving title to +slaves, and questions of personal freedom, are to be referred to the +adjudication of the local tribunals, with the right of appeal to the +Supreme Court of the United States: That the provisions of the +Constitution of the United States, in respect to fugitives from +service, are to be carried into faithful execution in all the +organized Territories the same as in the States."</p> +<a name="side521"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote521"> + <tr> + <td><small>The surprising<br> + assumptions<br> + in the report.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>These were most astonishing and confusing propositions in a variety of +respects. In the first place, the claim that the Compromise Acts of +1850 contained any general principles of Territorial organization in +respect to slavery, which were applicable to any other Territories +than those organized under these Acts, was a surprising assumption. It +was an induction from one precedent when there were half a dozen +precedents against it. The fact was that the Acts of 1850 only set up +a rule for a single case, a rule patched <a name="page384"></a>up by compromise, and not +derived from any general principle. This claim was also, if admitted, +highly confusing. Was it a principle of the Constitution, and +therefore supreme over all Congressional policies in the case? Or was +it simply a principle of Congressional policy? If the former, then it +had already rendered the prohibition upon slavery in the Louisiana +territory, by the Act of 1820, nugatory. If it was the latter, then it +would require a new act of Congress to apply it to any other Territory +than Utah and New Mexico. In the second place, the statement, also +contained in the report, that there was a pronounced conflict of +opinion in the country upon the question of the constitutional +validity of the Act of 1820, prohibiting slavery in the Louisiana +territory above thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, was equally +surprising. Nobody had heard the noise of any such conflict. The fact +is, that conflict was yet to be aroused. And, lastly, it was most +highly surprising and confusing that the attempt to rouse this +conflict should proceed from the bosom of the party which had won its +splendid victory under the peace issue upon the subject of slavery, +and should be inaugurated by a member of that party from the North.</p> +<a name="side522"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote522"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Douglas'<br> + purpose.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>What was, or what could have been, Mr. Douglas' purpose? It is held by +most historians that it was simply a reckless and dishonest bid for +Southern support, in his ambitious plans to gain the presidency. Most +of Mr. Douglas' political opponents at the time believed that he was +animated solely by that desire. His character was, according to their +view, that of a scheming politician, who would sacrifice anything and +anybody for his own advancement. While we can understand this radical +estimate of him by those with whom he was in daily conflict, it does +seem that the historians, with his subsequent career before them, +might <a name="page385"></a>suspect, at least, that some conviction of the rightfulness of +his views may have aided in moving him to the position which he took. +Mr. Douglas was a Western Democrat; that is, he was a radical +Democrat. He had, therefore, an exaggerated notion of the virtues of +the people, and of the importance of local autonomy. He resented the +idea that the sturdy adventurers who accomplished the first settlement +of a Western Territory were not as fully capable of local +self-government, from the very outset, as the "effeminate" inhabitants +of an Eastern Commonwealth. He repudiated the notion that they needed +any pupilage from the general Government in the management of public +affairs. He was not alone in such views. It is safe to say that the +mass of the people in his section held the same views at that time. +They have not progressed much beyond them now. Is it not, then, fair +to say that Mr. Douglas, in all probability, really believed that the +reference of the questions in regard to slavery to the residents of +each Territory, as well as to those of each "State," was the true +principle of the political science of the Republic, and the true +policy of its legislation? If his convictions and his ambition went +hand in hand, and if his convictions were not the product of his +ambition, should he be so harshly criticised for declaring them? It is +true that his announcement of them filled the land with clamor and +angry dispute, and that their adoption by Congress led to violence, +bloodshed, and war; but can we conclude that he had any conception +whatsoever that this could be the result of them? Is it not far more +probable that he thought the quiet of the country would be confirmed +and forever established by their general acceptance? There is +certainly ground for this view of his motives. It is certainly very +improbable that there was ever any balancing, in his mind, of risks to +his country's peace <a name="page386"></a>and safety against his ambition for the +presidency. It is much more probable that he believed his principles, +without his presidency, would contribute, in high degree, to the peace +and welfare of his country, but that, taken together with his +presidency, they would shed untold blessings upon the land. This is no +unusual psychology. It is decidedly common.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote523"> + <tr> + <td><small>The doctrines of the<br> + report at first not<br> + inserted in the bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Douglas did not, however, insert his doctrine of popular +sovereignty in the Territories, and his dictum as to the repeal of the +slavery prohibition in the Act of 1820 by the principles of the Acts +of 1850, in the bill. Possibly he thought it unnecessary. Possibly he +did not venture to do so. Possibly he did intend to leave things in +such an ambiguous shape that one interpretation might be put upon them +in one section, and a somewhat different one in another. He would +hardly have been an American politician if he had not, at some time or +other in his life, practised something of this kind. This is what they +call feeling the public pulse, which is a main point in the practice +of democratic statesmanship. It is not particularly edifying to the +academic statesman, but it is business, and Americans are a business +people. Mr. Douglas simply modelled the bill after the Utah and New +Mexico bills, in respect to slavery, that is, he made no mention of +the subject in that part of the bill which provided for the +Territorial period, but added a clause which read: "When admitted as a +State, the said Territory, or any portion of the same, shall be +received into the Union, with or without slavery, as its Constitution +may prescribe at the time of its admission."</p> +<a name="side524"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote524"> + <tr> + <td><small>The report and bill<br> + together in conflict<br> + with the Act of 1820.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Taken apart from the report, the bill might be interpreted as not in +conflict with the Act of 1820, but taken with the report, it meant the +repeal of the Act of 1820, and the attribution of all power over the +question of <a name="page387"></a>slavery in the Territory to those who might squat upon its +soil. Of course it was entirely within the power of Congress to repeal +the Act of 1820. The restraints resting upon Congress in regard to +this matter were moral, not legal. If Congress would, nevertheless, do +it, it must do it in the form of a statute, and not in that of a +report doubting the constitutionality of the Act, or even declaring it +unconstitutional. It was entirely natural that the demand should be +made for clearing the bill of its ambiguities.</p> +<a name="side525"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote525"> + <tr> + <td><small>The new<br> + section.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Before the demand came, however, the committee itself did something in +this direction. When the bill was printed, on January 7th, it +contained twenty sections. On the 10th, a revised edition of it +appeared, which contained twenty-one sections. The last section was +the dictum of the report in regard to the principles of the Measures +of 1850 upon the subject of slavery in the Territories. The committee +explained that it had been left out of the first draft by a clerical +error. This change did not, however, clear the bill of all ambiguity. +The added provision was declaratory only, and did not expressly repeal +the Act of 1820.</p> +<a name="side526"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote526"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Dixon's<br> + proposed amendment.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>At length, on the 16th, Mr. Dixon, of Kentucky, gave notice to the +Senate that he should move, as an amendment to the bill, a provision +expressly repealing the Act of 1820 in so far as it prohibited slavery +in any of the Territories of the United States.</p> +<a name="side527"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote527"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Blair's letter<br> + in reference to<br> + Mr. Seward's<br> + connection with<br> + Dixon's proposition.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In a letter of May 17th, 1873, to Mr. Gideon Welles, Mr. Montgomery +Blair wrote of Mr. Seward: "I shall never forget how shocked I was at +his telling me that he was the man who put Archy Dixon, the Whig +Senator from Kentucky in 1854, up to moving the repeal of the <a name="page388"></a>Missouri +compromise, as an amendment to Douglas' first Kansas [Nebraska?] bill, +and had himself forced the repeal by that movement, and had thus +brought to life the Republican Party. Dixon was to out-Herod Herod at +the South, and he was to out-Herod Herod at the North."</p> + +<p>If this be true, it was a most reprehensible trick of unscrupulous +politics. Mr. Seward scoffed at the doctrine of "popular sovereignty" +in the Territories as arrant nonsense, and knew that the assertion of +any such doctrine as a principle of the law of the country in respect +to Territorial organization would rouse the North to angry and bitter +resistance. What he did, he did with his eyes open. His vision did not +probably reach so far as to civil war, but he knew that the risks of +another slavery agitation were very grave. Neither could the ambiguity +in Mr. Douglas' bill, and the necessity for relieving it of this +obscurity, palliate such an offense. If he desired to make Mr. +Douglas' bill entirely plain he should have done this, not by holding +out a temptation to the South to enter upon a new course of slavery +extension, but by an amendment asserting the continuing validity of +the slavery prohibition in the Act of 1820. Mr. Sumner did this very +thing on the next day. It was, however, too late to chain the spirit +which Dixon's fatal move had loosed.</p> +<a name="side528"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote528"> + <tr> + <td><small>Douglas and Dixon.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It is said that Mr. Douglas was surprised and disconcerted by Mr. +Dixon's notice, and endeavored to dissuade him from carrying out his +expressed intention, but was finally convinced by Mr. Dixon that the +proposed amendment was only the fair and honest statement of +constitutional principles, and of the legal results of the Compromise +of 1850, and only made distinct and express what was unclear, though +implied, in the bill.</p> +<a name="side529"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote529"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Douglas'<br> + new bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page389"></a> +<p>On the 23rd, Mr. Douglas brought in a new bill, and offered it as a +substitute for the original bill. The new bill contained a clause +declaring that that part of the Act of 1820 prohibiting slavery in the +Louisiana territory above thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes was +inoperative, being contrary to, and superseded by, the principles of +the legislation of 1850. Mr. Douglas' new bill changed the southern +boundary from thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes to thirty-seven +degrees, made the northern boundary run up to the forty-ninth parallel +west of Minnesota Territory, and cut this vast domain of nearly five +hundred thousand square miles in area into two Territories by the +fortieth parallel of latitude, the one to the north of it to be called +Nebraska, and the one to the south of it Kansas. Mr. Dixon immediately +expressed himself as satisfied with the provisions of the new bill, +and said that they fulfilled the purposes of the amendment which he +had intended to offer, and that he should, therefore, withhold the +same. The Senate agreed to take up the bill on the following Monday.</p> +<a name="side530"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote530"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Free-soil<br> + protest against<br> + the bill.<br> + <br> + <br> + Mr. Douglas'<br> + reply to<br> + the address.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On the same day that Mr. Douglas presented this second bill, there +appeared in the <i>National Era,</i> the Abolition journal at Washington, +and in several New York City papers, the noted address, signed by +Messrs. Chase, Sumner, Wade, Smith, and De Witt, in which the Douglas +bill was denounced in the most trenchant language as "a gross +violation of a sacred pledge, as a criminal betrayal of precious +rights, as a part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from a +vast unoccupied region immigrants from the Old World and free laborers +from our own States, and convert it into a dreary region of despotism +inhabited by masters and slaves." The contents of this celebrated +paper constituted, it may be said, the <a name="page390"></a>first draft of the creed of the +party to be founded on the doctrine of resistance to slavery +extension, the Republican party. The propositions contained in it +drove Mr. Douglas to a fierce diatribe against their authors, in which +he included an elaborate argument in defence of his dictum, that the +Measures of 1850 had rendered the slavery prohibition in the Act of +1820 inoperative. He contended that the fact that Congress had, in the +joint resolution admitting Texas, provided that in Texan territory +north of the line of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes slavery +should be prohibited, proved that Congress and the people of the +United States understood the legislation of 1820 to mean that the line +of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes was to be run through any and +all territory that might be subsequently acquired by the United +States; that the refusal of Congress to do this in regard to the +territory acquired from Mexico had made the establishment of a new +principle in regard to slavery in the Territories necessary; that that +principle, as established by the legislation of 1850, was the +neutrality of Congress in the question, and the right of the residents +in each Territory to settle the question for themselves; and that this +new principle had superseded the old principle and rendered all +legislation under the old principle inoperative.</p> +<a name="side531"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote531"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Chase's<br> + amendment<br> + to the bill.<br> + <br> + <br> + The Southern<br> + Whigs<br> + aroused by<br> + Mr. Wade's<br> + accusations.<br> + <br> + <br> + The Douglas<br> + doctrine<br> + convincing<br> + to many.<br> + <br> + <br> + Mr. Chase's<br> + amendment lost.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Such jurisprudence in respect to the effect upon each other of +statutes relating to different and distinct Territories had never been +heard before, and it was easy to show it to be a tissue of sophistries +from beginning to end. It was entirely evident that Mr. Douglas and +his committee shrank from proposing a bare and bald repeal of the +slavery prohibition in the Act of 1820, and sought to avoid the +responsibility of doing so under the convenient claim that it had +already been repealed. But <a name="page391"></a>Mr. Chase was determined to make them take +this responsibility, and to expose their fallacies in their attempts +to escape it. On February 3rd, Mr. Chase moved to remove from the bill +the words referring to the Measures of 1850, and their effect upon the +Act of 1820, and make the bill simply repeal the slavery prohibition +of the Act of 1820, in so far as it applied to the Territories to be +organized by the bill. Mr. Chase supported his amendment in a powerful +speech, in which he demonstrated most clearly the fallacy and the +duplicity of the doctrine which held that the legislation of 1850 in +regard to Utah and New Mexico had repealed the legislation of 1820 in +regard to the Louisiana territory north of thirty-six degrees and +thirty minutes. Both he and his colleague, Mr. Wade, went, however, +too far in denouncing the subterfuge as a conspiracy between the +Southerners and the friends of Douglas to extend slavery. It was +especially imprudent, to say the least, in Mr. Wade to do so. The +Southern Whigs were highly incensed at the charge of conspiring with +Northern Democrats, made by one of their own party, and they +repudiated the accusation with great earnestness. Besides this, the +Douglas idea of "popular sovereignty," or, as we now call it, home +rule, in the Territories, had won many adherents. There is no question +that a great many men, in both the North and the South, now began to +feel that Mr. Douglas had discovered the true principle in regard to +slavery in the Territories. Mr. Chase's amendment was lost by a vote +of thirty to thirteen. The thirteen voting in favor of the amendment +were all from the North. Of those voting against it, ten were from the +North, and twenty from the South. Nineteen Senators, ten of whom were +from the South, did not vote at all. The <a name="page392"></a>vote meant that the large +majority of those voting held that, in some way or other, the +legislation of 1850 had repealed the slavery prohibition in the +legislation of 1820. This was execrable jurisprudence, and even Mr. +Cass, who was really the father of the idea of home rule in the +Territories, dissented from it, and voted for Mr. Chase's amendment.</p> +<a name="side532"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote532"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Douglas' last<br> + change in the wording<br> + of the clause.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In spite of this support by the majority, Mr. Douglas was apparently +disquieted by the attitude of Mr. Cass, and by the arguments against +the correctness of his doctrine. He, himself, now moved to strike out +of the bill the words: "which was superseded by the principles of the +legislation of 1850, commonly called the Compromise Measures, and is +hereby declared inoperative," and to insert instead thereof the words: +"which being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by +Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by +the legislation of 1850, commonly called the Compromise Measures, is +hereby declared inoperative and void, it being the true intent and +meaning of this Act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or +State, nor exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof +perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in +their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States."</p> +<a name="side533"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote533"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Everett's<br> + views.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In a most able argument, remarkable both for its strong logic and its +admirable temper, Mr. Everett demonstrated the weakness of Mr. +Douglas' proposition in its last form, the declaration of +inconsistency between the legislation of 1820 and that of 1850. He +showed conclusively that, in place of an inconsistency, here were +simply two policies in reference to different Territories, in which +different conditions and relations obtained. He predicted that the +<a name="page393"></a>insistence upon the same policy for all the Territories would lead to +the struggle for determining whether they should be all slave or all +free, and he demonstrated that "popular sovereignty" in the +Territories was an illusion, since Congress could not by any act of +its own divest itself of its duty, laid upon it by the Constitution, +to legislate for the Territories. Mr. Everett was a member of the +committee on Territories, from which the bill had proceeded, and his +views should, on this account, have possessed an added weight.</p> +<a name="side534"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote534"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Houston's<br> + opposition<br> + to the bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Houston, of Texas, another member of the committee, now declared +himself against the bill, on the ground, among other reasons, that it +would reopen the slavery question by the destruction of one of the +great measures upon which the settlement of that question rested.</p> +<a name="side535"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote535"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Bell's attitude<br> + toward the bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It was furthermore suspected that Mr. Bell, of Tennessee, another +member of the committee, was opposed to the bill. This suspicion +turned out to be true. The bill can hardly be regarded therefore as +having been reported by the committee at all. The committee consisted +of six Senators, and it was at last found that it had, at no time, +received the support of more than three. Of these three, two were from +the North, Douglas, of Illinois, and Jones, of Iowa, and one was from +the South, Johnson, of Arkansas.</p> +<a name="side536"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote536"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Douglas' amendment<br> + passed by the Senate.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The vote upon this amendment was taken on February 15th. Thirty-five +Senators voted for it, and ten against it. Of those voting for it, +twenty-four were from the North and eleven from the South. Of those +voting against it, nine were from the North and one, Mr. Houston, was +from the South. Mr. Bell voted for the amendment for the reason, as he +afterwards explained, that he thought Mr. Douglas ought to be allowed +to perfect his bill.</p> +<a name="side537"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote537"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Chase's<br> + second amendment.<br> + <br> + <br> + Mr. Pratt's<br> + amendment to<br> + Mr. Chase's<br> + amendment.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page394"></a> +<p>Mr. Chase now suspected that there might be some catch concealed in +the last words of the amendment just adopted. These words, it will be +remembered, were: "subject only to the Constitution of the United +States." Mr. Chase, therefore, moved to add the words: "under which +the people of the Territory, through their appropriate +representatives, may, if they see fit, prohibit the existence of +slavery therein." Mr. Chase now put the home rule principle in regard +to slavery in the Territories to the test, for if the people of a +Territory could not, under the Constitution of the United States, +prohibit slavery in the Territories, then was the Douglas doctrine a +mere deception, a mere jugglery of words. Mr. Chase put his +proposition, however, in a form which appeared one-sided, and Mr. +Badger, of North Carolina, the best constitutional lawyer from the +South in the Senate, contended that Mr. Chase's amendment would have +the effect of denying to the Territories the power to admit slavery, +and thus destroy, from that side, the home rule principle of the bill. +To remedy this defect, Mr. Pratt moved to amend Mr. Chase's +proposition so as to make it read that the people might introduce or +prohibit slavery in the Territories. But this was an amendment to Mr. +Chase's amendment to Mr. Douglas' amendment, and was held to be +unparliamentary, unless Mr. Chase would accept it, and incorporate it +into his amendment. This he refused to do, on the ground, first, that +he did not believe that the Territories could, under the Constitution, +introduce slavery, and, second, on the ground that the union of his +proposition and that of Mr. Pratt in a single amendment would unite +those who did not believe that the people of a Territory could +introduce slavery with those who did not believe they could prohibit +slavery <a name="page395"></a>against the entire amendment, and probably defeat it, while, +if the two propositions could be voted on separately, they would both +probably pass, and the bill would be cleared of all ambiguity.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote538"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Chase's<br> + amendment lost.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Chase's attitude toward Mr. Pratt's motion compelled the Senate to +vote upon his proposition separately, and the amendment was lost by a +vote of thirty-six to ten.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote539"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Badger's<br> + amendment.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Just before the close of the debate on Mr. Chase's motion, Mr. Walker, +of Wisconsin, startled the Senate by the declaration that the repeal +of the Act of 1820 prohibiting slavery would revive the old French law +legitimizing slavery in all of the territory acquired from France. +Both Mr. Benjamin and Mr. Badger said it would not have that effect, +but on different grounds. In order to quiet apprehension on this +point, and remove the difficulty out of the way of the passage of the +bill, Mr. Badger gave notice that so soon as the vote should be taken +on Mr. Chase's motion, he should move an amendment to the bill +providing that "nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to +revive or put in force any law or regulation, which may have existed +prior to 1820, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting, or +abolishing slavery." After the vote upon Mr. Chase's motion, Mr. +Badger offered this amendment, and it was voted, without debate, by a +very large majority.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote540"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Chase's<br> + third amendment.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Chase now turned his assaults upon other points of the bill. Mr. +Douglas had been impressed by the taunts of the opponents of the bill +that home rule was to be granted to the people of the +Territories only upon the subject of slavery, but that they were to +continue in all other respects subject to the control of the general +Government, and he now moved to strike out the veto power of <a name="page396"></a>Congress +over Territorial legislation, in the cases in hand, and to so modify +the usual veto power of the Territorial governors as to allow a +two-thirds majority of the Territorial legislatures to overcome it. +These propositions were voted without debate. Whereupon Mr. Chase +moved that the governors, secretaries, and judges of the two +Territories be elected by the people instead of being appointed by the +President. This was logical, but it made the "squatter-sovereignty" +doctrine ridiculous. It was, therefore, rejected with a considerable +show of spirit.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote541"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Chase's<br> + fourth amendment.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Chase now moved that the whole country should be organized as one +Territory instead of two. He seemed to anticipate that if two should +be established at the same time, the slaveholders would claim one. +This proved to be a correct suspicion. It was subsequently declared +throughout the South that the purpose in forming two Territories was +to give one to the North and the other to the South. And when the +North made the fight for Kansas, it was really felt in the South by +the mass of the people that a tacit agreement had been violated. The +Senators in favor of the bill had now come to think that Mr. Chase was +simply endeavoring to discredit the bill, and they quickly voted this +motion down by a large majority.</p> +<a name="side542"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote542"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Bell's argument<br> + against the bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Down to this juncture, the bill had been considered in the Senate as a +committee of the Whole. It was now reported to the Senate as amended +by this committee, and, on March 3rd, it came to the vote upon its +final passage. It was at this point that Mr. Bell revealed his +opposition to the bill, and made his great argument, the greatest +effort of his long and useful life, against it. The speech was chiefly +a logical and an eloquent elaboration of the three propositions, that +popular sovereignty could not be <a name="page397"></a>established in the Territories by an +Act of Congress, that the passage of the bill before the Senate +attempting it would produce a vast development of the anti-slavery +sentiment at the North, and that no practical benefits whatsoever +could accrue to the South by the repeal of the restriction upon +slavery extension in the Act of 1820. But the Southerners would not +listen to these words of wisdom from their own greatest colleague.</p> +<a name="side543"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote543"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. Douglas'<br> + final argument.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Douglas is generally represented as having closed the debate, +although Mr. Houston spoke briefly after him in opposition to the +measure. Mr. Douglas' argument was masterful from every point of view +but the highest. His chief proposition was, that, when his committee +were charged with the duty of framing the bill, they were forced to +choose between the principle of Congressional intervention in the +Territories, in the matter of slavery, on the one hand, the principle +of 1820, the principle which had, for thirty years, filled the land +with agitation and conflict, and had been a standing menace to the +existence of the Union, and the principle of Congressional +non-intervention, on the other hand, the principle of the Measures of +1850, the principle which had tranquillized the country and cemented +anew the Union, the principle which both of the two great political +parties had unequivocally approved in their platforms of 1852, and +which the people of the whole country had just as unequivocally +approved in the elections of 1852. And his conclusion from this +proposition was, that, as servants of the people who had established +this principle of Congressional non-intervention, his committee were +morally obligated to make it the principle of the bill presented by +them for the organization of the new Territories, and that whoever +arraigned him and his committee for so doing virtually arraigned the +people of the United States. It was a <a name="page398"></a>most excellent and refined bit +of demagogy, and it fell upon an audience whose mental <i>niveau</i> was +not quite high enough to distinguish between it and sound reasoning. +He enforced this argument by another piece of catching demagogism, +which, though not quite so refined, was equally effective. It was the +proud and boastful assertion that American citizens were capable of +self-government anywhere, whether in "States" or Territories, and +under all conditions, whether aided by long established customs, or +without any such guides to steady them in their progress. It was +evident that his opponents preferred to avoid this point, and that he +was sure he had them upon it. He was so thoroughly democratic in his +own feelings that he entertained no doubt as to the triumph of his +argument when stated in this form.</p> +<a name="side544"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote544"> + <tr> + <td><small>The passage of the<br> + Kansas-Nebraska bill<br> + by the Senate.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>A few minutes before five o'clock on the morning of March 4th, after a +continuous session of seventeen hours, the vote upon the bill was +taken, resulting in thirty-seven voices in its favor and fourteen +against it. Eleven Senators had not voted. Of these, three sent word +that, if they could have been present, they would have voted for the +bill, and one that he would have voted against it. There were also two +vacancies at the moment, one in the Vermont delegation, and one in +that of North Carolina. This reduced the number of those who actually +refrained from voting, though present, to five. These gentlemen were +Mr. Everett, of Massachusetts, Mr. Wright, of New Jersey, Mr. Cooper, +of Pennsylvania, Mr. Clayton, of Delaware, and Mr. Pearce, of +Maryland, all Whigs with the exception of Mr. Wright.</p> +<a name="side545"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote545"> + <tr> + <td><small>Analysis of<br> + the vote<br> + upon the bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Counting the names of those who announced how they would have voted +had they been able to be present, and considering the Commonwealths in +whose delegations there were vacancies as represented fully by the one +<a name="page399"></a>member from each, we may say that, in the Senate, New Hampshire, +Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, California, Virginia, Kentucky, +Missouri, North Carolina, Arkansas, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, +Mississippi, Florida, and Louisiana voted for the bill; that Maine, +Vermont, Rhode Island, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin voted against the +bill; that Connecticut, Tennessee, and Texas were divided; and that +Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland were +doubtful. Not a single Northern Whig voted for the bill, and only two +Northern Whigs failed to vote against it. One Southern Whig, Mr. Bell, +voted against it, and two Southern Whigs, Mr. Clayton and Mr. Pearce, +failed to vote for it. Every Southern Democrat, except only Mr. +Houston, voted for the bill, while, even if we count Mr. Chase and Mr. +Sumner as Democrats, only six Northern Democrats voted against it. The +bill may thus be fairly considered to have been a Western and Southern +measure, and a Democratic measure. The Western Democracy, with its +crude and radical notions about local self-government, invited the +South into a position which turned out to be a snare and a pitfall. It +is not meant by this that the Western Democracy was insincere, but +only that it was crude and vulgarly over self-confident. And it is not +meant that the South was insincere, but only too eager to vindicate +its honor and dignity, by obliterating the inequality with the North +in regard to the common territory of the Union, under which it fancied +it had suffered since the restriction placed upon slavery extension by +the Act of 1820.</p> +<a name="side546"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote546"> + <tr> + <td><small>Development<br> + of popular<br> + opposition<br> + to the bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>If the bill had been subjected to the plebiscite on February 1st, it +is very probable that the people in the Northern Commonwealths would +have sustained the positions taken by their respective Senators. Had +this been <a name="page400"></a>done on March 1st, it is probable that this would not have +been the case in some of the Northern Commonwealths, whose Senators +voted for the measure. And had it been done on April 1st, it is +practically certain that it would not have been. After February 1st, +there was developed throughout the North a very strong opposition to +the bill among the people. The most influential newspapers denounced +it. Numerous meetings, largely attended, protested against it. The +legislatures of several of the Commonwealths passed resolutions +condemning it. And the clergy generally arraigned it as immoral, +inhuman, and irreligious. The movements against it seem to have been +spontaneous and to have been connected with each other only by the +common sentiment against the extension of slavery. It is, however, +probable that the Address to the people, issued by Mr. Chase and his +Free-soil friends in the latter part of January, furnished the +necessary excitant. The Address seems to have been the text from which +most of these articles, protests, memorials, speeches, and sermons +were drawn. When the bill was sent to the House of Representatives, it +was thus evident to all impartial observers that its growing +unpopularity at the North would be a very great obstacle to its +passage by the House. Its friends felt that they must get it through +speedily or see it lost altogether.</p> + +<p>Already, on January 31st, Mr. Richardson, of Illinois, Mr. Douglas' +lieutenant in the House of Representatives, had reported from the +House committee on Territories a bill for the organization of the +Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, which was the same in substance +and language as that reported by Mr. Douglas to the Senate. It had +been discussed a little in the committee of the Whole House, but had +slumbered there after February 15th.</p> +<a name="side547"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote547"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Kansas-Nebraska<br> + bill in the House.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page401"></a> +<p>On March 7th, the Senate bill was sent into the House for concurrence. +It was taken up for consideration on the twenty-first, and, after some +parliamentary passes, was referred to the House committee on +Territories.</p> +<a name="side548"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote548"> + <tr> + <td><small>The relation of<br> + the Administration<br> + to the bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Some of the historians teach that this would have been the end of the +bill, except for the interference of President Pierce and his two most +trusted advisers, Mr. Caleb Cushing and Mr. Jefferson Davis. Mr. Davis +relates his connection with the matter in his own book. He says that, +on Sunday morning, January 22nd, gentlemen from the two Congressional +committees on Territories called at his house and asked his aid in +obtaining an interview with the President; that he went with them to +the executive mansion, and secured for them the desired access to the +President; that the President listened patiently to the reading of the +bill for organizing Kansas and Nebraska; and that the President +decided that the bill "rested upon sound constitutional principles, +and recognized in it only a return to that rule which had been +infringed by the Compromise of 1820, and the restoration of which had +been foreshadowed by the legislation of 1850." Mr. Davis furthermore +specifically denies that the measure was inspired by President Pierce +or any member of his Cabinet. Of course, though not inspired, it may +have been aided on the way of its passage through Congress by the +Administration. The proof upon which these historians chiefly rely, in +their assertion that it was so aided, was the fact that the editorials +in the Washington <i>Union</i> supported the bill, and the claim that this +paper was the organ of the Administration. But Mr. Sidney Webster, +President Pierce's private secretary at the time, has recently +declared that the Washington <i>Union</i> was not President <a name="page402"></a>Pierce's organ +in the Kansas-Nebraska matter, or in any other matter; that President +Pierce had no organ.</p> +<a name="side549"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote549"> + <tr> + <td><small>President Pierce<br> + and Mr. Davis.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The character of President Pierce was that of a punctilious gentleman. +Mr. Davis resembled him much in this general trait. In fact, it was +said to have been this likeness which drew them so closely together in +their friendship for each other. Men of such character are not +inclined to meddle, and a strong positive evidence is necessary to +substantiate any such charge against them. There is no doubt that the +President's view of the doctrine of the bill was well known. There is +no doubt that there were members of Congress who made a chief point of +coinciding with the Administration upon every subject, and who thought +that such servility would give weight to their recommendations for +official positions. And there is no doubt that the President appointed +some persons to office recommended by such members. But no +satisfactory evidence has been as yet produced to prove that President +Pierce gave or promised any patronage to any member for supporting the +bill, or withheld any to punish any member for not supporting it. In +fact, the President's attitude toward the two factions of the +Democratic party in New York in the matter of appointments, making +selections from both in almost equal numbers, without regard to the +Free-soil sentiments of the "Softs," manifests a quite different +spirit from that with which these historians represent him to have +been animated in meddling with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska +bill.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote550"> + <tr> + <td><small>The President's<br> + consistency.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>And, finally, the inconsistency which these historians find between +the President's message of December preceding and his attitude toward +the Kansas-Nebraska bill can be so explained as to appear a perfect +consistency. What the President said in his message was that the +<a name="page403"></a>acquiescence of distinguished citizens in the Compromise Measures of +1850 had given renewed vigor to our institutions, and restored a sense +of repose and security to the public mind throughout the Union, and +that this repose should suffer no shock during his official term. If, +now, we consider these measures of 1850 as containing the principle of +home rule in the Territories in regard to the question of slavery, and +if we attribute the repose of the public mind upon this subject to +that principle, would it not be maintaining that repose to apply this +principle in the organization of the new Territories, and would it not +be destructive of that repose to undertake to settle the slavery +question in the new Territories by an act of Congress, either original +or confirmatory? This view is certainly intelligible. It was professed +and advanced by all the supporters of the bill. It was unquestionably +the view which the President took of the matter. It proved to be an +erroneous view, but the views which mortal men hold, and +conscientiously hold, are very frequently erroneous.</p> +<a name="side551"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote551"> + <tr> + <td><small>The bill taken up in<br> + the committee of the<br> + Whole of the House<br> + of Representatives.<br> + <br> + <br> + Mr. A. H. Stephens'<br> + management of the bill.<br> + <br> + <br> + The bill passed and<br> + signed by the President.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Senate bill slept in the committee of the Whole of the House of +Representatives from March 21st until May 8th. During this period its +friends were undoubtedly working for it, and its opponents against it. +By the latter date the leaders in favor of the bill knew that they had +a reliable majority in the House, and, on that day, Mr. Richardson +moved that the House go into committee of the Whole, for the purpose +of taking up the House Kansas-Nebraska bill for consideration. After +much parliamentary fencing, this was accomplished. Mr. Richardson then +proposed to substitute the Senate bill, shorn of the provision in it +confining suffrage and office-holding in these Territories <a name="page404"></a>to American +citizens, for the House bill. The opponents of the bill now entered +upon a course of obstruction, and, although there was a safe majority +of about twenty in favor of the bill, they prevented such a vote being +taken in the committee of the Whole, as would bring the matter to a +crisis, for about two weeks. By this time Mr. Richardson seems to have +been completely demoralized, and Mr. Alexander H. Stephens came +forward and took the management of the bill into his own hands. He +moved to strike out the enacting clause of the House bill. According +to the rules of the House, this motion took the precedence of all +motions to amend, and the effect of it would be, if passed, equivalent +to the rejection of the bill, upon the happening of which the +committee must rise and report its action to the House. The House +could then refuse to concur with the report of the committee of the +Whole, upon the happening of which Mr. Richardson could then offer the +Senate bill, as a substitute, in the House, and in the House the +obstructive tactics of the opposition could be dealt with as they +could not be in the committee of the Whole. Mr. Stephens explained his +tactics to the committee, in order that the friends of the bill might +know how to vote. The opponents of the bill called this procedure a +new "gag," but Mr. Stephens remained firm, and drove the Senate bill +in this manner through the House by a vote of one hundred and thirteen +to one hundred. The Senate concurred in the omission of the provision +limiting suffrage and office-holding in the Territories to American +citizens; and the President signed the bill, on May 30th.</p> +<a name="side552"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote552"> + <tr> + <td><small>Analysis of the<br> + vote on the bill<br> + in the House.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Eighty-seven members from the North, of whom forty-five were Whigs, +counting the Free-soilers as Whigs, and forty-two of whom were +Democrats, voted against <a name="page405"></a>the bill; while only forty-four members from +the North, all Democrats, voted for it. Sixty-nine members from the +South, of whom fifty-seven were Democrats and twelve were Whigs, voted +for the bill; while seven Whigs and two Democrats from the South voted +against it.</p> +<a name="side553"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote553"> + <tr> + <td><small>What the<br> + figures<br> + taught.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>These figures pretty well disposed of the claim that the bill was a +tender from the North to the South. It was simply a Western and +Southern Democratic measure. Taken together with the vote in the +Senate, these figures also showed that the Whig party was a party +opposed to slavery extension, unanimously so in the North, and in some +degree in the South. They revealed that the Whig party in the North +was to be merged in a Northern party with the Free-soil element of the +Democratic party, and was to be overwhelmed in the South by the union +of the proslavery-extension Whigs with the Democrats. They indicated +that one sectional party was soon to hold the majority in the North, +and another in the South; and gave thus the fearful warning that the +North was, at last, to be arrayed against the South upon the subject +which was of greater interest to the South, in the minds of the +slaveholders, than the Union itself.</p> +<a name="side554"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote554"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Kansas-Nebraska Act<br> + a stupendous fallacy.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>From the point of view of the present, we are compelled to regard the +passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act as probably the greatest error +which the Congress of the United States ever committed, and the +arguments by which it was supported as among the most specious +fallacies that have ever misled the minds of men. We must take this +ground, unless we assume that we could not have solved the slavery +problem in any other way than we did, and at any less cost. If we make +this assumption, we may then consider this Act as providential, in +<a name="page406"></a>that it precipitated a crisis, which was bound to come, and which +would only have been made more terrible by delay. While, however, we +of the succeeding generation may explain the place of this Act in our +history in this way, no considerations of this kind can justify the +men who produced it, and placed it upon the statute-book. That God +should "make the wrath of man to praise him" does not excuse the wrath +of man.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="chap20"></a><a name="page407"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER XX.</h3> + +<center>THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side555">Eli Thayer and His Emigrant Aid +Scheme</a>—<a href="#side558">Reports in Regard to its Character and +Purposes</a>—<a href="#side559">The Missouri "Border Ruffian" of +1854</a>—<a href="#side559">Nebraska for the North and Kansas for the +South</a>—<a href="#side560">General Atchison</a>—<a href="#side561">Dr. Charles +Robinson</a>—<a href="#side564">The First Party of +Emigrants</a>—<a href="#side565">The "Platte County Self-defensive +Association"</a>—<a href="#side566">The Founding of +Lawrence</a>—<a href="#side567">First Invasion of the +Missourians</a>—<a href="#side568">Governor A. H. +Reeder</a>—<a href="#side569">The Second Invasion of the Missourians and the Election of the Delegate to +Congress</a>—<a href="#side570">The Indignation of the +North</a>—<a href="#side571">The Republican +Party</a>—<a href="#side573">The Third Invasion of the +Missourians</a>—<a href="#side574">Governor Reeder and the Territorial +Elections</a>—<a href="#side576">The Organization of the First Legislature of Kansas +Territory</a>—<a href="#side584">The Topeka +Constitution</a>—<a href="#side585">The Removal of Governor Reeder; and His Election as Congressional +Delegate</a>—<a href="#side586">Establishment of the "Free-state" +Government</a>—<a href="#side587">The First +Violence</a>—<a href="#side588">The "Free-state" Government and the +Administration</a>—<a href="#side591">The New Governor, Shannon, and the "Law and Order" +Party</a>—<a href="#side598">John Brown</a>—<a href="#side601">The President's +Proclamation</a>—<a href="#side603">The Congressional Committee to the +Territory</a>—<a href="#side604">Application for +Admission</a>—<a href="#side607">The "Treason +Indictments"</a>—<a href="#side613">The Sacking of +Lawrence</a>—<a href="#side615">The Attack on Senator +Sumner</a>—<a href="#side616">The Pottawattomie +Massacres</a>—<a href="#side618">The Battle at Black +Jack</a>—<a href="#side618">The Governor's Proclamation, Enforced by United States +Soldiers</a>—<a href="#side619">The Passage of the Bill for the Admission of Kansas by the +House</a>—<a href="#side620">Dispersal of the "Free-state" Legislature by Colonel +Sumner</a>—<a href="#side621">The "Free-state" +Directory</a>—<a href="#side623">The Treaty of August +17th</a>—<a href="#side624">The New Invasion from +Missouri</a>—<a href="#side625">General Smith's Attitude Toward +Invaders</a>—<a href="#side627">The failure of "Popular Sovereignty" in the +Territories</a>—<a href="#side628">The New Governor Establishes Peace by Means of the Army of the United +States</a>—<a href="#side630">The Judicial Contribution to Kansas History.</a></blockquote> +<br> + +<p>The passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the purchase of nearly fifty +thousand square miles of territory <a name="page408"></a>from Mexico on the Southern +boundary of New Mexico, and the issue of a manifesto from Ostend by +the Ministers of the United States to Great Britain, France, and +Spain, Messrs. Buchanan, Mason, and Soulé, advising the acquisition of +Cuba by the United States, together with the preparation of +filibustering expeditions in the South for the execution of this and +similar designs, all coming within the same year, 1854, seemed to be +sufficient evidence of a fixed plan among the slaveholders for the +extension of slavery and the increase of the number of slaveholding +Commonwealths in the Union, and roused the people of the North to an +appreciation of the impending danger and to extraordinary exertions +for meeting the same and warding it off.</p> +<a name="side555"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote555"> + <tr> + <td><small>Eli Thayer and<br> + his emigrant<br> + aid scheme.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>During the debate upon the Kansas-Nebraska bill in Congress, it does +not seem to have been generally appreciated that it might, after all, +turn out to be a Free-soil measure, and that the question whether it +would be such or not in a specific case resolved itself into the +problem of immigration. There lived, however, in the town of +Worcester, Mass., a shrewd, far seeing business man, with whose +shrewdness, however, ideality and patriotism were mingled in an +uncommon degree, who immediately comprehended the situation from this +point of view. This man was the now well known and universally honored +Eli Thayer. Before the Kansas-Nebraska bill had become law, the idea +in his mind had ripened into a wide-reaching plan. This plan was the +organization of an emigrant aid society, with an immense capital, the +purpose of which should be to foster emigration from the Northern +Commonwealths and the European states into the Territories and the +slaveholding Commonwealths of the Union, to the end that a Free-soil +population should gain control of them, and prohibit or abolish +slavery in them by their <a name="page409"></a>own local acts. Mr. Thayer reasoned with +himself that masters would be very timid about immigrating into a +Territory with their slaves until the question should be determined +whether slavery should have a legal existence in the Territory, while +men without such impediments would go boldly forward and occupy the +country, and vote the free status for the Territory; and again, that +with only about one-fourth of the white population of the slaveholding +Commonwealths pecuniarily interested in slavery, the immigration of a +few thousand active anti-slavery men into these would finally turn the +balance at the polls against the further existence of the institution +in the slaveholding Commonwealths themselves. The plan was so +comprehensive that most of Mr. Thayer's friends thought it visionary, +and he modified it, after having obtained his charter from the +legislature of Massachusetts, limiting it to the settlement of the +Territories, and especially to that of Kansas Territory, by +anti-slavery men. The organization, as thus finally effected, counted +among its directors some of the purest, most patriotic, and most +capable men of the country—Mr. A. A. Lawrence, Dr. Samuel Cabot, Mr. +John Lowell, Mr. Moses H. Grinnell, Rev. Edward E. Hale, Rev. Horace +Bushnell, Professor Benjamin Silliman, and others of the like fame and +fortune. The way in which they proposed to accomplish their purpose +was by lessening the hardships of the journey to the distant country, +and the hardships of life in the new country. They proposed to +organize the emigrants into companies, procure transportation for them +at the most favorable rates, build hotels, boarding-houses, mills, +school-houses, churches—in a word to send capital in advance of +population, in order to attract a good, law-abiding population by +planting for them the advantages and conveniences of civilization in +the new country. It was a <a name="page410"></a>noble scheme, and none the less so because +of the idea of making it pay ultimately as a business venture.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote556"> + <tr> + <td><small>Not an entirely new<br> + thing in American history.<br> + <br> + <br> + Denunciations of it as<br> + an odious innovation.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>It cannot be said that it was a movement entirely new in American +history, although this was charged by many of the politicians, both of +the North and of the South. A number of the American colonies were +originally planted under the auspices of corporations in the +motherland, and others were formed by companies of immigrants for the +purpose of securing more freedom than the Old World afforded. It is +difficult to see how any objection could have been found to such an +association, animated with such motives and purposes, and operating +through such means, and yet it was charged, even by Northern men, with +the responsibility for all the outrages perpetrated in Kansas during +the stormy period of 1855-56. Even the President of the United States +denounced it with great severity.</p> + +<p>The view held by the President and his friends, both of the North and +of the South, was that no aid should be allowed to be given, and no +incentive offered, by any person or organization to any other person, +to go to, and settle in, the common Territories of the Union, but that +every emigrant should go entirely upon his own impulse, and be +sustained entirely by his own means. This they regarded as the only +natural and fair method for carrying into effect the principle of +popular sovereignty in the Territories. Such a view was a perfect +travesty of popular liberty, and manifests the tyranny which slavery +was imposing upon the minds of freemen.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote557"> + <tr> + <td><small>The organization of<br> + Mr. Thayer's company.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Thayer's company was never organized under its original charter, +but under a charter obtained in 1855. During the period when the +counter movements, to be described, were set on foot against it in +Missouri, it had no corporate existence at all, but was a movement +<a name="page411"></a>conducted by three private gentlemen, Mr. Thayer, Mr. Lawrence, and +Mr. J. M. S. Williams. Moreover, the establishments which they founded +in Kansas were open to use by immigrants from any and every part of +the Union, or of the world, without distinction. Such was the +organization which was made the justification, or better the +subterfuge, for excesses, which had never before been committed in the +history of the building of the Commonwealths of the Union.</p> +<a name="side558"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote558"> + <tr> + <td><small>Reports in regard<br> + to its character<br> + and purposes.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>During the early summer of 1854, exaggerated and false reports in +regard to the character, purposes, and means of the proposed Emigrant +Aid Company were circulated through Missouri and the entire South. It +was said that an organization, chartered by the legislature of +Massachusetts, possessing an immense capital, was preparing to +abolitionize Kansas by means of military colonies, recruited from the +slums of the Eastern cities, and planted in Kansas with all the +munitions of war, to be used not only when necessary for their own +defence, but for keeping out immigrants from the South. The notorious +B. F. Stringfellow, co-editor with one Kelly of the <i>Squatter +Sovereign,</i> a paper published at Atchison, which professed to be the +organ of the Washington Government in western Missouri, rang the +changes upon these misrepresentations in his newspaper, and advised +that the emigrants sent out by the Aid Society be met with the weapons +of their choice, which he charged were those of violence.</p> +<a name="side559"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote559"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Missouri "border<br> + ruffian" of 1854.<br> + <br> + <br> + Nebraska for the<br> + North and Kansas<br> + for the South.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The population of western Missouri was then such as to receive ready +impression from such representations, and respond heartily to such +counsel. This region was then the frontier between civilization and +savagery, and into it had gathered a horde of desperate characters, +<a name="page412"></a>vulgar, fearless, brutal, without respect for civilization or +reverence for God, usually inflamed with whiskey and stained with +tobacco, gambling by day and jayhawking by night, always ready for any +adventure which promised fun, blood, or booty. It is true that they +had no special interest in slavery. They were simply the ready +material out of which the slaveholders of Missouri might recruit their +mercenaries for any villainous work which might be found necessary. +Such was the Missouri "border ruffian" of 1854. It must not be +understood that western Missouri contained no other sort of people. +There were many generous-hearted, fair-minded, upright men there, +among both the slaveholders and the non-slaveholders, who would no +sooner have done wrong than suffered wrong. Most of them felt, +however, that Kansas for the South and slavery, and Nebraska for the +North, was the fair thing, the only fair thing, the thing understood +and intended in the organization of the two Territories by one Act, +and that any attempt on the part of the North to make Kansas a +non-slaveholding Territory was a breach of faith, which ought to be +resisted by the South, and especially by Missouri.</p> +<a name="side560"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote560"> + <tr> + <td><small>General Atchison.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>General D. R. Atchison was such a man, and such was his view of the +case. He was, at the time, the leading man of western Missouri, had +represented Missouri in the Senate of the United States, and had been +president <i>pro tem.</i> of the Senate. His opinion and his advice +naturally determined the course which the people of western Missouri +would pursue toward Kansas. In justice to his memory, however, it must +be said that, while he was resolved to make Kansas a slaveholding +Territory, and then a slaveholding Commonwealth, his presence and +counsel exerted a moderating influence upon his fierce and reckless +followers. He <a name="page413"></a>left Washington soon after the passage of the +Kansas-Nebraska Act, and repaired to the scene of the coming conflict, +for the purpose of organizing and conducting his forces.</p> +<a name="side561"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote561"> + <tr> + <td><small>Dr. Charles Robinson.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In June of 1854, Mr. Thayer, Mr. Lawrence, and Mr. Williams invited +Dr. Charles Robinson, of Fitchburg, Mass., to meet them in council, in +regard to the projects of the Emigrant Aid Company. Dr. Robinson was a +prominent "forty-niner," and the leader of the California squatters in +the war against the Sutter land claims. He was shrewd, calm, +courageous, and full of expedients. These qualities, together with his +large experience in organizing the forces of an embryonic +Commonwealth, fitted him exactly for the work which Mr. Thayer and his +colleagues were seeking to accomplish. Dr. Robinson was not an +Abolitionist, and neither was Thayer, Lawrence, nor Williams. They +were simply working to prevent the extension of slavery. They were all +Whigs or Free-soil Democrats. They were thus by their moderation in +principles and their conservatism in character admirably fitted to +undertake the great work of making Kansas a free Commonwealth.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote562"> + <tr> + <td><small>Mr. C. H. Branscomb.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The conference resulted in the sending of Dr. Robinson to the front to +inspect the Territory of Kansas and make arrangements for settlements. +Accompanied by Mr. C. H. Branscomb, a young lawyer, of Holyoke, Mass., +he started for Kansas in the last days of June, 1854. They went by way +of St. Louis and Kansas City. When they arrived in Missouri they found +the excitement in reference to the reported doings of the Emigrant Aid +Company already at a high pitch. They heard threats that no +anti-slavery man would be allowed to settle in Kansas, and they heard +of rewards offered for the head of Eli Thayer. They found also that a +goodly number of pro-slavery Missourians had already <a name="page414"></a>immigrated into +the Territory, had held a popular convention or assembly at Salt Creek +Valley, at which they had declared slavery to be an existing +institution in the Territory, and called upon its friends to aid in +its firmer establishment and its wider extension.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote563"> + <tr> + <td><small>Dr. Robinson and<br> + Mr. Branscomb in<br> + Kansas.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>From Kansas City Mr. Branscomb proceeded alone up the Kansas River to +Fort Riley, while Dr. Robinson went up the Missouri to Fort +Leavenworth. The Doctor found surveyors laying off a town near Fort +Leavenworth, despite the fact that the Government at Washington had +not yet opened the country for purchase. He immediately returned to +Kansas City, where he received a letter from Boston informing him that +the first party of emigrants was on the eve of starting for Kansas, +and instructing him to join them at St. Louis. Upon meeting them at +St. Louis, a letter was handed him asking for his immediate presence +in Boston. He wrote to Mr. Branscomb to join the party at Kansas City +and lead them to a settlement, while he himself hurried to Boston.</p> +<a name="side564"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote564"> + <tr> + <td><small>The first party<br> + of emigrants.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Mr. Branscomb and a Colonel Blood, of Wisconsin, who had also been +sent out by Mr. Lawrence, met the emigrants at Kansas City, and, after +a good deal of deliberation, led them to the spot on the Kansas River, +above the confluence of the Wakarusa with the Kansas, on which the +town of Lawrence was afterward built.</p> +<a name="side565"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote565"> + <tr> + <td><small>The "Platte<br> + County<br> + self-defensive<br> + association."</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>A few days before this first party of emigrants had arrived from the +East, a meeting of residents of Platte County in Missouri took place +at Weston, and, under the lead of B. F. Stringfellow, an organization +was formed, which called itself the "Platte County Self-defensive +Association," with the declared purpose of aiding in the removal of +all persons from the soil of Kansas who might go there through <a name="page415"></a>the aid +or protection or guidance of emigrant aid societies in the North. +Other such associations were formed in other localities of western +Missouri, and before the autumn of 1854 had hardly opened, from five +to ten thousand persons, mostly desperate and reckless characters, +were organized in the border counties of western Missouri, and ready +to invade Kansas for the purpose of protecting the settlers in the +Territory from Missouri and the South generally in the exclusive +possession of the Territory.</p> +<a name="side566"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote566"> + <tr> + <td><small>The founding<br> + of Lawrence.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In September, the little party of about thirty men, who had pitched +their tents upon the site of the present city of Lawrence, were joined +by Dr. Robinson and S. C. Pomeroy, with the second party from the +East, numbering some two hundred men. Upon the arrival of these the +work of laying out and building the town was begun, and the place was +named, in honor of the strong financial supporter of the Emigrant Aid +enterprise, Lawrence.</p> +<a name="side567"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote567"> + <tr> + <td><small>First invasion<br> + of the Missourians.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>When the first party arrived at the site they found it occupied by a +single settler, named Stearns. Mr. Branscomb immediately purchased +Stearns' claim and improvements for the company. The Missourians had, +however, rushed into the Territory, at the earliest moment after the +passage of the organic Act, and marked all the best lands as taken, +leaving very little for bona fide settlers. As the result of this +procedure, another claimant to the site of Lawrence soon appeared, one +John Baldwin, and ordered the Yankees to decamp. Robinson proposed +that each settler be left in possession until some authorized tribunal +could pass upon the claims, and declared that his party would hold +possession until removed by a legal act. Baldwin and his party +rejected the proposition, and summoned their Missouri friends to +assist them. Some came, <a name="page416"></a>but not enough to overcome the Yankees. The +Yankees stood firm and the Missourians retired, declaring that they +would come again, and breathing out threats of war and bloodshed upon +their return. This was October 6th, 1854, and such was the first +invasion of the Missourians.</p> +<a name="side568"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote568"> + <tr> + <td><small>Governor<br> + A. H. Reeder.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On the next day, the Governor of the Territory, the President's +representative, the Hon. A. H. Reeder, of Pennsylvania, arrived at +Fort Leavenworth, and began his régime in the Territory. From this +time forward the history of the Territory is the resultant of four +elemental forces in contact with each other—the general Government, +the pro-slavery inhabitants, the anti-slavery inhabitants, and the +Missourians.</p> + +<p>Governor Reeder was a genial, intelligent, upright man, a good lawyer +and a fine orator. He was a Union-loving Democrat, and a firm believer +in the doctrine of home rule in the Territories. He declared that he +would maintain peace and order in the Territory, and immediately set +out on a tour of inspection through the Territory. After having +finished this, he caused the Territory to be districted, and ordered +the election of a delegate to Congress.</p> +<a name="side569"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote569"> + <tr> + <td><small>The second invasion<br> + of the Missourians<br> + and the election of the<br> + delegate to Congress.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>There is little question that at the moment a majority of the bona +fide settlers in the Territory were pro-slavery, and would have +elected the delegate to Congress without any outside aid, but the +pro-slavery men in Kansas and Missouri had become excited by the +rumors of the vast schemes in the East for planting anti-slavery +military colonies in the Territories, and also in the slaveholding +Commonwealths, and were in no state of mind to think quietly and act +calmly. They felt that they must make sure of all of the elements of +government in <a name="page417"></a>Kansas at the outset. The Missourians consequently +committed the fatal and unnecessary blunder of going over into Kansas, +to the number of some seventeen hundred or more, and voting for the +pro-slavery candidate for Congress, J. W. Whitfield, who was thus +elected by a large majority. Without the vote of the Missourians, +Whitfield had still a substantial majority, but this travesty of the +principle of home rule in the Territories, this pollution of +republican principles at the very fountain-head, roused the North to +the highest pitch of indignation.</p> +<a name="side570"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote570"> + <tr> + <td><small>The indignation<br> + of the North.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>This election took place on November 29th, 1854. Had it occurred +before the Congressional elections of that year, it would most +probably have caused a much more rapid development of the Republican +party than happened, and the election of the Republican candidate for +the presidency two years later. As it was, the struggle over the +Kansas-Nebraska bill, and its final passage, had started the +amalgamation of the Northern Whigs, the Free-soilers, and the Northern +Democrats who opposed the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, into the +Republican party, and had, in the Congressional elections of 1854, +been the chief cause in changing a Democratic majority of more than +eighty in the House of Representatives into a minority by more than +seventy.</p> +<a name="side571"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote571"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Republican party.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Of course the disintegration of the two old parties would, under +ordinary conditions, proceed slowly. The members of neither were +willing to enter the organization, or bear the name, of the other. As +the Northern Whigs had unanimously opposed the repeal of the +restriction of 1820 upon slavery in the Territories, it was not +unnatural that they should at first feel that they were already the +anti-slavery-extension party, and that all persons holding to that +principle should be <a name="page418"></a>willing to march under their banner. Some of the +more liberal minds among them in the Northwest, especially in +Wisconsin and Michigan, had, already in the summer of 1854, joined +with the Free-soilers, and the Democrats who opposed the repeal of the +Missouri Compromise, to form a new party, under a new name, the +Republican party, which, indeed, had no other principle than that +already represented by the Northern Whigs, but which did not repel the +Democrats by requiring them to desert to their old enemy. The great +majority of both Whigs and Democrats were, however, rather waiting to +see how home rule in the Territories would work, and were in the +meantime busying themselves, in large degree, with other questions, +chief among which was the question whether the country ought not to be +preserved against foreign Roman Catholic immigration, the question +which gave rise to the short-lived Know-nothing party, with its +principle of America for Americans, the only real service of which +movement was the aid which it lent to the dissolution of the Whig +party, and to the preparation of the way for the union of the Northern +Whigs with the anti-slavery-extension elements of the other parties +into the Republican party.</p> + +<p>The interference of the Missourians in the first election in Kansas, +demonstrating the impracticability of "popular sovereignty" in the +Territories, was the very thing necessary to hasten the development of +the Republican party, but it came too late to influence the elections +of 1854, and the shock which it caused lost some of the sharpness of +its effect before the autumn of 1856.</p> + +<p>The Congress to which Whitfield presented his credentials was the one +whose House of Representatives had been chosen in 1852. His claim to +his seat was at first not resisted, and the first step in the +programme for making Kansas a slaveholding Territory was thus +successful.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote572"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Territorial<br> + legislature.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page419"></a> +<p>Of far more importance, however, than the election of the delegate to +Congress was the election of the members of the first Territorial +legislature, since, according to the principle of "popular +sovereignty" in the Territories, it would have the power probably of +determining primarily the legality or illegality of slavery in Kansas.</p> + +<p>In February of 1855, the Territorial authorities took a census of the +inhabitants of the Territory, and it was estimated that there were +between eight and nine thousand bona fide settlers in the Territory, +about three thousand of whom were voters. It was also found that about +four-sevenths of the legal voters had emigrated from the South. It is +not probable, however, that all of these were pro-slavery men.</p> +<a name="side573"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote573"> + <tr> + <td><small>The third invasion<br> + of the Missourians.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>March 13th following was the day appointed for the election. All +through the month the Missourians of the border counties were +assembling in their "Blue Lodges," arming, organizing and drilling. On +the day of the election some four or five thousand of them marched, +fully armed, to the voting places in the more eastern districts of the +Territory, and compelled the acceptance of their ballots by the +regular judges of the elections, or by judges appointed by themselves. +About six thousand three hundred votes were cast at this election, and +it was estimated that three-fourths of them were cast by the Missouri +invaders. Some of them pretended to be residents of the Territory, but +most of those who thought it necessary to justify the procedure at all +claimed that the Emigrant Aid Company had sent out men for the sole +purpose of voting, and that their own action was retaliatory. The +invasion was a notoriously public deed. The Missourians came in +companies, with music and banners, and made no attempt at concealment. +The <a name="page420"></a>Governor of the Territory resided, at the time, near the Missouri +border, and probably had ocular proof of the outrage. The anti-slavery +men thought that he would set the entire election aside. He did call +for protests, and appointed April 5th as the time for hearing the same +and canvassing the returns.</p> + +<p>When the day arrived protests had been received from only six or seven +of the eighteen election districts, and affected the elections of not +more than three of the thirteen persons returned as elected to the +upper house, and of not more than nine of the twenty-six persons +returned as elected to the lower house, of the Territorial +legislature.</p> +<a name="side574"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote574"> + <tr> + <td><small>Governor Reeder and<br> + the Territorial elections.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Dr. Robinson and the anti-slavery men who had gathered about the +Governor as a sort of body-guard wanted the Governor to declare the +entire election null and void, but the Governor was a good lawyer, and +he quickly determined that he could not pronounce an election null and +void in a district from which no charges of fraud were presented, on +account of fraud charged in some other district, and that he could not +refuse his certificate to any one elected on the face of the returns, +if nobody disputed the regularity of his election. Upon examining the +disputed cases he decided to refuse his certificate to eight of the +twelve persons chosen on the face of the disputed returns. Thirty-one +members were thus duly qualified to take their seats, and new +elections for eight seats were ordered. Of these thirty-one, +twenty-eight were counted as pro-slavery men, a large majority in both +houses.</p> + +<p>Dr. Robinson and the anti-slavery men found great fault with the +Governor, and charged him with being frightened out of his original +purpose to set the entire election aside, but it is difficult to see +how he could have done this without protests against the return of +each <a name="page421"></a>and every person. It would certainly have been an arbitrary +procedure to have done so. If the anti-slavery men were not brave +enough to protest, it certainly did not become them to taunt the +Governor with backing down, when they gave him nothing upon which to +base the refusal to issue his certificates.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote575"> + <tr> + <td><small>The new elections to the<br> + legislative seats unfilled<br> + at the first elections.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The 22nd day of the following month (May) was appointed for holding +the elections for the seats declared unfilled by the Governor. The +anti-slavery candidates were elected to all of them. The pro-slavery +men ignored the election. This meant that those holding the Governor's +certificate by virtue of this election would be rejected by the +legislature itself, and those returned as elected at the first +election would be seated, under the power of the legislature to +determine finally upon the legitimacy of its members. This happened as +soon as the legislature assembled and organized itself in the first +days of July.</p> +<a name="side576"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote576"> + <tr> + <td><small>The organization of<br> + the first legislature<br> + of Kansas Territory.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The legislature as thus organized contained only a single anti-slavery +man, a Mr. Houston, and he voluntarily vacated his seat a few weeks +later in great disgust. From a technical point of view this +legislature was a legitimate body, but from a moral and a political +point of view it did not represent the people of the Territory. It +represented simply the pro-slavery party, and used its powers in utter +disregard of justice and right reason.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote577"> + <tr> + <td><small>The problem for the<br> + anti-slavery men.<br> + Dr. Robinson's plan.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The great problem for the anti-slavery men now was to repudiate the +jurisdiction of this legislature without rebelling against the general +Government and its agent in the Territory, the Governor. Dr. Robinson +had had the experience in California of aiding to make a Commonwealth +in the Union, without the transitional period of <a name="page422"></a>Territorial +organization. He now applied this experience to the solution of the +Kansas question.</p> + +<p>The idea of Dr. Robinson and his colleagues was, to hold a convention +of the people of the Territory for the purpose of framing an organic +statute for Commonwealth government, which, after adoption by the +people, should be sent to Congress, with a petition for the admission +of Kansas into the Union as a Commonwealth. They proposed in the +meantime to get on without any Territorial government as best they +could.</p> + +<p>Their idea was, in the second place, to ignore the Territorial +government altogether as bogus, but to yield obedience to the +officials of the general Government in the Territory. This distinction +might be made, so far as the Territorial legislature was concerned, +upon the "popular sovereignty" principle. The difficulty was in +applying it to the Governor and the Territorial judges appointed by +the President. To distinguish between their functions in such a way as +to deny their authority when administering the acts of the Territorial +legislature, and yield to it when administering the acts of Congress +in the Territory, was certainly a very delicate procedure, if possible +at all. Such distinctions would have to be very clearly understood, +and very correctly applied in each case, in order to avoid the charge +of rebellion and treason.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote578"> + <tr> + <td><small>Conflict between the<br> + Governor and the<br> + Territorial legislature.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Had the Governor remained true to the legislature it is possible that +this plan of rebellion against the Territorial government might have +been suppressed at the outset, but such was not to be the course of +history. He called the legislature to assemble at Pawnee on July 2nd. +It remained in session there only four days. It did little more than +unseat the persons holding the Governor's certificate by virtue of the +second election, and seat <a name="page423"></a>those to whom he had denied his certificate +on account of fraud at the first election. It then adjourned itself to +Shawnee Mission, a place nearer the Missouri border. The Governor +denied the power of the legislature to do this, since by the Act +organizing the Territory, the legislature must first meet at the time +and place appointed by the Governor, and was vested by the Act with +power, thereafter, only over the time of commencing its regular +sessions. The Governor vetoed the proposition of the legislature to +change its place of meeting. The legislature passed the project over +his veto, and removed to Shawnee Mission; after which the Governor +broke off all official connection with it. There is little doubt that +the pro-slavery legislature wanted to be where it could be easily +supported by the Missourians, and that the Governor considered this a +menace to his own independence, and an outrage upon the people of +Kansas, and upon the principle of "popular sovereignty" in the +Territories.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote579"> + <tr> + <td><small>Sharpe's<br> + riles.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The attitude now assumed by the Governor toward the legislature at +Shawnee Mission was a great encouragement to the anti-slavery men. Dr. +Robinson had already sent to Mr. Thayer for Sharpe's rifles, and, at +the time of the Governor's quarrel with the legislature, a sufficient +number of these had arrived to furnish almost every anti-slavery man +with a good outfit.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote580"> + <tr> + <td><small>Factional movements<br> + among the anti-slavery<br> + men suppressed.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Dr. Robinson had, at the same time, overcome the attempts of James S. +Lane to separate the anti-slavery men into parties, by the +organization of a Democratic party in Kansas. In a powerful speech at +Lawrence, on July 4th, 1855, the Doctor convinced his hearers of the +necessity for all anti-slavery men standing together until Kansas +should be admitted into the Union as a <a name="page424"></a>non-slaveholding Commonwealth. +It was in this address that the Doctor repudiated the existing +legislature as a Missouri institution, advising resistance to the +execution of its acts, and made his noted declaration, that, if +slavery in Missouri was impossible with freedom in Kansas, then +slavery in Missouri must die in order that freedom in Kansas might +live.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote581"> + <tr> + <td><small>Excitement in Missouri and<br> + throughout the country over<br> + the "Free-state" movement.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>These bold utterances startled the North and the South, the people of +Kansas and, especially, the people of Missouri. This speech, together +with the letter of M. F. Conway to Governor Reeder, resigning his seat +in the legislature and repudiating that body "as derogatory to the +respectability of popular government and insulting to the virtue and +intelligence of the age," set the "Free-state" scheme in motion.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote582"> + <tr> + <td><small>The enactments<br> + of the Territorial<br> + legislature.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The enactments of the Territorial legislature greatly aided the +movement by demonstrating to the people what they had to expect from +the dominance of that body. They made the decoying, or aiding therein, +of a slave away from his master in the Territory grand larceny, +punishable by death. They made the decoying into Kansas of any slave +away from his master in any other place, for the purpose of effecting +his freedom, grand larceny, punishable by death. And they made the +denial of the right to hold slaves in Kansas, either by word of mouth +or in writing or printing, a felony, punishable by imprisonment at +hard labor for not less than two years.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote583"> + <tr> + <td><small>The North aroused<br> + by this legislation.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>When the knowledge of this infamous legislation spread throughout the +North, it roused that section of the country to new efforts for +peopling Kansas with anti-slavery men, who would rescue the Territory +from the reign of such laws and such law-makers. The necessary +reinforcements <a name="page425"></a>were being assembled in the North when the creation of +the "Free-state" government was begun.</p> +<a name="side584"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote584"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Topeka<br> + constitution.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>A series of conventions, beginning with the convention at Lawrence on +August 14th, and culminating with that assembled at Topeka on the 23rd +day of October, 1855, consolidated the anti-slavery men in the +Territory into the "Free-state" party, constructed a temporary +election machinery, and produced, finally, a proposed Commonwealth +constitution, which, in addition to the provisions for the structure +of a Commonwealth government for Kansas, contained a clause +prohibiting slavery in Kansas after July 4th, 1857, and excluding +negroes from residence in Kansas after that date.</p> +<a name="side585"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote585"> + <tr> + <td><small>The removal of Governor<br> + Reeder; and his election<br> + as Congressional delegate.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In the meantime Governor Reeder had been removed by the President from +the governorship of the Territory, and the Secretary of the Territory, +one Daniel Woodson, a pro-slavery man, had become acting Governor for +the time being. Ex-Governor Reeder now went over to the anti-slavery +men, and was chosen by them on October 9th, at the same election at +which the delegates to the Topeka convention were chosen, as delegate +to Congress. Over twenty-seven hundred votes were cast at this +election.</p> +<a name="side586"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote586"> + <tr> + <td><small>The ratification of the<br> + Topeka constitution; and<br> + the establishment of the<br> + "Free-state" government.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On December 15th, the Topeka constitution was submitted to the +suffrages of the people. Seventeen hundred and thirty-one votes were +cast in favor of its adoption, and forty-six votes against it. The +pro-slavery men took no part in the voting. It is probable, however, +that a majority of the legal voters in Kansas ratified this +constitution. On January 5th, 1856, the elections for the legislative +members and officials of the government provided by this constitution +were held, and Dr. Robinson was chosen Governor.</p> +<a name="side587"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote587"> + <tr> + <td><small>The first<br> + violence.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page426"></a> +<p>It was at this election that the conflict of arms between the +"Free-state" government and the Territorial government began. A +Territorial military company, called the Kickapoo Rangers, threatened +to interfere with the elections at the town of Easton. A captain, R. +P. Brown, organized a company of "Free-state" men at Leavenworth, and +went to Easton to protect the ballot box. As the evening drew on a +fight ensued, in which a Territorial man was killed. The next day the +Leavenworth company was attacked, on their return, by the Kickapoo +company, and Captain Brown was taken prisoner. Some movements were in +progress for trying him, when one of the ruffians put an end to the +matter by striking him on the head with a hatchet.</p> +<a name="side588"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote588"> + <tr> + <td><small>The "Free-state"<br> + government and<br> + the Administration.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Two local governments of Kansas were now in existence. One, the +Territorial, had been recognized as legitimate by the Washington +Government. What, then, was the other? Was it a body of +insurrectionists? If so, must the general Government suppress it? And, +if the general Government must suppress it, must it do so at once, or +should it wait until the insurrectionists should undertake to exercise +some governmental power? These were knotty problems for the +Administration at Washington, but they were problems which had to be +solved. From the inaction of the Washington authorities we must +conclude that the prevailing view with them was that the new +government in Kansas must do something before it could be dealt with.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote589"> + <tr> + <td><small>The acts of the<br> + "Free-state"<br> + legislature.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The "Free-state" legislature met March 4th, 1856. It prepared a +memorial to Congress, praying for the entrance of Kansas as a +Commonwealth into the Union, under the Topeka constitution. It elected +Reeder and Lane United States Senators. It appointed a committee to +put the <a name="page427"></a>legislative business into shape for the next session. And it +passed a few laws.</p> + +<p>None of these acts were treasonable. Treason, by the Constitution, is +levying war against the United States or any of the "States," or +adhering to those who are doing so, giving them aid and comfort; and +levying war has been defined by the Supreme Court to be the actual +assembly of armed men for the treasonable purpose. Not even the +voluntary submission to the laws passed by the "Free-state" +legislature was treason or rebellion. The danger point would be +reached when the "Free-state" government should undertake to enforce +its laws, or should interpose armed resistance to the enforcement of +the laws of the United States, or of the acts of the Territorial +government, which government had been recognized as legitimate by the +general Government, which was, in fact, but the local agent of the +general Government.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote590"> + <tr> + <td><small>Governor Robinson's message.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Governor Robinson understood the situation. In his message to the +legislature he recommended "no course to be taken in opposition to the +general Government, or to the Territorial government, while it shall +remain with the sanction of Congress."</p> +<a name="side591"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote591"> + <tr> + <td><small>The new Governor,<br> + Shannon, and the "law<br> + and order" party.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In the midst of these movements by the "Free-state" men, the +pro-slavery men organized themselves more closely for aggressive +action. The new Governor appointed by the President, Wilson Shannon, +ex-Governor of Ohio, a man of intelligence and high character, arrived +at Shawnee Mission on September 3rd, 1855. The pro-slavery men did not +like his appointment. They wanted the acting Governor, Woodson, to be +made Governor. However, they received the new Governor with much pomp +and ceremony, and succeeded in imposing upon him, at the outset, their +view of the situation. On <a name="page428"></a>November 14th, they held a pro-slavery +convention at Leavenworth. They called it an assembly of "the lovers +of law and order." The Governor presided over it, and made a rather +violent speech, in which he declared that the Territorial government +had the support of the Administration at Washington. The practical +work of this convention was the organization of the "law and order" +party; that is, the party for enforcing the acts and authority of the +Territorial government.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote592"> + <tr> + <td><small>The attempt to enforce<br> + the Territorial laws upon<br> + the "Free-state" men.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Naturally a dispute about a land claim furnished the occasion for +trying the powers of the Territorial government. In the course of this +quarrel, which took place in the latter part of November, 1855, a +pro-slavery man, named Coleman, killed a "Free-state" man, named Dow. +The friends of Dow gathered about the spot where his dead body was +found, and indulged in threats of vengeance. Among them was one Jacob +Branson, who uttered threats against one Buckley, as the instigator of +the murder of his friend. Buckley secured a peace warrant against +Branson, and put it in the hands of one S. J. Jones, the sheriff, +under the Territorial government, of Douglas County. The arrest of +Branson under this warrant inaugurated the contest for imposing the +authority of the Territorial government upon the "Free-state" men.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote593"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Branson<br> + rescue.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Sheriff Jones arrested Branson, and started for Lecompton with him, by +way of Lawrence. His purpose in going through the head-quarters of the +"Free-state" men was undoubtedly to tempt them to the rescue of +Branson. But Branson was rescued several miles away from Lawrence by a +company of "Free-state" men, under the lead of a Captain Abbott. This +party, however, immediately repaired to Lawrence, while the sheriff +went to Franklin, and from <a name="page429"></a>this place summoned his Missouri friends to +his aid, and then reported his trouble to the Governor, and asked for +his support.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote594"> + <tr> + <td><small>The advance of<br> + the Missourians<br> + on Lawrence.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Governor immediately ordered the officers of the Territorial +militia to collect the forces, and march to Lawrence. Although the +sheriff asked for three thousand men, not one hundred residents of the +Territory answered the call of the militia officers; but a great horde +came from Missouri. By December 5th, 1855, more than a thousand +Missourians had arrived, and had encamped upon the Wakarusa, a few +miles to the east of Lawrence. General Atchison was with them.</p> + +<p>Naturally the people of Lawrence were much excited, and set about +preparing for defence. They constructed several small forts, and +organized a military force of some six or seven hundred men, pretty +well armed and equipped. They stood a very good chance to win in the +trial of battle, but they resolved, most wisely, to rely upon the +justice of their cause more than upon the power of their arms.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote595"> + <tr> + <td><small>Lawrence's demand<br> + of protection from<br> + Governor Shannon.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The committee of safety, which was directing matters in Lawrence, sent +commissioners to Governor Shannon to enlighten him, from the point of +view of the "Free-state" men, in regard to the situation. They made +their way to Shawnee Mission, where they were coldly received by the +Governor, who charged the "Free-state" men with rebellion against his +government. The commissioners disputed his charge, told him that +nobody in Lawrence had had anything to do with the rescue of Branson, +that his rescuers had been warned out of the town as soon as they +came into it, and had obeyed the warning, and gave him the committee's +message demanding his protection against the invaders.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote596"> + <tr> + <td><small>Shannon at Lawrence,<br> + and his agreement with<br> + the "Free-state" men.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page430"></a> +<p>The Governor was somewhat staggered by these statements, and decided +to go to Lawrence himself, and examine affairs on the spot. This was +just what the "Free-state" men wanted. He arrived in Lawrence on +December 7th. Dr. Robinson and Colonel Lane immediately stated the +situation and the views of the "Free-state" men to him. The Governor +saw, at once, that they were in the right, and could not be attacked. +He recognized, at once, that his task was to send the Missourians out +of the Territory. He entered into a sort of written agreement with the +citizens of Lawrence, in which the people of Lawrence pledged +themselves not to resist the legal service of any criminal process, +but to aid in the execution of the laws, when called on by proper +authority, and the Governor declared that he had no authority to call +upon non-residents of Kansas to aid him in the execution of the laws, +had not done so, and would not do so. The last clause provided that +nothing in the agreement should be taken as a recognition of the +validity of the acts of the Territorial legislature by the +"Free-state" men.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote597"> + <tr> + <td><small>The retreat of<br> + the Missourians.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Governor felt that he would have difficulty in reconciling the +Missourians to his agreement, and insisted that Dr. Robinson and +Colonel Lane should accompany him to Franklin, and aid him in his +task. The calm statements of the Governor and of Dr. Robinson +prevailed, and the Missourians saw the error into which they had been +betrayed by the inconsiderate pro-slavery zeal of Sheriff Jones. +General Atchison told his followers plainly that Dr. Robinson's +position was impregnable, and that if they should persist in an attack +upon Lawrence, contrary to the Governor's orders, they were only a +mob. He added, that such a movement was not only without show of +legality, but would ruin the Democratic <a name="page431"></a>party, and cause the election +of an Abolitionist President the next year. By these efforts and +representations on the part of the Governor, Dr. Robinson, and General +Atchison, the Missourians were induced to break camp and turn their +faces homeward.</p> +<a name="side598"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote598"> + <tr> + <td><small>John Brown.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>At the moment of this victory of the "Free-state" men, won by moral +forces and diplomatic address, appeared the Loki of Kansas +"Free-state" history, John Brown. He mounted a box in one of the +streets of Lawrence, railed and ranted against the settlement which +had been reached, and breathed out words of slaughter and pillage, +until some man of common sense pulled him down, and stopped his +murderous canting babble.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote599"> + <tr> + <td><small>Shannon's report<br> + to the President.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Governor reported the affair to the President, expressed to him +his forebodings as to the future, and suggested that he be allowed to +call upon the United States troops stationed at Fort Leavenworth at +his discretion, as a call for the militia would only end in a party +struggle. This communication seems to have opened the eyes of the +President, for the first time, to the true situation.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote600"> + <tr> + <td><small>The appeal of the<br> + "Free-state" men<br> + to the President.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The "Free-state" men now addressed the President and demanded his +protection against another invasion from Missouri, which they claimed +was in preparation. On January 23rd, 1856, the leaders at Lawrence +telegraphed the President that the outrage was on the point of +consummation, and besought the President to issue his proclamation, at +once, forbidding the invasion. At the same time, they informed certain +members of Congress and the Governors of certain Northern +Commonwealths of the impending danger; and they sent commissioners +into the Northern Commonwealths to inform the people of the <a name="page432"></a>North in +regard to the situation in Kansas, and to appeal to them to emigrate +thither in sufficient numbers to save the Territory against the +pro-slavery movement.</p> +<a name="side601"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote601"> + <tr> + <td><small>The President's<br> + proclamation.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The agitation became now so general throughout the country, that the +President felt constrained to interfere. On February 11th, he issued +his proclamation, in which he warned all persons concerned that "an +attempted insurrection" in the Territory of Kansas or "an aggressive +intrusion into the same" would be resisted by the employment of the +United States troops in Kansas, as well as the local militia; and +called upon all good citizens outside of Kansas to abstain from +intermeddling with the local affairs of the Territory, and upon all +good citizens in Kansas to render obedience to the laws.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote602"> + <tr> + <td><small>The situation made<br> + more embarrassing for<br> + the "Free-state" men.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The "Free-state" men did not regard the proclamation as particularly +friendly to them. While it forbade invasion, it commanded obedience to +the existing Territorial government within. They were afraid that they +would not be allowed to organize their "Free-state" government, +created by the Topeka constitution. But, as we have seen, the day came +and went for this, without any interference on the part of the +President or the Governor against the movement, although the President +had authorized the Governor to call upon the United States troops at +Fort Leavenworth at his discretion. Under these circumstances it was +certainly the part of wisdom for the "Free-state" men to do nothing +superfluous or sensational in the organization of the new government, +and to delay operations under it for the time being. The question of +the recognition of the "Free-state" movement was before Congress, +under the issue of the contest between Whitfield and Reeder for the +seat in the House of Representatives. The policy, therefore, <a name="page433"></a>of +representing the organization of the new government as tentative, and +as conditioned upon the presumption of Congressional recognition, and +as holding its powers in abeyance until that recognition should be +secured, was wise and necessary.</p> +<a name="side603"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote603"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Congressional<br> + committee<br> + to the Territory.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The discussion of Kansas affairs in the House of Representatives +revolved about the question of the admission of Whitfield or Reeder +from the middle of February to March 19th, 1856, when it was voted to +send a special committee of investigation to the Territory. The +gentlemen selected were Mr. Howard, of Michigan, Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, +and Mr. Oliver, of Missouri. They proceeded to the Territory and +opened their investigations about the middle of April.</p> +<a name="side604"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote604"> + <tr> + <td><small>Application<br> + for admission.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>A week before this, the memorial from the "Free-state" legislature +praying for the admission of Kansas, as a Commonwealth, under the +Topeka constitution, was presented in both Houses of Congress, and +placed upon the calendar in each. The slavery question was herewith +again before Congress in both principle and detail. The measure which +was intended to put its discussion out of the halls of Congress had +thus, in less than two years, proved itself an utter fiasco.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote605"> + <tr> + <td><small>Sheriff Jones again<br> + at Lawrence; and<br> + the attempts to<br> + assassinate him.<br> + <br> + <br> + The outrage<br> + repudiated by the<br> + "Free-state" men.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In the Territory the pro-slavery men pursued their policy of bringing +the "Free-state" men into conflict with the general Government. The +"Free-state" men sought just as diligently to avoid it. Both sides +recognized this as the crucial test. By the middle of April, some of +the men who participated in the rescue of Branson had made their way +back to Lawrence, and Sheriff Jones laid his plans for arresting them. +On April 19th, he rode into Lawrence and served a writ upon S. N. +Wood, but the crowd jostled them apart, and Wood escaped. The <a name="page434"></a>Sheriff +returned on the next day with more writs, and undertook to arrest S. +F. Tappan. Tappan resisted and struck the Sheriff. Jones went at once +to the Governor, and the Governor gave him a detachment of United +States soldiers. With these he returned to Lawrence, but they could +find no one for whom the Sheriff had a writ. The party pitched tent at +Lawrence to spend the night. After darkness came on, some wretch, then +unknown to the "Free-state" leaders, approached the tent and shot the +Sheriff, wounding him dangerously. This was an almost irreparable blow +to the "Free-state" cause. The very thing which the "Free-state" +leaders had sought most earnestly to avoid had been thrust upon them +by the criminal deed of some meddlesome crank. The "Free-state" men +recognized at once the seriousness of the situation, and, on the +morning following the event, held a meeting, at which the outrage was +repudiated and denounced, and a reward of five hundred dollars offered +for the apprehension of the criminal. Colonel Sumner, the commander of +the United States troops in Kansas, wrote to Dr. Robinson, urging him +to use every effort to move the citizens of Lawrence to bring the +assassin to justice, as his act would be charged by the pro-slavery +men upon the whole community. The Doctor replied at once that the +community repudiated the foul deed, and would certainly bring the +guilty party to justice if he could be found. There was no municipal +government in Lawrence at the time, and Dr. Robinson acted, in his +reply to Colonel Sumner, as a sort of self-constituted representative +of the citizens. He certainly represented the views of the large +majority of them, but there were some who, at the time, knew who the +guilty person was, and gave no sign which would aid in his discovery.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote606"> + <tr> + <td><small>Judge Lecompte's charge<br> + to the Grand Jury.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page435"></a> +<p>The Sheriff's wound was not fatal, but it was reported that he was +dead, and the Missourians began to organize for another invasion. +Before they were ready, the Territorial judiciary came to their +assistance. Chief Justice Lecompte charged the Grand Jury of Douglas +County, in the early part of May, that resistance to the Territorial +laws was high treason against the United States, and that entering +into combinations for the purpose of making such resistance was +constructive treason, and instructed the body to find true bills +against all persons guilty of such offences. This was a most +astounding piece of jurisprudence. It looked like nothing but a trick +to deprive the "Free-state" men of their leaders, since one arrested +for treason was considered as not having the privilege of bail.</p> +<a name="side607"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote607"> + <tr> + <td><small>The "treason<br> + indictments."</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Grand Jury found indictments against nine or ten persons, among +them Robinson, Reeder, and Lane, and also against two newspapers +published in Lawrence, and the Emigrant Aid Company's hotel there. The +indictments were put in the hands of the United States Marshal for the +Territory, J. B. Donaldson. On May 11th, Donaldson issued a +proclamation, declaring that the service of these writs by his deputy +had been resisted in Lawrence, and calling "the law-abiding citizens +of the Territory to appear at Lecompton, as soon as possible, and in +numbers sufficient for the proper execution of the law." As a matter +of fact, only Reeder had resisted service, and had succeeded in +escaping. All the others, except Lane and Wood, were taken into +custody without difficulty. Reeder's justification was that he was at +the moment in attendance, as a witness, upon the Congressional +committee sent to the Territory, and was, therefore, legally exempt +from arrest at the time.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote608"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Marshal's<br> + proclamation<br> + in Lawrence.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page436"></a> +<p>The Marshal did not publish his proclamation in Lawrence, but a copy +of it fell into the hands of a Lawrence citizen, who hastened to make +known to the people the peril which was impending. The citizens +already knew of forces being organized, both in the Territory and in +Missouri, against Lawrence, and had demanded the Governor's protection +against them. The Governor had replied that he knew of no force near +or approaching Lawrence, except the posse under the orders of the +United States Marshal and the Sheriff of Douglas County, who had writs +to serve in Lawrence, and that he should not interfere.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote609"> + <tr> + <td><small>The action of<br> + the citizens<br> + of Lawrence.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The citizens of Lawrence now held a meeting and passed formal +resolutions, declaring that the charges contained in the Marshal's +proclamation were untrue, and that the citizens were not only ready to +acquiesce in the service of any judicial writs against them by the +United States Marshal, but to furnish him a posse, if required, to aid +him in the discharge of his duty. And after receiving the Governor's +reply, they appealed to the Marshal, asking him to state his demands, +promising not to resist the service of his processes, but to aid him +in the discharge of his legal duties, and praying his protection +against the lawless bands collecting about their town for the purpose +of its destruction.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote610"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Marshal's<br> + reply.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Marshal replied in a flippant and sarcastic manner, saying that +his correspondents must be strangers in Lawrence if they were ignorant +of the demands against the citizens of the town, referring in +exaggerated language to the shooting of Jones, and Reeder's resistance +to his deputy, and to the military organization and equipment of the +people of Lawrence, and declaring that he should execute all processes +in his hands in his own time and way.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote611"> + <tr> + <td><small>Appeal of the citizens to the<br> + Marshal and the Governor.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page437"></a> +<p>Three days later, on May 17th, the citizens communicated again with +the Marshal, calling his attention to the depredations committed by +the bands around Lawrence, asking if he was responsible for these +bodies, and demanding protection from him against them. At the same +time, the managers of the hotel appealed to the Governor to protect +their property, and carried with them an offer from the citizens to +give up their arms to Colonel Sumner, if he would station a detachment +of United States soldiers in the town for their protection.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote612"> + <tr> + <td><small>The hotel and the<br> + printing offices.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Marshal and the Governor thought favorably of this proposition. +They were willing to guarantee the safety of the citizens and their +individual property, but they thought they must consult with the +captains of the squads composing the posse before they could give such +assurances in regard to the hotel and the printing offices. These +persons were found to be determined on the destruction of the printing +offices, certainly, and of the hotel, probably. Colonel Titus, of +Florida, declared that the South Carolina boys in the posse would be +satisfied with nothing short of the destruction of the printing +offices.</p> + +<p>The hotel managers and the representatives of the citizens turned +again to the Governor and implored him to send the United States +soldiers for the protection of the town, but he again refused to +interfere; and, finally, when they said to him that they feared the +citizens would be compelled to defend themselves by armed power, and +precipitate the horrors of civil war, he answered angrily, while +striding out of their presence: "War then it is, by God!"</p> +<a name="side613"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote613"> + <tr> + <td><small>The sacking<br> + of Lawrence.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On the morning of the 21st, the Marshal's armed force appeared upon +one of the heights overlooking the town, displaying first a white +flag, then a red one, and, lastly, <a name="page438"></a>the flag of the United States. The +Deputy-marshal then entered the town with a small posse, and called +the managers of the hotel and several of the citizens to join his +posse and assist him in the service of his writs. They obeyed, and two +persons were arrested. The Deputy, with his force and his prisoners, +returned to the camp. Colonel C. W. Topliff, a prominent citizen, went +with them, bearing a communication from the committee of safety of +Lawrence to the Marshal, in which the promise of obedience to his +processes was again made, and his protection claimed.</p> + +<p>It was hoped that the crisis was now passed. The Marshal dismissed his +posse. But the Sheriff immediately reorganized the bands as <i>his</i> +posse. This was most ominous of evil. The Sheriff was burning with +passion for personal revenge. In the middle of the afternoon (May +21st), he rode into the town at the head of his army, and, in spite of +every plea and remonstrance, caused the contents of the printing +offices to be scattered through the streets and the hotel to be +burned, and allowed the pillage, and even the burning, of private +houses.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote614"> + <tr> + <td><small>Repudiation of the deed<br> + by Atchison and others.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The atrocious and disgraceful deed of sacking Lawrence was denounced +by many of the persons who had joined the Marshal's posse. General +Atchison tried to prevent the Sheriff from thus wreaking his +vengeance, and denounced his deed afterward. Jackson, the leader of +the Georgians, and Buford, the captain of the Alabama squad, also +denounced the vile procedure, and declared that they had not come to +Kansas to destroy property.</p> + +<p>Atchison knew well enough that a great blow had been given to the +prospects of the Democratic party in the now approaching presidential +election. What, then, must have been his despair upon learning that an +attack, <a name="page439"></a>even more outrageous than the sacking of Lawrence, had been +made, at the same time, upon the defender of "Free-state" Kansas in +the Senate chamber at Washington?</p> +<a name="side615"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote615"> + <tr> + <td><small>The attack on<br> + Senator Sumner.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The debate on the bills for the admission of "Free-state" Kansas had +progressed from day to day, in both Houses of Congress, with +increasing earnestness and excitement. At length, on May 19th and +20th, Mr. Sumner delivered his fierce philippic on the "Crime against +Kansas." It was not only an unvarnished statement of the case from the +Abolitionist point of view, but it was a personal arraignment of +several of the Senators. The attack contained in it upon Senator +Butler, of South Carolina, a gentleman of great refinement and +politeness, and much honored and esteemed by his associates, was +especially coarse and brutal. Almost all the Senators felt the attack +to be more than a discourtesy. Senator Butler was in ill health and +was absent from his seat, both of which circumstances made the affair +all the more exasperating. For two days the Capital rang with +denunciations of the insulting speech, when Preston S. Brooks, a +nephew of Senator Butler, and a member of the House of +Representatives, demanded and took satisfaction of Mr. Sumner for the +attack upon his kinsman. Had he carried out his purpose in a brave and +manly way, he would have been generally applauded for it, but being no +match physically for Sumner, Brooks had recourse to a method which +stamped him as a coward, and his attack upon Sumner as a brutal +outrage. He entered the Senate chamber on May 22nd, after the +adjournment of the body, and approaching Mr. Sumner, who was seated +and bending over his desk, charged him with libel on South Carolina +and her sons, and struck him with a cane upon the head <a name="page440"></a>until the +Senator became helpless and unconscious. With this, Sumner's outrage +upon Butler was entirely lost sight of in Brooks's far more brutal +outrage upon Sumner.</p> + +<p>The cowardly deed was looked upon everywhere in the North as the fit +companion-piece to the sacking of Lawrence. The indignation of the +North was roused to the highest pitch, and it seemed as if the +elections of 1856 must bring the anti-slavery party into the seats of +power.</p> +<a name="side616"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote616"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Pottawattomie<br> + massacres.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>But just at this most critical juncture, when everything depended on +calmness and moderation on the part of the "Free-state" men to secure +immediate victory, and when immediate victory, thus pursued, was, so +far as human eye can discern, within their grasp, an outrage was +perpetrated by a gang of men, or rather fiends, who claimed some sort +of relation to the "Free-state" party, which so far overshadowed in +cruel atrocity all that had gone before as to produce a revulsion of +feeling most damaging to the "Free-state" cause. On May 23rd, John +Brown, with six or seven others, all, except two, members of his own +family, went to the settlement about Dutch Henry's Crossing on the +Pottawattomie Creek, and, on the night of the 24th, took five men, +innocent of anything which could even justify arrest by proper +authorities, from their cabins, and murdered them, cutting and +slashing their bodies with cutlasses, until their savage thirst for +blood was partially satiated. So barbarously atrocious was the deed, +so calculated to rouse the sentiment of the whole country against the +"Free-state" cause in Kansas, that the Republican members of the +Congressional committee of investigation in the Territory refused to +make the event a part of their inquiry. The Democratic member, Mr. +Oliver, investigated it, and reported it to Congress and to the +public.</p> +<a name="page441"></a> +<p>No sane mind can find the slightest justification, excuse, or +palliation for this atrocious crime. It was murder, pure and simple. +And when we consider the purpose for which, as well as the mind with +which, it was committed, it became, in addition to common crime, also +public crime of the most grievous nature. Dr. Robinson says it was +done for the purpose of involving the North and the South in war +against each other. Thus to the murderous mind was added the seditious +purpose. Some men have professed to find virtue in this noxious +compound, but such minds have lost their moorings, and are roaming +without star or compass over the border lands between reason and +insanity. To murder, Brown and his vile brood added robbery; but this +was so slight a crime in comparison with the other that it may be +passed without further notice.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote617"> + <tr> + <td><small>The excitement<br> + produced by them.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The inhabitants of the region were thrown into the greatest +consternation and excitement. The pro-slavery and the anti-slavery men +assembled together, denounced the horrible deed as foulest murder, and +resolved to act together as men of reason and common sense for the +maintenance of peace and order and the suppression of crime.</p> +<a name="side618"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote618"> + <tr> + <td><small>The battle at Black<br> + Jack.<br> + <br> + <br> + The Governor's<br> + proclamation,<br> + enforced by United<br> + States soldiers.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>For a few days it was not known who the authors of these murders were, +but suspicion soon pointed to Brown and his gang, and steps were taken +to procure warrants for their arrest. The Governor, also, sent down a +body of troops to the scene of the massacre. The troops were +volunteers, chiefly Missourians, commanded by a Captain Pate. Pate's +force met Brown's at Black Jack, and Brown captured Pate and his men. +This was June 2nd. With nothing to hinder him for the moment, Brown +now robbed and pillaged all around. By the 3rd, however, the +Missourians, led by Whitfield, were rallying to the aid of their +pro-slavery friends in <a name="page442"></a>Kansas, and by the 5th, battle was impending +between the Missourians and the "Free-state" men, who had gathered in +the neighborhood of the excitement. The Governor had at last +comprehended the serious character of the situation. He issued his +proclamation warning invaders to retire, and commanding armed and +illegal organizations to disperse. And he sent Colonel Sumner with a +company of regular cavalry to the scene of action.</p> + +<p>Sumner rescued Pate and his men, dispersed Brown's gang, and ordered +the Missourians to get out of Kansas. He did not arrest Brown, because +he had no warrant for his apprehension, and did not know, at the time, +that he was the author of the Pottawattomie murders. Sumner remained a +fortnight or more in southern Kansas until the excitement was somewhat +spent, and then returned to Fort Leavenworth. Brown disappeared, and a +measure of peace was momentarily restored.</p> +<a name="side619"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote619"> + <tr> + <td><small>The "Free-state" cause<br> + greatly injured<br> + by Brown's deeds.<br> + <br> + <br> + The passage of the<br> + bill for the admission of<br> + Kansas by the House.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Pottawattomie murders, and the robberies succeeding them, had, +however, greatly damaged the "Free-state" cause. The great advantage +which had accrued to it through the sacking of Lawrence and the +outrage upon Senator Sumner was now largely lost again. Still, +emigration from the Northern Commonwealths to Kansas continued in +great activity, and the House of Representatives at Washington was +steadily advancing toward the passage of the resolution for the +admission of "Free-state" Kansas into the Union, although the flight +of its committee of investigation from the Territory, in consequence +of the excitement following the murders on the Pottawattomie, and the +two reports which its members made of the situation in Kansas, +exercised an unfavorable influence on the movement. The House passed +the bill, <a name="page443"></a>however, on July 3rd, by a majority of two votes, but it +would admit neither of the claimants to a seat in the House.</p> +<a name="side620"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote620"> + <tr> + <td><small>Dispersal of the<br> + "Free-state"<br> + legislature<br> + by Colonel<br> + Sumner.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On the other hand, Colonel Sumner, while personally in sympathy with +the "Free-state" cause, felt it to be his official duty to disperse +the "Free-state" legislature which assembled at Topeka on July 4th. +The President and the Secretary of War, Mr. Jefferson Davis, +subsequently disapproved of this act, and denied that the authority +for it was either expressed or implied in any of their instructions to +Colonel Sumner. The Colonel thought the contrary, and felt that the +unpopularity of the procedure throughout the North had caused the +President and the Secretary to disavow a responsibility for it which +was rightfully their own. A careful reading of the dispatches leads to +the conclusion that the Colonel did exceed his powers. He was, +doubtless, led to do so unconsciously by the violent deeds of men +professing connection with the "Free-state" party. The +misunderstanding led finally to the retirement of Colonel Sumner from +the command of the United States forces in Kansas, and the assignment +of General P. F. Smith to that duty.</p> +<a name="side621"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote621"> + <tr> + <td><small>The "Free-state"<br> + Directory.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>After the dispersion of the "Free-state" legislature, the "Free-state" +men, who were gathered in Lawrence, held a convention, and elected a +committee, whose duty it should be to look after the interests of the +people. This committee selected from among its members a sub-committee +of five, and transferred all of its powers and duties to this +sub-committee. The "Free-state" government had now become a +directorial board of five persons, chief among whom were William +Hutchinson and James Blood. The seat of this Directory was Lawrence.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote622"> + <tr> + <td><small>The organization of<br> + the "Free-state" military.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page444"></a> +<p>The Directory organized a strong military force under the command of +Colonel Walker. This force attacked and broke up three pro-slavery +bands during the month of August, the last one at Fort Titus, near +Lecompton, and commanded by the noted Colonel Titus himself. Titus and +his men were captured.</p> +<a name="side623"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote623"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Treaty of<br> + August 17th.<br> + <br> + <br> + Resignation<br> + of Shannon.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Governor now became alarmed for his own safety. Accompanied by +Major Sedgwick, he went to Lawrence, on August 17th, and concluded +with the Directory the noted agreement of that date, the terms of +which were, that the "Free-state" men should keep the arms which they +had captured from the pro-slavery bands; that the howitzer taken from +Lawrence should be returned to the town; that all persons arrested by +the United States Marshal, under charge of participating in the attack +upon the pro-slavery band at Franklin, should be delivered unharmed to +the Directory; that the Governor should disband the Territorial +militia, order all bands of armed men to disperse, and command all +armed bands of nonresidents to leave the Territory. The Directory +engaged, upon its side, to release Titus and his men. The Governor +virtually surrendered to the Directory. He then returned to Lecompton, +resigned his office, and made his way back to Ohio.</p> +<a name="side624"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote624"> + <tr> + <td><small>Woodson's proclamation,<br> + and the new invasion<br> + from Missouri.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Secretary Woodson was now again in the Governor's chair, and this, of +itself, was notice to the Missourians to come on. They had already +gathered on the border. On August 25th, Woodson published a +proclamation, in which he declared the Territory to be "in a state of +open insurrection and rebellion," called "upon all law-abiding +citizens of the Territory to rally to the support of their country and +its laws," and commanded "all officers, <a name="page445"></a>civil and military, and all +other citizens of the Territory, to aid and assist by all means in +their power in putting down the insurrectionists."</p> + +<p>The Missourians took this as an invitation to advance. They entered +the Territory again, on the 29th, and pitched their camp on Bull +Creek. Atchison was in command. On the 13th, a detachment of them +attacked and destroyed Ossawattomie. About a dozen men were killed in +the fight.</p> +<a name="side625"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote625"> + <tr> + <td><small>General Smith's<br> + attitude<br> + toward invaders.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>General Smith now issued instructions that the United States troops +should not "interfere with persons who may have come from a distance +to give protection to their friends or others, and who may be behaving +themselves in a peaceable and lawful manner." This attitude seemed at +first view to be friendly to the pro-slavery men; but the friends of +the "Free-state" men were now pouring into the Territory by way of +Iowa and Nebraska, and Smith's order worked ultimately to their +advantage. Unquestionably the General intended to be impartial.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote626"> + <tr> + <td><small>Marching and<br> + counter-marching.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The attack on Ossawattomie roused the "Free-state" men to new +exertions. Three hundred of them, commanded by Lane, advanced upon the +camp at Bull Creek. The two forces drew up in battle array, but, after +a slight skirmish, they both drew off.</p> + +<p>Acting Governor Woodson now ordered Colonel Cooke to attack Topeka +with United States troops, but the Colonel refused to obey the order, +and General Smith sustained him.</p> + +<p>The "Free-state" men now planned an attack upon Lecompton. They moved +in two separate columns, one commanded by Harvey and the other by +Lane. The attack was to be made on September 4th, but the failure of +Lane's column to arrive until the 5th enabled the <a name="page446"></a>United States +soldiers to reach the town first. When the "Free-state" men learned +that the regulars were in the town, they returned to Lawrence.</p> +<a name="side627"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote627"> + <tr> + <td><small>The failure of<br> + "Popular Sovereignty"<br> + in the Territories.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Missourians were now roused to serious and decided action. An army +of some three thousand of them had gathered on the border, and was on +the point of marching in for the purpose of destroying every +"Free-state" settlement in the Territory. Only one thing could now +save the Territory from thoroughgoing and relentless civil war, and +that was the interference of the United States army. The fiasco of +"popular sovereignty" in the Territories was at last complete. The +general Government must assume control.</p> +<a name="side628"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote628"> + <tr> + <td><small>Release of the<br> + "treason prisoners,"<br> + and appointment<br> + of Geary.<br> + <br> + <br> + The new Governor<br> + establishes peace<br> + by means of the<br> + army of the<br> + United States.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The President's eyes had at last been opened to the fact, that if he +allowed things to drift any farther in Kansas, the Republicans would +win the presidential election in November. He, therefore, resolved to +put the government of the Territory into impartial hands. He ordered +the United States Marshal to release Robinson and his colleagues; +appointed J. W. Geary, of Pennsylvania, a man of strong character, +Governor of the Territory; and authorized Geary to call the United +States troops to his assistance. Geary arrived at Lecompton on +September 10th. On the 12th, he went to Lawrence, and, after promising +the "Free-state" men protection against the Missourians, returned to +Lecompton. On the 14th, the force advancing on Lawrence arrived in the +neighborhood of the town. Word was immediately sent to the Governor. +The Governor summoned a detachment of United States soldiers, and set +out for the scene of action. On the morning of the 15th, he met the +army of Missourians and interposed the United States army between <a name="page447"></a>them +and Lawrence. The Governor informed the Missouri leaders that they +must leave the Territory. They dared not put themselves in an attitude +of hostility to the military power of the Union, and quickly retreated +back to Missouri. With this the warfare inaugurated by the murders on +the Pottawattomie ended. The Governor had at last brought peace to the +distracted Territory, but at the expense of the principle of home rule +in the Territory, and upon the point of the sword of the Union.</p> + +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote629"> + <tr> + <td><small>Geary and the<br> + Administration.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The establishment of order in Kansas saved the Democratic party, +according to the general opinion, from the threatened defeat in the +November election, and made Buchanan, instead of Frémont, President. +After the danger was over, the Administration became less hearty in +its support of Geary; and when Geary virtually espoused the +"Free-state" cause, as he did during the winter of 1856-57, the +Administration became largely estranged from him. He resigned in +disgust on the day of Buchanan's inauguration to power.</p> +<a name="side630"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote630"> + <tr> + <td><small>The judicial<br> + contribution<br> + to Kansas<br> + history.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The next contribution to the history of the struggle for Kansas was to +come from an entirely new quarter. The new President indicated, in his +inaugural, whence it was to come, if not what it was to be. He said: +"A difference of opinion has arisen in regard to the point of time +when the people of a Territory shall decide this question"—the +question of slavery—"for themselves. This is, happily, a matter of +but little practical importance. Besides it is a judicial question, +which legitimately belongs to the Supreme Court of the United States, +before whom it is now pending, and will, it is understood, be speedily +and finally settled." The President referred to the Dred Scott case, +which had been twice argued before the <a name="page448"></a>Supreme Court, and decision +upon which, it was understood, would be published to the world in a +few days. We must, therefore, break the thread of Kansas history here +for a moment, and trace the history of this case down to the point +where it becomes connected with the further history of the Territory.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="chap21"></a><a name="page449"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER XXI.</h3> + +<center>THE DRED SCOTT CASE</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side631">The Origin of the Dred Scott +Case</a>—<a href="#side632">Two Dred Scott +Cases</a>—<a href="#side633">The Facts of the +Cases</a>—<a href="#side634">The Case in the Missouri +Courts</a>—<a href="#side635">The Case in the United States +Courts</a>—<a href="#side636">The Case a Genuine +Proceeding</a>—<a href="#side637">The Decision by the Supreme Court of the United +States</a>—<a href="#side638">The Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Justice +Curtis</a>—<a href="#side639">Criticism of the Court's +Opinion</a>—<a href="#side640">The Obiter +Dictum</a>—<a href="#side641">The Chief Justice and the +President</a>—<a href="#side642">Justice Curtis' Dissent +Continued</a>—<a href="#side643">The Printing and Distribution of the Decision and the Dissenting +Opinion</a>—<a href="#side643">The Doctrine of Popular Sovereignty in the Territories +Overthrown by the Opinion of the Court.</a></blockquote> +<br> +<a name="side631"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote631"> + <tr> + <td><small>The origin of the<br> + Dred Scott case.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The time has come when the correct story of the Dred Scott case may be +told, and should be told. The author of this volume has been so +fortunate as to obtain from A. C. Crane, Esq., of St. Louis, an +account of the early history of the case, which is entirely original +and authentic. Mr. Crane was, at the time that the case was brought in +the Circuit Court of the United States, a clerk in the law office of +the great lawyer who espoused Dred Scott's case, and who freely gave +his legal services to the work of securing the negro's freedom, +Roswell M. Field. Mr. Field was a native of Vermont, and a strong +anti-slavery man. He was utterly incapable of any collusion with +slaveholders for the getting up of a case, through which the Supreme +Court of the United States might be brought to support the cause of +slavery in the Territories, the purpose charged by many of the +anti-slavery <a name="page450"></a>men of the North for which this case was created. Mr. +Crane most emphatically declares that Mr. Field was influenced to +undertake the case only by humanitarian motives of the highest order.</p> +<a name="side632"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote632"> + <tr> + <td><small>Two Dred<br> + Scott cases.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>There were, indeed, two Dred Scott cases, one in the courts of +Missouri, and one in the United States courts, but they had no +connection with each other. The case decided by the Supreme Court of +the United States originated in the Circuit Court of the United +States, and did not come up on a writ of error from the Missouri +court.</p> +<a name="side633"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote633"> + <tr> + <td><small>The facts of<br> + the cases.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The facts in the two cases were, however, the same. One Dr. Emerson, +the owner of Dred Scott, had taken Dred, as his slave, into Illinois, +a Commonwealth in which slavery was forbidden, and then into the +Louisiana territory above the latitude thirty-six degrees and thirty +minutes, where slavery was prohibited by the Congressional Act of +1820; had allowed Dred to marry in the free territory; had purchased +the woman he married from an army officer at a post within the same; +and had taken Dred back to Missouri, with his wife and a child born to +them on free territory, and held them as slaves in Missouri. Dr. +Emerson's return to Missouri was in 1838. In 1844 the Doctor died, +leaving Dred and his wife and child to Mrs. Emerson. According to the +statement of facts recited by the Chief Justice of the United States, +Dr. Emerson sold Dred and his family to a Mr. Sandford, a citizen of +New York, the defendant in the case before the Supreme Court, but Mr. +Crane says that Dr. Emerson's will, in the Probate Office at St. +Louis, shows that Dred and his family belonged to the Doctor at the +time of the latter's death, and that Dred told him that such was the +case. Mr. Crane also says that Dred told him that, after the Doctor's +death, Mrs. <a name="page451"></a>Emerson hired him out to different persons, and that he +became dissatisfied with this treatment, and resolved to sue for his +freedom.</p> +<a name="side634"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote634"> + <tr> + <td><small>The case in the<br> + Missouri courts.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>This first suit was brought in one of the inferior courts of Missouri, +and was decided in Dred's favor. Mrs. Emerson appealed the case to the +supreme court of Missouri, and two of the three judges upon that bench +held that the condition of slavery reattached to the negro upon his +being brought back into Missouri, and reversed the decision of the +lower court.</p> + +<p>While the case in the Missouri courts was in progress Mrs. Emerson +made over the control of the Scotts to a relative of hers, a Mr. +Sandford, then a citizen of New York, who hired them out to residents +of Missouri. It was then, and for this reason, that Dred appealed to +Roswell M. Field for his powerful aid in bringing suit against +Sandford in the Courts of the United States.</p> +<a name="side635"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote635"> + <tr> + <td><small>The case in the<br> + United States<br> + courts.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The case in the Circuit Court of the United States was begun before +the case in the Missouri court was concluded. The defendant in the +Circuit Court of the United States first pleaded that Dred was not a +citizen of Missouri, and could not be, since he was a negro and +descended from slaves held in the United States, but the court +overruled the plea, that is, decided that Dred Scott could be party in +a suit in the courts of the United States.</p> + +<p>The evidence in the case consisted simply of a statement of facts +agreed upon by the two parties. The pleas then put forward by the +defendant in bar of the action were argued, on the basis of this +statement, and the court ordered the jury to find for the defendant. +Judgment was rendered in his favor in the month of April, 1854.</p> + +<p>Mr. Field then carried the case to the Supreme Court <a name="page452"></a>of the United +States, upon a writ of error, and secured the services of his friend, +the Hon. Montgomery Blair, for the negro. Mr. Blair undertook the +management of the case at Washington, and, like Mr. Field, gave his +time and labor without pecuniary reward. The court costs incurred by +Dred in both cases were paid by Taylor Blow, son of the man who sold +Dred to Doctor Emerson.</p> +<a name="side636"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote636"> + <tr> + <td><small>The case a<br> + genuine<br> + proceeding.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>There is certainly not the slightest evidence in this history of the +case that the case was anything but a genuine proceeding from +beginning to end, conducted by anti-slavery men, for the purpose of +securing the freedom of an intelligent and worthy African, who had +been taken voluntarily by his master upon free soil, and had thus been +made, by the principles of the common law, a free man.</p> +<a name="side637"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote637"> + <tr> + <td><small>The decision by the<br> + Supreme Court of<br> + the United States.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The case was argued twice with great learning before the Supreme +Court, and the decision finally reached was virtually acquiesced in by +seven of the nine Justices, although Justice Nelson did not give his +assent to any part of the opinion except that which decided that, on +the return of Dred to Missouri with his master, any effect upon his +slavery, which the taking of him into Illinois and the Louisiana +territory above the latitude thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes +might have had, disappeared. This seemed to Justice Nelson sufficient +to the decision of the case, and he was unwilling to go farther, but +some of his brethren, especially Justice Wayne, thought that the +entire record of the case in the Circuit Court was brought up for +examination by the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court ought to +decide every point contained in the record. Justice Nelson had been, +at first, selected by his colleagues to write the opinion, and it is +thought that this attitude of his was what moved the Chief Justice to +write the opinion himself.</p> +<a name="page453"></a> +<p>Justice Catron also thought that there was nothing before the Supreme +Court but the question whether, after the return of the Scotts to +Missouri, their temporary sojourn on free territory could be held to +have worked their emancipation. Justice Catron presided at the trial +in the Circuit Court and ruled, as we have seen, in favor of Dred +Scott on the point of his having a standing in the United States +Courts, and the Justice thought that Scott could not bring up to the +Supreme Court, on a writ of error, a point decided in his favor in the +court below.</p> + +<p>The Chief Justice, Mr. Taney, held that there were two leading +questions presented by the record from the Circuit Court. The first +was the question whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction over the +case, and the second was whether the judgment it gave was correct or +erroneous.</p> + +<p>The Chief Justice was right in holding that the writ of error brought +up the entire record for examination by the Supreme Court, but it was +not necessary that the Supreme Court should include every point of the +record in its decision. And he was certainly wrong when he extended, +as is now generally conceded he did, the opinion of the court beyond +the points in the record of the case in the Circuit Court. The form of +the judgment pronounced by the Chief Justice as the opinion of the +Court, that is, of the majority of the Justices, was that the Circuit +Court did not have jurisdiction of the case, since the Scotts were not +citizens of Missouri, in the meaning of the Constitution of the United +States, and that the judgment of the Circuit Court for the defendant +must, therefore, be set aside, and a mandate be issued, directing the +suit to be dismissed by the Circuit Court for want of jurisdiction. +The Chief Justice undertook to sustain his opinion by a long argument, +<a name="page454"></a>the principal propositions of which were, that negroes descended from +negro slaves held in this country were not citizens in any of the +"States" of the Union at the time of the formation of the Constitution +of 1787; that by that Constitution the "States" transferred all power +to make new classes of persons citizens to the Congress of the United +States, and limited the power of Congress in this respect to the +naturalization of persons born outside of the dominion of the United +States; and that, consequently, negroes born of negro slave parents in +the United States were not only not citizens of any of the "States" at +the time of the formation of the Constitution of 1787, but could not +be made such, either by the "States" or by Congress, subsequent to the +adoption of that Constitution.</p> +<a name="side638"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote638"> + <tr> + <td><small>The dissenting<br> + opinion of Mr.<br> + Justice Curtis.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In his powerful dissenting opinion, Mr. Justice Curtis demolished this +argument completely, by simply showing from the statute books and the +judicial decisions of several of the "States" that, at the time of the +formation of the Constitution of 1787, negroes descended from +Africans, who had been held as slaves in the country, were citizens, +even to the point of possessing the suffrage, in several of the +"States" of the Union. The great argument of the Chief Justice turned +out to be only a political essay, without fact, law, or jurisprudence +to sustain it. Mr. Justice Curtis, therefore, held that, as nothing +against Dred Scott's citizenship had been alleged by the defendant in +the Circuit Court, except that he was a negro, and descended from +negroes who had been held as slaves in this country, the jurisdiction +assumed by the Circuit Court ought to be sustained by the Supreme +Court.</p> +<a name="side639"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote639"> + <tr> + <td><small>Criticism of the<br> + Court's opinion.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>But if the opinion of the Court should be accepted as correct upon +this point, it is difficult to see why the opinion should not have +ended with the decision upon <a name="page455"></a>this point. Nothing further was necessary +in the determination of the case. And it is certainly most difficult +to see what connection the Act of 1820, prohibiting slavery in the +Louisiana territory, north of the latitude thirty-six degrees and +thirty minutes, had with the case. No decision upon that point was +rendered by the Circuit Court, whose record the Supreme Court was +reviewing.</p> + +<p>If the Supreme Court had confirmed the jurisdiction of the Circuit +Court in the case, and had then ruled that the Circuit Court was in +error in holding that slavery reattached to the Scotts by Missouri +law, upon their return to Missouri, even if they had been made free by +their temporary sojourn upon free soil, probably the Supreme Court +should have decided the question as to what effect that sojourn may +have had, and, in this way, included the question of the +constitutionality of the slavery prohibition clause in the Act of +1820. But the majority of the Supreme Court approved the view of the +Circuit Court upon this point.</p> + +<p>There is little doubt that the majority of the Justices thought that a +declaration from the Supreme Court in regard to the mooted question of +slavery in the Territories would aid in bringing quiet to the country, +and that they had persuaded themselves that it was necessary to the +decision of the point in issue. But they were certainly in error, as +to the first consideration, and it is difficult to see that they were +not as to the second.</p> +<a name="side640"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote640"> + <tr> + <td><small>The obiter<br> + dictum.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Chief Justice advanced to his conclusion in this part of the +opinion through a most labored argument. He started with the dictum +that there was no clause in the Constitution which gave Congress any +power over territory acquired subsequently to the adoption of the +Constitution, interpreting the provision which vests in Congress "the +power to make <a name="page456"></a>all needful rules and regulations concerning the +territory and other property of the United States," as applying only +to territory held by the United States at the time of the adoption of +the Constitution. He then founded the power to govern the territory +subsequently acquired upon the right to acquire territory; and +declared that in governing such territory, or providing for its +government, Congress was limited by all those provisions of the +Constitution which protect private rights against governmental power. +He claimed, finally, that that one of these provisions which ordains +that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without +due process of law protected property in slaves, taken into the +Territories by their masters, against both the power of Congress and +of the agents of Congress in the Territories, the Territorial +governments, to free them. The conclusion from this reasoning was that +anybody could take slaves into a Territory of the United States, and +hold them there in slavery, no matter what might be the disposition of +Congress or of the Territorial government in regard to the subject, +and that the question whether slavery was to be permanently +established in a Territory or not could not be determined until the +Territory should become a "State," and then only by an act of the +"State."</p> +<a name="side641"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote641"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Chief Justice<br> + and the President.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>This was the point which the Kansas-Nebraska Act had not covered, and +which the President said, in his inaugural address, would be decided +in the forthcoming opinion on the Dred Scott case. The opinion was +pronounced several days after the inaugural, and it was later charged +by Mr. Seward, and intimated by Mr. Lincoln, and believed by a large +number of persons, that the Chief Justice imparted the opinion of the +Court to the President before it was pronounced. But this point, +though <a name="page457"></a>not necessarily involved in the case, had been argued by +counsel, and the newspapers had declared that it would be decided, and +both Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Taney were men of the highest personal and +official integrity, and possessed the most delicate sense of the +requirements and proprieties of the great stations which they +occupied. It is almost certain that the charge was an unfounded +suspicion. The prevalence of the suspicion was, however, an ominous +sign of the danger impending over the land.</p> +<a name="side642"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote642"> + <tr> + <td><small>Justice Curtis's<br> + dissent continued.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Justice Curtis found no more difficulty in controverting these +propositions than those upon the first point treated in the opinion of +the Chief Justice. He first referred to the undoubted facts that not +all the territory claimed by the several "States" had been ceded to +the United States at the time that the Constitution of 1787 was +adopted, but that it was expected that what remained would soon be so +ceded, and that therefore the clause vesting in Congress "the power to +make all needful rules and regulations concerning the territory of the +United States" must have been framed with these future acquisitions in +view, and intended to apply to them also. He then demanded to know +why, if the Court could derive the power of Congress to govern +territory acquired from foreign states from a right which is not +expressed in the Constitution, but is itself implied, the right to +acquire, should it hesitate to derive it from a power in respect to +the territory of the United States which is expressed in the +Constitution. He contended that until Congress or the Territorial +legislature had legalized slavery in a Territory, no one could be said +to be deprived of his property in slaves in the given Territory, +either by a Congressional act forbidding the existence of such +property, or by the failure of Congress or the Territorial <a name="page458"></a>legislature +to enact laws for the security of such property. He repudiated the +idea that a holder of slaves could take the law of the place from +which he emigrated, securing such property, into a Territory with him +as a monstrosity in jurisprudence, since it would introduce into a +given Territory as many slave codes as there were slaveholding +Commonwealths represented therein by their slaveholding emigrants, and +he indicated, finally, that the reasoning of the Court must reach +ultimately the proposition that Congress was required by the +Constitution to establish slavery in every Territory of the Union, and +consequently to make every new "State" a slaveholding "State."</p> +<a name="side643"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote643"> + <tr> + <td><small>The printing and<br> + distribution of<br> + the decision and<br> + the dissenting opinion.<br> + <br> + <br> + The doctrine of<br> + popular sovereignty<br> + in the Territories<br> + overthrown by the<br> + opinion of the Court.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The slaveholders and the Douglas Democrats of the North were in high +glee over the decision, and hardly stopped to read the powerful +dissenting opinion which had shattered it to atoms. They caused +thousands upon thousands of copies of the decision to be printed and +distributed among the masses of the people. The Free-soilers did the +same thing with the opinion of Justice Curtis. It was not many weeks +before it became entirely manifest that the cause of slavery had lost +immensely by the decision, and the cause of free-soilism had gained in +the same degree. Justice Curtis had demonstrated that the decision had +cast the responsibility for the further extension of slavery upon the +nation, and the nation now began to show its resolution to meet its +responsibility by acquitting itself of any participation in this great +wrong, in the only manner now left to it, that is, by preventing it. +The nation could no longer deceive itself with the idea that it could +stand neutral. The Court had actually swept away the dogma of "popular +sovereignty" in the Territories. The nation must now <a name="page459"></a>neither prohibit, +nor allow the Territorial governments to prohibit, slavery within the +Territories, as the decision would have it, or the nation must itself +prohibit it, as the dissenting opinion would have it. When these +alternatives were distinctly recognized as necessary and exhaustive, +it did not take the nation long to decide which course it must pursue.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="chap22"></a><a name="page460"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHAPTER XXII.</h3> + +<center>THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS CONCLUDED</center> + +<blockquote><a href="#side644">The Lecompton Convention +Ordered</a>—<a href="#side645">Robert J. Walker and F. P. +Stanton</a>—<a href="#side646">Stanton and the "Free-state" +Men</a>—<a href="#side647">Walker's Address</a>—<a href="#side648">The "Free-State" Legislature and +Mass-meeting</a>—<a href="#side649">The Plan to Capture the Territorial Legislature by the "Free-state" +Men</a>—<a href="#side650">The "Free-state" Men in Majority in the Territorial +Legislature</a>—<a href="#side651">The Lecompton +Convention</a>—<a href="#side652">The Lecompton +Constitution</a>—<a href="#side652">Only the Slavery Article to be Submitted Fully to the +People</a>—<a href="#side653">Protest of the "Free-state" +Men</a>—<a href="#side654">The Extra Session of the New Territorial +Legislature</a>—<a href="#side655">Stanton +Removed</a>—<a href="#side656">Lecompton Constitution With Slavery +Adopted</a>—<a href="#side657">The "Free-state" Men Capture the Lecompton Government and Reject the Lecompton +Constitution</a>—<a href="#side658">Denver Advises the President Against the Admission of Kansas Under the Lecompton +Instrument</a>—<a href="#side659">The President's Message of February 2nd +(1858)</a>—<a href="#side660">The Passage of the Lecompton Bill by the +Senate</a>—<a href="#side661">The Rejection of the Bill by the +House</a>—<a href="#side662">The English +Bill</a>—<a href="#side663">The Rejection of the Lecompton Constitution by the People of +Kansas</a>—<a href="#side664">A Fourth Government for +Kansas</a>—<a href="#side665">The Struggle for Kansas +Closed</a>—<a href="#side665">Dr. Robinson</a>—<a href="#side666">The General +Government</a>—<a href="#side666">Mr. Jefferson Davis</a>—<a href="#side667">The Beginning of Error and +Wrong</a>—<a href="#side667">Brown's Atrocities</a>—<a href="#side668">The Forerunners of War.</a></blockquote> +<br> + +<p>According to the dictum of the Court in the great case reviewed in the +preceding chapter, slave property was lawful in Kansas during the +Territorial period, and could be first dealt with by the +constitutional convention, which should prepare the organic law for +Kansas as a Commonwealth of the Union.</p> +<a name="side644"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote644"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Lecompton<br> + convention ordered.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page461"></a> +<p>Already before the promulgation of the decision, the Territorial +legislature had provided for the holding of the constitutional +convention at Lecompton, and for the election of the delegates +thereto. This election was appointed for June 15th, 1857.</p> + +<p>It was certain that the "Free-State" men now outnumbered the +pro-slavery men, and that upon a fair census, registration, and +distribution of seats, and with a fair election and count, they would +be able to secure the majority in the convention. But could they +consistently participate in an election ordered by, and under the +control of, the Territorial government? Many of them felt that they +could not. Others, however, were inclined to do so, if the regulations +were impartial. They examined the provisions made by the Territorial +legislature for the machinery of the registration and the election, +and found that they were grossly favorable to the pro-slavery party. +They also found that the legislature had made no provision for +submitting the constitution which might be framed to the vote of the +people.</p> +<a name="side645"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote645"> + <tr> + <td><small>Robert J. Walker,<br> + and F. P. Stanton.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>While the "Free-state" men were deliberating upon this matter, the new +Territorial officials appointed by the new President appeared. +President Buchanan had selected Robert J. Walker, of Mississippi, to +be Governor, and F. P. Stanton, of Tennessee, to be Secretary, of the +Territory. Both of these men were capable, honest, and resolute. +Walker was a shrewd politician, indeed, but he was fair-minded and +faithful to his plighted word. Stanton arrived on the scene about the +middle of April. Walker came a month later. Stanton, therefore, was +Acting Governor during the first month of his residence in the +Territory.</p> +<a name="side646"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote646"> + <tr> + <td><small>Stanton and the<br> + "Free-state" men.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Stanton went to Lawrence, on the 24th, and urged the <a name="page462"></a>"Free-state" men +to take part in the approaching election. He had, however, already +apportioned the representation in the convention on the basis of the +existing census. It was evident that he was unaware that this was +unjust to the "Free-state" men. Seeing this, the "Free-state" men made +a counter proposition for a new census and apportionment, and for an +impartial control of the elections. Stanton did not think he had the +power to conclude an agreement with them on this basis, and the +negotiations fell through.</p> +<a name="side647"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote647"> + <tr> + <td><small>Walker's<br> + address.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The new Governor now arrived, and bent all his energies to induce the +"Free-state" men to participate in the election. He issued an address, +in which he solemnly declared that he would secure honest elections +and returns, and pledged himself that the constitution, which the +convention might form, should be submitted to the people for +ratification or rejection. He also threatened that he would enforce +the laws of the Territory. His idea seems to have been to create an +Administration party, which would win a majority of the seats in the +convention and make Kansas a Democratic non-slaveholding Commonwealth. +The pro-slavery men discovered the plan at once, and accused the +Governor of leaning toward the "Free-state" party.</p> +<a name="side648"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote648"> + <tr> + <td><small>The "Free-state"<br> + legislature and<br> + mass-meeting.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The "Free-state" men were not yet, however, ready to trust the +Governor. They thought it wisest to maintain their own organization, +and make the Governor feel their power. On June 9th the "Free-state" +legislature assembled, to provide for the election of successors to +the existing members and officials. Along with it was convoked a sort +of mass-meeting of citizens. The legislature was at first without a +quorum, and never had an honest quorum. <a name="page463"></a>This fact was sedulously +concealed from the Governor, while the orators at the mass-meeting +raised enough dust and smoke to cover up the real condition of +affairs. They made the place fairly blue with their bluster and their +threats, and the little Governor was greatly impressed by the apparent +seriousness of the situation.</p> +<a name="side649"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote649"> + <tr> + <td><small>The plan to capture<br> + the Territorial<br> + legislature by the<br> + "Free-state" men.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>By this time, however, the "Free-state" men had become considerably +discouraged in regard to the admission of Kansas into the Union under +the Topeka constitution. The Senate had given the application the cold +shoulder, and had, apparently, laid it aside permanently. The +prevarications of Lane were said to have produced this result. As +matters now stood, Robinson and the more conservative men of the +"Free-state" party began to consider the advisability of attempting to +capture the Territorial legislature, by participating in the election +of members, which was to take place in the following October. They +felt certain that upon a true census and a fair apportionment, and +with an honest election, they could win a majority of the seats in the +legislature, and would then be in a position to nullify the work of +the Lecompton convention, which, on account of the abstention of the +"Free-state" men from the election of the delegates, would be packed +with pro-slavery representatives.</p> + +<p>The matter of first importance was to obtain a true census. Senator +Wilson, of Massachusetts, was at the moment in Lawrence, conferring +with Robinson and his friends concerning the state of affairs, and he +strongly advised these gentlemen to take a correct census under the +auspices of the "Free-state" government, and to nominate candidates +for seats in the Territorial legislature, and elect them. He felt so +decidedly about the matter that he offered to secure the funds +necessary to defray the expenses of taking the new census.</p> +<a name="page464"></a> +<p>Robinson and his friends were now convinced that this was the wise +course, but they knew that it would be difficult to persuade the +radical elements in their party to go with them. The mass-meeting at +Topeka of June 9th had voted to stick to the "Free-state" government, +and a convention of the "Free-state" men had assembled on July 15th to +provide for its continuance. This convention, after nominating +candidates for the legislative seats and for the offices, and +resolving to adhere to the "Free-state" government, recommended the +people to assemble in mass convention, at Grasshopper Falls, on the +26th of the following August, to take action in regard to the +participation of the "Free-state" men in the October election of +members of the Territorial legislature, since Governor Walker had +declared that this election would be held under the laws of Congress, +and not under the acts of the Territorial legislature, and had pledged +himself to secure an honest election. It was evident from this that +the conservative element in the "Free-state" party had won the day.</p> + +<p>Before the day appointed for the Grasshopper Falls convention had +arrived, the new census had been completed under the direction of the +"Free-state" government, and it was morally certain that the +"Free-state" men could elect a majority of the members of the new +Territorial legislature. When the convention assembled, it therefore +resolved, by a large majority, that the "Free-state" men should +participate in the October election, warning the people, however, of +the seriousness of the undertaking, and cautioning them against +over-confidence in success.</p> + +<p>The Lecompton convention assembled on the seventh day of September, +and, after organizing, adjourned to October 19th, as if to await the +result of the election of the members of the Territorial legislature.</p> +<a name="side650"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote650"> + <tr> + <td><small>The "Free-state" men<br> + in majority in the<br> + Territorial legislature.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page465"></a> +<p>This election came off on October 5th. The Governor remained true to +his pledge of protecting the ballot-box. The presence of United States +soldiers discouraged any movements from Missouri, and peace reigned at +the polls. The returns from the counties of McGee and Johnson were, +however, so manipulated by the pro-slavery election officers as to +give the majority of the seats in the legislature to the pro-slavery +party. These returns, as well as those from the other counties, were, +however, to be canvassed finally by the Governor and Secretary. The +"Free-state" men now demanded of them the fulfilment of their pledge +of pure elections. The "Free-state" men had their newly taken census, +and they convinced the Governor and Secretary that about ten times as +many votes had been returned from these localities as there were +residents in them. Walker and Stanton threw out the fraudulent +returns, and gave, thus, the Territorial legislature to the +"Free-state" men.</p> +<a name="side651"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote651"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Lecompton<br> + convention.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Two days before the Governor announced his intention of purging the +returns of the frauds committed by the pro-slavery men in regard to +them, and while the excitement about them was intense, it was suddenly +discovered by the conservative "Free-state" men that Lane was working +up a conspiracy for using violence against the members of the +Lecompton convention. He, as commander-in-chief, had ordered the +"Free-state" forces to assemble in Lawrence on October 19th for that +purpose. The conservative men at once set themselves against this +movement, and after a serious struggle happily won the day. They +appointed a mass-meeting of the party at Lecompton for the following +week, as much to protect the members of the convention against any +sudden attack by <a name="page466"></a>Lane and his reckless adherents as to watch their +constitution-framing work. Before the meeting took place the Governor +had announced the rejection of the fraudulent returns, and had thus +deprived the "Free-state" men of all excuse for violence. Some +boisterous speeches were, nevertheless, indulged in at the meeting, +but the convention was allowed to complete its work in peace.</p> +<a name="side652"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote652"> + <tr> + <td><small>The Lecompton<br> + constitution.<br> + <br> + <br> + Only the Slavery<br> + article to be<br> + submitted fully<br> + to the people.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The convention framed an instrument after the Missouri model, and +incorporated in it an article guaranteeing the property in slaves +already within the Territory. The convention then framed an +independent provision in regard to slavery as a permanent institution +of the new Commonwealth. This provision alone was to be fully +submitted to the vote of the people. The people must take the +Lecompton constitution with slavery as a permanent institution, or the +Lecompton constitution without slavery as a permanent institution but +containing a guarantee of the slave property already in the Territory. +The day appointed by the convention for the voters to signify their +approval or disapproval of the provision in regard to slavery as a +permanent institution was December 21st, 1857, and the day designated +for the election of members and officers under the new constitution +was January 4th following.</p> +<a name="side653"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote653"> + <tr> + <td><small>Protest of the<br> + "Free-state" men.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The "Free-state" men regarded this submission of only a single article +of the constitution to popular vote as a fraud upon the principle of +"popular sovereignty," and demanded of Stanton, who was then +discharging the Governor's duties, in the temporary absence of the +latter, that the Governor's pledge as to the full submission of the +proposed constitution to the people at the polls should be redeemed. +Stanton bravely resolved to keep the Governor's word of <a name="page467"></a>honor, +although he believed it would cost him his position.</p> +<a name="side654"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote654"> + <tr> + <td><small>The extra session of the<br> + new Territorial legislature.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>What the "Free-state" men asked of him was to convene at once the new +Territorial legislature, in which the "Free-state" men now had a +majority of the seats, for the purpose of giving it the opportunity to +order the full submission of the Lecompton constitution to the +suffrages of the people. Stanton yielded to their request, and called +the legislature to meet at Lecompton on December 7th. This body at +once resolved to submit the proposed constitution fully and in all its +parts to the people, to be adopted or rejected by them at their +pleasure, and appointed the 4th day of the following January as the +time for taking the vote.</p> +<a name="side655"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote655"> + <tr> + <td><small>Stanton removed.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Stanton was immediately removed from office by the Administration, and +General John W. Denver, of Virginia, at the moment Indian +Commissioner, was assigned to the duties of Acting Governor in the +Territory.</p> +<a name="side656"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote656"> + <tr> + <td><small>Lecompton constitution<br> + with slavery adopted.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The "Free-state" men resolved to take no part in voting upon the +slavery article of the Lecompton constitution, since they must take +this constitution either with or without slavery as a permanent +institution, and could not vote against the constitution as a whole. +Consequently the Lecompton constitution with slavery as a permanent +institution was, so far as the returns of the voting on December 21st +were concerned, adopted. According to these returns six thousand two +hundred and sixty-six votes were cast for it. Of these, nearly three +thousand were afterward shown to be fraudulent. Between five and six +hundred votes were cast for this constitution without slavery as a +permanent institution. None were counted against it <i>in toto</i>. That is +to say, out of a <a name="page468"></a>voting population of about fifteen thousand, less +than four thousand were in favor of this constitution in either form.</p> + +<p>The more prudent of the "Free-state" men now thought, however, that it +would be wise to participate in the election of members and officers +of the Lecompton "State" government on the day fixed by the Lecompton +constitution, January 4th, 1858. They were to vote fully at that time, +as we have seen, upon the Lecompton constitution, by order of the +Territorial legislature, now in their hands. They felt certain of +defeating the constitution, and they knew that they could win in the +election of the officers and members. They nominated a ticket with G. +W. Smith at its head, as their candidate for Governor.</p> +<a name="side657"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote657"> + <tr> + <td><small>The "Free-state" men capture the<br> + Lecompton government and reject<br> + the Lecompton constitution.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>On January 4th, more than ten thousand votes were cast against the +Lecompton constitution entire, and only about one hundred and fifty +votes were cast in its favor. The "Free-state" men also elected their +candidates for the offices and seats in the government created by the +Lecompton constitution.</p> + +<p>The "Free-state" men now had possession of the Topeka "Free-state" +government, of the Territorial legislature, and of the Lecompton +"State" government, and had rejected the Lecompton constitution by an +undoubted majority of the suffrages of the citizens of Kansas.</p> +<a name="map5"></a> +<table align="center" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" summary="map5"> + <tr> + <td width="632"> + <img src="images/6.jpg" alt="NEBRASKA & KANSAS, 1854-61"> + </td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<a name="side658"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote658"> + <tr> + <td><small>Denver advises the President<br> + against the admission of<br> + Kansas under the<br> + Lecompton instrument.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>As yet the Lecompton constitution had not been presented by the +President to Congress, and Acting Governor Denver hastened to give him +a truthful statement of the condition of affairs in the Territory, and +to urge him not to recommend to Congress the admission of Kansas under +this constitution, but to suggest to that body the passage simply of +an enabling <a name="page469"></a>act, under which the people of Kansas might begin again +the work of forming a Commonwealth constitution.</p> +<a name="side659"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote659"> + <tr> + <td><small>The President's message<br> + of February 2nd (1858).</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>But the President did not heed this wise warning. On February 2nd, +1858, he sent the Lecompton constitution, with the provision making +slavery a permanent institution in Kansas, to Congress, and +recommended the admission of the distracted Territory into the Union, +as a "State," under it. His line of argument was that every step in +the procedure of framing and adopting this constitution had been +regularly and legally taken, and that all the voters could have +participated in the work if they had chosen to do so. He claimed that +the act of the Territorial legislature, after it came under the +control of the "Free-state" men, in ordering another vote, and a +different sort of vote, upon the constitution, than and from that +appointed and required by the convention, was irregular; and he +undertook to comfort the "Free-state" men with the suggestion that, +Kansas once admitted, they could change its constitution to suit +themselves, if they were really in majority.</p> +<a name="side660"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote660"> + <tr> + <td><small>The passage of the<br> + Lecompton bill<br> + by the Senate.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The President's argument carried the Senate with him despite the +powerful opposition of Mr. Douglas, who bravely antagonized the +Administration, and held firmly that his great principle of "popular +sovereignty" required the unreserved submission of every part of the +constitution to the free suffrages of the people, in order to +establish its validity. He declared that unless this should be done +Congress could not know whether the people of Kansas had made a +constitution or not, and that without that knowledge the admission of +Kansas under the constitution before the Senate was tantamount to +making a <a name="page470"></a>constitution for Kansas by Congressional act. The honest and +manly stand taken by Mr. Douglas upon this great subject certainly +presents him in the rôle of a patriotic statesman, rather than in his +usual character of the shrewd politician.</p> +<a name="side661"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote661"> + <tr> + <td><small>The rejection of the<br> + bill by the House.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The Senate passed the Lecompton bill on March 23rd, 1858, by a +substantial majority, but the House promptly rejected it. The House +passed a measure, instead, for referring the Lecompton constitution +back to the people of Kansas, who should vote freely upon it in all +its parts, and for admitting Kansas, without further Congressional +action, under this constitution, if it should receive the popular +ratification; but the Senate rejected this substitute for its bill.</p> +<a name="side662"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote662"> + <tr> + <td><small>The<br> + English<br> + bill.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The matter was then sent to a conference committee of the two Houses. +After long deliberation a measure was matured by this committee which +appeared to deal with a subsidiary question only, but which, by some +sort of an understanding, was held to give the people of Kansas the +chance to reject the Lecompton constitution <i>in toto</i> at the polls. +The measure is known as the English bill from its projector, Mr. W. H. +English, a member of the conference committee from the House of +Representatives. It provided for a reduction of the land grants from +twenty-three millions of acres, asked for by Kansas under the +Lecompton constitution, to about four millions of acres, and proposed +the submission of this change to a vote of the people of Kansas. If +the people adopted the change, they would be considered as having +adopted the Lecompton constitution <i>in toto</i>. If, on the other hand, +they rejected this change, they would be considered as having rejected +this constitution <i>in toto</i>.</p> +<a name="side663"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote663"> + <tr> + <td><small>The rejection of the<br> + Lecompton constitution<br> + by the people of Kansas.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> +<a name="page471"></a> +<p>The English bill was agreed to by both Houses; and on August 2nd, +1858, the people of Kansas voted upon the measure. They rejected it, +and with it the Lecompton constitution, by a vote of more than eleven +thousand in a total vote of about thirteen thousand.</p> +<a name="side664"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote664"> + <tr> + <td><small>A fourth<br> + government<br> + for Kansas.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>In the meantime, fearing that Congress might pass the bill for +admitting Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, the Territorial +legislature, now in the hands of the "Free-state" men, passed a bill +ordering a new constitutional convention. The bill was passed within a +few days of the end of the session, and Governor Denver, thinking that +Kansas had about enough governments already, pocketed the measure. The +convention was, however, held, and a constitution was framed and +submitted to the people which received some three thousand votes in +favor of its adoption, while none were cast against it. Officers were +chosen under it, and thus a fourth government for Kansas was created. +All of these governments were now, however, in the hands of the +conservative men of the "Free-state" party.</p> +<a name="side665"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote665"> + <tr> + <td><small>The struggle for<br> + Kansas closed.<br> + <br> + <br> + Dr. Robinson.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>With the rejection of the Lecompton constitution by the people of +Kansas, on August 2nd, the struggle for Kansas was closed. It was to +be a non-slaveholding Commonwealth and a Republican Commonwealth. The +record of this struggle is certainly one of the most remarkable +chapters in the history of the United States. There is much to admire +in it, much to be ashamed of, and much to be repudiated as foul and +devilish. The prudence, moderation, tact, and bravery of Dr. Robinson +and his friends have rarely been excelled by the statesmen and +diplomatists of the New World or of the Old. They were placed in a +most trying situation <a name="page472"></a>both by their foes and by those who, professing +to be their friends, endangered the cause more by violent and brutal +deeds than did their open enemies. Their triumph over all these +difficulties is a marvel of shrewd, honest, and conservative +management, which may well serve as one of the best object-lessons of +our history for succeeding generations.</p> +<a name="side666"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote666"> + <tr> + <td><small>The general<br> + Government.<br> + <br> + <br> + Mr. Jefferson<br> + Davis.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>The attitude of the general Government was also honorable and +praiseworthy. It did its best to hold the balance even and impartial +between the contending forces. It sent out intelligent, honest, and +resolute men as Governors; and it used the army to maintain the peace, +and protect person and property from violence. Even President Pierce's +Secretary of War, Mr. Jefferson Davis, who was considered the very +high-priest of the slavery interest, sent a military commander, +Colonel E. V. Sumner, to Kansas, whom he knew to be in sympathy with +Free-soil principles, and instructed him only to do what was just +between all parties; and when Colonel Sumner, fearing that, from +personal sympathy with the cause of the "Free-state" men, he might +unconsciously act too favorably toward them, really went farther than +his duty required against them, in dispersing their legislature, Mr. +Davis expressed the opinion that the United States forces ought not to +have interfered with the "Free-state" government until it had +undertaken to execute some of its measures. It was said at the time +that Mr. Davis' quasi disavowal of Colonel Sumner's act was caused by +its unpopularity throughout the North; but Mr. Davis was not to any +such degree sensitive to Northern opinion. Personally and officially +Mr. Davis was a remarkably upright man, and was accustomed to take +counsel chiefly of his own judgment and conscience, and to disturb +himself very little about the views of <a name="page473"></a>others concerning his duties +and acts. Governor Robinson has recently testified to the impartial +attitude of the military power of the United States in Kansas, and has +declared that "had it not been for the officers of the United States +army, the 'Free-state' struggle would have ended in disaster on more +than one occasion."</p> +<a name="side667"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote667"> + <tr> + <td><small>The beginning of<br> + error and wrong.<br> + <br> + <br> + Brown's<br> + atrocities.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>Error began, unquestionably, with the repeal of the Act prohibiting +slavery in the Louisiana territory above thirty-six degrees and thirty +minutes north latitude, and wrong began, just as unquestionably, with +the incursion of the Missourians, and their fraudulent voting at the +Territorial election in March of 1855. A bogus legislature was thus +thrust upon Kansas Territory at the outset. It was a political outrage +of the first degree, and it would have justified rebellion against the +execution of the enactments of this body. But it does not excuse, or +even palliate, the criminal atrocities inaugurated by John Brown at +Dutch Henry's Crossing, and the wild reign of murder and robbery which +followed in their train. All this was common crime of the blackest and +most villainous sort, and the men who engaged in it were cutthroats +and highwaymen, who took advantage of the confusion in Kansas to +prosecute their nefarious work.</p> + +<p>It is often said that the Civil War began in Kansas, and simply spread +from there over the country. It is true that violence began there, and +in its degeneration into savagery developed those devilish +dispositions that carried murder and robbery into Virginia, and +thereby helped mightily to create that intensely hostile feeling +between the North and the South which resulted in Civil War, but we +affront good morals and common sense when we dignify those Kansas +atrocities by the title of war; and we obliterate moral distinctions +when <a name="page474"></a>we attempt to justify them by the end which their authors +professed to have in view, the extermination of African slavery +throughout the country. Such deeds are not means to anything except +the establishment of the reign of hell on earth, and the maudlin +adoration sometimes accorded their doers is evidence of an unbalanced +moral sense. It is a source of congratulation that the juristic sense +of the last decades of the nineteenth century refuses to place the +crank who kills or robs for what he considers, or professes to +consider, the welfare of society under any other class than that of +the most dangerous criminals. It remains for the ethical sense of the +twentieth century to sweep the hero-worship too often accorded such +characters out of the world's literature.</p> +<br> +<a name="side668"></a> +<table align="right" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="sidenote668"> + <tr> + <td><small>The forerunners<br> + of war.</small></td> + </tr> +</table> + +<p>But if the murders, and robberies, and arson committed in Kansas were +not war, they were the forerunners of war. The last expedient which +the minds of men could invent for putting the slavery question in the +position of a purely local matter had been tried, and had utterly and +miserably failed. The nation must now settle the question, by +peaceable means if it could, but if it could not, then by force. The +record of its attempts, first upon the one line, and then upon the +other, will be the chief subject of the next and last volume of this +series.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="app1"></a><a name="page475"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>APPENDIX I.</h3> + +<center>THE ELECTORAL VOTE IN DETAIL, 1820-1856.</center><br> +<hr align="center" width="100"> + +<br> +<table align="center" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="1820"> + <tr><td colspan="8" align="center">E<small>LECTORAL</small> V<small>OTE IN</small> 1820.</td> + <tr> + <td rowspan="2" align="center">S<small>TATES</small>.</td> + <td colspan="2" align="center">P<small>RESIDENT</small>.</td> + <td colspan="5" align="center">V<small>ICE</small>-P<small>RESIDENT</small>.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">James<br>Monroe,<br>of<br>Virginia.</td> + <td valign="top">John Quincy<br>Adams,<br>of<br>Massa-<br>chusetts.</td> + <td valign="top">Daniel D.<br>Tompkins,<br>of<br>New<br>York.</td> + <td valign="top">Richard<br>Stockton,<br>of<br>New<br>Jersey.</td> + <td valign="top">Daniel<br>Rodney,<br>of<br>Dela-<br>ware.</td> + <td valign="top">Richard<br>Rush,<br>of<br>Pennsyl-<br>vania.</td> + <td valign="top">Robert G.<br>Harper,<br>of<br>Maryland.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td>Alabama<br>Connecticut<br>Delaware<br>Georgia<br>Illinois<br>Indiana<br> + Kentucky<br>Louisiana<br>Maine<br>Maryland<br>Massachusetts<br>Mississippi<br> + Missouri<small><small><sup>1</sup></small></small><br>New Hampshire<br>New Jersey<br> + New York<br>North Carolina<br>Ohio<br>Pennsylvania<br>Rhode Island<br> + South Carolina<br>Tennessee<br>Vermont<br>Virginia</td> + <td align="center">3<br>9<br>4<br>8<br>3<br>3<br>12<br>3<br>9<br>11<br> + 15<br>2<br>3<br>7<br>8<br>29<br>15<br>8<br>24<br>4<br>11<br>7<br>8<br>25</td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>1<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br></td> + <td align="center">3<br>9<br>..<br>8<br>3<br>3<br>12<br>3<br>9<br>10<br> + 7<br>2<br>3<br>7<br>8<br>29<br>15<br>8<br>24<br>4<br>11<br>7<br>8<br>25</td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + 8<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>4<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>1<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>1<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td align="center">Total</td> + <td align="center">231</td> + <td align="center">1</td> + <td align="center">218</td> + <td align="center">8</td> + <td align="center">4</td> + <td align="center">1</td> + <td align="center">1</td> + </tr> +</table> + +<blockquote><small><small><sup>1</sup></small> Missouri was not formally admitted as a state until +August, 1821.</small></blockquote> + +<br> +<table align="center" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="1824president"> + <tr><td colspan="5" align="center">E<small>LECTORAL</small> V<small>OTE IN</small> 1824.</td> + <tr> + <td rowspan="2" align="center">S<small>TATES</small>.</td> + <td colspan="4" align="center">P<small>RESIDENT</small>.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Andrew<br>Jackson,<br>of<br>Tennessee.</td> + <td valign="top">John Quincy<br>Adams,<br>of<br>Massachusetts.</td> + <td valign="top">William H.<br>Crawford,<br>of<br>Georgia.</td> + <td valign="top">Henry<br>Clay,<br>of<br>Kentucky.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td>Alabama<br>Connecticut<br>Delaware<br>Georgia<br>Illinois<br>Indiana<br> + Kentucky<br>Louisiana<br>Maine<br>Maryland<br>Massachusetts<br>Mississippi<br> + Missouri<br>New Hampshire<br>New Jersey<br> + New York<br>North Carolina<br>Ohio<br>Pennsylvania<br>Rhode Island<br> + South Carolina<br>Tennessee<br>Vermont<br>Virginia</td> + <td align="center">5<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>2<br>5<br>..<br>3<br>..<br>7<br> + ..<br>3<br>..<br>..<br>8<br>1<br>15<br>..<br>28<br>..<br>11<br>11<br>..<br>..</td> + <td align="center">..<br>8<br>1<br>..<br>1<br>..<br>..<br>2<br>9<br>3<br> + 15<br>..<br>..<br>8<br>..<br>26<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>4<br>..<br>..<br>7<br>..<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>2<br>9<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>1<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>5<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>24</td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>14<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>3<br>..<br>..<br>4<br>..<br>16<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td align="center">Total</td> + <td align="center">99<small><small><sup>2</sup></small></small></td> + <td align="center">84</td> + <td align="center">41</td> + <td align="center">37</td> + </tr> +</table> + +<blockquote><small><small><sup>2</sup></small> Since no President was elected, the House of +Representatives proceeded to elect one, and John Quincy Adams was +chosen on the first ballot, the vote standing Adams, 13 States; +Jackson, 7 States; Crawford, 4 States.</small></blockquote> + +<br> +<table align="center" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="1824vicepresident"> + <tr><td colspan="8" align="center">E<small>LECTORAL</small> V<small>OTE IN</small> 1824.</td> + <tr> + <td rowspan="2" align="center">S<small>TATES</small>.</td> + <td colspan="7" align="center">V<small>ICE</small>-P<small>RESIDENT</small>.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">John C.<br>Calhoun,<br>of<br>South<br>Carolina.</td> + <td valign="top">Nathan<br>Sanford,<br>of<br>New<br>York.</td> + <td valign="top">Henry<br>Clay,<br>of<br>Ken-<br>tucky.</td> + <td valign="top">Andrew<br>Jackson,<br>of<br>Tennes-<br>see.</td> + <td valign="top">Martin<br>Van Buren,<br>of<br>New<br>York.</td> + <td valign="top">Nathaniel<br>Macon,<br>of<br>North<br>Carolina.</td> + <td valign="top"><br><br>Vacan-<br>cies.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td>Alabama<br>Connecticut<br>Delaware<br>Georgia<br>Illinois<br>Indiana<br> + Kentucky<br>Louisiana<br>Maine<br>Maryland<br>Massachusetts<br>Mississippi<br> + Missouri<br>New Hampshire<br>New Jersey<br> + New York<br>North Carolina<br>Ohio<br>Pennsylvania<br>Rhode Island<br> + South Carolina<br>Tennessee<br>Vermont<br>Virginia</td> + <td align="center">5<br>..<br>1<br>..<br>3<br>5<br>7<br>5<br>9<br>10<br> + 15<br>3<br>..<br>7<br>8<br>29<br>15<br>..<br>28<br>3<br>11<br>11<br>7<br>..</td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>7<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>7<br>..<br>16<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>2<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..</td> + <td align="center">..<br>8<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>1<br> + ..<br>..<br>3<br>1<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>9<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>24<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>1<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td align="center">Total</td> + <td align="center">182</td> + <td align="center">30</td> + <td align="center">2</td> + <td align="center">13</td> + <td align="center">9</td> + <td align="center">24</td> + <td align="center">1</td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<br> +<table align="center" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="1828"> + <tr><td colspan="6" align="center">E<small>LECTORAL</small> V<small>OTE IN</small> 1828.</td> + <tr> + <td rowspan="2" align="center">S<small>TATES</small>.</td> + <td colspan="2" align="center">P<small>RESIDENT</small>.</td> + <td colspan="3" align="center">V<small>ICE</small>-P<small>RESIDENT</small>.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Andrew<br>Jackson,<br>of<br>Tennes-<br>see.</td> + <td valign="top">John Quincy<br>Adams,<br>of<br>Massa-<br>chusetts.</td> + <td valign="top">John C.<br>Calhoun,<br>of<br>South<br>Carolina.</td> + <td valign="top">Richard<br>Rush,<br>of<br>Pennsyl-<br>vania.</td> + <td valign="top">William<br>Smith,<br>of<br>South<br>Carolina.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td>Alabama<br>Connecticut<br>Delaware<br>Georgia<br>Illinois<br>Indiana<br> + Kentucky<br>Louisiana<br>Maine<br>Maryland<br>Massachusetts<br>Mississippi<br> + Missouri<br>New Hampshire<br>New Jersey<br> + New York<br>North Carolina<br>Ohio<br>Pennsylvania<br>Rhode Island<br> + South Carolina<br>Tennessee<br>Vermont<br>Virginia</td> + <td align="center">5<br>..<br>..<br>9<br>3<br>5<br>14<br>5<br>1<br>5<br> + ..<br>3<br>3<br>..<br>..<br>20<br>15<br>16<br>28<br>..<br>11<br>11<br>..<br>24</td> + <td align="center">..<br>8<br>3<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>8<br>6<br> + 15<br>..<br>..<br>8<br>8<br>16<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>4<br>..<br>..<br>7<br>..<br></td> + <td align="center">5<br>..<br>..<br>2<br>3<br>5<br>14<br>5<br>1<br>5<br> + ..<br>3<br>3<br>..<br>..<br>20<br>15<br>16<br>28<br>..<br>11<br>11<br>..<br>24</td> + <td align="center">..<br>8<br>3<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>8<br>6<br> + 15<br>..<br>..<br>8<br>8<br>16<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>4<br>..<br>..<br>7<br>..<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>7<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td align="center">Total</td> + <td align="center">178</td> + <td align="center">83</td> + <td align="center">171</td> + <td align="center">83</td> + <td align="center">7</td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<br> +<table align="center" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="1832president"> + <tr><td colspan="6" align="center">E<small>LECTORAL</small> V<small>OTE IN</small> 1832.</td> + <tr> + <td rowspan="2" align="center">S<small>TATES</small>.</td> + <td colspan="5" align="center">P<small>RESIDENT</small>.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Andrew<br>Jackson,<br>of<br>Tennessee.</td> + <td valign="top">Henry<br>Clay,<br>of<br>Kentucky.</td> + <td valign="top">John<br>Floyd,<br>of<br>Virginia.</td> + <td valign="top">William<br>Wirt,<br>of<br>Maryland.</td> + <td valign="top"><br><br>Vacancies.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td>Alabama<br>Connecticut<br>Delaware<br>Georgia<br>Illinois<br>Indiana<br> + Kentucky<br>Louisiana<br>Maine<br>Maryland<br>Massachusetts<br>Mississippi<br> + Missouri<br>New Hampshire<br>New Jersey<br> + New York<br>North Carolina<br>Ohio<br>Pennsylvania<br>Rhode Island<br> + South Carolina<br>Tennessee<br>Vermont<br>Virginia</td> + <td align="center">7<br>..<br>..<br>11<br>5<br>9<br>..<br>5<br>10<br>3<br> + ..<br>4<br>4<br>7<br>8<br>42<br>15<br>21<br>30<br>..<br>..<br>15<br>..<br>23</td> + <td align="center">..<br>8<br>3<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>15<br>..<br>..<br>5<br> + 14<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>4<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>11<br>..<br>..<br>..</td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>7<br>..<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>2<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td align="center">Total</td> + <td align="center">219</td> + <td align="center">49</td> + <td align="center">11</td> + <td align="center">7</td> + <td align="center">2</td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<br> +<table align="center" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="1832vicepresident"> + <tr><td colspan="6" align="center">E<small>LECTORAL</small> V<small>OTE IN</small> 1832.</td> + <tr> + <td rowspan="2" align="center">S<small>TATES</small>.</td> + <td colspan="5" align="center">V<small>ICE</small>-P<small>RESIDENT</small>.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Martin<br>Van Buren,<br>of<br>New<br>York.</td> + <td valign="top">John<br>Sergeant,<br>of<br>Pennsyl-<br>vania.</td> + <td valign="top">William<br>Wilkins,<br>of<br>Pennsyl-<br>vania.</td> + <td valign="top">Henry<br>Lee,<br>of<br>Massa-<br>chusetts.</td> + <td valign="top">Amos<br>Ellmaker,<br>of<br>Pennsyl-<br>vania.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td>Alabama<br>Connecticut<br>Delaware<br>Georgia<br>Illinois<br>Indiana<br> + Kentucky<br>Louisiana<br>Maine<br>Maryland<br>Massachusetts<br>Mississippi<br> + Missouri<br>New Hampshire<br>New Jersey<br> + New York<br>North Carolina<br>Ohio<br>Pennsylvania<br>Rhode Island<br> + South Carolina<br>Tennessee<br>Vermont<br>Virginia</td> + <td align="center">7<br>..<br>..<br>11<br>5<br>9<br>..<br>5<br>10<br>3<br> + ..<br>4<br>4<br>7<br>8<br>42<br>15<br>21<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>15<br>..<br>23</td> + <td align="center">..<br>8<br>3<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>15<br>..<br>..<br>5<br> + 14<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>4<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>30<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..</td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>11<br>..<br>..<br>..<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>7<br>..<br></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td align="center">Total</td> + <td align="center">189</td> + <td align="center">49</td> + <td align="center">30</td> + <td align="center">11</td> + <td align="center">7</td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<br> +<table align="center" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="1836president"> + <tr><td colspan="6" align="center">E<small>LECTORAL</small> V<small>OTE IN</small> 1836.</td> + <tr> + <td rowspan="2" align="center">S<small>TATES</small>.</td> + <td colspan="5" align="center">P<small>RESIDENT</small>.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top"><br>Martin<br>Van Buren,<br>of<br>New York.</td> + <td valign="top">William<br>Henry<br>Harrison,<br>of<br>Ohio.</td> + <td valign="top"><br>Hugh L.<br>White,<br>of<br>Tennessee.</td> + <td valign="top"><br>Daniel<br>Webster,<br>of<br>Massa-<br>chusetts.</td> + <td valign="top"><br>Willie P.<br>Mangum,<br>of<br>North<br>Carolina.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td>Alabama<br>Arkansas<br>Connecticut<br>Delaware<br>Georgia<br>Illinois<br>Indiana<br> + Kentucky<br>Louisiana<br>Maine<br>Maryland<br>Massachusetts<br>Michigan<small><small><sup>3</sup></small></small><br> + Mississippi<br>Missouri<br>New Hampshire<br>New Jersey<br> + New York<br>North Carolina<br>Ohio<br>Pennsylvania<br>Rhode Island<br> + South Carolina<br>Tennessee<br>Vermont<br>Virginia</td> + <td align="center">7<br>3<br>8<br>..<br>..<br>5<br>..<br>..<br>5<br>10<br>..<br> + ..<br>3<br>4<br>4<br>7<br>..<br>42<br>15<br>..<br>30<br>4<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>23</td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>3<br>..<br>..<br>9<br>15<br>..<br>..<br>10<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>8<br>..<br>..<br>21<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>7<br>..<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>11<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>15<br>..<br>..</td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + 14<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>11<br>..<br>..<br>..<br></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td align="center">Total</td> + <td align="center">167</td> + <td align="center">73</td> + <td align="center">26</td> + <td align="center">14</td> + <td align="center">11</td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<br> +<table align="center" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="1836vicepresident"> + <tr><td colspan="5" align="center">E<small>LECTORAL</small> V<small>OTE IN</small> 1836.</td> + <tr> + <td rowspan="2" align="center">S<small>TATES</small>.</td> + <td colspan="4" align="center">V<small>ICE</small>-P<small>RESIDENT</small>.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Richard M.<br>Johnson,<br>of<br>Kentucky.</td> + <td valign="top">Francis<br>Granger,<br>of<br>New York.</td> + <td valign="top">John<br>Tyler,<br>of<br>Virginia.</td> + <td valign="top">William<br>Smith,<br>of<br>South Carolina.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td>Alabama<br>Arkansas<br>Connecticut<br>Delaware<br>Georgia<br>Illinois<br>Indiana<br> + Kentucky<br>Louisiana<br>Maine<br>Maryland<br>Massachusetts<br>Michigan<small><small><sup>3</sup></small></small><br> + Mississippi<br>Missouri<br>New Hampshire<br>New Jersey<br> + New York<br>North Carolina<br>Ohio<br>Pennsylvania<br>Rhode Island<br> + South Carolina<br>Tennessee<br>Vermont<br>Virginia</td> + <td align="center">7<br>3<br>8<br>..<br>..<br>5<br>..<br>..<br>5<br>10<br>..<br> + ..<br>3<br>4<br>4<br>7<br>..<br>42<br>15<br>..<br>30<br>4<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..</td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>3<br>..<br>..<br>9<br>15<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + 14<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>8<br>..<br>..<br>21<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>7<br>..<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>11<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>10<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>11<br>15<br>..<br>..</td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>23<br></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td align="center">Total</td> + <td align="center">144</td> + <td align="center">77</td> + <td align="center">47</td> + <td align="center">23</td> + </tr> +</table> + +<blockquote><small><small><sup>3</sup></small> Michigan had not been formally admitted as a State at the +time when the electors were chosen. When the votes were counted the +President of the Senate declared Martin Van Buren elected President, +no election for Vice-President. The Senate then elected a +Vice-President, Richard M. Johnson receiving 33 votes and Francis +Granger 16.</small></blockquote> +<br> +<table align="center" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="1840"> + <tr><td colspan="7" align="center">E<small>LECTORAL</small> V<small>OTE IN</small> 1840.</td> + <tr> + <td rowspan="2" align="center">S<small>TATES</small>.</td> + <td colspan="2" align="center">P<small>RESIDENT</small>.</td> + <td colspan="4" align="center">V<small>ICE</small>-P<small>RESIDENT</small>.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">William<br>Henry<br>Harrison,<br>of<br>Ohio.</td> + <td valign="top"><br>Martin<br>Van Buren,<br>of<br>New York.</td> + <td valign="top"><br>John<br>Tyler,<br>of<br>Virginia.</td> + <td valign="top"><br>Richard M.<br>Johnson,<br>of<br>Kentucky.</td> + <td valign="top"><br>Littleton W.<br>Tazewell,<br>of<br>Virginia.</td> + <td valign="top"><br>James K.<br>Polk,<br>of<br>Tennessee.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td>Alabama<br>Arkansas<br>Connecticut<br>Delaware<br>Georgia<br>Illinois<br>Indiana<br> + Kentucky<br>Louisiana<br>Maine<br>Maryland<br>Massachusetts<br>Michigan<br> + Mississippi<br>Missouri<br>New Hampshire<br>New Jersey<br> + New York<br>North Carolina<br>Ohio<br>Pennsylvania<br>Rhode Island<br> + South Carolina<br>Tennessee<br>Vermont<br>Virginia</td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>8<br>3<br>11<br>..<br>9<br>15<br>5<br>10<br>10<br> + 14<br>3<br>4<br>..<br>..<br>8<br>42<br>15<br>21<br>30<br>4<br>..<br>15<br>7<br>..</td> + <td align="center">7<br>3<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>5<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>4<br>7<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>11<br>..<br>..<br>23<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>8<br>3<br>11<br>..<br>9<br>15<br>5<br>10<br>10<br> + 14<br>3<br>4<br>..<br>..<br>8<br>42<br>15<br>21<br>30<br>4<br>..<br>15<br>7<br>..</td> + <td align="center">7<br>3<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>5<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>4<br>7<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>22<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>11<br>..<br>..<br>..<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>1<br></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td align="center">Total</td> + <td align="center">234</td> + <td align="center">60</td> + <td align="center">234</td> + <td align="center">48</td> + <td align="center">11</td> + <td align="center">1</td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<br> +<table align="center" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="1844"> + <tr><td colspan="5" align="center">E<small>LECTORAL</small> V<small>OTE IN</small> 1844.</td> + <tr> + <td rowspan="2" align="center">S<small>TATES</small>.</td> + <td colspan="2" align="center">P<small>RESIDENT</small>.</td> + <td colspan="2" align="center">V<small>ICE</small>-P<small>RESIDENT</small>.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">James K.<br>Polk,<br>of<br>Tennessee.</td> + <td valign="top">Henry<br>Clay,<br>of<br>Kentucky.</td> + <td valign="top">George M.<br>Dallas,<br>of<br>Pennsylvania.</td> + <td valign="top">Theodore<br>Frelinghuysen,<br>of<br>New Jersey.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td>Alabama<br>Arkansas<br>Connecticut<br>Delaware<br>Georgia<br>Illinois<br>Indiana<br> + Kentucky<br>Louisiana<br>Maine<br>Maryland<br>Massachusetts<br>Michigan<br> + Mississippi<br>Missouri<br>New Hampshire<br>New Jersey<br> + New York<br>North Carolina<br>Ohio<br>Pennsylvania<br>Rhode Island<br> + South Carolina<br>Tennessee<br>Vermont<br>Virginia</td> + <td align="center">9<br>3<br>..<br>..<br>10<br>9<br>12<br>..<br>6<br>9<br>..<br> + ..<br>5<br>6<br>7<br>6<br>..<br>36<br>..<br>..<br>26<br>..<br>9<br>..<br>..<br>17</td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>6<br>3<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>12<br>..<br>..<br>8<br> + 12<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>7<br>..<br>11<br>23<br>..<br>4<br>..<br>13<br>6<br>..<br></td> + <td align="center">9<br>3<br>..<br>..<br>10<br>9<br>12<br>..<br>6<br>9<br>..<br> + ..<br>5<br>6<br>7<br>6<br>..<br>36<br>..<br>..<br>26<br>..<br>9<br>..<br>..<br>17</td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>6<br>3<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>12<br>..<br>..<br>8<br> + 12<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>7<br>..<br>11<br>23<br>..<br>4<br>..<br>13<br>6<br>..<br></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td align="center">Total</td> + <td align="center">170</td> + <td align="center">105</td> + <td align="center">170</td> + <td align="center">105</td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<br> +<table align="center" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="1848"> + <tr><td colspan="5" align="center">E<small>LECTORAL</small> V<small>OTE IN</small> 1848.</td> + <tr> + <td rowspan="2" align="center">S<small>TATES</small>.</td> + <td colspan="2" align="center">P<small>RESIDENT</small>.</td> + <td colspan="2" align="center">V<small>ICE</small>-P<small>RESIDENT</small>.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Zachary<br>Taylor,<br>of<br>Louisiana.</td> + <td valign="top">Lewis<br>Cass,<br>of<br>Michigan.</td> + <td valign="top">Millard<br>Fillmore,<br>of<br>New York.</td> + <td valign="top">William O.<br>Butler,<br>of<br>Kentucky.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td>Alabama<br>Arkansas<br>Connecticut<br>Delaware<br>Florida<br>Georgia<br>Illinois<br>Indiana<br> + Iowa<br>Kentucky<br>Louisiana<br>Maine<br>Maryland<br>Massachusetts<br>Michigan<br> + Mississippi<br>Missouri<br>New Hampshire<br>New Jersey<br> + New York<br>North Carolina<br>Ohio<br>Pennsylvania<br>Rhode Island<br> + South Carolina<br>Tennessee<br>Texas<br>Vermont<br>Virginia<br>Wisconsin</td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>6<br>3<br>3<br>10<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>12<br>6<br>..<br>8<br> + 12<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>7<br>36<br>11<br>..<br>26<br>4<br>..<br>13<br>..<br>6<br>..<br>..</td> + <td align="center">9<br>3<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>9<br>12<br>4<br>..<br>..<br>9<br>..<br> + ..<br>5<br>6<br>7<br>6<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>23<br>..<br>..<br>9<br>..<br>4<br>..<br>17<br>4<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>6<br>3<br>3<br>10<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>12<br>6<br>..<br>8<br> + 12<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>7<br>36<br>11<br>..<br>26<br>4<br>..<br>13<br>..<br>6<br>..<br>..</td> + <td align="center">9<br>3<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>9<br>12<br>4<br>..<br>..<br>9<br>..<br> + ..<br>5<br>6<br>7<br>6<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>23<br>..<br>..<br>9<br>..<br>4<br>..<br>17<br>4<br></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td align="center">Total</td> + <td align="center">163</td> + <td align="center">127</td> + <td align="center">163</td> + <td align="center">127</td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<br> +<table align="center" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="1852"> + <tr><td colspan="5" align="center">E<small>LECTORAL</small> V<small>OTE IN</small> 1852.</td> + <tr> + <td rowspan="2" align="center">S<small>TATES</small>.</td> + <td colspan="2" align="center">P<small>RESIDENT</small>.</td> + <td colspan="2" align="center">V<small>ICE</small>-P<small>RESIDENT</small>.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Franklin<br>Pierce,<br>of<br>New Hampshire.</td> + <td valign="top">Winfield<br>Scott,<br>of<br>Virginia.</td> + <td valign="top">William Rufus<br>King,<br>of<br>Alabama.</td> + <td valign="top">William A.<br>Graham,<br>of<br>North Carolina.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td>Alabama<br>Arkansas<br>California<br>Connecticut<br>Delaware<br>Florida<br>Georgia<br>Illinois<br>Indiana<br> + Iowa<br>Kentucky<br>Louisiana<br>Maine<br>Maryland<br>Massachusetts<br>Michigan<br> + Mississippi<br>Missouri<br>New Hampshire<br>New Jersey<br> + New York<br>North Carolina<br>Ohio<br>Pennsylvania<br>Rhode Island<br> + South Carolina<br>Tennessee<br>Texas<br>Vermont<br>Virginia<br>Wisconsin</td> + <td align="center">9<br>4<br>4<br>6<br>3<br>3<br>10<br>11<br>13<br>4<br>..<br>6<br>8<br>8<br> + ..<br>6<br>7<br>9<br>5<br>7<br>35<br>10<br>23<br>27<br>4<br>8<br>..<br>4<br>..<br>15<br>5</td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>12<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + 13<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>12<br>..<br>5<br>..<br>..<br></td> + <td align="center">9<br>4<br>4<br>6<br>3<br>3<br>10<br>11<br>13<br>4<br>..<br>6<br>8<br>8<br> + ..<br>6<br>7<br>9<br>5<br>7<br>35<br>10<br>23<br>27<br>4<br>8<br>..<br>4<br>..<br>15<br>5</td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>12<br>..<br>..<br>..<br> + 13<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>12<br>..<br>5<br>..<br>..<br></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td align="center">Total</td> + <td align="center">254</td> + <td align="center">42</td> + <td align="center">254</td> + <td align="center">42</td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<br> +<table align="center" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="1856"> + <tr><td colspan="7" align="center">E<small>LECTORAL</small> V<small>OTE IN</small> 1856.</td> + <tr> + <td rowspan="2" align="center">S<small>TATES</small>.</td> + <td colspan="3" align="center">P<small>RESIDENT</small>.</td> + <td colspan="3" align="center">V<small>ICE</small>-P<small>RESIDENT</small>.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">James<br>Buchanan,<br>of<br>Pennsyl-<br>vania.</td> + <td valign="top">John C.<br>Frémont,<br>of<br>California.</td> + <td valign="top">Millard<br>Fillmore,<br>of<br>New<br>York.</td> + <td valign="top">J. C.<br>Breckenridge,<br>of<br>Kentucky.</td> + <td valign="top">William L.<br>Dayton,<br>of<br>New<br>Jersey.</td> + <td valign="top">A. J.<br>Donelson,<br>of<br>Tennes-<br>see.</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td>Alabama<br>Arkansas<br>California<br>Connecticut<br>Delaware<br>Florida<br>Georgia<br>Illinois<br>Indiana<br> + Iowa<br>Kentucky<br>Louisiana<br>Maine<br>Maryland<br>Massachusetts<br>Michigan<br> + Mississippi<br>Missouri<br>New Hampshire<br>New Jersey<br> + New York<br>North Carolina<br>Ohio<br>Pennsylvania<br>Rhode Island<br> + South Carolina<br>Tennessee<br>Texas<br>Vermont<br>Virginia<br>Wisconsin</td> + <td align="center">9<br>4<br>4<br>..<br>3<br>3<br>10<br>11<br>13<br>..<br>12<br>6<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>7<br>9<br>..<br>7<br>..<br>10<br>..<br>27<br>..<br>8<br>12<br>4<br>..<br>15<br>..</td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>6<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>4<br>..<br>..<br>8<br>..<br> + 13<br>6<br>..<br>..<br>5<br>..<br>35<br>..<br>23<br>..<br>4<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>5<br>..<br>5<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>8<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br></td> + <td align="center">9<br>4<br>4<br>..<br>3<br>3<br>10<br>11<br>13<br>..<br>12<br>6<br>..<br>..<br> + ..<br>..<br>7<br>9<br>..<br>7<br>..<br>10<br>..<br>27<br>..<br>8<br>12<br>4<br>..<br>15<br>..</td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>6<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>4<br>..<br>..<br>8<br>..<br> + 13<br>6<br>..<br>..<br>5<br>..<br>35<br>..<br>23<br>..<br>4<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>5<br>..<br>5<br></td> + <td align="center">..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>8<br> + ..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br>..<br></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td align="center">Total</td> + <td align="center">174</td> + <td align="center">114</td> + <td align="center">8</td> + <td align="center">174</td> + <td align="center">114</td> + <td align="center">8</td> + </tr> +</table><br> +<br> +<br><a name="app2"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>APPENDIX II.</h3> + +<center>THE CABINETS OF MONROE, ADAMS, JACKSON, VAN BUREN, HARRISON, TYLER, +POLK, TAYLOR, FILLMORE, PIERCE, AND BUCHANAN—1816-1858.</center> +<br> +<hr align="center" width="100"> +<br> +<center>T<small>HE</small> S<small>ECRETARIES OF</small> S<small>TATE</small>.<br> +<br> +Department created by Act of Congress, September 15, 1789.</center> +<br> +<table align="center" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="state"> + <tr> + <td align="center">N<small>AME</small>.</td> + <td align="center">S<small>TATE</small>.</td> + <td align="center">F<small>ROM</small></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td>John Quincy Adams<br>Henry Clay<br> James A. Hamilton<br> + Martin Van Buren<br>Edward Livingston<br>Louis McLane<br>John Forsyth<br> + J. L. Martin<br>Daniel Webster<br> Hugh S. Legaré<br> + Abel P. Upshur<br>Abel P. Upshur<br> John Nelson<br> + John C. Calhoun<br>James Buchanan<br>John M. Clayton<br>Daniel Webster<br> + Charles M. Conrad<br>Edward Everett<br> William Hunter<br> + William L. Marcy<br>Lewis Cass</td> + <td>Mass.<br>Ky.<br>N. Y.<br>N. Y.<br>La.<br>Del.<br>Ga.<br>N. C.<br>Mass.<br>S. C.<br> + Va.<br>Va.<br>Md.<br>S. C.<br>Penna.<br>Del.<br>Mass.<br>La.<br>Mass.<br>R. I.<br> + N. Y.<br>Mich.</td> + <td>March 5, 1817.<br>March 7, 1825.<br>March 4, 1829, <i>ad int.</i><br>March 6, 1829.<br> + May 24, 1831.<br>May 29, 1833.<br>June 27, 1834.<br>March 3, 1841, <i>ad int.</i><br> + March 5, 1841.<br>May 9, 1843, <i>ad int.</i><br>June 24, 1843, <i>ad int.</i><br> + July 24, 1843.<br>February 29, 1844, <i>ad int.</i><br>March 6, 1844.<br>March 6, 1845.<br> + March 7, 1849.<br>July 22, 1850.<br>September 2, 1852, <i>ad int.</i><br>November 6, 1852.<br> + March 3, 1853, <i>ad int.</i><br>March 7, 1853.<br>March 6, 1857.</td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<br> +<center>T<small>HE</small> S<small>ECRETARIES OF THE</small> T<small>REASURY</small>.<br> +<br> +Department created by Act of Congress, September 2, 1789.</center> +<br> +<table align="center" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="treasury"> + <tr> + <td align="center">N<small>AME</small>.</td> + <td align="center">S<small>TATE</small>.</td> + <td align="center">F<small>ROM</small></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td>William H. Crawford<br> Samuel L. Southard<br>Richard Rush<br> + Samuel D. Ingham<br> Asbury Dickins<br>Louis McLane<br> + William J. Duane<br>Roger B. Taney<br> McClintock Young<br> + Levi Woodbury<br> McClintock Young<br>Thomas Ewing<br> + McClintock Young<br>Walter Forward<br> McClintock Young<br> + John C. Spencer<br> McClintock Young<br>George M. Bibb<br> + Robert J. Walker<br> McClintock Young<br>William M. Meredith<br> + Thomas Corwin<br>James Guthrie<br>Howell Cobb</td> + <td>Ga.<br>N. J.<br>Penna.<br>Penna.<br>N. C.<br>Del.<br>Penna.<br>Md.<br>Md.<br>N. H.<br> + Md.<br>Ohio<br>Md.<br>Penna.<br>Md.<br>N. Y.<br>Md.<br>Ky.<br>Miss.<br>Md.<br>Penna.<br> + Ohio<br>Ky.<br>Ga.</td> + <td>October 22, 1816.<br>March 7, 1825, <i>ad int.</i><br>March 7, 1825.<br>March 6, 1829.<br> + June 21, 1831, <i>ad int.</i><br>August 8, 1831.<br>May 29, 1833.<br>September 23, 1833.<br> + June 25, 1834, <i>ad int.</i><br>June 27, 1834.<br>March 3, 1841, <i>ad int.</i><br> + March 5, 1841.<br>September 13, 1841, <i>ad int.</i><br>September 13, 1841.<br> + March 1, 1843, <i>ad int.</i><br>March 3, 1843.<br>May 2, 1844, <i>ad int.</i><br> + June 15, 1844.<br>March 6, 1845.<br>March 6, 1849, <i>ad int.</i><br>March 8, 1849.<br> + July 23, 1850.<br>March 7, 1853.<br>March 6, 1857.</td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<br> +<center>T<small>HE</small> S<small>ECRETARIES OF</small> W<small>AR</small>.<br> +<br> +Department created by Act of Congress, August 7, 1789.</center> +<br> +<table align="center" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="war"> + <tr> + <td align="center">N<small>AME</small>.</td> + <td align="center">S<small>TATE</small>.</td> + <td align="center">F<small>ROM</small></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td>Isaac Shelby<br> George Graham<br>John C. Calhoun<br> + James Barbour<br> Samuel L. Southard<br>Peter B. Porter<br> + John H. Eaton<br> Philip G. Randolph<br> Roger B. Taney<br> + Lewis Cass<br> Benjamin F. Butler<br>Joel R. Poinsett<br> + John Bell<br>John McLean<br>John C. Spencer<br>James M. Porter<br>William Wilkins<br> + William L. Marcy<br>George W. Crawford<br> Winfield Scott<br> + Charles M. Conrad<br>Jefferson Davis<br> Samuel Cooper<br> + John B. Floyd</td> + <td>Ky.<br>Va.<br>S. C.<br>Va.<br>N. J.<br>N. Y.<br>Tenn.<br>Va.<br>Md.<br>Ohio<br> + N. Y.<br>S. C.<br>Tenn.<br>Ohio<br>N. Y.<br>Penna.<br>Penna.<br>N. Y.<br>Ga.<br>Va.<br> + La.<br>Miss.<br>N. Y.<br>Va.</td> + <td>March 5, 1817.<br>April 7, 1817, <i>ad int.</i><br>October 8, 1817.<br> + March 7, 1825.<br>May 26, 1828, <i>ad int.</i><br>May 26, 1828.<br>March 9, 1829.<br> + June 18, 1831, <i>ad int.</i><br>July 21, 1831, <i>ad int.</i><br>August 1, 1831.<br> + October 25, 1836, <i>ad int.</i><br>March 7, 1837.<br>March 5, 1841.<br>September 13, 1841.<br> + October 12, 1841.<br>March 8, 1843.<br>February 15, 1844.<br>March 5, 1845.<br>March 8, 1849.<br> + July 23, 1850, <i>ad int.</i><br>August 15, 1850.<br>March 7, 1853.<br>March 3, 1857, <i>ad int.</i><br> + March 6, 1857.</td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<br> +<center>T<small>HE</small> S<small>ECRETARIES OF THE</small> N<small>AVY</small>.<br> +<br> +Department created by Act of Congress, April 30, 1798.</center> +<br> +<table align="center" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="navy"> + <tr> + <td align="center">N<small>AME</small>.</td> + <td align="center">S<small>TATE</small>.</td> + <td align="center">F<small>ROM</small></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td>Benjamin W. Crowninshield<br>Smith Thompson<br> John Rodgers<br> + Samuel L. Southard<br>John Branch<br>Levi Woodbury<br>Mahlon Dickerson<br> + James K. Paulding<br>George E. Badger<br>Abel P. Upshur<br>David Henshaw<br> + Thomas W. Gilmer<br>John Y. Mason<br>George Bancroft<br>John Y. Mason<br> + William B. Preston<br>William A. Graham<br>John P. Kennedy<br>James C. Dobbin<br> + Isaac Toucey</td> + <td>Mass.<br>N. Y.<br>Md.<br>N. J.<br>N. C.<br>N. H.<br>N. J.<br>N. Y.<br>N. C.<br> + Va.<br>Mass.<br>Va.<br>Va.<br>Mass.<br>Va.<br>Va.<br>N.C.<br>Md.<br>N. C.<br>Conn.</td> + <td>December 19, 1814.<br>November 9, 1818.<br>September 1, 1823, <i>ad int.</i><br> + September 16, 1823.<br>March 9, 1829.<br>May 23, 1831.<br>June 30, 1834.<br> + June 25, 1838.<br>March 5, 1841.<br>September 13, 1841.<br>July 24, 1843.<br> + February 15, 1844.<br>March 14, 1844.<br>March 10, 1845.<br>September 9, 1846.<br> + March 8, 1849.<br>July 22, 1850.<br>July 22, 1852.<br>March 7, 1853.<br>March 6, 1857.</td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<br> +<center>T<small>HE</small> S<small>ECRETARIES OF THE</small> I<small>NTERIOR</small>.<br> +<br> +Department created by Act of Congress, March 3, 1849.</center> +<br> +<table align="center" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="interior"> + <tr> + <td align="center">N<small>AME</small>.</td> + <td align="center">S<small>TATE</small>.</td> + <td align="center">F<small>ROM</small></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td>Thomas Ewing<br>Thomas M. T. McKennan<br>Alexander H. H. Stuart<br>Robert McClelland<br> + Jacob Thompson</td> + <td>Ohio<br>Penna.<br>Va.<br>Mich.<br>Miss.</td> + <td>March 8, 1849.<br>August 15, 1850.<br>September 12, 1850.<br>March 7, 1853.<br>March 6, 1857.</td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<br> +<center>T<small>HE</small> A<small>TTORNEYS</small>-G<small>ENERAL</small>.<br> +<br> +Duties prescribed by the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789.<br>Department reorganized in 1870.</center> +<br> +<table align="center" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="attorneys"> + <tr> + <td align="center">N<small>AME</small>.</td> + <td align="center">S<small>TATE</small>.</td> + <td align="center">F<small>ROM</small></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td>Richard Rush<br>William Wirt<br>John M. Berrien<br>Roger B. Taney<br>Benjamin F. Butler<br> + Felix Grundy<br>Henry D. Gilpin<br>John J. Crittenden<br>Hugh S. Legaré<br>John Nelson<br> + John Y. Mason<br>Nathan Clifford<br>Isaac Toucey<br>Reverdy Johnson<br>John J. Crittenden<br> + Caleb Cushing<br>Jeremiah S. Black</td> + <td>Penna.<br>Va.<br>Ga.<br>Md.<br>N. Y.<br>Tenn.<br>Penna.<br>Ky.<br>S. C.<br>Md.<br> + Va.<br>Me.<br>Conn.<br>Md.<br>Ky.<br>Mass.<br>Penna.</td> + <td>February 10, 1814.<br>November 3, 1817.<br>March 9, 1829.<br>July 20, 1831.<br>November 15, 1833.<br> + July 5, 1838.<br>July 11, 1840.<br>March 5, 1841.<br>September 13, 1841.<br>July 1, 1843.<br> + March 6, 1845.<br>October 17, 1846.<br>June 21, 1848.<br>March 8, 1849.<br>July 22, 1850.<br> + March 7, 1853.<br>March 6, 1857.</td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<br> +<center>T<small>HE</small> P<small>OSTMASTERS</small>-G<small>ENERAL</small>.<br> +<br> +A Bureau of the Treasury until 1829.<br>Made a Cabinet office in that year.</center> +<br> +<table align="center" border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="postmasters"> + <tr> + <td align="center">N<small>AME</small>.</td> + <td align="center">S<small>TATE</small>.</td> + <td align="center">F<small>ROM</small></td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td>Return J. Meigs, Jr.<br>John McLean<br>William T. Barry<br>Amos Kendall<br> + John M. Niles<br>Francis Granger<br>Charles A. Wickliffe<br>Cave Johnson<br> + Jacob Collamer<br>Nathan K. Hall<br>Samuel D. Hubbard<br>James Campbell<br>Aaron V. Brown</td> + <td>Ohio<br>Ohio<br>Ky.<br>Ky.<br>Conn.<br>N. Y.<br>Ky.<br>Tenn.<br>Vt.<br>N. Y.<br> + Conn.<br>Penna.<br>Tenn.</td> + <td>March 17, 1814.<br>June 26, 1823.<br>March 9, 1829.<br>March 1, 1835.<br>May 19, 1840.<br> + March 6, 1841.<br>September 13, 1841.<br>March 6, 1845.<br>March 8, 1849.<br>July 23, 1850.<br> + August 31, 1852.<br>March 7, 1853.<br>March 6, 1857.</td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<br> +<br><a name="chronology"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>CHRONOLOGY</h3> +<br> +<table align="center" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="6" summary="chronology"> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Territory of Missouri erected</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">June 4, 1812</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Treaty of Fort Jackson</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">August 10, 1814</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Treaty of Ghent signed</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">December 24, 1814</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Commonwealth of Indiana admitted</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">December 11, 1816</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Madison's veto of internal improvements bill</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">March 3, 1817</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Attack on Fowltown</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">November 21, 1817</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Commonwealth of Mississippi admitted</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">December 10, 1817</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Jackson's "Rhea" letter to Monroe</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">January 6, 1818</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Execution of Ambrister and Arbuthnot</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">April 29, 1818</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Convention with Great Britain as to Oregon</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">October 20, 1818</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Commonwealth of Illinois admitted</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">December 3, 1818</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Tallmadge amendment offered</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">February 13, 1819</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Treaty with Spain as to Florida</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">February 22, 1819</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Decision in McCulloch vs. Maryland</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">1819</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Commonwealth of Alabama admitted</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">December 14, 1819</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Thomas amendment offered</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">February 3, 1820</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Maine bill approved</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">March 3, 1820</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">First Missouri bill approved</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">March 6, 1820</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Commonwealth of Maine admitted</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">March 15, 1820</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Report of Clay's Committee of Thirteen</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">February 10, 1821</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Second Missouri bill approved</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">March 2, 1821</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Jackson, as Governor, takes command in Florida</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">July 17, 1821</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Commonwealth of Missouri admitted</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">August 10, 1821</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Congress of Verona</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">October-December, 1822</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Monroe's veto of internal improvements bill</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">May 4, 1822</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Clay nominated for presidency by the Kentucky legislature</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">November 18, 1822</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">"Monroe Doctrine" announced</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">December 2, 1823</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Congressional caucus nominates Crawford</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">February 14, 1824</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Harrisburg convention</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">March 4, 1824</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Jackson's "Coleman Letter"</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">April 26, 1824</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Presidential election in House of Representatives</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">February 9, 1825</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Indian Springs convention</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">February 12, 1825</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Mexico-Columbia treaty</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">September 25, 1825</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">The Creek treaty</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">January, 1826</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Abduction of Morgan</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">September 11, 12, 1826</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Protectionist convention at Harrisburg</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">July 30, 1827</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Treaty with Great Britain</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">August 6, 1827</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Tariff bill approved</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">May 19, 1828</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">The "South Carolina Exposition" published</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">1828</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Hayne's speech on Foote's resolution</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">January 19, 1830</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Webster's reply to Hayne</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">January 26, 1830</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Jackson's speech on the Union</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">April 13, 1830</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Veto of the Maysville Road bill</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">May 27, 1830</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Publication of the "Liberator" begun</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">January 1, 1831</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">"Address to the People of South Carolina" published</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">July 26, 1831</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">The Southampton massacre</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">August, 1831</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Anti-Masonic convention at Baltimore</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">September 26, 1831</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">National Republican convention at Baltimore</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">December 12, 1831</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">New England Anti-Slavery Society formed</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">January 6, 1832</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Bank of the United States asks re-charter</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">January 9, 1832</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">National Democratic convention at Baltimore</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">May 21, 1832</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Calhoun's letter to Governor Hamilton</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">August 28, 1832</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">South Carolina convention meets at Columbia</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">November 19, 1832</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Ordinance of nullification</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">November 24, 1832</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">President Jackson's nullification proclamation</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">December 10, 1832</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Clay proposes compromise tariff</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">February 12, 1833</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">The "Force Bill" approved</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">March 2, 1833</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Compromise tariff bill approved</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">March 2, 1833</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Re-assembling of the South Carolina convention</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">March 11, 1833</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">The "Paper read in the Cabinet"</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">September 18, 1833</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Removal of the deposits ordered</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">September 26, 1833</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">American Anti-Slavery Society formed</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">December, 1833</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Van Buren nominated by Baltimore convention</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">May 20, 1835</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Charleston, S. C., post-office robbed</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">July 29, 1835</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Provisional declaration of Texan independence</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">November 7, 1835</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Meeting of Texas convention</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">March 1, 1836</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Declaration of Texan independence</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">March 2, 1836</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">The Alamo massacre</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">March 6, 1836</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Battle of San Jacinto</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">April 21, 1836</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">House adopts the "gag" resolution</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">May 26, 1836</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Commonwealth of Arkansas admitted</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">June 15, 1836</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">The "Specie Circular"</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">July 11, 1836</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Senate passes the "expunging resolution"</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">January 16, 1837</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Commonwealth of Michigan admitted</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">January 26, 1837</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Financial panic begins</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">April, 1837</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Murder of Lovejoy</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">November 7, 1837</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Harrisburg "harmony" convention</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">September 4, 1839</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Whig convention at Harrisburg</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">December 4, 1839</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Democratic Republican convention at Baltimore</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">May 5, 1840</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Independent Treasury bill approved</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">July 4, 1840</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Death of President Harrison</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">April 4, 1841</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">The Ashburton treaty</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">August 9, 1842</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Veto of National Bank bill</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">August 16, 1842</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Second bank bill vetoed</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">September 9, 1842</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Abolition convention at Buffalo</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">August 30, 1843</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Whitman's party reaches the Columbia</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">September 5, 1843</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Whig convention at Baltimore</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">May 1, 1844</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Democratic convention at Baltimore</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">May 27, 1844</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Commonwealth of Florida admitted</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">March 3, 1845</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Polk's message on Oregon</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">December 2, 1845</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Commonwealth of Texas admitted</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">December 29, 1845</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Mexicans cross the Nueces</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">April 23, 1846</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Arista notifies Taylor of beginning of hostilities</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">April 24, 1846</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Battle of Palo Alto</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">May 8, 1846</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Congress declares war begun by Mexico</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">May 12, 13, 1846</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Treaty with Great Britain as to Oregon</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">June 15, 1846</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Kearny takes Santa Fé</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">August 18, 1846</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Battle of Monterey</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">September 21-23, 1846</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Commonwealth of Iowa admitted</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">December 28, 1846</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Battle of Buena Vista</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">February 22, 23, 1847</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Capture of Vera Cruz</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">March 27-29, 1847</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Battle of Cerro Gordo</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">April 18, 1847</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Battle of Chapultepec</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">September 12, 13, 1847</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">February 2, 1848</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Democratic convention at Baltimore</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">May 22, 1848</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Special message on Oregon</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">May 29, 1848</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Commonwealth of Wisconsin admitted</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">May 29, 1848</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Abolition convention at Rochester</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">June 2, 1848</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Whig convention at Philadelphia</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">June 7, 1848</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Special message on California and New Mexico</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">July 6, 1848</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Free-soil convention at Buffalo</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">August 9, 1848</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Territory of Oregon organized</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">August 14, 1848</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">California convention at Monterey</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">September 1, 1849</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Clay proposes his compromise</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">January 29, 1850</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Calhoun's last speech</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">March 4, 1850</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Webster's speech on the Constitution</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">March 7, 1850</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Death of Calhoun</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">March 31, 1850</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Clayton-Bulwer treaty</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">April 19, 1850</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Clay reports on the compromise</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">May 8, 1850</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Death of President Taylor</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">July 9, 1850</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Commonwealth of California admitted</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">September 9, 1850</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">President's message on the fugitive slave law</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">February 21, 1851</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">The "Jerry rescue"</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">October, 1851</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Democratic convention at Baltimore</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">June 1, 1852</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Whig convention at Baltimore</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">June 16, 1852</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Death of Clay</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">June 29, 1852</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Free-soil Democratic convention at Pittsburg</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">August 11, 1852</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Death of Webster</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">October 23, 1852</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">The Gadsden treaty</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">December 30, 1853</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Douglas reports on Nebraska</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">January 4, 1854</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Kansas-Nebraska bill approved</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">May 30, 1854</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Salt Creek Valley convention</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">June 10, 1854</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">The Ostend manifesto</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">October 18, 1854</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Congressional election in Kansas</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">November 29, 1854</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Territorial election in Kansas</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">March 30, 1855</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Kansas legislature meets at Pawnee</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">July 2, 1855</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Robinson's speech at Lawrence</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">July 4, 1855</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Convention at Lawrence, Kansas</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">August 14, 1855</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Convention at Big Springs, Kansas</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">September 5, 1855</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Convention at Topeka, Kansas</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">September 19, 1855</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Convention at Topeka, Kansas</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">October 23, 1855</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Popular vote on the Topeka constitution</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">December 15, 1855</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Robinson elected governor of Kansas</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">January 5, 1856</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">President's proclamation on Kansas</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">February 11, 1856</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Kansas Free-state legislature meets</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">March 4, 1856</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Philadelphia convention of the "American party"</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">February 22, 1856</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Congressional committee begins sessions at Kansas City</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">April 14, 1856</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Sumner's speech on the "Crime against Kansas"</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">May 19, 20, 1856</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">The sack of Lawrence</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">May 21, 1856</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Brooks's attack on Sumner</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">May 22, 1856</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Massacre at Dutch Henry's Crossing</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">May 24, 1856</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Affair at Black Jack</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">June 2, 1856</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Democratic national convention at Cincinnati</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">June 2, 1856</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Republican national convention at Philadelphia</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">June 17, 1856</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Assault on Sheriff Jones</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">June 23, 1856</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">House Committee reports on Kansas</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">July 1, 1856</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Dispersal of Free-state legislature at Topeka</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">July 4, 1856</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Oliver makes minority report on Kansas</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">July 11, 1856</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Treaty at Lawrence</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">August 17, 1856</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Woodson's proclamation in Kansas</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">August 25, 1856</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Destruction of Ossawattomie</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">August 29, 1856</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Whig convention at Baltimore</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">September 17, 1856</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Free-state legislature dispersed at Topeka</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">January 6, 1857</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Territorial legislature meets at Lecompton</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">January 12, 1857</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Dred Scott decision</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">March 6, 1857</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Election of Lecompton constitutional convention</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">June 15, 1857</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Meeting of Free-state convention at Topeka</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">July 15, 1857</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Convention at Lecompton, Kansas</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">September 7, 1857</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Free-state election in Kansas</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">October 5, 1857</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Convention at Lecompton, Kansas</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">October 19, 1857</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Mass-meeting at Lawrence, Kansas</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">December 2, 1857</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Kansas legislature meets at Lecompton</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">December 7, 1857</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Pro-slavery vote on the Lecompton constitution</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">December 21, 1857</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Free-state vote on the Lecompton constitution</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">January 4, 1858</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Buchanan's message on Kansas</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">February 2, 1858</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Commonwealth of Minnesota admitted</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">May 11, 1858</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Vote in Kansas on the English bill propositions</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">August 2, 1858</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td valign="top">Commonwealth of Oregon admitted</td> + <td valign="top" align="right">February 14, 1859</td> + </tr> +</table> +<br> +<br> +<br><a name="bibliography"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>BIBLIOGRAPHY</h3> +<br> + +<p>This bibliography must not be taken as containing the material used in +the preparation of this volume, but as a list of good books +recommended to the general reader, which treat of, or touch upon, the +subjects considered. Only a few of the books in this list have been +consulted by the author in the preparation of this work. As indicated +in the preface, the author has endeavored, in all cases, to go back to +original matter, which is usually disconnected and fragmentary, and +practically inaccessible to the general reader.</p> +<br> + +<h4>LIST OF TITLES</h4> + +<center><i>The alphabetical arrangement is, in most instances, based upon the +names of authors or editors.</i></center> + +<p>Adams, C. F.: Railroads; their origin and problems. New York, 1878.</p> + +<p>Adams, H.: Life of Albert Gallatin. Philadelphia, 1879.</p> + +<p>Adams, H.: History of the United States. 9 vols. New York, 1889-91.</p> + +<p>Adams, H.: John Randolph. Boston, 1882.</p> + +<p>Adams, J. Q.: Memoirs; Comprising Parts of His Diary from 1795 to +1848. 12 vols. Philadelphia, 1874-77.</p> + +<p>Alfriend, F. H.: Life of Jefferson Davis. Cincinnati, 1868.</p> + +<p>Baker, G. E. [Ed.]: Works of William H. Seward. 5 vols. New York, +1853-54.</p> + +<p>Bancroft, H. H.: Arizona and New Mexico, 1530-1888. San Francisco, +1889.</p> + +<p>Bancroft, H. H.: History of California. 7 vols. San Francisco, +1884-90.</p> + +<p>Bancroft, H. H.: North Mexican States and Texas, 1531-1889. 2 vols. +San Francisco, 1884.</p> + +<p>Bancroft. H. H.: Oregon, 1834-1888. 2 vols. San Francisco, 1886-88.</p> + +<p>Barrows, W.: Oregon: The Struggle for Possession. Boston, 1883.</p> + +<p>Benton, T. H.: Thirty Years' View; or, History of the Working of the +American Government for Thirty Years, from 1820 to 1850. 2 vols. New +York, 1854-56.</p> + +<p>Birney, W.: James G. Birney and His Times. New York, 1890.</p> + +<p>Blaine, J. G.: Twenty Years of Congress (1860-80). 2 vols. Norwich, +1884-86.</p> + +<p>Bolles, A. S.: The Financial History of the United States. 3 vols. New +York, 1879-86.</p> + +<p>Bolles, A. S.: Industrial History of the United States. Norwich, 1878.</p> + +<p>Bourne, E. G.: History of the Surplus Revenue of 1837. New York, 1885.</p> + +<p>Bruce, H.: Life of General Houston. New York, 1891.</p> + +<p>Bryce, J.: The American Commonwealth. 2 vols. New York, 1895.</p> + +<p>Cairnes, J. E.: Slave Power: Its Character, Career, and Probable +Designs. New York, 1862.</p> + +<p>Calhoun, J. C.: Works. 6 vols. New York, 1853-55.</p> + +<p>Carr, L.: Missouri, a Bone of Contention. Boston, 1888.</p> + +<p>Channing, E.: The United States of America, 1765-1865. New York, 1896.</p> + +<p>Choate, R.: Works, with a Memoir by S. G. Brown. 2 vols. Boston, 1862.</p> + +<p>Chase, L. B.: History of the Polk Administration. New York, 1850.</p> + +<p>Cobb, T. R. R.: Historical Sketch of Slavery. Philadelphia, 1858.</p> + +<p>Cobb, T. R. R.: Enquiry into the Law of Negro Slavery in the United +States. Philadelphia, 1858.</p> + +<p>Colton, C. [Ed.]: Works of Henry Clay. 6 vols. New York, 1857.</p> + +<p>Colton, C.: Life and Times of Henry Clay. 2 vols. New York, 1846.</p> + +<p>Colton, C. [Ed:]: Private Correspondence of Henry Clay. New York, +1855.</p> + +<p>Colton, C.: The Last Seven Years of the Life of Henry Clay. New York, +1856.</p> + +<p>Cooper, T.: Lectures on the Elements of Political Economy. Columbia, +1826.</p> + +<p>Curtis, G. T.: Constitutional History of the United States. 2 vols. +New York, 1889, 1896.</p> + +<p>Curtis, G. T.: Life of James Buchanan. 2 vols. New York, 1883.</p> + +<p>Curtis, G. T.: Life of Daniel Webster. 2 vols. New York, 1870.</p> + +<p>Davis, J.: The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. 2 vols. +New York, 1881.</p> + +<p>Davis, V. H.: Jefferson Davis, ex-President of the Confederate States. +2 vols. New York, 1890.</p> + +<p>Douglass, F.: Life and Times. Written by himself. Hartford, 1881.</p> + +<p>Draper, J. W.: History of the American Civil War. 3 vols. New York, +1867-70.</p> + +<p>Dunbar, C. F.: Laws of the United States relating to currency, finance +and banking from 1789 to 1891. Boston, 1893.</p> + +<p>Frémont, J. C.: Memoirs of My Life. Chicago, 1887.</p> + +<p>Frothingham, O. B.: Gerrit Smith; A Biography. New York, 1879.</p> + +<p>Frothingham, O. B.: Theodore Parker; A Biography. Boston, 1874.</p> + +<p>Gannett, H.: Boundaries of the United States, and of the several +States and Territories. Washington, 1885.</p> + +<p>Giddings, J. R.: Speeches In Congress. Boston, 1853.</p> + +<p>Gillet, R. H.: Democracy in the United States. New York, 1868.</p> + +<p>Gilman, D. C.: James Monroe in his Relation to the Public Service. +Boston, 1883.</p> + +<p>Greeley, H.: The American Conflict. 2 vols. Hartford, 1864-67.</p> + +<p>Greeley, H.: Recollections of a Busy Life. New York, 1868.</p> + +<p>Greeley, H.: History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension or +Restriction in the United States. New York, 1856.</p> + +<p>Hall, B. F.: The Republican Party, 1796-1832. New York, 1856.</p> + +<p>Hammond, J. D.: The History of Political Parties in the State of New +York. 4th edit. 2 vols. Cooperstown, 1846.</p> + +<p>Hay, J.: see <a href="#nicolay">Nicolay, J. G.</a></p> + +<p>Helper, H. R: Impending Crisis of the South, and how to meet it. New +York, 1857.</p> + +<p>Hildreth, R.: The History of the United States. 6 vols. New York, +1851-56.</p> + +<p>Holst, H. E. von: The Constitutional History of the United States. 8 +vols. Chicago, 1876-92.</p> + +<p>Holst, H. E. von: John Brown. Boston, 1888.</p> + +<p>Holst, H. E. von: John C. Calhoun. Boston, 1882.</p> + +<p>Hurd, J. C.: Law of Freedom and Bondage in the United States. 2 vols. +Boston, 1858-62.</p> + +<p>Jay, W.: Miscellaneous writings on slavery. Boston, 1853.</p> + +<p>Jay, W.: Review of the Causes and Consequences of the Mexican War. +Boston, 1849.</p> + +<p>Jenkins, J. S.: History of Political Parties in the State of New York. +Auburn, 1846.</p> + +<p>Jenkins, J. S.: Life of James K. Polk. Auburn, 1850.</p> + +<p>Johnson, O.: William Lloyd Garrison and his Times. Boston, 1880.</p> + +<p>Johnston, A.: History of American Politics. New York, 1880.</p> + +<p>Johnston, A. [Ed.]: Representative American Orations. 3 vols. New +York, 1884.</p> + +<p>Julian, G. W.: Life of Joshua R. Giddings. Chicago, 1892.</p> + +<p>Kapp, F.: Die Sklaverei in den Vereinigten Staaten. Hamburg, 1861.</p> + +<p>Kinley, D.: History, Organization, and Influence of the Independent +Treasury of the United States. New York, 1893.</p> + +<p>Knox, J. J.: United States Notes. New York, 1888.</p> + +<p>Lalor, J. J.: Cyclopædia of Political Science, Political Economy, and +of the Political History of the United States. 3 vols. Chicago, +1881-84.</p> + +<p>Lodge, H. C.: Daniel Webster. Boston, 1883.</p> + +<p>Lyman, T.: Diplomacy of the United States. Boston, 1826.</p> + +<p>Mackenzie, W. L.: Life and Times of M. Van Buren. Boston, 1846.</p> + +<p>McLaughlin, A. C.: Lewis Cass. Boston, 1891.</p> + +<p>McCulloch, H.: Men and Measures of Half a Century. New York, 1888.</p> + +<p>Mallory, D.: Life and Speeches of Henry Clay. 2 vols. New York, 1843.</p> + +<p>May, S. J.: Memoirs: Consisting of Autobiography and Selections from +his Diary and Correspondence. Boston, 1873.</p> + +<p>May, S. J.: Some Recollections of our Anti-Slavery Conflict. Boston, +1869.</p> + +<p>Morse, J. T., Jr.: Abraham Lincoln. 2 vols. Boston, 1893.</p> + +<p>Morse, J. T., Jr.: John Quincy Adams. Boston, 1882.</p> +<a name="nicolay"></a> +<p>Nicolay, J. G. and Hay, J.: Abraham Lincoln: A History. 10 vols. New +York, 1890.</p> + +<p>Nicolay, J. G. and Hay, J. [Eds.]: Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln. +2 vols. New York, 1894.</p> + +<p>Nixon, O. W.: How Marcus Whitman Saved Oregon. Chicago, 1895.</p> + +<p>Ormsby, R. McK.: History of the Whig Party. Boston, 1860.</p> + +<p>Parker, J.: Personal Liberty Laws. Boston, 1861.</p> + +<p>Parton, J.: General Jackson. New York, 1893.</p> + +<p>Parton, J.: Life of Andrew Jackson. 3 vols. Boston, 1883.</p> + +<p>Phillips, W.: Conquest of Kansas. Boston, 1856.</p> + +<p>Phillips, W.: Speeches, Lectures, and Letters. Boston, 1863.</p> + +<p>Pierce, E. L.: Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner. 4 vols. Boston, +1893.</p> + +<p>Pike, J. S.: First Blows of the Civil War. New York, 1879.</p> + +<p>Pollard, E. A.: The Lost Cause. New York, 1868.</p> + +<p>Quincy, E.: Life of Josiah Quincy. Boston, 1867.</p> + +<p>Quincy, J.: Memoirs of the Life of John Quincy Adams. Boston, 1858.</p> + +<p>Redpath, J.: Public Life of Capt. John Brown. Boston, 1860.</p> + +<p>Rhodes, J. F.: History of the United States from the Compromise of +1850. 3 vols. New York, 1893-95.</p> + +<p>Robinson, C.: The Kansas Conflict. New York, 1892.</p> + +<p>Robinson, S. T. L.: Kansas, Its Interior and its Exterior Life. +Boston, 1856.</p> + +<p>Roosevelt, T.: Thomas Hart Benton. Boston, 1887.</p> + +<p>Royce, J.: California from the Conquest in 1846 to the Second +Vigilance Committee in San Francisco. Boston, 1886.</p> + +<p>Schouler, J.: History of the United States Under the Constitution. 5 +vols. New York, 1893.</p> + +<p>Schurz, C.: Life of Henry Clay. 2 vols. Boston, 1887.</p> + +<p>Schuyler, E.: American Diplomacy. New York, 1886.</p> + +<p>Seward, W. H.: Autobiography, from 1801 to 1834, with a Memoir of His +Life. New York, 1877.</p> + +<p>Seward, W. H.: Life and Public Services of John Quincy Adams. Auburn, +1849.</p> + +<p>Shepard, E. M.: Martin Van Buren. Boston, 1888.</p> + +<p>Smith, W. L. G.: Fifty Years of Public Life; the Life and Times of +Lewis Cass. New York, 1856.</p> + +<p>Spring, L. W.: Kansas; the Prelude to the War for the Union. Boston, +1885.</p> + +<p>Stanwood, E.: A History of Presidential Elections. Boston, 1892.</p> + +<p>Stephens, A. H.: A Constitutional View of the Late War between the +States. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1868-70.</p> + +<p>Stickney, W. [Ed.]: Autobiography of Amos Kendall. Boston, 1872.</p> + +<p>Story, W. W.: Life and Letters of Joseph Story. 2 vols. Boston, 1851.</p> + +<p>Story, W. W. [Ed.]: Miscellaneous Writings of Joseph Story. Boston, +1835.</p> + +<p>Strohm, I. [Ed.]: Speeches of Thomas Corwin. Dayton, 1859.</p> + +<p>Sumner, C.: Works. 15 vols. Boston, 1870-83.</p> + +<p>Sumner, W. G.: Andrew Jackson as a Public Man. Boston, 1882.</p> + +<p>Sumner, W. G.: History of American Currency. New York, 1884.</p> + +<p>Taussig, F. W.: State Papers and Speeches on the Tariff. Cambridge, +1893.</p> + +<p>Taussig, F. W.: Tariff History of the United States, 1789-1888. New +York, 1888.</p> + +<p>Thayer, E.: History of the Kansas Crusade. New York, 1889.</p> + +<p>Tyler, L. G.: Letters and Times of the Tylers. 2 vols. Richmond, 1884.</p> + +<p>Tyler, S.: Memoir of R. B. Taney. Baltimore, 1872.</p> + +<p>Van Buren, M.: Inquiry into the Origin and Growth of Political Parties +in the United States. New York, 1867.</p> + +<p>Webster, D.: Works. 6 vols. Boston, 1851.</p> + +<p>Webster, F. [Ed.]: Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster. 2 vols. +Boston, 1857.</p> + +<p>Williams, A. M.: Sam Houston and the War of Independence in Texas. +Boston, 1893.</p> + +<p>Williams, E.: The Statesman's Manual. 4 vols. New York, 1849.</p> + +<p>Wilson, H.: History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in +America. 3 vols. Boston, 1872-77.</p> + +<p>Wilson, W.: Division and Reunion, 1829-1889. New York, 1893.</p> + +<p>Wise, H. A.: Seven Decades of the Union. Philadelphia, 1876.</p> + +<p>Woodbury, L.: Writings, Political, Judicial, and Literary. 3 vols. +Boston, 1852.</p> + +<p>Yoakum, H. K.: History of Texas, from its First Settlement in 1685, to +its Annexation to the United States in 1846. 2 vols. New York, 1856.</p> +<br> +<br><a name="index"></a> +<br> +<br> +<h3>INDEX</h3> +<center>Material in the Appendices is not included in this Index.</center> +<br> +<br> +A<small>BBOTT</small>, J. B., leader of "Free-state" Company, +<a href="#page428">428</a><br> +<a name="abolition"></a> +<br> +Abolition, +<a href="#page242">242</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + relation to Revolution of 1830, +<a href="#page244">244</a>, +<a href="#page245">245</a>;<br> + its philosophy, +<a href="#page245">245</a>;<br> + the opposite theory, +<a href="#page245">245</a>;<br> + the true philosophy of history, +<a href="#page245">245</a>, +<a href="#page246">246</a>;<br> + the beginning of abolition, +<a href="#page246">246</a> (<i>see</i> +<a href="#garrison">Garrison</a>, William Lloyd);<br> + possible ways of attacking slavery, +<a href="#page248">248</a>;<br> + charges as to Southampton massacre, +<a href="#page249">249</a>;<br> + denials by abolitionist historians, +<a href="#page249">249</a>;<br> + abolitionist methods, +<a href="#page249">249</a>, +<a href="#page250">250</a>;<br> + killing of Lovejoy, +<a href="#page250">250</a>;<br> + significance of abolition movement, +<a href="#page250">250</a>, +<a href="#page251">251</a>;<br> + its growth, +<a href="#page251">251</a>;<br> + the moderates, +<a href="#page251">251</a>;<br> + petitions for abolition in District of Columbia, +<a href="#page251">251</a>, +<a href="#page252">252</a>;<br> + position of Adams, +<a href="#page252">252</a>, +<a href="#page253">253</a>;<br> + Quaker petition, +<a href="#page253">253</a>;<br> + position of Mason and Adams, +<a href="#page253">253</a>;<br> + more petitions, +<a href="#page253">253</a> (<i>see</i> +<a href="#petition">Petition</a>, right of);<br> + Dickson presents petitions, +<a href="#page254">254</a>;<br> + his controversy with Chinn, +<a href="#page254">254</a>;<br> + the Fairfield petitions, +<a href="#page254">254</a>;<br> + excitement begun by Slade's motion, +<a href="#page254">254</a>;<br> + Polk's ruling, +<a href="#page255">255</a>;<br> + action on Jackson's petitions, +<a href="#page255">255</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + assumption as to ethical position, +<a href="#page265">265</a>;<br> + attitude of Calhoun and Rives, +<a href="#page267">267</a>, +<a href="#page268">268</a>;<br> + the Vermont petition, +<a href="#page269">269</a>;<br> + the Calhoun resolutions, +<a href="#page269">269</a>;<br> + use of mails, +<a href="#page270">270</a> <i>et seq.</i> (<i>see</i> +<a href="#mail">Mail</a>, United States);<br> + significance of the contests over petitions and the mails, +<a href="#page274">274-277</a>;<br> + result of struggle over petitions, +<a href="#page296">296</a>;<br> + demands of Clay, +<a href="#page319">319</a>;<br> + criticism of Clay as to annexation, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + candidacy of Birney, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + position on Polk's first message, +<a href="#page324">324</a>, +<a href="#page325">325</a>;<br> + as to war with Mexico, +<a href="#page330">330</a>, +<a href="#page331">331</a>;<br> + attitude on Texan boundary, +<a href="#page355">355</a>;<br> + attitude to fugitive slave law of 1793, +<a href="#page355">355</a>;<br> + attitude to Clay's proposals, +<a href="#page357">357</a>;<br> + Webster's Seventh of March speech, +<a href="#page359">359</a>;<br> + effect of propaganda, +<a href="#page366">366</a>;<br> + nomination of Hale for presidency, +<a href="#page377">377</a>;<br> + the <i>National Era</i> address, +<a href="#page389">389</a>;<br> + effect of the address, +<a href="#page400">400</a>;<br> + as to leaders of Emigrant Aid Company, +<a href="#page413">413</a>;<br> + relation of Kansas affairs to presidential nominee, +<a href="#page431">431</a>;<br> + point of view of the "Crime against Kansas," +<a href="#page439">439</a><br> +<br> +Abolitionists, <i>see</i> +<a href="#abolition">Abolition</a><br> +<br> +Adams, John Quincy,<br> + relation to Jackson, +<a href="#page34">34-36</a>;<br> + opinion of treaty with Spain, +<a href="#page36">36</a>;<br> + negotiations with Spain, +<a href="#page37">37</a>, +<a href="#page38">38</a>;<br> + effect of Seminole War, +<a href="#page38">38</a>;<br> + declaration to Tuyl, +<a href="#page124">124</a>, +<a href="#page125">125</a>;<br> + qualification as presidential candidate in 1824, +<a href="#page132">132-136</a>;<br> + electoral vote of 1824, +<a href="#page136">136</a>, +<a href="#page137">137</a>;<br> + supported in House by Clay, +<a href="#page141">141</a>;<br> + the Kremer charge, +<a href="#page141">141</a>;<br> + elected president, +<a href="#page142">142</a>;<br> + offers State Department to Clay, +<a href="#page142">142</a>, +<a href="#page143">143</a>;<br> + threats of opposition, +<a href="#page142">142</a>, +<a href="#page143">143</a>;<br> + no proof of bargain with Clay, +<a href="#page143">143</a>;<br> + opposition to Administration organized, +<a href="#page144">144-146</a>;<br> + relation to Panama Congress, +<a href="#page148">148</a>, +<a href="#page149">149</a>;<br> + nominates commissioners to the Congress, +<a href="#page149">149</a>;<br> + nomination confirmed, +<a href="#page150">150</a>;<br> + relation to Spain's colonies, +<a href="#page152">152</a>, +<a href="#page153">153</a>;<br> + as to internal improvements, +<a href="#page155">155</a>, +<a href="#page156">156</a>;<br> + message of December, 1826, +<a href="#page157">157</a>;<br> + appropriations approved for internal improvements, +<a href="#page169">169</a>;<br> + chairman of committee, +<a href="#page184">184</a>;<br> + reports tariff bill, +<a href="#page185">185</a>;<br> + bill passed, +<a href="#page186">186</a>;<br> + report on Bank, +<a href="#page191">191</a>;<br> + relation to Bank history, +<a href="#page192">192</a>;<br> + representations from Creek chiefs, +<a href="#page212">212</a>;<br> + orders Gaines to Georgia, +<a href="#page213">213</a>;<br> + controversy with Troup, +<a href="#page213">213</a>, +<a href="#page214">214</a>;<br> + steps to carry out agreement of 1826, +<a href="#page214">214</a>;<br> + defiance of Georgia, +<a href="#page214">214</a>;<br> + submits matter to Congress, +<a href="#page215">215</a>;<br> + refers Cherokee affair to Jackson, +<a href="#page215">215</a>, +<a href="#page216">216</a>;<br> + view of Indian titles, +<a href="#page217">217</a>;<br> + principles of administration reviewed by Supreme Court, +<a href="#page219">219</a>;<br> + relation to Cabinet intrigue against Jackson, +<a href="#page220">220</a>;<br> + as to authorship of Jacksonian principles, +<a href="#page240">240</a>;<br> + presents abolition petitions, +<a href="#page252">252</a>;<br> + his position on abolition, +<a href="#page252">252</a>, +<a href="#page253">253</a>;<br> + prevents debate on abolition petitions, +<a href="#page253">253</a>;<br> + compared with Slade, +<a href="#page254">254</a>;<br> + opinion as to procedure on petitions, +<a href="#page256">256</a>;<br> + appeal for right of petition, +<a href="#page257">257</a>;<br> + presents petition on abolition, +<a href="#page258">258</a>, +<a href="#page259">259</a>;<br> + his belief as to the right involved, +<a href="#page259">259</a>;<br> + effort at settlement, +<a href="#page260">260</a>;<br> + affair of February 6, 1837, +<a href="#page262">262</a>;<br> + address on annexation, +<a href="#page303">303</a><br> +<br> +"Address on the Relations of the States and Federal Government," +<a href="#page179">179</a><br> +<br> +"Address to the People of South Carolina," +<a href="#page179">179</a><br> +<br> +Admiralty jurisdiction, proposal to decrease that of federal courts, +<a href="#page109">109</a><br> +<br> +Africa, +<a href="#page41">41</a><br> +<br> +Alabama, Commonwealth of,<br> + in process of creation, +<a href="#page62">62</a>;<br> + slavery allowed, +<a href="#page63">63</a>;<br> + Indian problem in Jackson's message of 1829, +<a href="#page216">216</a>, +<a href="#page217">217</a>;<br> + Alabama letter of Clay, +<a href="#page319">319</a>, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a>;<br> + Buford's men in Kansas, +<a href="#page438">438</a><br> +<br> +Alamo atrocities, +<a href="#page293">293</a>, +<a href="#page294">294</a><br> +<br> +Albany Regency, The, +<a href="#page133">133</a>;<br> + in election of 1824, +<a href="#page137">137</a><br> +<br> +Alien and Sedition Laws, +<a href="#page173">173</a><br> +<br> +Alleghanies, The, +<a href="#page116">116</a>, +<a href="#page129">129</a>, +<a href="#page139">139</a>, +<a href="#page163">163</a>, +<a href="#page193">193</a><br> +<br> +Ambrister, Robert C., +<a href="#page32">32</a>, +<a href="#page36">36</a><br> +<br> +Amelia Island, +<a href="#page30">30</a>, +<a href="#page31">31</a><br> +<br> +America for Americans, principle of, +<a href="#page418">418</a><br> +<br> +American Anti-Slavery Society, formed, +<a href="#page251">251</a><br> +<br> +American Board of Missions, sends out Whitman, +<a href="#page315">315</a><br> +<br> +American Society for Emancipation, +<a href="#page62">62</a><br> +<br> +"American System," The, +<a href="#page178">178</a>, +<a href="#page189">189</a> (<i>see</i> +<a href="#clay">Clay</a>, H.)<br> +<br> +Ampudia, Pedro de, demands Taylor's withdrawal, +<a href="#page329">329</a><br> +<br> +Anderson, Richard Clough, Jr.,<br> + nominated commissioner to Panama Congress, +<a href="#page149">149</a>;<br> + nomination confirmed, +<a href="#page150">150</a><br> +<br> +Appalachicola River, The, +<a href="#page21">21</a>, +<a href="#page22">22</a>, +<a href="#page25">25</a>, +<a href="#page26">26</a>, +<a href="#page31">31</a><br> +<br> +Arbuthnot, Alexander, +<a href="#page32">32</a>, +<a href="#page36">36</a><br> +<br> +Archer, William S.,<br> + opposition to Texas treaty, +<a href="#page308">308</a>, +<a href="#page309">309</a>;<br> + his doctrine adopted by Tyler, +<a href="#page309">309</a>;<br> + report on Texas resolution, +<a href="#page322">322</a>, +<a href="#page323">323</a><br> +<br> +Arista, Mariana, notifies Taylor of beginning of hostilities, +<a href="#page329">329</a><br> +<br> +Arkansas, Commonwealth of,<br> + admitted, +<a href="#page290">290</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +Arkansas, Territory of, +<a href="#page88">88</a><br> +<br> +Arkansas River, the, +<a href="#page33">33</a><br> +<br> +Army of the United States,<br> + legislation upon, +<a href="#page13">13</a>, +<a href="#page14">14</a>;<br> + troops in Florida, +<a href="#page24">24</a> <i>et seq.</i> (<i>see</i> +<a href="#mexico">Mexico</a>, and +<a href="#kansas">Kansas</a>, Territory of);<br> + as to South Carolina, +<a href="#page230">230</a><br> +<br> +Ashburton, Alexander Baring, first Baron, negotiations with Webster, +<a href="#page314">314</a><br> +<br> +Ashburton Treaty, +<a href="#page303">303</a><br> +<br> +Asia, California the road to, +<a href="#page332">332</a><br> +<br> +Astor, John Jacob, understanding with the Government, +<a href="#page313">313</a><br> +<br> +Astoria, founded, +<a href="#page312">312</a>, +<a href="#page313">313</a><br> +<br> +Atchison, Missouri, place of publication of <i>Squatter Sovereign,</i> +<a href="#page411">411</a><br> +<br> +Atchison, David R.,<br> + criticism of organization of Nebraska Territory, +<a href="#page382">382</a>;<br> + his record and influence, +<a href="#page412">412</a>, +<a href="#page413">413</a>;<br> + on the Wakarusa, +<a href="#page429">429</a>;<br> + agrees with Robinson, +<a href="#page430">430</a>;<br> + causes Missourians to withdraw, +<a href="#page431">431</a>;<br> + repudiates the sacking of Lawrence, +<a href="#page438">438</a>;<br> + in command at Bull Creek, +<a href="#page445">445</a><br> +<br> +Austin, Moses, secures Texan grant from Mexico, +<a href="#page291">291</a><br> +<br> +Austin, Stephen Fuller, colonizes grant in Texas, +<a href="#page291">291</a><br> +<br> +Austria, in Holy Alliance, +<a href="#page123">123</a><br> +<br> +<br> +B<small>ADGER</small>, G<small>EORGE</small> E<small>DMUND</small>,<br> + contention as to Chase's amendment, +<a href="#page394">394</a>;<br> + offers amendment, +<a href="#page395">395</a><br> +<br> +Baldwin, John, claims site of Lawrence, +<a href="#page415">415</a><br> +<br> +Baltimore, Maryland,<br> + petition for abolition, +<a href="#page252">252</a>;<br> + Hamlet case, +<a href="#page367">367</a>;<br> + conventions of 1852, +<a href="#page376">376</a><br> +<br> +Baltimore & Ohio railroad, system begun, +<a href="#page169">169</a><br> +<a name="bank"></a> +<br> +Bank of the United States,<br> + bill for its creation, +<a href="#page3">3</a>;<br> + Calhoun's argument, +<a href="#page4">4</a>, +<a href="#page5">5</a>, +<a href="#page6">6</a>;<br> + Clay's early view, +<a href="#page4">4</a>;<br> + Webster's objections, +<a href="#page6">6</a>;<br> + Clay's support, +<a href="#page6">6</a>, +<a href="#page7">7</a>;<br> + modified bill passed by House, +<a href="#page7">7</a>, +<a href="#page8">8</a>;<br> + attitude of Barbour, Bibb, Taylor, Wells, +<a href="#page8">8</a>;<br> + passed by Senate, +<a href="#page8">8</a>;<br> + bill of 1816 a Southern and national measure, +<a href="#page8">8</a>, +<a href="#page14">14</a>;<br> + bank bill under comparison, +<a href="#page15">15</a>, +<a href="#page16">16</a>;<br> + Jackson's message of 1829, +<a href="#page190">190</a>;<br> + later interpretations of Jackson's attack, +<a href="#page191">191</a>, +<a href="#page192">192</a>;<br> + the troubles in New Hampshire, +<a href="#page191">191</a>;<br> + the opposition of principle, +<a href="#page192">192</a>, +<a href="#page193">193</a>;<br> + origin of opposition to "money power," +<a href="#page193">193</a>, +<a href="#page194">194</a>;<br> + origin of "State's rights" opposition to Bank, +<a href="#page194">194</a>;<br> + tax on branches in Ohio and Maryland, +<a href="#page194">194</a>;<br> + the results, +<a href="#page195">195</a>;<br> + relation to "relief party" in Kentucky, +<a href="#page195">195</a>, +<a href="#page196">196</a>;<br> + Benton's attack, +<a href="#page196">196</a>;<br> + his resolution defeated, +<a href="#page196">196</a>;<br> + attitude of Benton, +<a href="#page197">197</a>;<br> + and of Jackson, +<a href="#page197">197</a>, +<a href="#page198">198</a>;<br> + Bank supported by committees, +<a href="#page198">198</a>;<br> + Jackson's message of December, 1830, +<a href="#page198">198</a>, +<a href="#page199">199</a>;<br> + relation of question to slavery, +<a href="#page198">198</a>;<br> + relation to politics, +<a href="#page198">198</a>;<br> + Jackson's second attack, +<a href="#page198">198</a>, +<a href="#page199">199</a>;<br> + Benton's resolution of 1831, +<a href="#page199">199</a>, +<a href="#page200">200</a>;<br> + Jackson's message of 1831, +<a href="#page200">200</a>;<br> + the Bank question before the people, +<a href="#page200">200</a>, +<a href="#page201">201</a>;<br> + advice of Clay and Webster, +<a href="#page201">201</a>;<br> + petition for re-charter, +<a href="#page201">201</a>;<br> + relation of Bank question to question of Jackson's election, +<a href="#page201">201</a>;<br> + action by the Senate, +<a href="#page201">201</a>, +<a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> + Clayton committee report in House, +<a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> + McDuffie's report on Bank, +<a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> + House passes the Senate bill, +<a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> + veto by Jackson, +<a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> + analysis of his message, +<a href="#page202">202-206</a>;<br> + interpretation of the message, +<a href="#page206">206-209</a>;<br> + the principles of Jackson ratified by the people, +<a href="#page209">209</a>;<br> + effect on Jackson's views of election on Bank issue, +<a href="#page279">279</a>;<br> + control of deposits, +<a href="#page279">279</a>;<br> + removal of McLane and Duane, +<a href="#page280">280</a>;<br> + deposits suspended by Taney, +<a href="#page280">280</a>;<br> + Taney's contention, +<a href="#page280">280</a>, +<a href="#page281">281</a>;<br> + Senate's resolutions of censure, +<a href="#page281">281</a>;<br> + attitude of Benton, +<a href="#page281">281</a>;<br> + Jackson successful in all points, +<a href="#page282">282</a>;<br> + result of removal of deposits, +<a href="#page283">283</a>;<br> + enforcement and effect of Act of June 23, +<a href="#page283">283</a>, +<a href="#page284">284</a>;<br> + Bank bills vetoed by Tyler, +<a href="#page286">286</a><br> +<br> +Barbour, James,<br> + supports bank bill, +<a href="#page8">8</a>;<br> + proposes union of Maine and Missouri bills, +<a href="#page82">82</a>;<br> + position on Maine-Missouri bill, +<a href="#page83">83</a>;<br> + on conference committee, +<a href="#page88">88</a>;<br> + letter to Troup, +<a href="#page212">212</a>, +<a href="#page213">213</a>;<br> + controversy with Troup, +<a href="#page213">213</a><br> +<br> +Barbour, Philip Pendleton,<br> + in Missouri bill debate, +<a href="#page70">70</a>;<br> + opposes tariff bill of 1824, +<a href="#page113">113</a>, +<a href="#page114">114</a><br> +<br> +Beaufort, South Carolina, instructions to collector, +<a href="#page230">230</a><br> +<br> +Beecher, Henry Ward, opposes fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page368">368</a><br> +<br> +Behring's Strait, +<a href="#page123">123</a><br> +<br> +Belgium, recognizes Texan independence, +<a href="#page304">304</a><br> +<br> +Bell, John,<br> + report on President's powers, +<a href="#page235">235</a>;<br> + proposition as to California and New Mexico, +<a href="#page359">359</a>;<br> + its reference, +<a href="#page359">359</a>, +<a href="#page360">360</a>;<br> + on Committee of Thirteen, +<a href="#page360">360</a>;<br> + attitude to Kansas-Nebraska bill and to Douglas's amendment, +<a href="#page393">393</a>;<br> + speech against the bill, +<a href="#page396">396</a>, +<a href="#page397">397</a>;<br> + vote on the bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +Bell, P. H., extends jurisdiction of Texas, +<a href="#page362">362</a>, +<a href="#page363">363</a><br> +<br> +Benton, Thomas Hart,<br> + attacks the Bank, +<a href="#page196">196</a>;<br> + resolution defeated, +<a href="#page196">196</a>;<br> + becomes Jackson's lieutenant, +<a href="#page197">197</a>;<br> + resolution against the Bank, +<a href="#page199">199</a>;<br> + his resolution not accepted, +<a href="#page200">200</a>;<br> + attack on practices of Bank, +<a href="#page201">201</a>;<br> + opinion on use of Government deposits by the Bank, +<a href="#page205">205</a>;<br> + defends Jackson against censure of Senate, +<a href="#page281">281</a>;<br> + criticism of Texas treaty, +<a href="#page308">308</a>;<br> + changes vote, +<a href="#page347">347</a>;<br> + opposition to Foote's motion, +<a href="#page360">360</a>;<br> + offers to cudgel Foote, +<a href="#page360">360</a><br> +<br> +Berrien, John McPherson,<br> + opinion of Indian agreement of 1826, +<a href="#page214">214</a>;<br> + report on Calhoun's proposition, +<a href="#page349">349</a>, +<a href="#page350">350</a>;<br> + views on slavery in Mexican acquisition, +<a href="#page351">351</a>, +<a href="#page352">352</a>;<br> + on Committee of Thirteen, +<a href="#page360">360</a><br> +<br> +Bibb, William Wyatt, supports bank bill, +<a href="#page8">8</a><br> +<br> +Biddle, Nicholas,<br> + beginning of bank trouble, +<a href="#page191">191</a>;<br> + management of bank, +<a href="#page195">195</a><br> +<br> +Birney, James G., effect of Clay's Alabama letter, +<a href="#page320">320</a><br> +<br> +Bishop of London, +<a href="#page44">44</a><br> +<br> +Black Jack, Brown captures Pate at, +<a href="#page441">441</a><br> +<br> +Blair, Montgomery, letter to Welles on Seward, +<a href="#page387">387</a>, +<a href="#page388">388</a><br> +<br> +Blood, James,<br> + at Kansas City, and at site of Lawrence, +<a href="#page414">414</a>;<br> + in "Free-State" directory, +<a href="#page443">443</a><br> +<br> +Bloomfield, Joseph, voting, +<a href="#page73">73</a><br> +<br> +Blow, Taylor, connection with Dred Scott case, +<a href="#page452">452</a><br> +<br> +"Blue Lodges," in Missouri, +<a href="#page419">419</a><br> +<br> +Body of Liberties, Massachusetts, +<a href="#page41">41</a><br> +<a name="bonaparte"></a> +<br> +Bonaparte, Napoleon,<br> + relation to slavery in Louisiana, +<a href="#page54">54</a>, +<a href="#page55">55</a>;<br> + commercial system, +<a href="#page123">123</a>;<br> + relation to Holy Alliance, +<a href="#page123">123</a><br> +<br> +Boon, Ratliff, in House proceedings, +<a href="#page254">254</a><br> +<br> +Boston, Massachusetts,<br> + beginning of Abolition, +<a href="#page246">246</a>;<br> + meetings on fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page367">367</a>;<br> + the Crafts case, +<a href="#page368">368</a>;<br> + the Shadrach case, +<a href="#page370">370</a>;<br> + the Sims case, +<a href="#page372">372</a>, +<a href="#page373">373</a>;<br> + Kansas emigrants departing, +<a href="#page414">414</a><br> +<br> +Boston and Albany railroad, survey begun, +<a href="#page169">169</a><br> +<br> +Branscomb, Charles H.,<br> + goes to Kansas, +<a href="#page413">413</a>, +<a href="#page414">414</a>;<br> + at the site of Lawrence, +<a href="#page414">414</a>;<br> + buys claim of Stearns, +<a href="#page415">415</a><br> +<br> +Branson, Jacob,<br> + threatens Buckley, +<a href="#page428">428</a>;<br> + arrested by Sheriff Jones, +<a href="#page428">428</a>;<br> + rescued by "Free-state" men, +<a href="#page428">428</a>, +<a href="#page429">429</a>;<br> + charges as to the rescue, +<a href="#page429">429</a>;<br> + effort to arrest participants in rescue, +<a href="#page433">433</a><br> +<br> +Bright, Jesse D.,<br> + motion as to Territorial governments, +<a href="#page346">346</a>;<br> + on Committee of Thirteen, +<a href="#page360">360</a><br> +<br> +Brooks, Preston Smith,<br> + assault upon Sumner, +<a href="#page439">439</a>, +<a href="#page440">440</a>;<br> + effect of assault modified by Pottawattomie massacre, +<a href="#page442">442</a><br> +<br> +Brown <i>vs.</i> Maryland [12 Wheaton, 419], +<a href="#page195">195</a>, +<a href="#page198">198</a><br> +<br> +Brown, John,<br> + appears at Lawrence, +<a href="#page431">431</a>;<br> + the Pottawattomie massacre, +<a href="#page440">440</a>;<br> + the massacre characterized, +<a href="#page441">441</a>;<br> + captures Pate at Black Jack, +<a href="#page441">441</a>;<br> + dispersal of the gang and disappearance of Brown, +<a href="#page442">442</a>;<br> + effect of massacre, +<a href="#page442">442</a>;<br> + his work characterized, +<a href="#page473">473</a>, +<a href="#page474">474</a><br> +<br> +Brown, Mary, arrest of Hamlet, +<a href="#page367">367</a><br> +<br> +Brown, R. P.,<br> + organizes company of "Free-state" men, +<a href="#page426">426</a>;<br> + captured and murdered, +<a href="#page426">426</a><br> +<br> +Buchanan, James,<br> + position upon tariff bill of 1827, +<a href="#page158">158</a>, +<a href="#page159">159</a>;<br> + attitude to fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page368">368</a>;<br> + candidate for presidential nomination, +<a href="#page376">376</a>;<br> + the Ostend manifesto, +<a href="#page408">408</a>;<br> + relation of his election to events in Kansas, +<a href="#page447">447</a>;<br> + inaugural address quoted, +<a href="#page447">447</a>;<br> + charge as to improper official conduct, +<a href="#page458">458</a>;<br> + appoints Walker and Stanton to office in Kansas, +<a href="#page461">461</a>;<br> + special message of February 2, 1858, +<a href="#page469">469</a><br> +<br> +Buckley, ——, secures peace warrant against Branson, +<a href="#page428">428</a><br> +<br> +Buenos Ayres, +<a href="#page30">30</a><br> +<br> +Buffalo, New York, Free-soil convention, +<a href="#page347">347</a><br> +<br> +Buford, Jefferson, repudiates sacking of Lawrence, +<a href="#page438">438</a><br> +<br> +Bull Creek, Kansas,<br> + Missourians encamped on, +<a href="#page445">445</a>;<br> + skirmish at, +<a href="#page445">445</a><br> +<br> +Burrill, James, Jr., position on Maine-Missouri bill, +<a href="#page83">83</a><br> +<br> +Burt, Armistead, moves amendment to Douglas's bill, +<a href="#page341">341</a><br> +<br> +Bushnell, Horace, member of Emigrant Aid Society, +<a href="#page409">409</a><br> +<br> +Bustamente, Anastasio, decree on immigration, +<a href="#page291">291</a><br> +<br> +Butler, Andrew Pickens,<br> + contention as to fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page371">371</a>;<br> + minority report on president's powers, +<a href="#page372">372</a>;<br> + in debate on Foote's resolutions, +<a href="#page374">374</a>;<br> + attacked by Sumner, +<a href="#page439">439</a><br> +<br> +<br> +C<small>ABOT</small>, S<small>AMUEL</small>, member of Emigrant Aid Society, +<a href="#page409">409</a><br> +<br> +Calhoun, John Caldwell, +<a href="#page2">2</a>;<br> + committee service, +<a href="#page3">3</a>;<br> + argument for the bank, +<a href="#page4">4-6</a>;<br> + chief author of bank bill, +<a href="#page8">8</a>;<br> + speech on tariff bill, +<a href="#page10">10-12</a>;<br> + on internal improvements, +<a href="#page14">14-16</a>;<br> + views rejected by Madison, +<a href="#page17">17</a>;<br> + relation to Jackson, +<a href="#page34">34</a>, +<a href="#page35">35</a>;<br> + effect of Seminole War, +<a href="#page38">38</a>;<br> + as to relation between protection and slavery, +<a href="#page109">109</a>;<br> + bill for internal improvements vetoed, 1817, +<a href="#page116">116</a>, +<a href="#page117">117</a>;<br> + qualifications as presidential candidate in 1824, +<a href="#page133">133</a>, +<a href="#page133">134</a>;<br> + as to vice-presidency, +<a href="#page138">138</a>;<br> + elected vice-president, +<a href="#page142">142</a>, +<a href="#page143">143</a>;<br> + relation to administration, +<a href="#page143">143</a>;<br> + relation to Adams's administration, +<a href="#page144">144</a>, +<a href="#page146">146</a>;<br> + elected vice-president, +<a href="#page163">163</a>, +<a href="#page164">164</a>;<br> + political scientist of slavery, +<a href="#page173">173</a>;<br> + publishes "South Carolina Exposition," "Address on +Relation of States and Federal Government," and "Address to the People of South Carolina," +<a href="#page179">179</a>;<br> + his argument, +<a href="#page180">180</a>, +<a href="#page181">181</a>;<br> + his doctrine of nullification, +<a href="#page189">189</a>;<br> + relation to Jackson and Seminole War, +<a href="#page220">220</a>;<br> + the Forsyth letter, +<a href="#page220">220</a>;<br> + hostility of Jackson and Calhoun, +<a href="#page220">220</a>, +<a href="#page221">221</a>;<br> + his letter to Governor Hamilton, +<a href="#page221">221</a>;<br> + his theory of nullification reproduced, +<a href="#page223">223</a>;<br> + resigns vice-presidency and becomes Senator, +<a href="#page224">224</a>;<br> + opinion on the position of South Carolina, +<a href="#page226">226</a>, +<a href="#page227">227</a>;<br> + statement in Senate as to South Carolina's acts, +<a href="#page232">232</a>, +<a href="#page233">233</a>;<br> + opinion of the "Force Bill," +<a href="#page234">234</a>;<br> + attitude to Clay's compromise tariff, +<a href="#page236">236</a>;<br> + attitude to the Wilkins "Force Bill," +<a href="#page236">236</a>;<br> + argument answered by Webster, +<a href="#page237">237</a>;<br> + attitude to Clay's bill, +<a href="#page237">237</a>;<br> + motive in course on nullification, +<a href="#page238">238</a>;<br> + restatement of Jefferson's principles, +<a href="#page239">239</a>;<br> + opinion of slavery cited, +<a href="#page253">253</a>;<br> + antedated by Hammond, +<a href="#page255">255</a>;<br> + contention as to petitions, +<a href="#page264">264</a>;<br> + view of slavery, +<a href="#page265">265-268</a>;<br> + resolutions of December 27, 1837, +<a href="#page269">269</a>;<br> + fallacy of his position, +<a href="#page270">270</a>;<br> + makes committee report, with bills, on use of mails, +<a href="#page273">273</a>, +<a href="#page274">274</a>;<br> + his plan defeated, +<a href="#page274">274</a>;<br> + views on recognition of Texas, +<a href="#page295">295</a>, +<a href="#page296">296</a>;<br> + view on annexation of Texas, +<a href="#page301">301</a>;<br> + his views expressed by Wise, +<a href="#page302">302</a>;<br> + again Secretary of State, +<a href="#page307">307</a>;<br> + notifies Texas of proposal to move forces, +<a href="#page307">307</a>;<br> + view of constitutional position of Texas, +<a href="#page308">308</a>;<br> + adopts idea of Archer as to annexation, +<a href="#page309">309</a>;<br> + views as to method of annexation, +<a href="#page321">321</a>;<br> + characterization of his views on annexation, +<a href="#page323">323</a>, +<a href="#page324">324</a>;<br> + attitude to Mexican War, +<a href="#page330">330</a>;<br> + views as to slavery in Territories, +<a href="#page344">344</a>, +<a href="#page345">345</a>;<br> + his last speech, +<a href="#page358">358</a>;<br> + his death, +<a href="#page360">360</a>;<br> + views on fugitive slave laws, +<a href="#page367">367</a><br> +<a name="california"></a> +<br> +California,<br> + as to Congress of Verona, +<a href="#page124">124</a>;<br> + occupied by Kearny, +<a href="#page332">332</a>;<br> + importance of its occupation, +<a href="#page332">332</a>;<br> + importance of Buena Vista, +<a href="#page333">333</a>;<br> + about to be transferred, +<a href="#page334">334</a>;<br> + acquisition in view, +<a href="#page337">337</a>;<br> + in negotiations, +<a href="#page337">337</a> (<i>see</i> +<a href="#uppercalifornia">Upper California</a>);<br> + Polk's message of July 6, 1848, +<a href="#page345">345</a>, +<a href="#page346">346</a>;<br> + motions of Bright and Clayton, +<a href="#page346">346</a>;<br> + the Clayton bill, +<a href="#page346">346</a>, +<a href="#page347">347</a>;<br> + Polk's message of December, 1848, +<a href="#page348">348</a>;<br> + gold and silver discoveries, +<a href="#page348">348</a>;<br> + Douglas's bill, +<a href="#page349">349</a>;<br> + Smith's bill, +<a href="#page349">349</a>;<br> + Berrien's report, +<a href="#page349">349</a>, +<a href="#page350">350</a>;<br> + new bill by Douglas, +<a href="#page350">350</a>;<br> + motion by Walker, +<a href="#page350">350</a>, +<a href="#page351">351</a>;<br> + proceedings in Congress, +<a href="#page351">351</a>;<br> + views of Berrien and Webster, +<a href="#page351">351</a>, +<a href="#page352">352</a>;<br> + failure of Congress to act, +<a href="#page352">352</a>;<br> + effect of discoveries, +<a href="#page352">352</a>, +<a href="#page353">353</a>;<br> + plan of Taylor, +<a href="#page353">353</a>;<br> + the Monterey Convention, +<a href="#page353">353</a>;<br> + Taylor's message of December 4, 1849, +<a href="#page353">353</a>, +<a href="#page354">354</a>;<br> + Foote's bill, +<a href="#page354">354</a>;<br> + Clay's plan, +<a href="#page355">355</a>, +<a href="#page356">356</a>;<br> + objections of Southerners, +<a href="#page356">356</a>;<br> + attitude of abolitionists, +<a href="#page357">357</a>;<br> + application for admission, +<a href="#page357">357</a>;<br> + consideration begun, +<a href="#page357">357</a>, +<a href="#page358">358</a>;<br> + Calhoun's last speech, +<a href="#page358">358</a>;<br> + Webster's Seventh of March speech, +<a href="#page359">359</a>;<br> + Bell's proposition, +<a href="#page359">359</a>;<br> + report of Committee on Territories, +<a href="#page360">360</a>;<br> + Committee of Thirteen, +<a href="#page360">360</a>;<br> + Clay's report, +<a href="#page360">360-362</a>;<br> + passage of bill for admission, +<a href="#page363">363</a>, +<a href="#page364">364</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a>;<br> + Robinson in, +<a href="#page413">413</a>;<br> + Sutter land troubles, +<a href="#page413">413</a>;<br> + Robinson's experience in, applied to Kansas, +<a href="#page421">421</a>, +<a href="#page422">422</a><br> +<br> +Cambreleng, Churchill C., opposes tariff bill of 1824, +<a href="#page113">113</a><br> +<br> +Canada, +<a href="#page21">21</a>, +<a href="#page370">370</a>, +<a href="#page374">374</a><br> +<br> +Canning, George,<br> + proposal to Rush, +<a href="#page125">125</a>;<br> + declaration to Polignac, +<a href="#page125">125</a><br> +<br> +Cape Breton, +<a href="#page21">21</a><br> +<br> +Capulets, tomb of the, +<a href="#page351">351</a><br> +<br> +Cass, Lewis,<br> + opposes Upham's amendment, +<a href="#page336">336</a>;<br> + views on relation of slavery and Mexican War, +<a href="#page338">338</a>;<br> + Presidential nominee, +<a href="#page345">345</a>;<br> + letter to Nicholson, +<a href="#page345">345</a>;<br> + on Committee of Thirteen, +<a href="#page360">360</a>;<br> + attitude to fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page368">368</a>;<br> + candidate for Presidential nomination, +<a href="#page376">376</a>;<br> + attitude to Chase and Douglas, +<a href="#page392">392</a><br> +<br> +Castle Pinckney,<br> + becomes seat of custom-house for Charleston district, +<a href="#page230">230</a>;<br> + Congress notified of change, +<a href="#page232">232</a><br> +<br> +Catron, John, opinion on Dred Scott case, +<a href="#page453">453</a><br> +<br> +Cerro Gordo, battle of, +<a href="#page333">333</a><br> +<br> +Channing, William Ellery, opposition to fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page373">373</a><br> +<br> +Chapultepec, battle of, +<a href="#page338">338</a><br> +<br> +Charleston, South Carolina,<br> + Government in control of anti-nullifiers, +<a href="#page181">181</a>;<br> + nullifiers elect mayor, +<a href="#page182">182</a>;<br> + test of tariff law, +<a href="#page182">182</a>;<br> + Scott ordered to, +<a href="#page230">230</a>;<br> + instructions to collectors, +<a href="#page230">230</a>;<br> + removal of custom-house, +<a href="#page230">230</a>;<br> + Congress notified, +<a href="#page232">232</a>;<br> + post-office robbed, +<a href="#page271">271</a>;<br> + committee of public safety elected, +<a href="#page271">271</a>;<br> + postmaster communicates with New York postmaster, +<a href="#page271">271</a>;<br> + the position of Postmaster-General Kendall, +<a href="#page271">271</a>, +<a href="#page272">272</a><br> +<br> +Chase, Salmon Portland,<br> + contention as to fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page371">371</a>;<br> + signs <i>National Era</i> address, +<a href="#page389">389</a>;<br> + moves amendment to Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page391">391</a>;<br> + speech in Senate, +<a href="#page391">391</a>;<br> + proposes further amendment, +<a href="#page394">394</a>;<br> + contention with Pratt, +<a href="#page394">394</a>, +<a href="#page395">395</a>;<br> + proposes third amendment, +<a href="#page395">395</a>, +<a href="#page396">396</a>;<br> + proposes fourth amendment, +<a href="#page396">396</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a>;<br> + effect of <i>National Era</i> address, +<a href="#page400">400</a><br> +<br> +Chattahoochee River, the, +<a href="#page211">211</a>, +<a href="#page214">214</a><br> +<br> +Cheever, George Burrell, opposes fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page368">368</a><br> +<br> +Cherokee Nation <i>vs.</i> Georgia [5 Peters, 1], +<a href="#page218">218</a><br> +<br> +Cherokees,<br> + brought under criminal jurisdiction of Georgia, +<a href="#page215">215</a>;<br> + appeal to President, +<a href="#page215">215</a>, +<a href="#page216">216</a>;<br> + Jackson's reply, +<a href="#page216">216</a>;<br> + Cherokees refuse offers for cession of claims, +<a href="#page216">216</a>;<br> + the question in Jackson's message of 1829, +<a href="#page216">216</a>, +<a href="#page217">217</a>;<br> + different views of Indian land titles, +<a href="#page217">217</a>, +<a href="#page218">218</a>;<br> + Cherokee lands incorporated by Commonwealth of Georgia, +<a href="#page218">218</a>;<br> + the Cherokee nation case, +<a href="#page218">218</a>;<br> + the case of Worcester against Georgia, +<a href="#page218">218</a>, +<a href="#page219">219</a><br> +<br> +Cherubusco, battle of, +<a href="#page334">334</a><br> +<br> +Cheves, Langdon, management of bank, +<a href="#page195">195</a><br> +<br> +Chihuahua, captured by Doniphan, +<a href="#page332">332</a><br> +<br> +Chili, treaty of 1823 with Columbia, +<a href="#page147">147</a><br> +<br> +Chillicothe, O., bank trouble, +<a href="#page195">195</a><br> +<br> +Chinn, Joseph W., resents Dickson's attack, +<a href="#page254">254</a><br> +<br> +Choate, Rufus, attitude to fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page368">368</a><br> +<br> +Christian baptism, relation to slavery, +<a href="#page44">44</a><br> +<br> +Clark, George Rogers, sent out by Jefferson, +<a href="#page312">312</a><br> +<a name="clay"></a> +<br> +Clay, Henry,<br> + views on the bank in 1812, +<a href="#page4">4</a>;<br> + Speaker of House, +<a href="#page6">6</a>;<br> + support of bank bill, +<a href="#page6">6</a>, +<a href="#page7">7</a>;<br> + on tariff bill, +<a href="#page10">10</a>;<br> + relation to Jackson, +<a href="#page34">34</a>, +<a href="#page35">35</a>;<br> + opinion of treaty with Spain, +<a href="#page36">36</a>, +<a href="#page38">38</a>;<br> + suggests union of Maine and Missouri bills, +<a href="#page77">77</a>;<br> + plan of Clay, +<a href="#page100">100</a>;<br> + report of Committee of Thirteen, +<a href="#page100">100</a>, +<a href="#page101">101</a>;<br> + first plan defeated, +<a href="#page101">101</a>;<br> + conference committee and its report on Missouri, +<a href="#page101">101</a>, +<a href="#page102">102</a>;<br> + plan accepted, +<a href="#page102">102</a>, +<a href="#page103">103</a>;<br> + supports tariff bill of 1824, +<a href="#page112">112</a>, +<a href="#page113">113</a>;<br> + opposed by Barbour, Cambreleng and Webster, +<a href="#page113">113</a>, +<a href="#page114">114</a>;<br> + efforts with reference to "Monroe Doctrine," +<a href="#page128">128</a>;<br> + qualifications as presidential candidate in 1824, +<a href="#page134">134-136</a>;<br> + electoral vote of 1824, +<a href="#page137">137</a>;<br> + in control of situation, +<a href="#page140">140</a>, +<a href="#page141">141</a>;<br> + supports Adams, +<a href="#page141">141</a>;<br> + the Kremer charge, +<a href="#page141">141</a>;<br> + offer of secretaryship of state, +<a href="#page142">142</a>, +<a href="#page143">143</a>;<br> + opposition threatened, +<a href="#page142">142</a>, +<a href="#page143">143</a>;<br> + Clay accepts office, +<a href="#page143">143</a>;<br> + no proof of corruption, +<a href="#page143">143</a>;<br> + opposition in Senate to his appointment, +<a href="#page144">144</a>;<br> + approached by ministers of Mexico and Columbia, +<a href="#page147">147</a>;<br> + negotiations, +<a href="#page148">148</a>, +<a href="#page149">149</a>;<br> + negotiations with Czar of Russia and with Spanish-American colonies, +<a href="#page152">152</a>, +<a href="#page153">153</a>;<br> + his "American System" anticipated by Jackson, +<a href="#page172">172</a>;<br> + resolution on tariff, +<a href="#page186">186</a>;<br> + speech on the "American System," +<a href="#page187">187</a>;<br> + bill reported and tabled, +<a href="#page188">188</a>;<br> + his ideas used, +<a href="#page188">188</a>;<br> + nominated for presidency in 1831, +<a href="#page201">201</a>;<br> + advice to Bank party, +<a href="#page201">201</a>;<br> + proposes compromise tariff, +<a href="#page235">235</a>;<br> + his purposes, +<a href="#page235">235</a>, +<a href="#page236">236</a>;<br> + attitude of Calhoun, +<a href="#page236">236</a>;<br> + his bill amended and passed by both Houses, +<a href="#page237">237</a>, +<a href="#page238">238</a>;<br> + signed by President, +<a href="#page238">238</a>;<br> + motive in course on nullification, +<a href="#page238">238</a>;<br> + opinion of Jacksonian principles, +<a href="#page240">240</a>;<br> + criticises Calhoun's bill as to use of mails, +<a href="#page274">274</a>;<br> + his followers called Whigs, +<a href="#page282">282</a>;<br> + dropped by Whigs, +<a href="#page286">286</a>;<br> + reports resolution on Texas, +<a href="#page295">295</a>;<br> + nominated for presidency, +<a href="#page309">309</a>;<br> + election an apparent certainty, +<a href="#page319">319</a>;<br> + demands of abolitionists, +<a href="#page319">319</a>;<br> + the <i>National Intelligencer</i> letter, +<a href="#page319">319</a>, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + effect of the Alabama letter, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + presidential election of 1844, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + the Alabama letter, +<a href="#page329">329</a>;<br> + plan as to California, New Mexico and Texas, +<a href="#page355">355</a>, +<a href="#page356">356</a>;<br> + objections of Southerners, +<a href="#page356">356</a>, +<a href="#page357">357</a>;<br> + agrees to Douglas's motion, +<a href="#page357">357</a>;<br> + relations with Foote, +<a href="#page357">357</a>, +<a href="#page358">358</a>;<br> + debate on Clay's resolutions, +<a href="#page358">358</a>, +<a href="#page359">359</a>;<br> + their reference, +<a href="#page360">360</a>;<br> + chairman of Committee of Thirteen, +<a href="#page360">360</a>;<br> + Clay's report, +<a href="#page360">360-362</a>;<br> + results of debates, +<a href="#page362">362</a>;<br> + passage of bills separately, +<a href="#page363">363</a>, +<a href="#page364">364</a>;<br> + attitude to fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page368">368</a>;<br> + motion on Shadrach case, +<a href="#page370">370</a>;<br> + motion on President's message, +<a href="#page371">371</a>;<br> + death, +<a href="#page377">377</a><br> +<br> +Clayton, John Middleton,<br> + secures appointment of committee on Bank, +<a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> + makes committee report against Bank, +<a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> + motion as to Territorial government, +<a href="#page346">346</a>;<br> + reports bill, +<a href="#page346">346</a>, +<a href="#page347">347</a>;<br> + not voting on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page398">398</a>, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +Clemens, Jeremiah, in debate on Foote's resolutions, +<a href="#page374">374</a>, +<a href="#page375">375</a><br> +<br> +Clinton, DeWitt, qualifications as presidential candidate in 1824, +<a href="#page132">132</a><br> +<a name="coahuila"></a> +<br> +Coahuila-Texas,<br> + a province and Commonwealth of Mexico, +<a href="#page291">291</a>;<br> + local government, +<a href="#page291">291</a>;<br> + resistance to Santa Anna, +<a href="#page292">292</a>;<br> + Texans in control, +<a href="#page292">292</a>, +<a href="#page293">293</a>;<br> + war begun by Mexicans, +<a href="#page293">293</a>;<br> + declaration of independence, +<a href="#page293">293</a>. <i>See</i> +<a href="#texas">Texas</a><br> +<br> +Cobb, Thomas A., relation to Jackson, +<a href="#page34">34</a>, +<a href="#page35">35</a><br> +<br> +Coleman, L. H., letter from Jackson, +<a href="#page138">138</a><br> +<br> +Coleman, F. N., murders Dow, +<a href="#page428">428</a><br> +<br> +Columbia, treaties with Chili, Mexico, Peru, and Central America, +<a href="#page147">147</a><br> +<br> +Colorado River, +<a href="#page291">291</a><br> +<br> +Columbia, South Carolina, convention of 1827, +<a href="#page159">159</a>, +<a href="#page160">160</a><br> +<br> +Columbia River, +<a href="#page123">123</a>;<br> + sources discovered, +<a href="#page312">312</a>, +<a href="#page314">314</a>, +<a href="#page316">316</a>, +<a href="#page318">318</a>, +<a href="#page324">324</a>, +<a href="#page325">325</a><br> +<a name="committee"></a> +<br> +Committee on Commerce of the House of Representatives, +<a href="#page185">185</a><br> +<br> +Committee on District of Columbia of House of Representatives, +<a href="#page252">252</a>, +<a href="#page253">253</a>, +<a href="#page254">254</a>, +<a href="#page257">257</a><br> +<br> +Committee on the District of Columbia of the Senate, +<a href="#page253">253</a><br> +<br> +Committee on Finance of the Senate, +<a href="#page198">198</a>, +<a href="#page199">199</a><br> +<br> +Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, +<a href="#page321">321</a><br> +<br> +Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, +<a href="#page150">150</a>, +<a href="#page295">295</a>, +<a href="#page308">308</a>, +<a href="#page322">322</a><br> +<br> +Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, +<a href="#page232">232</a>, +<a href="#page235">235</a>, +<a href="#page369">369</a><br> +<br> +Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, +<a href="#page82">82</a>, +<a href="#page83">83</a>, +<a href="#page84">84</a>, +<a href="#page87">87</a>, +<a href="#page232">232</a>, +<a href="#page233">233</a>, +<a href="#page341">341</a>, +<a href="#page343">343</a>, +<a href="#page349">349</a>, +<a href="#page363">363</a>, +<a href="#page371">371</a>, +<a href="#page372">372</a><br> +<br> +Committee on Manufactures of the House of Representatives, +<a href="#page110">110</a>, +<a href="#page112">112</a>, +<a href="#page158">158</a>, +<a href="#page160">160</a>, +<a href="#page172">172</a>, +<a href="#page174">174</a>, +<a href="#page175">175</a>, +<a href="#page184">184</a>, +<a href="#page185">185</a><br> +<br> +Committee on Manufactures of the Senate, +<a href="#page188">188</a><br> +<br> +Committee on Territories of the House of Representatives, +<a href="#page340">340</a>, +<a href="#page382">382</a>, +<a href="#page400">400</a>, +<a href="#page401">401</a><br> +<br> +Committee on Territories of the Senate, +<a href="#page349">349</a>, +<a href="#page363">363</a>, +<a href="#page382">382</a>, +<a href="#page401">401</a><br> +<br> +Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, +<a href="#page9">9</a>, +<a href="#page10">10</a>, +<a href="#page110">110</a>, +<a href="#page172">172</a>, +<a href="#page174">174</a>, +<a href="#page185">185</a>, +<a href="#page198">198</a>, +<a href="#page231">231</a>, +<a href="#page351">351</a><br> +<br> +Compromise Measures of 1850,<br> + in Fillmore's message, +<a href="#page368">368</a>, +<a href="#page369">369</a>;<br> + in Fillmore's message of December 2, 1851, +<a href="#page374">374</a>;<br> + memorials on finality, +<a href="#page375">375</a>;<br> + Democratic platform of 1852, +<a href="#page376">376</a>;<br> + Whig platform of 1852, +<a href="#page376">376</a>;<br> + unity of Whig party imperilled, +<a href="#page376">376</a>, +<a href="#page377">377</a>;<br> + effect of election of 1852, +<a href="#page377">377</a>;<br> + situation in December, 1852, +<a href="#page381">381</a>;<br> + the Howe-Giddings colloquy, +<a href="#page381">381</a>, +<a href="#page382">382</a>;<br> + interpretation of the compromise, +<a href="#page382">382</a>;<br> + the Douglas report on Nebraska, +<a href="#page383">383-387</a>;<br> + dictum of the committee, +<a href="#page387">387</a>;<br> + claim of Dixon, +<a href="#page388">388</a>;<br> + as to Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page389">389</a>;<br> + dictum of Douglas, +<a href="#page390">390</a>;<br> + the amendment of Chase, +<a href="#page391">391</a>;<br> + the amendment of Douglas, +<a href="#page392">392</a>;<br> + views of Everett, +<a href="#page392">392</a>, +<a href="#page393">393</a> (<i>see</i> +<a href="#kansas">Kansas</a>, Territory of, and +<a href="#nebraska">Nebraska</a>, Territory of);<br> + effect of acquiescence, +<a href="#page403">403</a><br> +<br> +Concord, New Hampshire, +<a href="#page191">191</a><br> +<br> +Confederation of Spanish-American States,<br> + plan initiated, +<a href="#page147">147</a>;<br> + proposed congress and relations of United States, +<a href="#page147">147</a> <i>et seq.</i><br> +<a name="congress"></a> +<br> +Congress of the Confederation,<br> + lack of power over slavery, +<a href="#page48">48</a>;<br> + passed Ordinance of 1787, +<a href="#page48">48</a>;<br> + power in the case, +<a href="#page49">49</a><br> +<br> +Congress, Continental, forbids importation of slaves, +<a href="#page48">48</a><br> +<br> +Congress of the United States,<br> + Acts of the Fourteenth, +<a href="#page1">1</a>, +<a href="#page2">2</a>;<br> + Congress of 1801 and 1815, +<a href="#page3">3</a>;<br> + power over Bank, +<a href="#page4">4</a>, +<a href="#page5">5</a>;<br> + early action on tariff, +<a href="#page8">8</a>;<br> + meeting in December, 1815, +<a href="#page9">9</a>;<br> + vote as to tariff, +<a href="#page9">9</a>;<br> + acts of the Fourteenth, +<a href="#page12">12-14</a>;<br> + discussion of its powers by Calhoun, +<a href="#page13">13</a>, +<a href="#page14">14</a>;<br> + powers discussed by Monroe, +<a href="#page15">15</a>;<br> + pay of members, +<a href="#page16">16</a>;<br> + passage of internal improvements bill, +<a href="#page16">16</a>;<br> + acts as to Florida, +<a href="#page24">24</a>, +<a href="#page25">25</a>;<br> + acts of 1811 as to Florida, +<a href="#page30">30</a>;<br> + limitation as to slavery, +<a href="#page50">50</a>;<br> + abolition of slave trade, +<a href="#page51">51</a>;<br> + division of Louisiana territory, +<a href="#page55">55</a>, +<a href="#page56">56</a>;<br> + power over Territories, +<a href="#page63">63</a>;<br> + power to erect Commonwealths, +<a href="#page64">64</a>;<br> + attitude to slavery, +<a href="#page65">65</a>;<br> + debate on powers of Congress, +<a href="#page67">67</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + annals of, +<a href="#page74">74</a>;<br> + powers discussed by Taylor, +<a href="#page79">79</a>, +<a href="#page80">80</a>, and by Holmes, +<a href="#page80">80</a>, +<a href="#page81">81</a>, and by McLane, +<a href="#page81">81</a>, +<a href="#page82">82</a>;<br> + Pinckney's argument on powers of, +<a href="#page84">84-87</a>;<br> + conference committee on Missouri, +<a href="#page88">88</a>, +<a href="#page89">89</a>;<br> + interpretation of Act of Congress, +<a href="#page89">89</a>;<br> + significance of the Compromise, +<a href="#page90">90-95</a>;<br> + powers considered by Lowndes, +<a href="#page96">96</a>;<br> + Sergeant on power of creating Commonwealths, +<a href="#page96">96</a>, +<a href="#page97">97</a>;<br> + course of Congress considered, +<a href="#page97">97</a>, +<a href="#page98">98</a>;<br> + oath of members, +<a href="#page98">98</a>;<br> + second conference committee on Missouri, +<a href="#page101">101-103</a>;<br> + significance of the compromise, +<a href="#page104">104</a>;<br> + doctrine of its control of commerce, +<a href="#page110">110</a>;<br> + conference committee on tariff, +<a href="#page114">114</a>, +<a href="#page115">115</a>;<br> + early practice as to internal improvements, +<a href="#page116">116</a>, +<a href="#page117">117</a>;<br> + vote on internal improvements bill of 1822, +<a href="#page118">118</a>;<br> + Monroe on the powers of, +<a href="#page120">120</a>, +<a href="#page121">121</a>;<br> + power over expenditures, +<a href="#page121">121</a>;<br> + act of April 30, 1824, +<a href="#page122">122</a>;<br> + inaction upon "Monroe Doctrine," +<a href="#page128">128</a>;<br> + Calhoun a member of, +<a href="#page133">133</a>;<br> + joint session for count of electoral votes, +<a href="#page141">141</a>, +<a href="#page142">142</a>;<br> + as to power over roads, +<a href="#page155">155</a>;<br> + Act of April 30, 1824, +<a href="#page155">155</a>, +<a href="#page156">156</a>;<br> + memorials to, +<a href="#page158">158</a>;<br> + attitude of South Carolina to, +<a href="#page159">159</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + passes Maysville Road bill, +<a href="#page167">167</a>;<br> + appropriations for internal improvements, +<a href="#page169">169</a>;<br> + as to powers of, +<a href="#page170">170</a>;<br> + attitude to tariff, +<a href="#page178">178</a>;<br> + Calhoun's attitude to, +<a href="#page179">179</a>;<br> + control of courts by, +<a href="#page180">180</a>;<br> + President's message before, +<a href="#page184">184</a>;<br> + conference committee on tariff, +<a href="#page188">188</a>;<br> + attitude to the planters, +<a href="#page189">189</a>;<br> + decision on Bank Act of, +<a href="#page195">195</a>;<br> + relation to President as to legislation, +<a href="#page206">206</a>, +<a href="#page207">207</a>;<br> + as a nominating body, +<a href="#page208">208</a>;<br> + failure to override Jackson's veto, +<a href="#page209">209</a>;<br> + inaction as to Indian problem, +<a href="#page215">215</a>;<br> + Jackson's message to, +<a href="#page216">216</a>;<br> + ten years' struggle of South in, +<a href="#page221">221</a>;<br> + its acts nullified, +<a href="#page222">222</a>;<br> + Jackson's messages on South Carolina, +<a href="#page231">231</a>, +<a href="#page232">232</a>;<br> + abolition petitions to, +<a href="#page251">251</a>, +<a href="#page252">252</a>;<br> + abolition petitions before, +<a href="#page253">253</a>;<br> + recommendations of Jackson, +<a href="#page272">272</a>, +<a href="#page273">273</a>;<br> + argument as to power over mails, +<a href="#page273">273</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + conflict with President over Bank, +<a href="#page279">279</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + passage of Independent Treasury bill, +<a href="#page285">285</a>, +<a href="#page286">286</a>;<br> + erection of new Commonwealths, +<a href="#page290">290</a>;<br> + President's message on Texas, +<a href="#page298">298</a>;<br> + action of Congress, +<a href="#page298">298-300</a>;<br> + effect of its action, +<a href="#page300">300</a>;<br> + address of certain Whig members, +<a href="#page303">303</a>;<br> + message of Tyler to, +<a href="#page305">305</a>;<br> + affairs of Texas, +<a href="#page306">306</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + Tyler's message of December, 1844, +<a href="#page320">320</a>, +<a href="#page321">321</a>;<br> + competency as to matters of treaty, +<a href="#page322">322</a>;<br> + Polk's message on Oregon, +<a href="#page324">324</a>;<br> + action as to Oregon, +<a href="#page325">325</a>, +<a href="#page326">326</a>;<br> + power over Texan boundary, +<a href="#page328">328</a>;<br> + Act as to Corpus Christi, +<a href="#page329">329-331</a>;<br> + Polk's message on Mexican War, +<a href="#page330">330</a>;<br> + action on war, +<a href="#page331">331</a>;<br> + Polk's message to, August 8, 1846, +<a href="#page334">334</a>;<br> + consent to acquisition of California and New Mexico, +<a href="#page337">337</a>;<br> + Polk's message on Trist, +<a href="#page338">338</a>;<br> + as to attitude to Missouri Compromise, +<a href="#page341">341</a>;<br> + special message on Oregon, +<a href="#page344">344</a>;<br> + discussion of powers of, +<a href="#page344">344</a>;<br> + Cass on policy of, +<a href="#page345">345</a>;<br> + special message of July 6, 1848, to, +<a href="#page345">345</a>, +<a href="#page346">346</a>;<br> + as to power in Territories, +<a href="#page347">347</a>;<br> + attitude to slavery, +<a href="#page348">348</a>;<br> + Taylor's message of December 4, 1849, +<a href="#page353">353</a>, +<a href="#page354">354</a>;<br> + action on new Territories, +<a href="#page353">353</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + Fillmore's message of August 6, 1850, +<a href="#page362">362</a>;<br> + completion of compromise measure, +<a href="#page363">363</a>, +<a href="#page364">364</a>;<br> + Fillmore's message of December, 1850, +<a href="#page368">368</a>;<br> + petitions on fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page369">369</a>;<br> + Fillmore's message of December 2, 1851, +<a href="#page374">374</a>;<br> + Fillmore's message of December 6, 1852, +<a href="#page380">380</a>;<br> + action on organization of Kansas and Nebraska, +<a href="#page381">381</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + Kansas election for delegate to, +<a href="#page416">416</a>, +<a href="#page417">417</a>;<br> + Whitfield in, +<a href="#page418">418</a>;<br> + as to powers in Kansas, +<a href="#page422">422</a>;<br> + memorial from Kansas, +<a href="#page426">426</a>;<br> + Kansas question before, +<a href="#page432">432</a>;<br> + slavery question before, +<a href="#page433">433</a>;<br> + laws of, in Kansas, +<a href="#page464">464</a>;<br> + President's message of February 2, 1858, +<a href="#page469">469</a><br> +<br> +Connecticut, Commonwealth of, +<a href="#page13">13</a>;<br> + legislation on slavery, +<a href="#page48">48</a>;<br> + in election of 1824, +<a href="#page142">142</a>;<br> + resolution on independence of Texas, +<a href="#page290">290</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +Constitution of the Confederation, +<a href="#page48">48</a>;<br> + relation to Ordinance of 1787, +<a href="#page48">48</a>, +<a href="#page49">49</a><br> +<br> +Constitution of the United States of America, the,<br> + as to Bank, +<a href="#page5">5</a>;<br> + as cited by Calhoun, +<a href="#page13">13</a>;<br> + as interpreted by Monroe, +<a href="#page17">17</a>;<br> + relative to parties, +<a href="#page17">17</a>, +<a href="#page18">18</a>;<br> + slavery in, +<a href="#page49">49</a>, +<a href="#page50">50</a>;<br> + interpreted with reference to national character of slavery, +<a href="#page59">59</a>;<br> + the control of slavery, +<a href="#page62">62</a>, +<a href="#page65">65</a>;<br> + powers of Congress, +<a href="#page63">63</a>, +<a href="#page64">64</a>;<br> + test of the Tallmadge amendment, +<a href="#page66">66</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + Taylor as to powers of Congress, +<a href="#page79">79</a>;<br> + Holmes' speech, +<a href="#page80">80</a>, +<a href="#page81">81</a>;<br> + McLane's argument, +<a href="#page81">81</a>, +<a href="#page82">82</a><br> + limitations on new Commonwealths, +<a href="#page85">85</a>;<br> + as to restriction on Commonwealths, +<a href="#page89">89</a>;<br> + significance of the first Missouri Compromise, +<a href="#page90">90-95</a>;<br> + as cited by Lowndes, +<a href="#page97">97</a>;<br> + cited by Sergeant, +<a href="#page97">97</a>;<br> + extent of its protection, +<a href="#page98">98</a>, +<a href="#page99">99</a>;<br> + second Missouri compromise, +<a href="#page102">102</a>, +<a href="#page103">103</a>;<br> + significance of the compromise, +<a href="#page104">104</a>, +<a href="#page106">106</a>;<br> + as to fourteenth amendment, +<a href="#page105">105</a>;<br> + Taylor's interpretation of, +<a href="#page119">119</a>;<br> + Monroe's interpretation of, +<a href="#page120">120</a>, +<a href="#page121">121</a>;<br> + development of the particularistic interpretation, +<a href="#page122">122</a>;<br> + as construed by Adams, and Clay, +<a href="#page146">146</a>;<br> + as to international status of slavery, +<a href="#page151">151</a>;<br> + amendment proposed, +<a href="#page155">155</a>;<br> + reaction as to interpretation of, +<a href="#page156">156</a>;<br> + as interpreted by Buchanan, +<a href="#page159">159</a>;<br> + amendment suggested by Jackson, +<a href="#page167">167</a>, +<a href="#page168">168</a>;<br> + as interpreted by Taylor, +<a href="#page168">168</a>, +<a href="#page169">169</a>;<br> + as interpreted by McDuffie, +<a href="#page173">173</a>, +<a href="#page174">174</a>;<br> + as interpreted by Calhoun, +<a href="#page178">178-181</a>;<br> + regard for processes of, +<a href="#page181">181</a>;<br> + as interpreted by Calhoun, +<a href="#page183">183</a>;<br> + as to origin of revenue bill, +<a href="#page188">188</a>;<br> + political science of, +<a href="#page192">192</a>, +<a href="#page193">193</a>;<br> + decision as to constitutionality of Bank Act, +<a href="#page195">195</a>;<br> + as construed by Jackson, +<a href="#page199">199</a>;<br> + Jackson on operation of, +<a href="#page205">205</a>, +<a href="#page206">206</a>;<br> + effect of his Bank veto, +<a href="#page207">207-209</a>;<br> + as cited by Jackson, +<a href="#page216">216</a>, +<a href="#page217">217</a>;<br> + the Cherokee nation case, +<a href="#page218">218</a>;<br> + case of Worcester <i>vs.</i> Georgia, +<a href="#page218">218</a>, +<a href="#page219">219</a>;<br> + powers conferred on President by, +<a href="#page220">220</a>;<br> + as interpreted in the Nullification Ordinance, +<a href="#page222">222</a>;<br> + as construed by the nullifiers, +<a href="#page227">227</a>;<br> + as interpreted in Jackson's proclamation, +<a href="#page229">229</a>;<br> + as expounded by Calhoun, +<a href="#page236">236</a>;<br> + as explained by Webster, +<a href="#page237">237</a>;<br> + effect of events of 1832 and 1833 on, +<a href="#page238">238-241</a>;<br> + as to control of civil status, +<a href="#page247">247</a>, +<a href="#page248">248</a>;<br> + attitude of Garrison to, +<a href="#page248">248</a>;<br> + guarantees as to right of petition, +<a href="#page255">255</a>, +<a href="#page256">256</a>;<br> + in Calhoun's argument, +<a href="#page273">273</a>;<br> + provision as to treaties, +<a href="#page305">305</a>;<br> + nature of war according to, +<a href="#page306">306</a>;<br> + as to treaty-making powers, +<a href="#page307">307</a>, +<a href="#page308">308</a>;<br> + as to annexation of Texas, +<a href="#page321">321</a>;<br> + as to procedure on treaties, +<a href="#page324">324</a>;<br> + as interpreted by Rhett, +<a href="#page342">342</a>;<br> + as to Oregon bill, +<a href="#page343">343</a>;<br> + compromises of, +<a href="#page348">348</a>;<br> + as to extension of its effect, +<a href="#page350">350</a>;<br> + amendment suggested by Calhoun, +<a href="#page358">358</a>;<br> + Webster on the, +<a href="#page359">359</a>;<br> + effect of formation of, +<a href="#page366">366</a>;<br> + as to fugitive slaves, +<a href="#page366">366</a>, +<a href="#page367">367</a>;<br> + as interpreted by Fillmore, +<a href="#page370">370</a>;<br> + as interpreted by Butler, +<a href="#page372">372</a>;<br> + as cited by Fillmore, +<a href="#page374">374</a>;<br> + in Douglas's report, +<a href="#page383">383</a>, +<a href="#page392">392</a>;<br> + as viewed by Everett, +<a href="#page393">393</a>;<br> + in Chase's amendment, +<a href="#page394">394</a>;<br> + treason, as defined by, +<a href="#page427">427</a>;<br> + the Dred Scott case, +<a href="#page449">449</a> <i>et seq.</i><br> +<br> +Continental Congress. <i>See</i> +<a href="#congress">Congress</a>, Continental<br> +<br> +Contreras, battle of, +<a href="#page334">334</a><br> +<br> +Convention, Federal Constitutional, of 1787, attitude to slavery, +<a href="#page49">49</a>, +<a href="#page50">50</a><br> +<br> +Convention. <i>See</i> +<a href="#treaty">Treaty</a><br> +<br> +Conway, M. F., letter to Governor Reeder, +<a href="#page424">424</a><br> +<br> +Cooke, P. St. George,<br> + ordered to attack Topeka, +<a href="#page445">445</a>;<br> + refuses to obey, +<a href="#page445">445</a><br> +<br> +Cooper, James,<br> + on committee of Thirteen, +<a href="#page360">360</a>;<br> + not voting on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page398">398</a><br> +<br> +Cooper, Thomas,<br> + speech at Columbia, +<a href="#page159">159</a>;<br> + his life and views, +<a href="#page173">173</a>;<br> + his relation to slavery and to McDuffie, +<a href="#page173">173</a><br> +<br> +Corpus Christi,<br> + made port of delivery, +<a href="#page329">329</a>;<br> + advance of Taylor, +<a href="#page329">329</a><br> +<br> +Cos, Martin Perfectos de,<br> + attacks Gonzales, +<a href="#page293">293</a>;<br> + driven from Texas, +<a href="#page294">294</a><br> +<br> +Cotton,<br> + relation to slavery, +<a href="#page52">52</a>, +<a href="#page53">53</a>;<br> + exportation reduced, +<a href="#page54">54</a><br> +<br> +Crafts, Ellen, escape, +<a href="#page368">368</a><br> +<br> +Crafts, William, escape, +<a href="#page368">368</a><br> +<br> +Cramer, John, motion in House, +<a href="#page254">254</a><br> +<br> +Crane, A. C., statement as to Dred Scott case, +<a href="#page449"></a>449, +<a href="#page450">450</a><br> +<br> +Crawford, William Harris,<br> + relation to Jackson, +<a href="#page34">34</a>, +<a href="#page35">35</a>;<br> + opinion of treaty with Spain, +<a href="#page36">36</a>;<br> + effect of Seminole War, +<a href="#page38">38</a>;<br> + qualifications as presidential candidate in 1824, +<a href="#page132">132</a>, +<a href="#page133">133</a>, +<a href="#page136">136</a>, +<a href="#page141">141</a>;<br> + electoral vote of 1824, +<a href="#page137">137</a>;<br> + relation to Adams' administration, +<a href="#page144">144-146</a>;<br> + relation to Jackson and the Seminole War, +<a href="#page220">220</a><br> +<br> +Creeks, the, +<a href="#page26">26</a>, +<a href="#page29">29</a>;<br> + Council of 1824, +<a href="#page212">212</a>;<br> + Indian Springs convention, +<a href="#page212">212</a>;<br> + its repudiation, +<a href="#page212">212</a>;<br> + resistance to Georgia, +<a href="#page212">212</a>;<br> + protest to general government, +<a href="#page212">212</a>, +<a href="#page213">213</a>;<br> + controversy as to Creek lands, +<a href="#page213">213</a>, +<a href="#page214">214</a>;<br> + new agreement of 1826 as to lands, +<a href="#page214">214</a>;<br> + agreement repudiated by Georgia, +<a href="#page214">214</a><br> +<br> +"Crime against Kansas," the, delivered, +<a href="#page439">439</a><br> +<br> +Cuba,<br> + in the Spanish-American troubles, +<a href="#page152">152-154</a>;<br> + the Ostend manifesto, +<a href="#page408">408</a><br> +<br> +Cumberland Road,<br> + built, +<a href="#page116">116</a>;<br> + bill of 1822, +<a href="#page118">118</a>;<br> + analysis of vote, +<a href="#page118">118</a>, +<a href="#page119">119</a>;<br> + attitude of East and West, +<a href="#page119">119</a>, +<a href="#page120">120</a><br> +<br> +Curtis, Benjamin Robbins, opinion on Dred Scott case, +<a href="#page454">454</a>, +<a href="#page457">457</a>, +<a href="#page458">458</a><br> +<br> +Curtis, George Ticknor,<br> + attitude to fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page368">368</a>;<br> + in Shadrach case, +<a href="#page370">370</a>;<br> + connection with Sims case, +<a href="#page373">373</a><br> +<br> +Cushing, Caleb, relation to Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page401">401</a><br> +<br> +Customs Act,<br> + of 1789, +<a href="#page8">8</a>;<br> + of 1812, +<a href="#page9">9</a><br> +<br> +<br> +D<small>AGGETT</small>, D<small>AVID</small>, voting, +<a href="#page74">74</a><br> +<br> +Dallas, Alexander James,<br> + presents Bank memorial, +<a href="#page201">201</a>;<br> + on Senate committee, +<a href="#page201">201</a>;<br> + reports Bank bill, +<a href="#page201">201</a><br> +<br> +Davis, Jefferson,<br> + views as to slavery in Territories, +<a href="#page344">344</a>, +<a href="#page345">345</a>;<br> + moves amendment to Oregon bill, +<a href="#page344">344</a>;<br> + effect of his action, +<a href="#page345">345</a>;<br> + attitude to Clay's proposal, +<a href="#page357">357</a>;<br> + views on fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page367">367</a>;<br> + contention as to fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page371">371</a>;<br> + relation to Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page401">401</a>, +<a href="#page402">402</a>;<br> + disapproves Col. Sumner's course, +<a href="#page443">443</a>;<br> + attitude to Kansas affairs, +<a href="#page472">472</a>, +<a href="#page473">473</a><br> +<br> +De Bree, John, owner of Shadrach, +<a href="#page370">370</a><br> +<br> +Declaration of Independence, the, +<a href="#page70">70</a>, +<a href="#page92">92</a>, +<a href="#page94">94</a>, +<a href="#page193">193</a>, +<a href="#page229">229</a>, +<a href="#page245">245</a><br> +<br> +Delaware, Commonwealth of, +<a href="#page8">8</a>;<br> + legislation on slavery, +<a href="#page48">48</a>;<br> + in election of 1828, +<a href="#page163">163</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +Democratic party,<br> + appearance, +<a href="#page38">38</a>, +<a href="#page104">104</a>;<br> + principles, +<a href="#page104">104</a>;<br> + circumstances of its appearance, +<a href="#page146">146</a>;<br> + party nomenclature, +<a href="#page162">162</a>, +<a href="#page163">163</a>;<br> + demands of 1828, +<a href="#page163">163</a>;<br> + the making of its creed, +<a href="#page165">165</a>;<br> + divisions of the party and policies of each, +<a href="#page165">165</a>;<br> + origin and influence, +<a href="#page193">193</a>, +<a href="#page194">194</a>;<br> + radical development in Kentucky, +<a href="#page195">195</a>, +<a href="#page196">196</a>;<br> + attack of western element upon privilege, +<a href="#page196">196</a>;<br> + Jackson becomes leader, +<a href="#page196">196</a>, +<a href="#page197">197</a>;<br> + opposes Gordon's proposal as to independent treasury, +<a href="#page285">285</a>;<br> + supports Independent Treasury Bill of 1840, +<a href="#page285">285</a>;<br> + relation to the questions of slavery and territorial extension, +<a href="#page287">287</a>, +<a href="#page288">288</a>;<br> + nominates Polk for presidency, +<a href="#page309">309</a>;<br> + the platform, +<a href="#page309">309</a>, +<a href="#page316">316</a>;<br> + views of the union of Texas and Oregon in platform, +<a href="#page317">317</a>;<br> + Thompson's opinion, +<a href="#page317">317</a>;<br> + characterization the work of the Democrats, +<a href="#page317">317</a>;<br> + platform of 1844, +<a href="#page318">318</a>;<br> + attitude to Wilmot proviso, +<a href="#page338">338</a>;<br> + platform of 1848 as to slavery in Territories, +<a href="#page344">344</a>, +<a href="#page345">345</a>;<br> + the Clayton committee, +<a href="#page346">346</a>;<br> + election of 1848, +<a href="#page348">348</a>, +<a href="#page349">349</a>;<br> + convention of 1852, +<a href="#page376">376</a>;<br> + election of 1852, +<a href="#page377">377</a>;<br> + controversy on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page391">391</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a>;<br> + attitude of Pierce to New York factions, +<a href="#page402">402</a>;<br> + vote in House on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page404">404</a>, +<a href="#page405">405</a>;<br> + meaning of the vote, +<a href="#page405">405</a>, +<a href="#page406">406</a>;<br> + as to leaders of Emigrant Aid Company, +<a href="#page413">413</a>;<br> + effect of Kansas struggle, +<a href="#page417">417</a>;<br> + relation to rise of Republican party, +<a href="#page418">418</a>;<br> + Lane's effort at organization in Kansas, +<a href="#page423">423</a>;<br> + relation of Kansas affairs to national party organization, +<a href="#page430">430</a>, +<a href="#page431">431</a>;<br> + effect on party prospects of sacking of Lawrence, +<a href="#page438">438</a>;<br> + as to effect of events in Kansas, +<a href="#page447">447</a>;<br> + effect of Dred Scott decision, +<a href="#page458">458</a>;<br> + plan as to Democracy in Kansas, +<a href="#page462">462</a><br> +<br> +Denver, John W.,<br> + appointed Acting-Governor of Kansas Territory, +<a href="#page467">467</a>;<br> + his report to the President, +<a href="#page468">468</a>, +<a href="#page469">469</a>;<br> + pockets bill for constitutional convention, +<a href="#page471">471</a><br> +<br> +Deseret, Foote's bill, +<a href="#page354">354</a><br> +<br> +Des Moines River, the, Falls of, +<a href="#page66">66</a><br> +<br> +De Witt, Alexander, signs <i>National Era</i> address, +<a href="#page389">389</a><br> +<br> +Dickerson, Mahlon, reports tariff bill in Senate, +<a href="#page188">188</a><br> +<br> +Dickinson, Daniel Stevens, on Committee of Thirteen, +<a href="#page360">360</a><br> +<br> +Dickson, John,<br> + presents abolition petitions, +<a href="#page254">254</a>;<br> + controversy with Chinn, +<a href="#page254">254</a><br> +<br> +District of Columbia,<br> + adoption of Maryland laws, +<a href="#page51">51</a>;<br> + exclusive government vested in central Government, +<a href="#page247">247</a>, +<a href="#page248">248</a>;<br> + petitions for abolition of slavery in, +<a href="#page251">251</a>, +<a href="#page252">252</a>;<br> + report on slavery in District, +<a href="#page253">253</a>;<br> + disposal of Quaker petitions, +<a href="#page253">253</a>;<br> + more petitions in House, +<a href="#page254">254</a>;<br> + contest begins, +<a href="#page254">254</a>;<br> + petitions presented by Dickson and Fairfield, +<a href="#page254">254</a>;<br> + the Dickson-Chinn controversy, +<a href="#page254">254</a>;<br> + Slade's motion, +<a href="#page254">254</a>;<br> + Granger's intimation, +<a href="#page257">257</a>;<br> + the demand of Wise, +<a href="#page257">257</a>, +<a href="#page258">258</a> (<i>see</i> +<a href="#petition">Petition</a>, Right of);<br> + Pinckney resolutions quoted, +<a href="#page261">261</a>;<br> + re-enacted, +<a href="#page262">262</a>;<br> + Vermont petition, +<a href="#page265">265</a>, +<a href="#page269">269</a>;<br> + effort of Calhoun as to slavery in the District, +<a href="#page268">268</a>;<br> + recurrence of the slavery question, +<a href="#page355">355</a>;<br> + Clay's plan, +<a href="#page356">356</a>;<br> + attitude of Southerners, +<a href="#page357">357</a>;<br> + attitude of abolitionists, +<a href="#page357">357</a>;<br> + Clay's report, +<a href="#page362">362</a>;<br> + bill passed, +<a href="#page364">364</a>.<br> + <i>See</i> <a href="#washingtondc">Washington, D. C.</a><br> +<br> +Dixon, Archibald,<br> + proposes amendment to Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page387">387</a>;<br> + Blair's letter on Dixon, +<a href="#page387">387</a>, +<a href="#page388">388</a>;<br> + attitude of Douglas, +<a href="#page388">388</a><br> +<br> +Dodge, Augustus Cæsar, introduces bill on Nebraska, +<a href="#page382">382</a><br> +<br> +Donaldson, J. B.,<br> + proclamation as to resistance to service of writs, +<a href="#page435">435</a>;<br> + dealings with citizens of Lawrence, +<a href="#page436">436</a>, +<a href="#page437">437</a>;<br> + appears with force before Lawrence, +<a href="#page437">437</a>;<br> + dismisses posse, +<a href="#page438">438</a>;<br> + the sacking of Lawrence, +<a href="#page438">438</a><br> +<br> +Doniphan, Alexander William, captures Chihuahua, +<a href="#page332">332</a><br> +<br> +Douglas, Stephen Arnold,<br> + attitude to Wilmot proviso, +<a href="#page338">338</a>;<br> + presents bill on Oregon in House, +<a href="#page340">340</a>, +<a href="#page341">341</a>;<br> + presents bill in Senate on Oregon, +<a href="#page343">343</a>;<br> + moves amendment, +<a href="#page347">347</a>;<br> + changes vote, +<a href="#page347">347</a>;<br> + reports bill, +<a href="#page349">349</a>;<br> + Berrien's adverse report, +<a href="#page349">349</a>, +<a href="#page350">350</a>;<br> + new bill on Territories, +<a href="#page350">350</a>;<br> + motion as to California, +<a href="#page357">357</a>;<br> + attitude to fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page368">368</a>;<br> + candidate for presidential nomination, +<a href="#page376">376</a>;<br> + early plans for organization of territory west of the Mississippi, +<a href="#page381">381</a>;<br> + presents bill and report on Nebraska, +<a href="#page382">382</a>, +<a href="#page383">383</a>;<br> + consideration of report and its author, +<a href="#page383">383-387</a>;<br> + attitude to Dixon, +<a href="#page388">388</a>;<br> + presents new bill on Nebraska and Kansas, +<a href="#page389">389</a>;<br> + <i>National Era</i> address, +<a href="#page389">389</a>, +<a href="#page390">390</a>;<br> + Douglas's reply, +<a href="#page390">390</a>;<br> + charged with conspiracy, +<a href="#page391">391</a>;<br> + his principle as to slavery in Territories, +<a href="#page391">391</a>;<br> + amendment to bill, +<a href="#page392">392</a>;<br> + vote on his amendment, +<a href="#page393">393</a>;<br> + debate on further amendments, +<a href="#page394">394-397</a>;<br> + proposes amendment, +<a href="#page395">395</a>, +<a href="#page396">396</a>;<br> + final argument on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page397">397</a>, +<a href="#page398">398</a>;<br> + substance of bill reported in House bill, +<a href="#page400">400</a>;<br> + Douglas's bill in House, +<a href="#page401">401</a>, +<a href="#page403">403</a>;<br> + effect of Dred Scott decision on Douglas Democrats, +<a href="#page458">458</a>;<br> + opposition to Buchanan, +<a href="#page469">469</a>, +<a href="#page470">470</a><br> +<br> +Douglas county, Kansas,<br> + Sheriff Jones of, +<a href="#page428">428</a>;<br> + charge of Chief Justice Lecompte, +<a href="#page435">435</a>;<br> + indictment by Grand Jury, +<a href="#page435">435</a><br> +<br> +Dow, C. M., murdered by Coleman, +<a href="#page428">428</a><br> +<br> +Downs, Solomon W., on Committee of Thirteen, +<a href="#page360">360</a><br> +<br> +Drayton, William, relation to nullification, +<a href="#page181">181</a><br> +<br> +Dred Scott <i>vs.</i> Sandford [19 Howard, 293], +<a href="#page447">447</a>, +<a href="#page449">449</a> <i>et seq.</i><br> +<br> +Duane, William John, removed from head of Treasury Department, +<a href="#page280">280</a><br> +<br> +Dutch Traders, at Jamestown, +<a href="#page40">40</a><br> +<br> +Dutch Henry's Crossing, massacre at, +<a href="#page440">440</a>;<br> + the massacre characterized, +<a href="#page441">441</a>;<br> + and denounced by settlers, +<a href="#page441">441</a>;<br> + effect of massacre, +<a href="#page442">442</a>;<br> + the work characterized, +<a href="#page473">473</a>, +<a href="#page474">474</a><br> +<br> +<br> +E<small>AST</small> F<small>LORIDA</small>, +<a href="#page21">21</a><br> +<br> +Eaton, John Henry, as to Bank trouble, +<a href="#page192">192</a><br> +<br> +Easton, Kansas, election trouble at, +<a href="#page426">426</a><br> +<br> +Election, presidential,<br> + of 1820, +<a href="#page129">129</a>;<br> + of 1824, +<a href="#page130">130-137</a>;<br> + in House of Representatives, +<a href="#page140">140-142</a>;<br> + of 1828, +<a href="#page163">163</a>, +<a href="#page164">164</a>;<br> + of 1832, +<a href="#page189">189</a>, +<a href="#page190">190</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + of 1836, +<a href="#page283">283</a>;<br> + of 1840, +<a href="#page286">286</a>;<br> + of 1844, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + of 1848, +<a href="#page349">349</a>;<br> + of 1852, +<a href="#page377">377</a>;<br> + of 1856, relation to election of Whitfield in Kansas, +<a href="#page417">417</a>;<br> + indications as to election of 1856, +<a href="#page440">440</a>;<br> + of 1856, as related to affairs in Kansas, +<a href="#page446">446</a>, +<a href="#page447">447</a><br> +<br> +Electoral Colleges, +<a href="#page50">50</a><br> +<br> +Ellis, Powhatan, ordered to make final demand on Mexican Government, +<a href="#page299">299</a><br> +<br> +El Paso, +<a href="#page361">361</a><br> +<br> +Emancipation, early schemes for, +<a href="#page243">243</a>, +<a href="#page245">245</a><br> +<br> +Embargo, of 1807, +<a href="#page54">54</a><br> +<br> +Emerson, Dr.,<br> + owner of Dred Scott, +<a href="#page450">450</a>;<br> + his will, +<a href="#page450">450</a><br> +<br> +Emerson, Irene,<br> + owner of Dred Scott, +<a href="#page450">450</a>;<br> + sells him to Sandford, +<a href="#page451">451</a><br> +<br> +Emigrant Aid Company,<br> + misrepresentations as to, +<a href="#page411">411</a>;<br> + conference with Robinson, +<a href="#page413">413</a>;<br> + excitement occasioned in Missouri, +<a href="#page413">413</a>;<br> + claims as to its purpose, +<a href="#page419">419</a>;<br> + indictment against hotel in Lawrence, +<a href="#page435">435</a><br> +<br> +England, +<a href="#page21">21</a>, +<a href="#page45">45</a>, +<a href="#page368">368</a><br> +<br> +English, William Hayden, bill on Kansas, +<a href="#page470">470</a>, +<a href="#page471">471</a><br> +<br> +Erie Canal, +<a href="#page132">132</a><br> +<br> +Eustis, William, efforts for admission of Missouri, +<a href="#page100">100</a><br> +<br> +Everett, Edward,<br> + reply to McDuffie, +<a href="#page176">176</a>;<br> + speech on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page392">392</a>, +<a href="#page393">393</a>;<br> + not voting on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page398">398</a><br> +<br> +Ewing, Thomas, on Bank Committee of Senate, +<a href="#page201">201</a><br> +<br> +<br> +F<small>AIRFIELD</small>, J<small>OHN</small>, presents abolition petition, +<a href="#page254">254</a><br> +<br> +Federal Party, +<a href="#page12">12</a>, +<a href="#page104">104</a>;<br> + extinction, +<a href="#page129">129</a>;<br> + its errors, +<a href="#page129">129</a>;<br> + effects of War of 1812, +<a href="#page130">130</a>;<br> + principles on which it lost power, +<a href="#page239">239</a><br> +<br> +Field, Roswell M., connection with Dred Scott case, +<a href="#page449">449</a>, +<a href="#page452">452</a><br> +<br> +Fillmore, Millard,<br> + becomes President, +<a href="#page360">360</a>;<br> + message on Texas, +<a href="#page360">360</a>;<br> + message of December, 1850, +<a href="#page368">368</a>, +<a href="#page369">369</a>;<br> + opposition of Giddings, +<a href="#page369">369</a>;<br> + message on Shadrach case, +<a href="#page370">370</a>, +<a href="#page371">371</a>;<br> + report on President's powers, +<a href="#page372">372</a>;<br> + message of December 2, 1851, +<a href="#page374">374</a>;<br> + contest in Whig Convention of 1852, +<a href="#page376">376</a>;<br> + message of December 6, 1852, +<a href="#page380">380</a>, +<a href="#page381">381</a><br> +<br> +Fitchburg, Massachusetts, home of Charles Robinson, +<a href="#page413">413</a><br> +<br> +Flint River, +<a href="#page22">22</a><br> +<br> +Florida,<br> + its acquisition, +<a href="#page19">19-38</a>;<br> + treaty of Florida Seminoles, +<a href="#page290">290</a>;<br> + constitution formed, +<a href="#page290">290</a>;<br> + admitted as Commonwealth, +<a href="#page290">290</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page390">390</a><br> +<br> +Floyd, John, message on Southampton massacre, +<a href="#page249">249</a><br> +<br> +Foote, Henry Stuart,<br> + bill for Territories, +<a href="#page354">354</a>;<br> + criticises Clay, +<a href="#page357">357</a>, +<a href="#page358">358</a>;<br> + motion on Bell's resolutions, +<a href="#page359">359</a>;<br> + accepts amendment, +<a href="#page360">360</a>;<br> + draws pistol on Benton, +<a href="#page360">360</a>;<br> + introduces finality resolutions, +<a href="#page374">374</a>;<br> + passed by House and rejected by Senate, +<a href="#page375">375</a><br> +<br> +"Force Bill," the. <i>See</i> +<a href="#wilkins">Wilkins, William</a><br> +<br> +Foreign affairs,<br> + relation to party development, +<a href="#page122">122</a>;<br> + the Holy Alliance, +<a href="#page123">123-125</a>;<br> + the "Monroe Doctrine," +<a href="#page125">125-128</a>;<br> + significance of the diplomatic questions, +<a href="#page129">129</a>;<br> + success of Van Buren, +<a href="#page164">164</a>.<br> + <i>See</i> <a href="#committee">Committee on Foreign Relations</a><br> +<br> +Forsyth, John,<br> + letter as to intrigue against Jackson, +<a href="#page220">220</a>;<br> + letter from Morfit, +<a href="#page296">296</a>, +<a href="#page297">297</a><br> +<br> +Fort Brown, attempt at relief, +<a href="#page329">329</a><br> +<br> +Fort Jackson, treaty of, +<a href="#page26">26</a>, +<a href="#page29">29</a><br> +<br> +Fort Leavenworth,<br> + Robinson at, +<a href="#page414">414</a>;<br> + arrival of Governor Reeder, +<a href="#page416">416</a>;<br> + Governor authorized to call troops from, +<a href="#page432">432</a>;<br> + Sumner returns to, +<a href="#page442">442</a><br> +<br> +Fort Monroe, transfer of artillery, +<a href="#page230">230</a><br> +<br> +Fort Moultrie, transfer of artillery, +<a href="#page230">230</a><br> +<br> +Fort Riley, Branscomb at, +<a href="#page414">414</a><br> +<br> +Fort Scott, +<a href="#page31">31</a><br> +<br> +Fort Titus, Kansas conflict at, +<a href="#page444">444</a><br> +<br> +Fowltown, destroyed, +<a href="#page28">28</a>, +<a href="#page29">29</a><br> +<br> +France, +<a href="#page21">21</a>, +<a href="#page22">22</a>, +<a href="#page23">23</a>, +<a href="#page24">24</a>;<br> + abolition of slavery, +<a href="#page54">54</a>;<br> + gets Louisiana territory, +<a href="#page54">54</a>, +<a href="#page65">65</a>;<br> + in Holy Alliance, +<a href="#page123">123</a>;<br> + relation to Congress of Verona, +<a href="#page124">124</a>;<br> + boundary dispute with Spain, +<a href="#page290">290</a>;<br> + recognizes Texan independence, +<a href="#page304">304</a>;<br> + cedes Louisiana to United States, +<a href="#page312">312</a>, +<a href="#page318">318</a>, +<a href="#page395">395</a>. <i>See</i> +<a href="#treaty">Treaty</a><br> +<br> +Francis, Indian priest, +<a href="#page26">26</a><br> +<br> +Franklin, Kansas,<br> + Jones goes to, +<a href="#page428">428</a>;<br> + Lane and Robinson accompany Shannon to, +<a href="#page430">430</a>, +<a href="#page431">431</a>;<br> + as to treaty of August 17, +<a href="#page444">444</a><br> +<br> +Free-Soil party,<br> + Buffalo convention of 1848, +<a href="#page347">347</a>;<br> + nomination and platform, +<a href="#page347">347</a>, +<a href="#page348">348</a>;<br> + nomination of Hale, +<a href="#page377">377</a>;<br> + the <i>National Era</i> address, +<a href="#page389">389</a>;<br> + its effect, +<a href="#page400">400</a>;<br> + vote in House on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page404">404</a>, +<a href="#page405">405</a>;<br> + meaning of the vote, +<a href="#page405">405</a>, +<a href="#page406">406</a>;<br> + appearance of Eli Thayer, +<a href="#page408">408</a>, +<a href="#page409">409</a>;<br> + as to leaders of Emigrant Aid Company, +<a href="#page413">413</a>;<br> + effect of Kansas struggle, +<a href="#page417">417</a>;<br> + relation of Free-soil party to rise of Republican party, +<a href="#page418">418</a>;<br> + effect of Dred Scott decision, +<a href="#page458">458</a><br> +<br> +Frémont, John Charles, effect of events in Kansas on his candidacy in 1856, +<a href="#page447">447</a><br> +<br> +French Republic, the, +<a href="#page23">23</a><br> +<a name="fugitive"></a> +<br> +Fugitive slave law,<br> + passed by Congress, +<a href="#page51">51</a>;<br> + law of 1850, +<a href="#page363">363</a>, +<a href="#page364">364</a> (<i>see also</i> +<a href="#slavery">Slavery</a>);<br> + law of 1850 makes slavery a national matter, +<a href="#page366">366</a>;<br> + its further effect, +<a href="#page366">366</a>, +<a href="#page367">367</a>;<br> + views of Calhoun, Davis, and Rhett, +<a href="#page367">367</a>;<br> + the Hamlet case, +<a href="#page367">367</a>;<br> + efforts at repeal of law, +<a href="#page367">367</a>, +<a href="#page368">368</a>;<br> + the Crafts case, +<a href="#page368">368</a>;<br> + the "Underground" established, +<a href="#page368">368</a>;<br> + attitude of the lawyers, +<a href="#page368">368</a>;<br> + Fillmore's message of December, 1850, +<a href="#page368">368</a>, +<a href="#page369">369</a>;<br> + Fillmore's message, +<a href="#page369">369</a>;<br> + motion of Giddings, +<a href="#page369">369</a>;<br> + petitions for repeal, +<a href="#page369">369</a>, +<a href="#page370">370</a>;<br> + the Shadrach case, +<a href="#page370">370</a>;<br> + Fillmore's message, +<a href="#page370">370</a>, +<a href="#page371">371</a>;<br> + debate on Clay's motion, +<a href="#page371">371</a>;<br> + report on powers of President, +<a href="#page371">371</a>, +<a href="#page372">372</a>;<br> + the Sims case, +<a href="#page372">372</a>, +<a href="#page373">373</a>;<br> + Boston meetings, +<a href="#page373">373</a>;<br> + leaders of opinion, +<a href="#page373">373</a>;<br> + the "Jerry rescue," +<a href="#page373">373</a>, +<a href="#page374">374</a>;<br> + Fillmore's message of December 2, 1851, +<a href="#page374">374</a>;<br> + debate on Foote's finality resolutions, +<a href="#page374">374</a>, +<a href="#page375">375</a>;<br> + the result, +<a href="#page375">375</a>;<br> + petitions for repeal, +<a href="#page375">375</a>;<br> + Whig convention of 1852, +<a href="#page376">376</a>;<br> + attack by Sumner, +<a href="#page377">377</a>;<br> + effect of election of 1852, +<a href="#page377">377</a>;<br> + various policies as to slavery, +<a href="#page377">377-379</a><br> +<br> +Fuller, Timothy, in Missouri bill debate, +<a href="#page68">68</a><br> +<br> +"Fundamentals," Massachusetts, +<a href="#page41">41</a><br> +<br> +Furness, William Henry, opposes fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page368">368</a><br> +<br> +<br> +G<small>AINES</small>, E<small>DMUND</small> P<small>ENDLETON</small>,<br> + in Florida, +<a href="#page28">28</a>, +<a href="#page30">30</a>, +<a href="#page31">31</a>;<br> + ordered to Georgia, +<a href="#page213">213</a>;<br> + authorized to advance into Texas, +<a href="#page298">298</a><br> +<br> +Garland, James, reply to Slade, +<a href="#page258">258</a><br> +<a name="garrison"></a> +<br> +Garrison, William Lloyd,<br> + beginning of abolition, +<a href="#page246">246</a>;<br> + estimate, +<a href="#page246">246</a>;<br> + the constitutional situation, +<a href="#page246">246-248</a>;<br> + attack on the Constitution, +<a href="#page248">248</a>;<br> + publishes the <i>Liberator,</i> +<a href="#page251">251</a>;<br> + compared with moderates, +<a href="#page251">251</a>;<br> + opposition to fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page373">373</a><br> +<br> +Geary, John White,<br> + appointed governor of Kansas with authority over troops, +<a href="#page446">446</a>;<br> + at Lecompton and Lawrence, +<a href="#page446">446</a>;<br> + enforces withdrawal of Missourians, +<a href="#page446">446</a>, +<a href="#page447">447</a>;<br> + his resignation, +<a href="#page447">447</a><br> +<br> +Geography, relation to political development, +<a href="#page20">20</a><br> +<br> +Georgetown, South Carolina, instructions to collector, +<a href="#page230">230</a><br> +<br> +Georgia, Commonwealth of, +<a href="#page8">8</a>, +<a href="#page26">26</a>, +<a href="#page27">27</a>, +<a href="#page28">28</a>, +<a href="#page33">33</a>;<br> + slavery prohibited, +<a href="#page43">43</a>;<br> + conditional cession of western lands, +<a href="#page50">50</a>, +<a href="#page56">56</a>;<br> + attitude to internal improvements bill of 1817, +<a href="#page118">118</a>;<br> + attitude to internal improvements bill of 1822, +<a href="#page119">119</a>;<br> + stock held in United States Bank, +<a href="#page203">203</a>;<br> + nullification in Georgia, +<a href="#page210">210</a>;<br> + conditional cession of lands of 1802, +<a href="#page211">211</a>;<br> + the attempt to erect an Indian State, +<a href="#page211">211</a>;<br> + problem of land titles in Georgia, +<a href="#page211">211</a>, +<a href="#page212">212</a>;<br> + legislature memorializes for quieting of Indian claims, +<a href="#page212">212</a>;<br> + the Indian Springs convention, +<a href="#page212">212</a>;<br> + its repudiation, +<a href="#page212">212</a>;<br> + the attempt to survey the lands, +<a href="#page212">212</a>;<br> + Barbour's letter to Troup, +<a href="#page212">212</a>, +<a href="#page213">213</a>;<br> + quieting of Indian titles by agreement of 1826, +<a href="#page214">214</a>;<br> + Georgia repudiates the agreement, +<a href="#page214">214</a>;<br> + defiance of central Government, +<a href="#page214">214</a>, +<a href="#page215">215</a>;<br> + President refers matter to Congress, +<a href="#page215">215</a>;<br> + Congress fails to act, +<a href="#page215">215</a>;<br> + legislature extends criminal jurisdiction over Cherokees, +<a href="#page215">215</a>;<br> + Jackson's opinion of Georgia's position, +<a href="#page216">216</a>;<br> + obstinacy of the Cherokees, +<a href="#page216">216</a>;<br> + the question in Jackson's message of 1829, +<a href="#page216">216</a>, +<a href="#page217">217</a>;<br> + opinions of Indian titles, +<a href="#page217">217</a>;<br> + the solution in Georgia, +<a href="#page217">217</a>, +<a href="#page218">218</a>;<br> + legislature incorporates Cherokee lands in the Commonwealth, +<a href="#page218">218</a>;<br> + the Cherokee Nation case, +<a href="#page218">218</a>;<br> + the case of Worcester against Georgia, +<a href="#page218">218</a>, +<a href="#page219">219</a>;<br> + failure to execute decision, +<a href="#page219">219</a>, +<a href="#page220">220</a>;<br> + convention in, +<a href="#page375">375</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a>;<br> + Jackson's Georgians in Kansas, +<a href="#page438">438</a><br> +<br> +Ghent, treaty of, +<a href="#page9">9</a>, +<a href="#page26">26</a><br> +<br> +Giddings, Joshua Reed,<br> + denounces Fillmore and Webster, +<a href="#page369">369</a>;<br> + colloquy with Howe, +<a href="#page381">381</a>, +<a href="#page382">382</a><br> +<br> +Glascock, Thomas, attitude on procedure as to petitions, +<a href="#page259">259</a><br> +<br> +Goliad, atrocities, +<a href="#page293">293</a><br> +<br> +Gonzales, attacked, +<a href="#page293">293</a><br> +<br> +Gordon, William F.,<br> + proposal as to independent treasury, +<a href="#page285">285</a>;<br> + relation of parties to its rejection, +<a href="#page285">285</a><br> +<br> +Gorham, Benjamin,<br> + attitude to tariff bill of 1823, +<a href="#page111">111</a>;<br> + reply to McDuffie, +<a href="#page176">176</a><br> +<br> +Gorostiza, Manuel Eduardo de, leaves Washington, +<a href="#page299">299</a><br> +<br> +Granger, Francis, claim as to District of Columbia, +<a href="#page257">257</a><br> +<br> +Grasshopper Falls, Kansas, convention at, +<a href="#page464">464</a><br> +<br> +Great Britain,<br> + treaty of 1763, +<a href="#page21">21</a>, +<a href="#page23">23</a>;<br> + treaty of 1783, +<a href="#page22">22</a>;<br> + war of United States with, +<a href="#page24">24</a>;<br> + treaty of 1814, +<a href="#page26">26</a>;<br> + Nicholls's proposition to, +<a href="#page27">27</a>;<br> + Indian allies of, +<a href="#page29">29</a>;<br> + relations with United States as to slaves, +<a href="#page58">58</a>, +<a href="#page59">59</a>;<br> + claims in North Pacific, +<a href="#page123">123</a>;<br> + relation to Holy Alliance, +<a href="#page123">123</a>, +<a href="#page124">124</a>;<br> + proposal as to Holy Alliance, +<a href="#page125">125</a>;<br> + Canning's declaration, +<a href="#page125">125</a>;<br> + diplomatic relations, +<a href="#page287">287</a>;<br> + Ashburton Treaty, +<a href="#page303">303</a>;<br> + recognizes Texan independence, +<a href="#page304">304</a>;<br> + as mediator between Mexico and Texas, +<a href="#page304">304</a>;<br> + the London letter of British plans, +<a href="#page304">304</a>;<br> + claims to Oregon, +<a href="#page311">311</a>;<br> + Nootka Convention, +<a href="#page311">311</a>, +<a href="#page312">312</a>;<br> + effect of war with Spain, +<a href="#page312">312</a>;<br> + Treaty of Utrecht, +<a href="#page312">312</a>;<br> + claim of United States, +<a href="#page312">312</a>, +<a href="#page313">313</a>;<br> + treaty of 1818 with United States, +<a href="#page313">313</a>;<br> + effect of treaty of 1819 between United States and Spain, +<a href="#page313">313</a>;<br> + agreement of 1828 with United States, +<a href="#page314">314</a>;<br> + in Ashburton-Webster negotiations, +<a href="#page314">314</a>;<br> + ignorance as to Oregon, +<a href="#page314">314</a>, +<a href="#page315">315</a>;<br> + the work of Whitman, +<a href="#page315">315</a>, +<a href="#page316">316</a>;<br> + Democratic platform of 1844, +<a href="#page316">316</a>;<br> + negotiations as to Oregon, +<a href="#page321">321</a>;<br> + statement of negotiations in Polk's first message, +<a href="#page324">324</a>;<br> + his recommendations, +<a href="#page324">324</a>;<br> + action of Congress, April, 1846, +<a href="#page325">325</a>, +<a href="#page326">326</a>;<br> + treaty of June, 1846, +<a href="#page326">326</a>;<br> + possibility of holding California, +<a href="#page332">332</a>;<br> + result of treaty with, +<a href="#page339">339</a>;<br> + United States minister to, +<a href="#page408">408</a><br> +<br> +Great lakes, +<a href="#page325">325</a><br> +<br> +Greeley, Horace, views on election of 1844, +<a href="#page320">320</a><br> +<br> +Grimke, Thomas Smith, relation to nullification, +<a href="#page181">181</a><br> +<br> +Grinnell, Moses H., member of Emigrant Aid Society, +<a href="#page409">409</a><br> +<br> +Guadalupe Hidalgo, treaty of,<br> + terms, +<a href="#page336">336</a>;<br> + ratified by Senate, +<a href="#page339">339</a><br> +<br> +<br> +H<small>ALE</small>, E<small>DWARD</small> E<small>VERETT</small>, member of Emigrant Aid Society, +<a href="#page409">409</a><br> +<br> +Hale, John Parker,<br> + moves amendment to Oregon Bill, +<a href="#page344">344</a>;<br> + effect of his action, +<a href="#page345">345</a>;<br> + contention as to fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page371">371</a>;<br> + presents petitions for repeal of fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page375">375</a>;<br> + nominated for presidency, +<a href="#page377">377</a>;<br> + popular vote compared with Van Buren's in 1848, +<a href="#page377">377</a><br> +<br> +Hamilton, James,<br> + the Calhoun letter, +<a href="#page221">221</a>;<br> + calls special meeting of legislature, +<a href="#page221">221</a>;<br> + chairman of nullification convention, +<a href="#page221">221</a>;<br> + sends ordinance of nullification to legislature, +<a href="#page224">224</a><br> +<br> +Hamlet, James, arrest, +<a href="#page367">367</a><br> +<br> +Hamlin, Hannibal, presents petition in Senate, +<a href="#page370">370</a><br> +<br> +Hammond, James Hamilton,<br> + motion not to receive abolition petitions, +<a href="#page255">255</a>;<br> + wrangle over his two motions, +<a href="#page256">256</a><br> +<br> +Harrisburg, Penn., convention of 1824, +<a href="#page139">139</a><br> +<br> +Harrison, William Henry,<br> + voting, +<a href="#page73">73</a>;<br> + nominated for presidency, +<a href="#page286">286</a>;<br> + succeeded, on his death, by Tyler, +<a href="#page286">286</a><br> +<br> +Harvey, James Madison, commands column of "Free-state" force, +<a href="#page445">445</a><br> +<br> +Hayne, Robert Young,<br> + theory on tariff, +<a href="#page114">114</a>;<br> + view of slave labor, +<a href="#page161">161</a>;<br> + view repeated by McDuffie, +<a href="#page177">177</a>;<br> + Calhoun and the Webster debate, +<a href="#page179">179</a>;<br> + criticism of Clay's resolution on tariff, 187, and amendment of it, +<a href="#page188">188</a>;<br> + on Bank committee of Senate, +<a href="#page201">201</a>;<br> + his inaugural as governor of South Carolina, +<a href="#page224">224</a><br> +<br> +Hayti,<br> + its affairs mentioned by Salazar, +<a href="#page151">151</a>;<br> + consideration of its example in the United States, +<a href="#page152">152</a>;<br> + isolated, +<a href="#page154">154</a><br> +<br> +Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, cited on human purpose, +<a href="#page243">243</a>, +<a href="#page244">244</a><br> +<br> +Heister, William, presents abolition petition, +<a href="#page253">253</a><br> +<br> +Herrera, José Joaquin de,<br> + refuses to receive Slidell, +<a href="#page328">328</a>;<br> + gives way to Paredes, +<a href="#page328">328</a><br> +<br> +Hill, Isaac, in Bank trouble, +<a href="#page191">191</a><br> +<br> +Hillards, the, in Crafts case, +<a href="#page368">368</a><br> +<br> +Hillis Hajo, +<a href="#page32">32</a><br> +<br> +Himallemico, +<a href="#page32">32</a><br> +<br> +Holmes, John,<br> + voting, +<a href="#page73">73</a>;<br> + presents Maine petition for admission, +<a href="#page77">77</a>;<br> + reports bill, +<a href="#page77">77</a>;<br> + speech on Missouri, +<a href="#page80">80</a>, +<a href="#page81">81</a>;<br> + on conference committee, +<a href="#page88">88</a><br> +<br> +Holy Alliance,<br> + formation, +<a href="#page123">123</a>;<br> + relation to England, +<a href="#page124">124</a>;<br> + Congress of Verona, +<a href="#page124">124</a>;<br> + Canning's declaration to Polignac, +<a href="#page125">125</a>;<br> + the "Monroe Doctrine," +<a href="#page125">125-128</a>;<br> + relation to Spain's colonies, +<a href="#page153">153</a>, +<a href="#page154">154</a><br> +<br> +Holst, Hermann Edouard von,<br> + opinions reviewed, +<a href="#page27">27</a>;<br> + opinion of Jackson's veto message considered, +<a href="#page206">206</a>, +<a href="#page207">207</a><br> +<br> +Holyoke, Massachusetts, residence of Branscomb, +<a href="#page413">413</a><br> +<br> +Home Government [of England], as to baptism of slaves, +<a href="#page44">44</a><br> +<br> +Hopkinson, Joseph, committee service, +<a href="#page3">3</a><br> +<a name="house"></a> +<br> +House of Representatives, of the United States,<br> + action on Madison's message, +<a href="#page3">3</a>;<br> + Clay, Speaker of, +<a href="#page6">6</a>;<br> + passage of Bank bill, +<a href="#page7">7</a>, +<a href="#page8">8</a>;<br> + reference of tariff matters, +<a href="#page9">9</a>;<br> + debate on tariff, +<a href="#page10">10-12</a>;<br> + passage of tariff bill, +<a href="#page12">12</a>;<br> + debate on internal improvements, +<a href="#page13">13</a>, +<a href="#page14">14</a>;<br> + pay of members, +<a href="#page16">16</a>;<br> + passage of internal improvements bill, +<a href="#page18">18</a>;<br> + second passage of internal improvements bill, +<a href="#page18">18</a>;<br> + vote on censure of Jackson, +<a href="#page35">35</a>, +<a href="#page36">36</a>;<br> + representation in, +<a href="#page63">63</a>;<br> + petitions from Missouri, +<a href="#page66">66</a>;<br> + debate on the Tallmadge amendment, +<a href="#page66">66</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + passage of Tallmadge amendment and Missouri bill, +<a href="#page73">73</a>;<br> + disagreement with Senate, +<a href="#page74">74</a>;<br> + petition from Maine referred, +<a href="#page75">75</a>;<br> + Maine bill passed by House, +<a href="#page75">75</a>;<br> + Missouri bill and Taylor's amendment, +<a href="#page78">78-80</a>;<br> + Holmes's speech, +<a href="#page80">80</a>, +<a href="#page81">81</a>;<br> + McLane's speech, +<a href="#page81">81</a>, +<a href="#page82">82</a>;<br> + Pinkney's speech on powers of Congress, +<a href="#page84">84-87</a>;<br> + disagreement with Senate, +<a href="#page88">88</a>;<br> + conference committee, +<a href="#page88">88-89</a>;<br> + significance of the compromise, +<a href="#page90">90-95</a>;<br> + Missouri constitution considered, +<a href="#page95">95</a>, +<a href="#page96">96</a>;<br> + report of Lowndes, +<a href="#page96">96</a>;<br> + speech of Sergeant, +<a href="#page96">96</a>, +<a href="#page97">97</a>;<br> + consideration of the question, +<a href="#page97">97</a>, +<a href="#page98">98</a>;<br> + defeat of the Lowndes bill, +<a href="#page99">99</a>;<br> + tables Senate bill, +<a href="#page99">99</a>;<br> + Clay's proposals, +<a href="#page100">100</a>;<br> + report of committee of thirteen, +<a href="#page100">100</a>, +<a href="#page101">101</a>;<br> + defeat of the bill and amendment, +<a href="#page101">101</a>;<br> + second conference committee, +<a href="#page101">101</a>, +<a href="#page103">103</a>;<br> + plan to limit membership, +<a href="#page109">109</a>;<br> + reference of Monroe's recommendations, +<a href="#page110">110</a>;<br> + tariff bill of 1823, +<a href="#page110">110</a>, +<a href="#page111">111</a>;<br> + tariff bill of 1824, +<a href="#page112">112</a>;<br> + Clay's argument, +<a href="#page112">112</a>, +<a href="#page113">113</a>;<br> + replies to Clay, +<a href="#page113">113</a>, +<a href="#page114">114</a>;<br> + conclusion in conference committee, +<a href="#page114">114</a>, +<a href="#page115">115</a>;<br> + early votes on internal improvements, +<a href="#page117">117</a>;<br> + vote on internal improvements bill of 1822, +<a href="#page117">117</a>, +<a href="#page118">118</a>, +<a href="#page119">119</a>, +<a href="#page120">120</a>;<br> + Monroe's letter on internal improvements, +<a href="#page120">120</a>, +<a href="#page121">121</a>;<br> + vote on vetoed bill, +<a href="#page121">121</a>;<br> + Clay, Speaker of, +<a href="#page134">134</a>;<br> + election of President in, +<a href="#page140">140-142</a>;<br> + memorials on tariff, +<a href="#page158">158</a>;<br> + tariff bill passed, +<a href="#page159">159</a>;<br> + tariff bill reported, +<a href="#page160">160</a>;<br> + vote on tariff bill, +<a href="#page162">162</a>;<br> + vote on vetoed Maysville road bill, +<a href="#page168">168</a>;<br> + question as to reference of President's message, +<a href="#page172">172-174</a>;<br> + tariff bill before House, +<a href="#page174">174</a>, +<a href="#page175">175</a>;<br> + McDuffie's argument, +<a href="#page175">175</a>, +<a href="#page176">176</a>, +<a href="#page177">177</a>;<br> + reference of President's message, +<a href="#page184">184</a>, +<a href="#page185">185</a>;<br> + tariff bill before, +<a href="#page185">185</a>, +<a href="#page186">186</a>;<br> + tariff bill passed, +<a href="#page186">186</a>;<br> + refusal to concur with Senate, +<a href="#page188">188</a>;<br> + conference committee, +<a href="#page188">188</a>;<br> + report on the Bank, +<a href="#page198">198</a>;<br> + relation of members of constituencies, +<a href="#page200">200</a>;<br> + reports on Bank, +<a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> + bill for re-charter passed, +<a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> + Jackson on duty of members, +<a href="#page206">206</a>;<br> + early control of presidential elections, +<a href="#page208">208</a>;<br> + action on President's message, +<a href="#page231">231</a>, +<a href="#page232">232</a>;<br> + bill reported on President's powers, +<a href="#page235">235</a>;<br> + claim as to origin of tariff bills, +<a href="#page236">236</a>;<br> + passage of tariff bill and "Force Bill," +<a href="#page237">237</a>;<br> + abolition petitions in, +<a href="#page252">252</a>;<br> + report on petitions, +<a href="#page253">253</a>;<br> + more petitions referred, +<a href="#page253">253</a>;<br> + action on Dickson's motion, +<a href="#page254">254</a>;<br> + conflict over right of petition, +<a href="#page254">254</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + adoption of the Pinckney resolutions, +<a href="#page261">261</a>;<br> + further work of Adams and Slade, +<a href="#page262">262</a>;<br> + rule of January 8, 1840, +<a href="#page263">263</a>;<br> + Gordon's amendment in, +<a href="#page285">285</a>;<br> + resolutions as to recognition of Texan independence, +<a href="#page296">296</a>;<br> + contingent action as to Texan independence, +<a href="#page299">299</a>, +<a href="#page300">300</a>;<br> + effect of action, +<a href="#page300">300</a>;<br> + Wise's speech in, +<a href="#page302">302</a>;<br> + Tyler's message on Texan treaty, +<a href="#page309">309</a>;<br> + action on annexation of Texas, +<a href="#page321">321</a>, +<a href="#page322">322</a>;<br> + action on admission of Texas, +<a href="#page322">322</a>;<br> + concurrence with Senate's action on Texas, +<a href="#page323">323</a>;<br> + McKay's bill, +<a href="#page335">335</a>;<br> + the Wilmot proviso, +<a href="#page335">335</a>, +<a href="#page336">336</a>;<br> + Oregon bill in, +<a href="#page341">341</a>;<br> + action on Oregon bills, +<a href="#page343">343</a>;<br> + rejects Clayton bill, +<a href="#page347">347</a>;<br> + final agreement with Senate, +<a href="#page347">347</a>;<br> + action on erection of California and New Mexico, +<a href="#page349">349</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + completion of compromise measures, +<a href="#page363">363</a>, +<a href="#page364">364</a>;<br> + action on President's message, +<a href="#page369">369</a>;<br> + passage of finality resolutions, +<a href="#page375">375</a>;<br> + action on organization of Kansas and Nebraska, +<a href="#page381">381</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + contest for seat in, +<a href="#page432">432</a>;<br> + appointment of committee of investigation for Kansas affairs, +<a href="#page433">433</a>;<br> + memorials from Kansas, +<a href="#page433">433</a>;<br> + bill for admission of Kansas, +<a href="#page442">442</a>, +<a href="#page443">443</a>;<br> + action on Kansas, +<a href="#page470">470</a>.<br> + <i>See</i> <a href="#congress">Congress of the United States</a><br> +<br> +Houston, Samuel,<br> + leader of Texans, +<a href="#page293">293</a>;<br> + Benton's description, +<a href="#page293">293</a>, +<a href="#page294">294</a>;<br> + his early record, +<a href="#page294">294</a>;<br> + San Jacinto and the presidency of Texas, +<a href="#page294">294</a>;<br> + sends special envoy to Washington, +<a href="#page306">306</a>;<br> + promise of Murphy disavowed, +<a href="#page307">307</a>;<br> + changes vote, +<a href="#page347">347</a>;<br> + speech on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page393">393</a>;<br> + vote on Douglas's amendment, +<a href="#page393">393</a>;<br> + speech on the bill, +<a href="#page397">397</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +Houston, S. D., withdraws from Kansas Territorial legislature, +<a href="#page421">421</a><br> +<br> +Howard, William A., on committee for Kansas investigation, +<a href="#page433">433</a><br> +<br> +Howe, John W., discussion with Giddings, +<a href="#page381">381</a>, +<a href="#page382">382</a><br> +<br> +Hudson Bay Company,<br> + agents in Oregon, +<a href="#page314">314</a>;<br> + relation to policy of Great Britain, +<a href="#page314">314</a>;<br> + representations as to Oregon, +<a href="#page314">314</a>, +<a href="#page315">315</a><br> +<br> +Hunt, Memucan, proposes Texan annexation to Van Buren, +<a href="#page301">301</a><br> +<br> +Hutchinson, William, in "Free-state" directory of Kansas, +<a href="#page443">443</a><br> +<br> +<br> +I<small>BERVILLE</small> R<small>IVER</small>, the, +<a href="#page21">21</a>, +<a href="#page22">22</a><br> +<br> +Illinois, Commonwealth of,<br> + slavery forbidden, +<a href="#page62">62</a>, +<a href="#page63">63</a>;<br> + condition on erection, +<a href="#page68">68</a>, +<a href="#page69">69</a>, +<a href="#page71">71</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a>;<br> + as to Dred Scott case, +<a href="#page450">450</a><br> +<br> +Independent treasury,<br> + Van Buren's message of September 4, 1837, +<a href="#page284">284</a>, +<a href="#page285">285</a>;<br> + Gordon's proposal, +<a href="#page285">285</a>;<br> + attitude of the parties, +<a href="#page285">285</a>;<br> + Act of July 4, 1840, +<a href="#page285">285</a>;<br> + party contest over the bill, +<a href="#page285">285</a>, +<a href="#page286">286</a><br> +<br> +Indian Springs, Convention at, +<a href="#page212">212</a><br> +<br> +Indiana, Commonwealth of,<br> + slavery forbidden, +<a href="#page62">62</a>, +<a href="#page63">63</a>;<br> + condition on erection, +<a href="#page68">68</a>, +<a href="#page69">69</a>, +<a href="#page71">71</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +Indiana, Territory of,<br> + relation to slavery, +<a href="#page51">51</a>;<br> + jurisdiction over part of Louisiana Territory, +<a href="#page55">55</a><br> +<br> +Ingersoll, Joseph R.,<br> + claim as to District of Columbia, +<a href="#page257">257</a>;<br> + reports joint resolution on Texas, +<a href="#page321">321</a><br> +<br> +Ingham, Samuel D.,<br> + in debate, +<a href="#page10">10</a>;<br> + position upon tariff bill of 1827, +<a href="#page158">158</a>;<br> + as to Bank trouble, +<a href="#page191">191</a><br> +<br> +Internal improvements,<br> + bill presented, +<a href="#page14">14</a>;<br> + Calhoun's speech, +<a href="#page15">15</a>, +<a href="#page16">16</a>;<br> + bill passed, +<a href="#page16">16</a>;<br> + President's veto, +<a href="#page17">17</a>;<br> + Madison's earlier recommendations, +<a href="#page17">17</a>;<br> + failure to overcome veto, +<a href="#page18">18</a>;<br> + development in theory, +<a href="#page116">116-119</a>;<br> + the Act of 1806, +<a href="#page116">116</a>;<br> + Calhoun's bill of 1817 vetoed by Madison, +<a href="#page116">116</a>, +<a href="#page117">117</a>;<br> + analysis of vote, +<a href="#page117">117</a>, +<a href="#page118">118</a>;<br> + Cumberland road bill of 1822, +<a href="#page118">118</a>;<br> + analysis of vote, +<a href="#page118">118</a>, +<a href="#page119">119</a>;<br> + Taylor's position, +<a href="#page119">119</a>;<br> + attitude of East and West, +<a href="#page119">119</a>, +<a href="#page120">120</a>;<br> + Monroe's veto, 120, and message, +<a href="#page120">120</a>, +<a href="#page121">121</a>;<br> + vote on vetoed bill, +<a href="#page121">121</a>;<br> + Act of April, 1824, +<a href="#page122">122</a>;<br> + relation to foreign affairs, +<a href="#page122">122</a>;<br> + significance of the questions, +<a href="#page129">129</a>;<br> + Adams's first message, +<a href="#page155">155</a>;<br> + Van Buren's opposition, +<a href="#page155">155</a>;<br> + relation to political divisions, +<a href="#page156">156</a>;<br> + practical difficulties, +<a href="#page156">156</a>, +<a href="#page157">157</a>;<br> + Jackson's views in 1829, +<a href="#page167">167</a>;<br> + passage of Maysville road bill, +<a href="#page167">167</a>;<br> + the veto, +<a href="#page167">167</a>, +<a href="#page168">168</a>;<br> + vote on vetoed bill, +<a href="#page168">168</a>;<br> + analysis of vote, +<a href="#page168">168</a>;<br> + significance of veto, +<a href="#page169">169</a>;<br> + appropriations approved by Adams and Jackson, +<a href="#page169">169</a>;<br> + relation to private enterprise, +<a href="#page169">169</a>, +<a href="#page170">170</a>;<br> + relation to slavery, +<a href="#page170">170</a>;<br> + Jackson's message of December, 1830, +<a href="#page178">178</a>;<br> + Jackson's message of December, 1831, +<a href="#page184">184</a><br> +<br> +Iowa, Commonwealth of,<br> + admitted, +<a href="#page290">290</a>;<br> + memorial of legislature on finality resolutions, +<a href="#page375">375</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +<br> +J<small>ACKSON</small>, A<small>NDREW</small>,<br> + in Florida, +<a href="#page24">24</a>, +<a href="#page25">25</a>, +<a href="#page28">28</a>, +<a href="#page30">30</a>, +<a href="#page31">31</a>, +<a href="#page32">32</a>, +<a href="#page33">33</a>;<br> + attempt at censure, +<a href="#page34">34</a>, +<a href="#page35">35</a>, +<a href="#page36">36</a>;<br> + vindicated, +<a href="#page36">36</a>;<br> + Territorial governor of Florida, +<a href="#page38">38</a>;<br> + effect of Seminole War, +<a href="#page38">38</a>;<br> + qualifications as presidential candidate in 1824, +<a href="#page135">135</a>, +<a href="#page136">136</a>, +<a href="#page139">139</a>, +<a href="#page141">141</a>;<br> + electoral vote of 1824, +<a href="#page136">136</a>, +<a href="#page137">137</a>;<br> + the Coleman letter, +<a href="#page138">138</a>;<br> + opposition to Adams threatened, +<a href="#page142">142</a>, +<a href="#page143">143</a>, and begun, +<a href="#page144">144</a>, +<a href="#page146">146</a>;<br> + elected President, +<a href="#page163">163</a>, +<a href="#page164">164</a>;<br> + makes Van Buren secretary of state, +<a href="#page164">164</a>;<br> + vigorous foreign policy, +<a href="#page164">164</a>;<br> + first annual message, +<a href="#page166">166</a>, +<a href="#page167">167</a>;<br> + vetoes Maysville road bill, +<a href="#page167">167</a>, +<a href="#page168">168</a>;<br> + significance of the veto, +<a href="#page169">169</a>;<br> + appropriations approved by Adams and Jackson, +<a href="#page169">169</a>;<br> + message of December, 1829, as to tariff, +<a href="#page171">171</a>, +<a href="#page172">172</a>;<br> + its reference, +<a href="#page172">172</a>;<br> + message of December, 1830, +<a href="#page178">178</a>;<br> + message of December, 1831, +<a href="#page184">184</a>;<br> + message of December, 1829, +<a href="#page190">190</a>;<br> + later interpretations of his attack on Bank, +<a href="#page191">191</a>, +<a href="#page192">192</a>;<br> + relation to "relief party" in Kentucky, +<a href="#page196">196</a>;<br> + leader of Democratic party, +<a href="#page196">196</a>, +<a href="#page197">197</a>;<br> + attitude to Bank, +<a href="#page197">197</a>, +<a href="#page198">198</a>;<br> + his views opposed by committees, +<a href="#page198">198</a>;<br> + message of December, 1830, +<a href="#page198">198</a>, +<a href="#page199">199</a>;<br> + his message of December, 1831, +<a href="#page200">200</a>;<br> + puts the Bank question before the people, +<a href="#page200">200</a>;<br> + relation of Bank question to question of Jackson's election, +<a href="#page201">201</a>;<br> + effect of his veto of Bank bill, +<a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> + analysis of his message, +<a href="#page202">202-206</a>;<br> + opinion of von Holst on the veto message considered, +<a href="#page206">206</a>, +<a href="#page207">207</a>;<br> + the message interpreted, +<a href="#page206">206-209</a>;<br> + relation of Congress to his election as President, +<a href="#page207">207</a>;<br> + the people accept the principles of Jacksonian democracy, +<a href="#page209">209</a>;<br> + opinion of Georgia's claims, +<a href="#page216">216</a>;<br> + reply to Cherokees, +<a href="#page216">216</a>;<br> + message of December, 1829, +<a href="#page216">216</a>, +<a href="#page217">217</a>;<br> + different opinions of Indian titles, +<a href="#page217">217</a>;<br> + failure to execute decision of Supreme Court, +<a href="#page219">219</a>, +<a href="#page220">220</a>;<br> + view on South Carolina's opinion of tariff, +<a href="#page220">220</a>;<br> + supposition as to Cabinet intrigue of 1819, +<a href="#page220">220</a>;<br> + the Forsyth letter, +<a href="#page220">220</a>;<br> + hostility of Jackson and Calhoun, +<a href="#page220">220</a>, +<a href="#page221">221</a>;<br> + message of December, 1832, +<a href="#page228">228</a>;<br> + proclamation of December 10, 1832, +<a href="#page228">228-230</a>;<br> + active military preparations, +<a href="#page230">230</a>, +<a href="#page231">231</a>;<br> + instructions to collectors, +<a href="#page230">230</a>;<br> + instructions to Scott, +<a href="#page230">230</a>, +<a href="#page231">231</a>;<br> + popular approval of Jackson's course, +<a href="#page231">231</a>;<br> + attitude of Congress, +<a href="#page231">231</a>;<br> + Hayne's proclamation, +<a href="#page232">232</a>;<br> + Jackson's message of January, 1833, +<a href="#page232">232</a>;<br> + Bell's report on President's powers, +<a href="#page235">235</a>;<br> + signs Compromise Tariff, and "Force Bill," +<a href="#page238">238</a>;<br> + motive in course on nullification, +<a href="#page238">238</a>;<br> + significance of his doctrines, +<a href="#page239">239</a>, +<a href="#page240">240</a>;<br> + as to responsibility for Jacksonian principles, +<a href="#page240">240</a>;<br> + message of 1835 as to use of mails, +<a href="#page272">272</a>, +<a href="#page273">273</a>;<br> + decides to destroy the Bank, +<a href="#page279">279</a>;<br> + power of removal, +<a href="#page279">279</a>;<br> + removal of McLane and Duane, +<a href="#page280">280</a>;<br> + the work of Taney, +<a href="#page280">280</a>;<br> + consideration of the proper exercise of power, +<a href="#page280">280</a>;<br> + censured by Senate, +<a href="#page281">281</a>;<br> + Benton begins effort at removal of censure, +<a href="#page281">281</a>;<br> + his contest successful, +<a href="#page282">282</a>;<br> + tendency of government to his day, +<a href="#page282">282</a>;<br> + his successor, +<a href="#page284">284</a>;<br> + sends Morfit to Texas, +<a href="#page296">296</a>;<br> + message of December 21, 1836, on Texas, +<a href="#page298">298</a>;<br> + special message as to reprisals, +<a href="#page298">298</a>;<br> + authorizes Gaines to advance into Texas, +<a href="#page298">298</a>;<br> + orders Ellis to make demands on Mexico, +<a href="#page299">299</a>;<br> + satisfaction not given, +<a href="#page299">299</a>;<br> + special message of February 6, 1837, +<a href="#page299">299</a>;<br> + request for unusual powers not granted by Congress, +<a href="#page299">299</a>;<br> + recognizes Texas and her agent, +<a href="#page300">300</a>;<br> + ends diplomatic relations with Mexico, +<a href="#page301">301</a><br> +<br> +Jackson, William, presents abolition petition, +<a href="#page255">255</a><br> +<br> +Jackson, Zadock, repudiates sacking of Lawrence, +<a href="#page438">438</a><br> +<br> +Jalapa, captured by Scott, +<a href="#page333">333</a><br> +<br> +Jamestown, slaves introduced at, +<a href="#page40">40</a><br> +<br> +Janus, gates open, +<a href="#page260">260</a><br> +<br> +Jefferson, Thomas, +<a href="#page2">2</a>, +<a href="#page3">3</a>;<br> + relation to French philosophy, +<a href="#page129">129</a>;<br> + share of Congress in his election as President, +<a href="#page207">207</a>;<br> + principles restated by Calhoun, +<a href="#page239">239</a>;<br> + tendency of government from his day, +<a href="#page282">282</a>;<br> + sends out Lewis and Clark, +<a href="#page312">312</a>;<br> + view as to extent of Louisiana, +<a href="#page312">312</a><br> +<br> +Johnson, Robert Ward, position on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page393">393</a><br> +<br> +Johnson, William, relation to nullification, +<a href="#page181">181</a><br> +<br> +Johnson County, Kansas, contested election, +<a href="#page465">465</a><br> +<br> +Johnston, Josiah S., on bank committee of Senate, +<a href="#page201">201</a><br> +<br> +Jones, George Wallace, position on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page393">393</a><br> +<br> +Jones, John W., reply to Adams on right of petition, +<a href="#page257">257</a><br> +<br> +Jones, Samuel J.,<br> + as sheriff, arrests Branson, +<a href="#page428">428</a>;<br> + rescue of Branson, +<a href="#page428">428</a>;<br> + goes to Franklin and calls help from Missouri, +<a href="#page428">428</a>, +<a href="#page429">429</a>;<br> + his error recognized, +<a href="#page430">430</a>;<br> + serves writ on Wood, +<a href="#page433">433</a>;<br> + tries to arrest Tappan, +<a href="#page434">434</a>;<br> + attempt to assassinate, +<a href="#page434">434</a>;<br> + Donaldson's reference to the shooting, +<a href="#page436">436</a>;<br> + the sacking of Lawrence, +<a href="#page438">438</a><br> +<br> +<br> +K<small>ANSAS</small> C<small>ITY</small>, M<small>O</small>., +<a href="#page316">316</a>;<br> + Branscomb and Robinson at, +<a href="#page413">413</a>, +<a href="#page414">414</a><br> +<a name="kansas"></a> +<br> +Kansas, Territory of,<br> + bill for organization of, +<a href="#page389">389</a>;<br> + the abolition protest, +<a href="#page389">389</a>, +<a href="#page390">390</a>;<br> + reply of Douglas, +<a href="#page390">390</a>;<br> + amendment of Chase, +<a href="#page391">391</a>, +<a href="#page392">392</a>;<br> + position of Wade, +<a href="#page391">391</a>;<br> + amendment of Douglas, +<a href="#page392">392</a>;<br> + views of Everett, +<a href="#page392">392</a>, +<a href="#page393">393</a>;<br> + speech of Houston, +<a href="#page393">393</a>;<br> + position of Bell and the committee, +<a href="#page393">393</a>;<br> + vote on the amendment, +<a href="#page393">393</a>;<br> + Chase's amendment, +<a href="#page394">394</a>, +<a href="#page395">395</a>;<br> + Pratt's amendment, +<a href="#page394">394</a>;<br> + Walker's declaration and Badger's amendment, +<a href="#page395">395</a>;<br> + Chase's third amendment, +<a href="#page395">395</a>, +<a href="#page396">396</a>;<br> + Douglas's amendment, +<a href="#page395">395</a>, +<a href="#page396">396</a>;<br> + Chase's fourth amendment, +<a href="#page396">396</a>;<br> + speech of Bell against bill, +<a href="#page396">396</a>, +<a href="#page397">397</a>;<br> + speech of Houston, +<a href="#page397">397</a>;<br> + final argument of Douglas, +<a href="#page397">397</a>, +<a href="#page398">398</a>;<br> + vote on bill in Senate, +<a href="#page398">398</a>;<br> + analysis of vote, +<a href="#page398">398</a>, +<a href="#page399">399</a>;<br> + rise of popular opposition, +<a href="#page399">399</a>, +<a href="#page400">400</a>;<br> + the Richardson bill, +<a href="#page400">400</a>;<br> + the Senate bill in the House, +<a href="#page401">401</a>;<br> + position of Cushing, Davis, and Pierce, +<a href="#page401">401-403</a>;<br> + action in House, +<a href="#page403">403</a>;<br> + management of bill by Stephens, +<a href="#page404">404</a>;<br> + bill signed by President, +<a href="#page404">404</a>;<br> + analysis of vote, +<a href="#page404">404</a>, +<a href="#page405">405</a>;<br> + meaning of the vote, +<a href="#page405">405</a>, +<a href="#page406">406</a>;<br> + relation of Act to slavery, +<a href="#page407">407</a>, +<a href="#page408">408</a>;<br> + the struggle for Kansas, +<a href="#page407">407</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + the plan of Thayer and his associates, +<a href="#page409">409</a>;<br> + organization of the society, +<a href="#page409">409</a>, +<a href="#page410">410</a>;<br> + opposition, +<a href="#page410">410</a>;<br> + incorporation of the society, +<a href="#page410">410</a>, +<a href="#page411">411</a>;<br> + misrepresentations as to Emigrant Aid Company, +<a href="#page411">411</a>;<br> + considered as of the South, +<a href="#page412">412</a>;<br> + influence of Atchison, +<a href="#page412">412</a>, +<a href="#page413">413</a>;<br> + expedition of Robinson and Branscomb, +<a href="#page413">413</a>, +<a href="#page414">414</a>;<br> + "Platte County Self-defensive Association," +<a href="#page414">414</a>, +<a href="#page415">415</a>;<br> + the founding of Lawrence, +<a href="#page415">415</a>;<br> + trouble over contesting claimants, +<a href="#page415">415</a>, +<a href="#page416">416</a>;<br> + arrival of Governor Reeder, +<a href="#page416">416</a>;<br> + election of Whitfield, +<a href="#page417">417</a>;<br> + effect on Republican party of interference of Missourians in Kansas, +<a href="#page418">418</a>;<br> + significance of the seating of Whitfield, +<a href="#page418">418</a>;<br> + census of Kansas, +<a href="#page419">419</a>;<br> + interference of Missourians in election of first Territorial legislature, +<a href="#page419">419</a>, +<a href="#page420">420</a>;<br> + action on contested election cases, +<a href="#page420">420</a>;<br> + supplementary elections, +<a href="#page421">421</a>;<br> + first Territorial legislature, +<a href="#page421">421</a>;<br> + Robinson's plan for anti-slavery party, +<a href="#page421">421</a>, +<a href="#page422">422</a>;<br> + legislature meets at Pawnee, +<a href="#page422">422</a>;<br> + pro-slavery members seated, +<a href="#page422">422</a>, +<a href="#page423">423</a>;<br> + trouble over adjournment to Shawnee Mission, +<a href="#page423">423</a>;<br> + arrival of Sharpe's rifles, +<a href="#page423">423</a>;<br> + Lane's faction checked by Robinson's Lawrence speech, +<a href="#page423">423</a>, +<a href="#page424">424</a>;<br> + Robinson's declaration as to slavery, +<a href="#page424">424</a>;<br> + Conway's letter to Reeder, +<a href="#page424">424</a>;<br> + beginning of the "Free-state" movement, +<a href="#page424">424</a>;<br> + legislation upon slavery, +<a href="#page424">424</a>;<br> + its effect on the North, +<a href="#page424">424</a>, +<a href="#page425">425</a>;<br> + the Lawrence and Topeka conventions, +<a href="#page425">425</a>;<br> + the adoption of the Topeka constitution, +<a href="#page425">425</a>;<br> + removal of Governor Reeder, +<a href="#page425">425</a>;<br> + Woodson Acting-Governor, +<a href="#page425">425</a>;<br> + election of Reeder as Congressional delegate, +<a href="#page425">425</a>;<br> + election of Robinson as Governor, +<a href="#page425">425</a>;<br> + conflicts between "Free-state" and Territorial Governments, +<a href="#page426">426</a>;<br> + petition for admission and election of Senators by "Free-state" party, +<a href="#page426">426</a>, +<a href="#page427">427</a>;<br> + characterization of "Free-state" acts, +<a href="#page427">427</a>;<br> + Robinson's message to legislature, +<a href="#page427">427</a>;<br> + arrival of Governor Shannon, +<a href="#page427">427</a>;<br> + the Leavenworth convention, +<a href="#page428">428</a>;<br> + conflict between the two governments, +<a href="#page428">428</a>;<br> + the Branson rescue, +<a href="#page428">428</a>, +<a href="#page429">429</a>;<br> + invasion of Missourians, +<a href="#page429">429</a>;<br> + Lawrence committee meet Governor Shannon, +<a href="#page429">429</a>;<br> + Shannon goes to Lawrence, +<a href="#page430">430</a>;<br> + agreement of Shannon with citizens of Lawrence, +<a href="#page430">430</a>;<br> + Lane, Robinson, and Shannon at Franklin, +<a href="#page430">430</a>;<br> + Atchison and the withdrawal of the Missourians, +<a href="#page430">430</a>, +<a href="#page431">431</a>;<br> + appearance of John Brown, +<a href="#page431">431</a>;<br> + Shannon's report to President, +<a href="#page431">431</a>;<br> + appeal of leaders at Lawrence, +<a href="#page431">431</a>;<br> + the President's proclamation, +<a href="#page432">432</a>;<br> + attitude of "Free-state" party to proclamation, +<a href="#page432">432</a>;<br> + difficulty of the situation, +<a href="#page432">432</a>, +<a href="#page433">433</a>;<br> + organization under Topeka constitution, +<a href="#page432">432</a>;<br> + contest for seat in House of Representatives, +<a href="#page432">432</a>, +<a href="#page433">433</a>;<br> + House appoints committee of investigation, +<a href="#page433">433</a>;<br> + application for admission under Topeka constitution, +<a href="#page433">433</a>;<br> + work of Jones and attempt to assassinate him, +<a href="#page433">433</a>, +<a href="#page434">434</a>;<br> + the assault repudiated by the "Free-state" party, +<a href="#page434">434</a>;<br> + letters of Robinson and Sumner, +<a href="#page434">434</a>;<br> + Lecompte's charge to grand jury, +<a href="#page435">435</a>;<br> + the "treason indictments," +<a href="#page435">435</a>;<br> + Donaldson's proclamation, +<a href="#page435">435</a>, +<a href="#page436">436</a>;<br> + dealings of citizens of Lawrence with Shannon and Donaldson, +<a href="#page436">436</a>, +<a href="#page437">437</a>;<br> + the sacking of Lawrence, +<a href="#page438">438</a>;<br> + repudiation by Atchison and others, +<a href="#page438">438</a>;<br> + the "Crime against Kansas," +<a href="#page439">439</a>;<br> + the attack on Sumner, +<a href="#page439">439</a>, +<a href="#page440">440</a>;<br> + the Pottawattomie massacres, +<a href="#page440">440</a>;<br> + attitude of the Congressional committee, +<a href="#page440">440</a>;<br> + characterization of the massacre, +<a href="#page441">441</a>;<br> + denunciation by settlers, +<a href="#page441">441</a>;<br> + Brown and Pate at Black Jack, +<a href="#page441">441</a>;<br> + Shannon's proclamation and the work of the troops, +<a href="#page442">442</a>;<br> + effect of massacre on "Free-state" cause, +<a href="#page442">442</a>, +<a href="#page443">443</a>;<br> + committee report and bill in House, +<a href="#page442">442</a>, +<a href="#page443">443</a>;<br> + dispersal of legislature at Topeka, +<a href="#page443">443</a>;<br> + Smith succeeds Sumner, +<a href="#page443">443</a>;<br> + the Lawrence convention and the directory, +<a href="#page443">443</a>;<br> + "Free-state" military force organized and in conflict, +<a href="#page444">444</a>;<br> + capture of Titus, +<a href="#page444">444</a>;<br> + treaty of August 17, at Lawrence, +<a href="#page444">444</a>;<br> + resignation of Shannon, +<a href="#page444">444</a>;<br> + Woodson again Acting-Governor, +<a href="#page444">444</a>;<br> + proclamation of August 25, +<a href="#page444">444</a>;<br> + Missourians under Atchison in camp on Bull Creek, +<a href="#page445">445</a>;<br> + destruction of Ossawattomie, +<a href="#page445">445</a>;<br> + Smith's orders as to invaders, +<a href="#page445">445</a>;<br> + Lane leads in skirmish at Bull Creek, +<a href="#page445">445</a>;<br> + Woodson's order and Cooke's refusal to attack Topeka, +<a href="#page445">445</a>;<br> + failure of plan to attack Lecompton, +<a href="#page445">445</a>, +<a href="#page446">446</a>;<br> + active steps by President, +<a href="#page446">446</a>;<br> + actions of Geary, +<a href="#page446">446</a>;<br> + retirement of the Missourians, +<a href="#page446">446</a>, +<a href="#page447">447</a>;<br> + resignation of Geary, +<a href="#page446">446</a>;<br> + effect of events on presidential election, +<a href="#page447">447</a>;<br> + Buchanan's inaugural address, +<a href="#page447">447</a>, +<a href="#page448">448</a>;<br> + plan for convention at Lecompton, +<a href="#page461">461</a>;<br> + Walker and Stanton in charge, +<a href="#page461">461</a>;<br> + negotiations of Stanton with "Free-state" men, +<a href="#page461">461</a>, +<a href="#page462">462</a>;<br> + address by Walker, +<a href="#page462">462</a>;<br> + the party situation, +<a href="#page462">462</a>;<br> + the "Free-state" legislature, +<a href="#page462">462</a>;<br> + the "Free-state" mass-meeting, +<a href="#page463">463</a>;<br> + chances of the Topeka constitution, +<a href="#page463">463</a>;<br> + Robinson's plan to capture Territorial government, +<a href="#page463">463</a>;<br> + Wilson's advice, +<a href="#page463">463</a>;<br> + the Topeka mass-meeting, +<a href="#page464">464</a>;<br> + the Grasshopper Falls convention, +<a href="#page464">464</a>;<br> + census completed, +<a href="#page464">464</a>;<br> + Lecompton convention assembles, +<a href="#page464">464</a>;<br> + the election of October 5, +<a href="#page465">465</a>;<br> + contests in McGee and Johnson counties, +<a href="#page465">465</a>;<br> + Lane's conspiracy and its failure, +<a href="#page465">465</a>, +<a href="#page466">466</a>;<br> + mass-meeting and convention at Lecompton, +<a href="#page465">465</a>, +<a href="#page466">466</a>;<br> + the Lecompton constitution, +<a href="#page466">466</a>;<br> + "Free-state" demands on Stanton, +<a href="#page466">466</a>, +<a href="#page467">467</a>;<br> + constitution to be submitted in full, +<a href="#page467">467</a>;<br> + Stanton removed, +<a href="#page467">467</a>;<br> + Denver appointed Acting-Governor, +<a href="#page467">467</a>;<br> + Lecompton Constitution accepted in election of December 21, +<a href="#page467">467</a>;<br> + Lecompton Constitution rejected in election of January 4, 1858, +<a href="#page468">468</a>;<br> + "Free-state" men in control of three Governments in Kansas, +<a href="#page468">468</a>;<br> + Denver's report to the President, +<a href="#page468">468</a>, +<a href="#page469">469</a>;<br> + President submits Lecompton constitution to Congress, +<a href="#page469">469</a>;<br> + attitude of Douglas, +<a href="#page469">469</a>, +<a href="#page470">470</a>;<br> + Lecompton bill passed by Senate and rejected by House, +<a href="#page470">470</a>;<br> + the House proposal rejected, +<a href="#page470">470</a>;<br> + the English bill, +<a href="#page470">470</a>, +<a href="#page471">471</a>;<br> + the proposals rejected in Kansas, +<a href="#page471">471</a>;<br> + a fourth government erected, +<a href="#page471">471</a>;<br> + close of the struggle, +<a href="#page471">471</a>;<br> + characterization of the leaders, +<a href="#page471">471</a>, +<a href="#page472">472</a>;<br> + attitude of the general government, of Davis, and of Sumner, +<a href="#page472">472</a>, +<a href="#page473">473</a>;<br> + Act of 1854 the beginning of error, Missourians the beginners of wrong, +<a href="#page473">473</a>;<br> + characterization of John Brown's work, +<a href="#page473">473</a>, +<a href="#page474">474</a>;<br> + relation of events in Kansas to Civil War, +<a href="#page473">473</a>, +<a href="#page474">474</a>.<br> + <i>See</i> <a href="#nebraska">Nebraska, Territory of</a><br> +<br> +Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page343">343</a>, +<a href="#page456">456</a> (<i>see</i> +<a href="#kansas">Kansas, Territory of</a>; and +<a href="#nebraska">Nebraska, Territory of</a>);<br> + effect of the Dred Scott dictum, +<a href="#page460">460</a><br> +<br> +Kansas river, +<a href="#page66">66</a>, +<a href="#page414">414</a><br> +<br> +Kearny, Philip,<br> + ordered to occupy New Mexico, +<a href="#page331">331</a>;<br> + orders to Doniphan, +<a href="#page332">332</a>;<br> + occupies California, +<a href="#page332">332</a><br> +<br> +Kelly, ——, Editor of <i>Squatter Sovereign,</i> +<a href="#page411">411</a><br> +<br> +Kendall, Amos, instructions to New York postmaster, +<a href="#page271">271</a>, +<a href="#page272">272</a><br> +<br> +Kentucky,<br> + created Commonwealth with slavery, +<a href="#page50">50</a>, +<a href="#page62">62</a>, +<a href="#page63">63</a>;<br> + attitude to tariff of 1824, +<a href="#page115">115</a>;<br> + attitude to internal improvements bill of 1817, +<a href="#page118">118</a>;<br> + attitude to internal improvements bill of 1822, +<a href="#page119">119</a>;<br> + legislature nominates Clay for presidency, +<a href="#page136">136</a>;<br> + attitude toward tariff bill of 1827, +<a href="#page158">158</a>;<br> + relation to tariff of 1832, +<a href="#page188">188</a>;<br> + relief measures for debtors, +<a href="#page195">195</a>, +<a href="#page196">196</a>;<br> + electoral vote in 1844, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + views as to slave policy, +<a href="#page378">378</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +Kickapoo Rangers,<br> + organized, +<a href="#page426">426</a>;<br> + capture Captain Brown, +<a href="#page426">426</a><br> +<br> +King, Rufus, voting, +<a href="#page74">74</a><br> +<br> +King, William Rufus,<br> + states his creed on State sovereignty, +<a href="#page269">269</a>, +<a href="#page270">270</a>;<br> + on Committee of Thirteen, +<a href="#page360">360</a><br> +<br> +Kinsey, Charles, on conference committee, +<a href="#page88">88</a><br> +<br> +Know Nothing party, +<a href="#page418">418</a><br> +<br> +Kremer, George, charge against Adams and Clay, +<a href="#page141">141</a><br> +<br> +<br> +L<small>ACOCK</small>, A<small>BNER</small>, voting, +<a href="#page74">74</a><br> +<br> +Lake of the Woods, +<a href="#page312">312</a>, +<a href="#page313">313</a><br> +<br> +Lane, James S.,<br> + effort to organize Democratic party in Kansas, +<a href="#page423">423</a>;<br> + elected Senator by "Free-state" party, +<a href="#page426">426</a>;<br> + negotiations with Shannon, +<a href="#page430">430</a>;<br> + at Franklin, +<a href="#page430">430</a>;<br> + indictment against, +<a href="#page435">435</a>;<br> + as to service of indictment, +<a href="#page435">435</a>;<br> + in command of "Free-state" force, +<a href="#page435">435</a>;<br> + failure to arrive at Lecompton for attack, +<a href="#page445">445</a>, +<a href="#page446">446</a>;<br> + result of his prevarications, +<a href="#page463">463</a>;<br> + conspiracy against Lecompton convention, +<a href="#page465">465</a>;<br> + thwarted, +<a href="#page465">465</a>, +<a href="#page466">466</a><br> +<br> +Lawrence, Amos Adams,<br> + member of Emigrant Aid Society, +<a href="#page409">409</a>;<br> + his work, +<a href="#page411">411</a>;<br> + conference with Robinson, +<a href="#page413">413</a>;<br> + town named in honor of, +<a href="#page415">415</a><br> +<br> +Lawrence, Kansas,<br> + site occupied, +<a href="#page411">411</a>;<br> + town founded, +<a href="#page415">415</a>;<br> + quarrels as to claims, +<a href="#page415">415</a>, +<a href="#page416">416</a>;<br> + Robinson's speech of July 4, 1855, +<a href="#page423">423</a>;<br> + convention at, +<a href="#page425">425</a>;<br> + the Branson rescue, +<a href="#page428">428</a>;<br> + Missourians approach, +<a href="#page429">429</a>;<br> + committee sent to Shannon, +<a href="#page429">429</a>;<br> + Shannon goes to, +<a href="#page430">430</a>;<br> + agreement of citizens with Governor Shannon, +<a href="#page430">430</a>;<br> + appearance of John Brown, +<a href="#page431">431</a>;<br> + appeal of citizens to President, +<a href="#page431">431</a>;<br> + Jones serves writ on Wood, +<a href="#page433">433</a>;<br> + trouble with Tappan, +<a href="#page434">434</a>;<br> + attempt to assassinate Jones, +<a href="#page434">434</a>;<br> + communications of Robinson and Sumner as to assault on Jones, +<a href="#page434">434</a>;<br> + indictment against hotel and newspapers in, +<a href="#page435">435</a>;<br> + Donaldson's proclamation, +<a href="#page435">435</a>, +<a href="#page436">436</a>;<br> + dealings of citizens with Shannon and Donaldson, +<a href="#page436">436</a>, +<a href="#page437">437</a>;<br> + Donaldson's force approaches the town, +<a href="#page437">437</a>;<br> + sacking of the town, +<a href="#page438">438</a>;<br> + repudiation of the deed, +<a href="#page438">438</a>;<br> + effect of the sacking and of assault on Sumner, +<a href="#page440">440</a>;<br> + effect of sacking modified by Pottawattomie massacre, +<a href="#page442">442</a>;<br> + "Free-state" convention at, +<a href="#page443">443</a>;<br> + treaty of August 17, +<a href="#page444">444</a>;<br> + Geary at, +<a href="#page446">446</a>;<br> + Stanton at, +<a href="#page461">461</a>;<br> + Wilson meets Robinson at, +<a href="#page463">463</a>;<br> + "Free-state" forces ordered to meet at, +<a href="#page465">465</a><br> +<br> +Leavenworth, Kansas,<br> + "Free-state" company organized at, +<a href="#page426">426</a>;<br> + convention at, +<a href="#page428">428</a><br> +<br> +Lecompte, S. D., charge to grand jury of Douglas County, +<a href="#page435">435</a><br> +<br> +Lecompton, Kansas,<br> + the Branson rescue, +<a href="#page428">428</a>;<br> + citizens summoned to, by Donaldson, +<a href="#page435">435</a>;<br> + conflict at Fort Titus, +<a href="#page444">444</a>;<br> + failure of plan to attack Lecompton, +<a href="#page445">445</a>, +<a href="#page446">446</a>;<br> + Geary at, +<a href="#page446">446</a>;<br> + plan for convention at, +<a href="#page461">461</a>;<br> + as to work of convention, +<a href="#page463">463</a>;<br> + convention assembles at, +<a href="#page464">464</a>;<br> + Lane's conspiracy against convention at, +<a href="#page465">465</a>;<br> + "Free-state" mass-meeting at, +<a href="#page465">465</a>, +<a href="#page466">466</a>;<br> + constitution formed at, +<a href="#page466">466</a>;<br> + legislature meets at, +<a href="#page467">467</a>.<br> + <i>See</i> <a href="#kansas">Kansas</a><br> +<br> +Lewis, Meriwether,<br> + sent out by Jefferson, +<a href="#page312">312</a>;<br> + on the Columbia, +<a href="#page312">312</a><br> +<br> +Lewis, William B., +<a href="#page33">33</a>;<br> + the Coleman letter, +<a href="#page138">138</a><br> +<br> +Lexington, Kentucky, +<a href="#page167">167</a><br> +<br> +<i>Liberator, The,</i> publication begun, +<a href="#page251">251</a><br> +<br> +Liberties, Body of, +<a href="#page41">41</a><br> +<br> +Lincoln, Abraham, intimation as to official conduct of Taney, +<a href="#page456">456</a><br> +<br> +Loki, the, of Kansas, appears, +<a href="#page431">431</a><br> +<br> +London, +<a href="#page26">26</a>, +<a href="#page33">33</a><br> +<br> +London, Bishop of, as to baptism of slaves, +<a href="#page44">44</a><br> +<br> +Loring, Charles Greeley, in Sims case, +<a href="#page372">372</a><br> +<br> +Lorings, the, in Crafts case, +<a href="#page368">368</a><br> +<br> +Louisiana, Commonwealth of,<br> + erected, +<a href="#page56">56</a>;<br> + slavery in, +<a href="#page56">56</a>, +<a href="#page62">62</a>, +<a href="#page63">63</a>, +<a href="#page65">65</a>;<br> + condition on erection, +<a href="#page69">69</a>, +<a href="#page71">71</a>;<br> + relation to tariff of 1832, +<a href="#page188">188</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +Louisiana territory, +<a href="#page20">20</a>, +<a href="#page21">21</a>, +<a href="#page22">22</a>, +<a href="#page23">23</a>, +<a href="#page24">24</a>, +<a href="#page37">37</a>;<br> + added to public domain, +<a href="#page51">51</a>;<br> + slavery in, +<a href="#page54">54</a>, +<a href="#page55">55</a>, +<a href="#page56">56</a>, +<a href="#page57">57</a>;<br> + owned by France and Spain, +<a href="#page54">54</a>;<br> + ceded to United States, +<a href="#page55">55</a>;<br> + divided, +<a href="#page55">55</a>;<br> + early ownership and division, +<a href="#page65">65</a>;<br> + condition on cession to United States, +<a href="#page72">72</a>;<br> + motion of Thomas as to slavery, +<a href="#page84">84</a>;<br> + motion renewed, +<a href="#page87">87</a>;<br> + carried, +<a href="#page88">88</a>;<br> + conference report, +<a href="#page88">88</a>;<br> + relation to Missouri bill, +<a href="#page92">92</a>, +<a href="#page93">93</a>;<br> + ceded to France, and to United States, +<a href="#page312">312</a>;<br> + as to inclusion of Oregon, +<a href="#page312">312</a>;<br> + cession of 1803, +<a href="#page318">318</a>;<br> + effect of acquisition, +<a href="#page366">366</a>;<br> + act of 1820, +<a href="#page382">382</a>;<br> + as to the Douglas report on Nebraska, +<a href="#page384">384</a>;<br> + as to repeal of Acts of 1820, +<a href="#page391">391</a>;<br> + as to Dred Scott case, +<a href="#page450">450</a>, +<a href="#page452">452</a><br> +<br> +Louisiana, Territory of,<br> + organized, +<a href="#page56">56</a>;<br> + name changed, +<a href="#page56">56</a>.<br> + <i>See</i> <a href="#missouriterr">Missouri, Territory of</a><br> +<br> +Lovejoy, Owen, killed, +<a href="#page250">250</a><br> +<br> +Lowell, John, member of Emigrant Aid Society, +<a href="#page409">409</a><br> +<br> +Lowell, Massachusetts, meetings on fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page368">368</a><br> +<br> +Lower California, +<a href="#page337">337</a><br> +<br> +Lowndes, William,<br> + committee service, +<a href="#page9">9</a>;<br> + on conference committee, +<a href="#page88">88</a>;<br> + reports bill on Missouri, +<a href="#page95">95</a>, +<a href="#page96">96</a>;<br> + bill defeated, +<a href="#page99">99</a>;<br> + relation of family to nullification, +<a href="#page181">181</a><br> +<br> +Lundy, Benjamin, instigates abolition petition, +<a href="#page252">252</a><br> +<br> +<br> +M<small>C</small>C<small>ULLOCH</small> <i>vs.</i> Maryland [4 Wheaton, 316], +<a href="#page205">205</a><br> +<br> +McDuffie, George,<br> + opinion on slave labor, +<a href="#page161">161</a>;<br> + chairman ways and means committee, +<a href="#page172">172</a>;<br> + relation to Dr. Cooper, +<a href="#page173">173</a>;<br> + contention as to origin of tariff bills, +<a href="#page173">173</a>, +<a href="#page174">174</a>;<br> + reports a tariff bill, +<a href="#page174">174</a>;<br> + its terms and disposal, +<a href="#page174">174</a>;<br> + forms economic basis of nullification, +<a href="#page175">175</a>, +<a href="#page176">176</a>, +<a href="#page177">177</a>;<br> + opposition to tariff, +<a href="#page177">177</a>;<br> + amendment lost, +<a href="#page177">177</a>;<br> + as to bill of 1832, +<a href="#page185">185</a>;<br> + tariff bills in House, +<a href="#page186">186</a>;<br> + attitude to the Bank, +<a href="#page198">198</a>;<br> + makes minority report in support of Bank, +<a href="#page202">202</a><br> +<br> +McGee County, Kansas, contested election, +<a href="#page465">465</a><br> +<br> +McGregor, Gregor, +<a href="#page30">30</a><br> +<br> +McHenry, Jerry, rescue of, +<a href="#page373">373</a>, +<a href="#page374">374</a><br> +<br> +McKay, James J., introduces bill, +<a href="#page335">335</a><br> +<br> +McLane, Louis,<br> + speech on Missouri, +<a href="#page81">81</a>, +<a href="#page82">82</a>;<br> + removed from head of Treasury Department, +<a href="#page280">280</a><br> +<br> +McLean, John, voting, +<a href="#page73">73</a><br> +<br> +Macon, Nathaniel,<br> + committee service, +<a href="#page3">3</a>;<br> + position on Maine-Missouri bill, +<a href="#page83">83</a><br> +<br> +Madison, James,<br> + his message of 1815, +<a href="#page2">2</a>, +<a href="#page3">3</a>;<br> + vetoes internal improvements bill, +<a href="#page17">17</a>;<br> + earlier recommendations, +<a href="#page17">17</a>;<br> + relation to Republican party, +<a href="#page17">17</a>;<br> + relation to War of 1812, +<a href="#page17">17</a>;<br> + as to relation between slavery and protection, +<a href="#page109">109</a>;<br> + vetoes bill, 1817, for internal improvements, +<a href="#page116">116</a>, +<a href="#page117">117</a>;<br> + his views, +<a href="#page117">117</a><br> +<a name="mail"></a> +<br> +Mail, United States,<br> + effect of presence of abolition literature, +<a href="#page251">251</a>;<br> + use by abolitionists, +<a href="#page270">270</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + Charleston, South Carolina, post-office robbed, +<a href="#page271">271</a>;<br> + request of Charleston postmaster to New York postmaster, +<a href="#page271">271</a>;<br> + refusal to receive abolitionist documents in New York post-office, +<a href="#page271">271</a>;<br> + Kendall's instructions to the postmasters, +<a href="#page271">271</a>, +<a href="#page272">272</a>;<br> + the question in Jackson's message, +<a href="#page272">272</a>, +<a href="#page273">273</a>;<br> + Calhoun's report and bill, +<a href="#page273">273</a>, +<a href="#page274">274</a>;<br> + criticism by Clay, +<a href="#page274">274</a>;<br> + defeat of the bill, +<a href="#page274">274</a>;<br> + Act of July 2, 1836, +<a href="#page274">274</a>;<br> + significance of the contest, +<a href="#page274">274-277</a><br> +<br> +Maine, Commonwealth of,<br> + constitution formed, +<a href="#page76">76</a>;<br> + petition for admission, +<a href="#page77">77</a>;<br> + bill introduced and passed by House, +<a href="#page77">77</a>;<br> + bill in Senate, +<a href="#page82">82</a>;<br> + connection with Missouri bill, +<a href="#page82">82</a>, +<a href="#page83">83</a>, +<a href="#page87">87</a>;<br> + amended bill passed in Senate, +<a href="#page88">88</a>;<br> + House disagrees, +<a href="#page88">88</a>;<br> + conference committee report, +<a href="#page88">88</a>, +<a href="#page89">89</a>;<br> + bill approved by president, +<a href="#page89">89</a>;<br> + significance of the controversy, +<a href="#page88">88</a>, +<a href="#page90">90</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + attitude to tariff of 1824, +<a href="#page114">114</a>;<br> + attitude toward tariff of 1824, +<a href="#page115">115</a>;<br> + attitude toward tariff bill of 1827, +<a href="#page158">158</a>;<br> + in election of 1828, +<a href="#page164">164</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +Mallary, Daniel,<br> + reports tariff bill of 1827, +<a href="#page158">158</a>;<br> + opposes bill of 1828 as reported, +<a href="#page160">160</a>, +<a href="#page161">161</a><br> +<br> +Mangum, Willie Person,<br> + motion as to Clay's and Bell's resolutions, +<a href="#page360">360</a>;<br> + on Committee of Thirteen, +<a href="#page360">360</a><br> +<br> +Mann, Abijah, Jr., motion in House, +<a href="#page258">258</a><br> +<br> +Mann, Horace, opposition to fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page373">373</a><br> +<br> +Martin, Luther, letter to Maryland legislature, +<a href="#page49">49</a>, +<a href="#page50">50</a><br> +<br> +Maryland, Commonwealth of, +<a href="#page9">9</a>;<br> + legislation on slavery, +<a href="#page48">48</a>;<br> + Martin's letter to legislature, +<a href="#page49">49</a>, +<a href="#page50">50</a>;<br> + laws of, in District of Columbia, +<a href="#page51">51</a>;<br> + domestic slave trade, +<a href="#page57">57</a>, +<a href="#page58">58</a>;<br> + relation to Cumberland road, +<a href="#page116">116</a>;<br> + attitude to internal improvements bill of 1817, +<a href="#page118">118</a>;<br> + attitude to internal improvements bill of 1822, +<a href="#page119">119</a>, +<a href="#page120">120</a>;<br> + in election of 1828, +<a href="#page163">163</a>, +<a href="#page164">164</a>;<br> + tax on Bank of the United States, +<a href="#page194">194</a>;<br> + decision on the tax, +<a href="#page195">195</a>;<br> + relation to slavery in District of Columbia, +<a href="#page253">253</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +Mason, James Murray,<br> + reads Calhoun's speech, +<a href="#page358">358</a>;<br> + on Committee of Thirteen, +<a href="#page360">360</a><br> +<br> +Mason, Jeremiah, in Bank trouble, +<a href="#page191">191</a><br> +<br> +Mason, John Young,<br> + calls yeas and nays, +<a href="#page253">253</a>;<br> + yields to Adams, +<a href="#page253">253</a>;<br> + the Ostend manifesto, +<a href="#page408">408</a><br> +<br> +Mason, Jonathan, voting, +<a href="#page73">73</a><br> +<br> +Mason and Dixon's Line, +<a href="#page163">163</a><br> +<br> +Massachusetts, Commonwealth of, +<a href="#page13">13</a>;<br> + slavery recognized, +<a href="#page41">41</a>;<br> + slave laws, +<a href="#page46">46</a>;<br> + substantial abolition of slavery, +<a href="#page48">48</a>;<br> + separation of Maine, +<a href="#page76">76</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + as a type, +<a href="#page86">86</a>;<br> + as to citizenship law, +<a href="#page99">99</a>;<br> + attitude to tariff bill of 1823, +<a href="#page111">111</a>;<br> + and to that of 1824, +<a href="#page114">114</a>;<br> + attitude toward tariff of 1824, +<a href="#page115">115</a>;<br> + attitude toward tariff bill of 1827, +<a href="#page158">158</a>;<br> + abolition petition in House, +<a href="#page255">255</a>;<br> + laws on jails, +<a href="#page370">370</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a>;<br> + legislature grants charter to Thayer's society, +<a href="#page409">409</a><br> +<br> +Matamoras,<br> + concentration of Mexican troops at, +<a href="#page328">328</a>;<br> + approach of Taylor, +<a href="#page329">329</a>;<br> + occupied by Taylor, +<a href="#page331">331</a><br> +<br> +Maurepas, Lake, +<a href="#page21">21</a>, +<a href="#page23">23</a><br> +<br> +May, Samuel Joseph, the "Jerry rescue," +<a href="#page374">374</a><br> +<br> +Maysville road bill,<br> + passed, +<a href="#page167">167</a>;<br> + vetoed, +<a href="#page167">167</a>, +<a href="#page168">168</a>;<br> + vote on vetoed bill, +<a href="#page168">168</a>;<br> + analysis of vote, +<a href="#page168">168</a><br> +<br> +Mellen, Prentiss, position on Maine-Missouri bill, +<a href="#page83">83</a><br> +<a name="mexico"></a> +<br> +Mexico,<br> + as to Congress of Verona, +<a href="#page124">124</a>;<br> + treaty of 1825 with Colombia, +<a href="#page147">147</a>;<br> + revolts from Spain, +<a href="#page291">291</a>;<br> + the Austin grant, +<a href="#page291">291</a>;<br> + establishment of federal government, +<a href="#page291">291</a>;<br> + Bustamente's decree on immigration, +<a href="#page291">291</a>;<br> + refuses to sell any Texan territory, +<a href="#page292">292</a>;<br> + overthrow of federal government, +<a href="#page292">292</a>;<br> + possibility of complications with, +<a href="#page296">296</a>;<br> + minister leaves Washington, +<a href="#page298">298</a>, +<a href="#page299">299</a>;<br> + demand by Ellis, +<a href="#page299">299</a>;<br> + full satisfaction refused, +<a href="#page299">299</a>;<br> + impossibility of regaining Texas, +<a href="#page300">300</a>;<br> + diplomatic relations with United States resumed, +<a href="#page301">301</a>;<br> + the claims commission, +<a href="#page301">301</a>, +<a href="#page302">302</a>;<br> + Great Britain as mediator between Mexico and Texas, +<a href="#page304">304</a>;<br> + threatens war on United States, +<a href="#page305">305</a>;<br> + claims Texans are still rebels, +<a href="#page305">305</a>;<br> + Benton's criticism of the Texas treaty, +<a href="#page308">308</a>;<br> + relation of war to election of Polk, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + threatens war, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + Tyler's message of 1844, +<a href="#page320">320</a>, +<a href="#page321">321</a>;<br> + makes annexation of Mexico a casus belli, +<a href="#page327">327</a>;<br> + envoy leaves Washington, +<a href="#page327">327</a>;<br> + Slidell's mission, +<a href="#page327">327</a>, +<a href="#page328">328</a>;<br> + governments of Herrera and Paredes, +<a href="#page328">328</a>;<br> + gathering of forces at Matamoras, +<a href="#page328">328</a>;<br> + position of Mexico with reference to Texan boundary, +<a href="#page328">328</a>;<br> + war with United States, +<a href="#page329">329-334</a>;<br> + title between Nueces and Rio Grande, +<a href="#page330">330</a>, +<a href="#page331">331</a>;<br> + persistence of the Government, +<a href="#page332">332</a>;<br> + Santa Anna again in control, +<a href="#page332">332</a>;<br> + Polk's message of August 6, 1846, +<a href="#page334">334</a>, +<a href="#page335">335</a>;<br> + McKay's bill and the Wilmot proviso, +<a href="#page335">335-337</a>;<br> + Polk's message of December, 1846, +<a href="#page335">335</a>;<br> + the First embassy, +<a href="#page337">337</a>;<br> + rejection of proposals, +<a href="#page337">337</a>;<br> + the Mexican offer, +<a href="#page337">337</a>;<br> + war resumed, +<a href="#page337">337</a>, +<a href="#page338">338</a>;<br> + treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, +<a href="#page338">338</a>;<br> + result of treaty with, +<a href="#page339">339</a>;<br> + proposal as to Mexican acquisitions, +<a href="#page341">341</a>, +<a href="#page342">342</a>, +<a href="#page349">349</a>, +<a href="#page350">350</a>;<br> + views of Berrien and Webster as to slavery in Mexican acquisitions, +<a href="#page351">351</a>, +<a href="#page352">352</a>;<br> + Foote's bill, +<a href="#page354">354</a>;<br> + problem of Texan boundary, +<a href="#page354">354</a>, +<a href="#page355">355</a>;<br> + Clay's plan, +<a href="#page356">356</a>;<br> + opposition of Southerners, +<a href="#page356">356</a>;<br> + attitude of abolitionists, +<a href="#page357">357</a>;<br> + relation of Mexican acquisition to slavery, +<a href="#page408">408</a><br> +<br> +Mexico, City of, captured, +<a href="#page338">338</a><br> +<br> +Mexico, Gulf of, +<a href="#page20">20</a>, +<a href="#page21">21</a>, +<a href="#page297">297</a>, +<a href="#page307">307</a>, +<a href="#page337">337</a>, +<a href="#page363">363</a><br> +<br> +Michigan, Commonwealth of, +<a href="#page290">290</a>;<br> + electoral vote in 1844, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a>;<br> + early Republican party in, +<a href="#page418">418</a><br> +<br> +Mississippi, Commonwealth of,<br> + created with slavery, +<a href="#page62">62</a>, +<a href="#page63">63</a>;<br> + legislature calls Nashville convention, +<a href="#page375">375</a>;<br> + convention in, +<a href="#page375">375</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +Mississippi River, the, +<a href="#page21">21</a>, +<a href="#page22">22</a>, +<a href="#page38">38</a>, +<a href="#page66">66</a>, +<a href="#page78">78</a>, +<a href="#page290">290</a>, +<a href="#page381">381</a><br> +<br> +Missouri, Commonwealth of, +<a href="#page33">33</a>;<br> + creation, +<a href="#page61">61-107</a>;<br> + significance of the circumstance, +<a href="#page65">65</a>;<br> + petition for erection, +<a href="#page66">66</a>;<br> + memorial for erection, +<a href="#page66">66</a>;<br> + the Tallmadge amendment, +<a href="#page66">66-73</a>;<br> + bill for erection passed by House, +<a href="#page73">73</a>;<br> + bill passes Senate without Tallmadge amendment, +<a href="#page74">74</a>;<br> + disagreement, +<a href="#page74">74</a>;<br> + question again presented, +<a href="#page74">74</a>, +<a href="#page75">75</a>;<br> + Taylor's plan, +<a href="#page75">75</a>, +<a href="#page76">76</a>, +<a href="#page78">78</a>;<br> + Storrs's plan, +<a href="#page78">78</a>;<br> + Taylor's motion and argument on it, +<a href="#page78">78</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + Holmes's speech, +<a href="#page80">80</a>, +<a href="#page81">81</a>;<br> + McLane's speech, +<a href="#page81">81</a>, +<a href="#page82">82</a>;<br> + memorial for admission referred, +<a href="#page82">82</a>;<br> + connection with Maine bill, +<a href="#page82">82</a>, +<a href="#page83">83</a>, +<a href="#page87">87</a>;<br> + argument of Pinkney, +<a href="#page84">84-86</a>;<br> + motion of Thomas, +<a href="#page84">84</a>, +<a href="#page87">87</a>, +<a href="#page88">88</a>;<br> + amended bill carried in Senate, +<a href="#page88">88</a>;<br> + House disagrees, +<a href="#page88">88</a>;<br> + agreement of conference committee, +<a href="#page88">88</a>, +<a href="#page89">89</a>;<br> + report accepted, +<a href="#page89">89</a>;<br> + bill signed by President, +<a href="#page89">89</a>;<br> + consideration of the results, +<a href="#page90">90-95</a>;<br> + proposed constitution before Congress, +<a href="#page95">95</a>;<br> + the Lowndes bill, +<a href="#page95">95</a>, +<a href="#page96">96</a>;<br> + opposition of Sergeant, +<a href="#page96">96</a>, +<a href="#page97">97</a>;<br> + consideration of the situation, +<a href="#page97">97</a>, +<a href="#page98">98</a>, +<a href="#page99">99</a>;<br> + defeat of Lowndes bill, +<a href="#page99">99</a>;<br> + Smith bill passes Senate, +<a href="#page99">99</a>;<br> + tabled by House, +<a href="#page99">99</a>;<br> + efforts of Eustis, +<a href="#page100">100</a>;<br> + Clay's plan, +<a href="#page100">100</a>;<br> + report of Committee of Thirteen, +<a href="#page100">100</a>, +<a href="#page101">101</a>;<br> + plan defeated, +<a href="#page101">101</a>;<br> + opposition of Tomlinson, +<a href="#page101">101</a>;<br> + conference committee and its report, +<a href="#page101">101</a>, +<a href="#page102">102</a>;<br> + report attached, +<a href="#page102">102</a>;<br> + resolution passed, +<a href="#page102">102</a>, +<a href="#page103">103</a>;<br> + effects of the compromise, +<a href="#page103">103-107</a>;<br> + decision brings slavery into national politics, +<a href="#page108">108</a>;<br> + attitude toward tariff of 1824, +<a href="#page115">115</a>;<br> + attitude toward tariff bill of 1827, +<a href="#page158">158</a>;<br> + relation to tariff of 1832, +<a href="#page188">188</a>;<br> + admitted as Commonwealth, +<a href="#page289">289</a>;<br> + line of compromise in Burt's amendment, +<a href="#page341">341</a>, and in Douglas's amendment, +<a href="#page347">347</a>;<br> + the compromise in connection with the Oregon bill, +<a href="#page348">348</a>;<br> + views as to slavery policy, +<a href="#page378">378</a>;<br> + bill to organize territory west of, +<a href="#page381">381</a>;<br> + Atchison's objection to such organization, +<a href="#page382">382</a>;<br> + Dixon and the repeal of the Compromise, +<a href="#page387">387</a>, +<a href="#page388">388</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a>;<br> + misrepresentations as to Emigrant Aid Company, +<a href="#page411">411</a>;<br> + the "border ruffians," +<a href="#page411">411</a>, +<a href="#page412">412</a>;<br> + attitude to slavery in Kansas, +<a href="#page412">412</a>;<br> + influence of Atchison, +<a href="#page412">412</a>, +<a href="#page413">413</a>;<br> + "Platte County Self-defensive Association," +<a href="#page414">414</a>, +<a href="#page415">415</a>;<br> + claimants to site of Lawrence, Kansas, +<a href="#page415">415</a>, +<a href="#page416">416</a>;<br> + interference in election of Whitfield in Kansas, +<a href="#page416">416</a>, +<a href="#page417">417</a>;<br> + relation of Missouri Compromise and Republican party, +<a href="#page417">417</a>, +<a href="#page418">418</a>;<br> + effect on Republican party of Missourian interference in Kansas, +<a href="#page418">418</a>;<br> + organization in "Blue Lodges," +<a href="#page419">419</a>;<br> + interference in Kansas Territorial election, +<a href="#page419">419</a>, +<a href="#page420">420</a>;<br> + Kansas legislature at Shawnee Mission, +<a href="#page423">423</a>;<br> + Robinson's declaration as to slavery in, +<a href="#page424">424</a>;<br> + Missourians summoned by Sheriff Jones, +<a href="#page429">429</a>;<br> + Missourians on the Wakarusa, +<a href="#page429">429</a>;<br> + attitude of Shannon toward Missourians, +<a href="#page430">430</a>;<br> + influenced by Atchison to withdraw, +<a href="#page430">430</a>, +<a href="#page431">431</a>;<br> + claims of intended invasion, +<a href="#page431">431</a>, +<a href="#page432">432</a>;<br> + preparation for further invasion, +<a href="#page435">435</a>, +<a href="#page436">436</a>;<br> + volunteers under Pate, +<a href="#page441">441</a>;<br> + dispersal of volunteers under Whitfield in Kansas, +<a href="#page441">441</a>, +<a href="#page442">442</a>;<br> + import of Woodson's accession to power, +<a href="#page444">444</a>;<br> + Missourians on Bull Creek and at Ossawattomie, +<a href="#page445">445</a>;<br> + new invasion of Kansas, +<a href="#page446">446</a>;<br> + forced to retire by United States troops, +<a href="#page446">446</a>, +<a href="#page447">447</a>;<br> + as to Dred Scott case, +<a href="#page450">450-452</a>;<br> + decision of Supreme Court of Missouri, +<a href="#page451">451</a>;<br> + the Missourians the beginners of wrong, +<a href="#page473">473</a><br> +<a name="missouriterr"></a> +<br> +Missouri, Territory of,<br> + organized, +<a href="#page56">56</a>;<br> + slavery in, +<a href="#page56">56</a>, +<a href="#page65">65</a><br> +<br> +Missouri River, the, +<a href="#page66">66</a>, +<a href="#page414">414</a><br> +<br> +Mitchell, David B., +<a href="#page28">28</a>, +<a href="#page29">29</a><br> +<br> +Mobile, cession of river and port of, +<a href="#page21">21</a><br> +<br> +Mohawk and Hudson railroad, begun, +<a href="#page169">169</a><br> +<br> +Molino del Rey, battle of, +<a href="#page338">338</a><br> +<br> +Monroe, James,<br> + relation to Jackson, +<a href="#page31">31</a>, +<a href="#page34">34</a>, +<a href="#page35">35</a>;<br> + as to relation between protection and slavery, +<a href="#page110">110</a>;<br> + messages of 1821 and 1822, +<a href="#page110">110</a>;<br> + message of 1823, +<a href="#page111">111</a>;<br> + veto of 1822, +<a href="#page120">120</a>;<br> + message on internal improvements, +<a href="#page120">120</a>, +<a href="#page121">121</a>, +<a href="#page156">156</a>;<br> + message of December, 1823, +<a href="#page125">125-128</a>;<br> + electoral vote of 1820, +<a href="#page129">129</a>;<br> + interpretation of message of 1823 by Spanish-Americans, +<a href="#page146">146</a>, +<a href="#page147">147</a>, +<a href="#page149">149</a>;<br> + cabinet intrigue against Jackson, +<a href="#page220">220</a><br> +<br> +"Monroe Doctrine," the, +<a href="#page125">125-128</a>, +<a href="#page146">146</a><br> +<br> +Monterey,<br> + captured by Taylor, +<a href="#page331">331</a>, +<a href="#page332">332</a>;<br> + Doniphan sent to, +<a href="#page332">332</a><br> +<br> +Monterey, California, convention at, +<a href="#page343">343</a><br> +<br> +Moors, +<a href="#page45">45</a><br> +<br> +Morfit, Henry M.,<br> + agent to Texas, +<a href="#page296">296</a>;<br> + report to Forsyth, +<a href="#page296">296</a>, +<a href="#page297">297</a><br> +<br> +Murphy, W. S.,<br> + letter from Upshur, +<a href="#page304">304</a>;<br> + assurance to Texas of protection, +<a href="#page306">306</a>;<br> + promise to Houston disavowed, +<a href="#page307">307</a><br> +<br> +<br> +N<small>APOLEON</small>. <i>See</i> +<a href="#bonaparte">Bonaparte</a><br> +<br> +Napoleonic decrees, +<a href="#page54">54</a><br> +<br> +Nashville convention, +<a href="#page375">375</a><br> +<br> +National Assembly of France, +<a href="#page54">54</a><br> +<br> +<i>National Era,</i> the,<br> + protest against Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page389">389</a>;<br> + effect of the address, +<a href="#page400">400</a><br> +<br> +<i>National Intelligencer,</i> letter of Clay, +<a href="#page319">319</a>, +<a href="#page320">320</a><br> +<br> +National Republican party,<br> + the origin, +<a href="#page104">104</a>;<br> + circumstance of appearance, +<a href="#page146">146</a>;<br> + party nomenclature, +<a href="#page162">162</a>, +<a href="#page163">163</a>;<br> + insists on taking the Bank as a campaign issue, +<a href="#page200">200</a>, +<a href="#page201">201</a>;<br> + nominates Clay for presidency, +<a href="#page201">201</a>;<br> + feeling toward Jackson, +<a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> + its defeat in 1832, +<a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> + basis of party action, +<a href="#page278">278</a>, +<a href="#page279">279</a>;<br> + known as Whig party, +<a href="#page281">281</a>, +<a href="#page282">282</a>. <i>See</i> +<a href="#whig">Whig Party</a><br> +<br> +Navy of the United States, legislation upon, +<a href="#page13">13</a>, +<a href="#page14">14</a><br> +<a name="nebraska"></a> +<br> +Nebraska, Territory of,<br> + bill for organization passed by House, +<a href="#page381">381</a>;<br> + the Howe-Giddings colloquy, +<a href="#page381">381</a>, +<a href="#page382">382</a>;<br> + speech of Atchison, +<a href="#page382">382</a>;<br> + bill introduced by Dodge, +<a href="#page382">382</a>;<br> + bill and report by Douglas, +<a href="#page382">382</a>, +<a href="#page383">383</a>;<br> + consideration of the report and its author, +<a href="#page383">383-387</a>;<br> + dictum of the committee, +<a href="#page387">387</a>;<br> + Dixon's proposal, +<a href="#page387">387</a>;<br> + Seward and Dixon, +<a href="#page387">387</a>, +<a href="#page388">388</a>;<br> + new bill presented by Douglas, +<a href="#page389">389</a>;<br> + abolition protest in <i>National Era,</i> +<a href="#page389">389</a>;<br> + reply of Douglas, +<a href="#page390">390</a>;<br> + amendment of Chase, +<a href="#page391">391</a>;<br> + position of Wade, +<a href="#page391">391</a>;<br> + amendment of Douglas, +<a href="#page392">392</a>;<br> + views of Everett, +<a href="#page392">392</a>, +<a href="#page393">393</a>;<br> + Houston's speech, +<a href="#page393">393</a>;<br> + position of Bell and committee, +<a href="#page393">393</a>;<br> + vote on amendment, +<a href="#page393">393</a>;<br> + Chase's amendment, +<a href="#page394">394</a>, +<a href="#page395">395</a>;<br> + contention of Badger and Pratt, +<a href="#page394">394</a>;<br> + declaration of Walker and Badger's amendment, +<a href="#page395">395</a>;<br> + Chase's third amendment, +<a href="#page395">395</a>, +<a href="#page396">396</a>;<br> + Douglas's amendment, +<a href="#page395">395</a>, +<a href="#page396">396</a>;<br> + Chase's fourth amendment, +<a href="#page396">396</a>;<br> + speech of Bell against bill, +<a href="#page396">396</a>, +<a href="#page397">397</a>;<br> + speech of Houston, +<a href="#page397">397</a>;<br> + final argument of Douglas, +<a href="#page397">397</a>, +<a href="#page398">398</a>;<br> + vote in Senate on bill, +<a href="#page398">398</a>;<br> + analysis of vote, +<a href="#page398">398</a>, +<a href="#page399">399</a>;<br> + rise of popular opposition, +<a href="#page399">399</a>, +<a href="#page400">400</a>;<br> + the Richardson bill, +<a href="#page400">400</a>;<br> + Senate bill in House, +<a href="#page400">400</a>;<br> + position of Cushing, Davis, and Pierce, +<a href="#page401">401-403</a>;<br> + actions in House, +<a href="#page403">403</a>;<br> + management of bill by Stephens, +<a href="#page404">404</a>;<br> + bill signed by President, +<a href="#page404">404</a>;<br> + analysis of vote, +<a href="#page404">404</a>, +<a href="#page405">405</a>;<br> + meaning of the vote, +<a href="#page405">405</a>, +<a href="#page406">406</a>;<br> + relation of Act to slavery, +<a href="#page407">407</a>, +<a href="#page408">408</a>;<br> + considered as of North, +<a href="#page412">412</a>;<br> + immigrants to Kansas through, +<a href="#page445">445</a>;<br> + the Act of 1854 the beginning of error, +<a href="#page473">473</a><br> +<br> +Negro Fort, +<a href="#page28">28</a>, +<a href="#page29">29</a><br> +<br> +Negro labor, adapted to the South, +<a href="#page42">42</a><br> +<br> +Negro slavery. <i>See</i> +<a href="#slavery">Slavery</a><br> +<br> +Nelson, Samuel, position on Dred Scott case, +<a href="#page452">452</a><br> +<br> +Nelson, John, Secretary of State,<br> + disavows Murphy's promise to Houston, +<a href="#page307">307</a>;<br> + relation to Texas question, +<a href="#page307">307</a><br> +<br> +New England, +<a href="#page7">7</a>, +<a href="#page59">59</a>;<br> + opposed to internal improvements bill of 1817, +<a href="#page117">117</a>;<br> + attitude to improvements bill of 1822, +<a href="#page119">119</a>;<br> + attitude upon Maysville road bill, +<a href="#page168">168</a>;<br> + votes as to Pinckney resolution, +<a href="#page263">263</a><br> +<br> +New England Anti-Slavery Society, formed, +<a href="#page251">251</a><br> +<br> +New Hampshire, Commonwealth of,<br> + legislation on slavery, +<a href="#page48">48</a>;<br> + attitude toward tariff of 1824, +<a href="#page115">115</a>;<br> + in election of 1824, +<a href="#page142">142</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +New Jersey, Commonwealth of,<br> + legislation on slavery, +<a href="#page48">48</a>;<br> + attitude on Maysville road bill, +<a href="#page168">168</a>;<br> + legislative memorial on finality resolutions, +<a href="#page375">375</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +New Mexico,<br> + Kearny ordered to occupy, +<a href="#page331">331</a>;<br> + importance of Buena Vista, +<a href="#page333">333</a>;<br> + about to be transferred, +<a href="#page334">334</a>;<br> + acquisition in view, +<a href="#page337">337</a>;<br> + in negotiations, +<a href="#page337">337</a>;<br> + treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, +<a href="#page338">338</a>;<br> + Polk's message of July 6, 1848, +<a href="#page345">345</a>, +<a href="#page346">346</a>;<br> + motions of Bright and Clayton, +<a href="#page346">346</a>;<br> + the Clayton bill, +<a href="#page346">346</a>, +<a href="#page347">347</a>;<br> + Polk's message of December, 1848, +<a href="#page348">348</a>;<br> + Douglas's bill, +<a href="#page349">349</a>;<br> + Smith's bill, +<a href="#page349">349</a>;<br> + Berrien's report, +<a href="#page349">349</a>, +<a href="#page350">350</a>;<br> + new bill by Douglas, +<a href="#page350">350</a>;<br> + motion of Walker, +<a href="#page350">350</a>, +<a href="#page351">351</a>;<br> + failure of Congress to act, +<a href="#page352">352</a>;<br> + Taylor's message of December 4, 1849, +<a href="#page354">354</a>;<br> + Foote's bill, +<a href="#page354">354</a>, as to question of Texan frontier, +<a href="#page355">355</a>, Clay's plan, +<a href="#page355">355</a>, +<a href="#page356">356</a>;<br> + Webster's Seventh of March Speech, +<a href="#page359">359</a>;<br> + Bell's propositions, +<a href="#page359">359</a>, +<a href="#page360">360</a>;<br> + report from committee on Territories, +<a href="#page360">360</a>;<br> + Committee of Thirteen, +<a href="#page360">360</a>;<br> + Clay's report, +<a href="#page360">360</a>, +<a href="#page361">361</a>;<br> + encroachments of Bell, +<a href="#page362">362</a>, +<a href="#page363">363</a>;<br> + passage of bill for territorial organization, +<a href="#page363">363</a>, +<a href="#page364">364</a>;<br> + as to the Douglas report on Nebraska, +<a href="#page384">384</a>;<br> + Chase on Act of 1850, +<a href="#page391">391</a><br> +<br> +New York, Commonwealth of,<br> + legislation on slavery, +<a href="#page48">48</a>;<br> + attitude to internal improvements bill of 1817, +<a href="#page118">118</a>;<br> + attitude to internal improvements bill of 1822, +<a href="#page119">119</a>;<br> + in election of 1824, +<a href="#page137">137</a>;<br> + in election of 1828, +<a href="#page164">164</a>;<br> + attitude on Maysville road bill, +<a href="#page168">168</a>;<br> + electoral vote in 1844, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +New York Central Railroad, system begun, +<a href="#page169">169</a><br> +<br> +New York City,<br> + attitude to tariff bill of 1823, +<a href="#page111">111</a>;<br> + and to that of 1824, +<a href="#page114">114</a>;<br> + attitude to tariff of 1824, +<a href="#page115">115</a>;<br> + attitude toward tariff bill of 1827, +<a href="#page158">158</a>;<br> + postmaster refuses to receive abolitionist documents, +<a href="#page271">271</a>;<br> + the instructions from Kendall, +<a href="#page271">271</a>, +<a href="#page272">272</a>;<br> + arrest of Hamlet, +<a href="#page367">367</a>;<br> + meetings on fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page367">367</a>;<br> + publication of protest against Kansas-Nebraska Act, +<a href="#page389">389</a><br> +<br> +New York <i>Courier and Enquirer,</i> applies name to Whig Party, +<a href="#page282">282</a><br> +<br> +Nicholls, Edward, +<a href="#page25">25</a>, +<a href="#page26">26</a>, +<a href="#page27">27</a>, +<a href="#page28">28</a><br> +<br> +Nicholls Fort, +<a href="#page27">27</a>, +<a href="#page28">28</a><br> +<br> +Nicholson, A. O. P., letter from Cass, +<a href="#page345">345</a><br> +<br> +Niles, John Milton, presents memorial on Texas, +<a href="#page295">295</a><br> +<br> +Nootka Convention, +<a href="#page311">311</a><br> +<br> +North Carolina, Commonwealth of,<br> + conditional cession of western lands, +<a href="#page50">50</a>, +<a href="#page56">56</a>;<br> + attitude to internal improvements bill of 1817, +<a href="#page117">117</a>, +<a href="#page118">118</a>;<br> + attitude to internal improvements bill of 1822, +<a href="#page119">119</a>;<br> + stock held in United States Bank, +<a href="#page203">203</a>;<br> + electoral vote in 1844, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + vacancy in Senate delegation, +<a href="#page398">398</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +Northwest, the,<br> + attitude to internal improvements bill of 1817, +<a href="#page118">118</a>;<br> + attitude to internal improvements bill of 1822, +<a href="#page119">119</a><br> +<br> +Nueces, River, +<a href="#page300">300</a>, +<a href="#page316">316</a>, +<a href="#page329">329</a>, +<a href="#page330">330</a>, +<a href="#page337">337</a>, +<a href="#page361">361</a><br> +<br> +Nullification,<br> + origin, +<a href="#page169">169</a>;<br> + economic basis, +<a href="#page175">175</a>, +<a href="#page176">176</a>, +<a href="#page177">177</a>;<br> + attitude of South Carolina, +<a href="#page176">176</a>;<br> + threatened by McDuffie, +<a href="#page177">177</a>;<br> + Calhoun's publications, +<a href="#page179">179</a>, and argument, +<a href="#page180">180</a>, +<a href="#page181">181</a>;<br> + parties in South Carolina, +<a href="#page181">181</a>, +<a href="#page182">182</a>;<br> + nullification or rebellion, +<a href="#page183">183</a>, +<a href="#page184">184</a>;<br> + Calhoun's theory, +<a href="#page189">189</a>;<br> + in Georgia and South Carolina, +<a href="#page210">210</a>;<br> + the South Carolina convention, +<a href="#page221">221</a>;<br> + the Ordinance of Nullification, +<a href="#page222">222</a>, +<a href="#page223">223</a>;<br> + Ordinance sent to the legislature, +<a href="#page224">224</a>;<br> + Hayne's attitude, +<a href="#page224">224</a>;<br> + acts for enforcement of Ordinance, +<a href="#page224">224-226</a>;<br> + views on the position of South Carolina, +<a href="#page226">226-228</a>;<br> + South Carolina in Jackson's message of 1832, +<a href="#page228">228</a>;<br> + Jackson's proclamation of December 10, 1832, +<a href="#page228">228-230</a>;<br> + Jackson's message of January, 1833, +<a href="#page232">232</a>;<br> + execution of Ordinance postponed, +<a href="#page235">235</a>;<br> + character of nullification defined by Webster, +<a href="#page237">237</a>;<br> + Ordinance of Nullification withdrawn, +<a href="#page238">238</a>;<br> + motive of leaders in affairs of nullification, +<a href="#page238">238</a>;<br> + nullification as represented by Amos Kendall, +<a href="#page272">272</a><br> +<br> +<br> +O<small>BREGON</small>, P<small>ABLO</small>, negotiations as to Panama Congress, +<a href="#page147">147</a>, +<a href="#page148">148</a>, +<a href="#page149">149</a><br> +<br> +Ohio, Commonwealth of,<br> + slavery forbidden, +<a href="#page62">62</a>, +<a href="#page63">63</a>;<br> + condition on erection, +<a href="#page68">68</a>, +<a href="#page69">69</a>, +<a href="#page71">71</a>;<br> + appropriation of enabling act, +<a href="#page116">116</a>;<br> + tax on Bank of United States, +<a href="#page194">194</a>;<br> + the result, +<a href="#page195">195</a>;<br> + memorial on Texas, +<a href="#page296">296</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +Ohio River, the, +<a href="#page48">48</a>, +<a href="#page62">62</a>, +<a href="#page63">63</a>, +<a href="#page167">167</a><br> +<br> +Oliver, Mordecai,<br> + on committee for Kansas investigation, +<a href="#page433">433</a>;<br> + investigates Pottawattomie massacre, +<a href="#page440">440</a><br> +<br> +Onis, Luis de, +<a href="#page37">37</a>, +<a href="#page38">38</a><br> +<br> +Orders in Council, British, +<a href="#page54">54</a><br> +<br> +Ordinance of 1787,<br> + passed, +<a href="#page48">48</a>;<br> + authority of the Congress, +<a href="#page49">49</a>;<br> + restriction on slavery, +<a href="#page69">69</a>;<br> + in Douglas's bill, +<a href="#page341">341</a>;<br> + in the Smith bills, +<a href="#page349">349</a><br> +<br> +Oregon,<br> + its "re-occupation" in the Democratic platform, +<a href="#page309">309</a>;<br> + points in the question, +<a href="#page310">310</a>;<br> + Oregon of the last century, +<a href="#page311">311</a>;<br> + Spanish and English claims, +<a href="#page311">311</a>;<br> + the Nootka Convention, +<a href="#page311">311</a>, +<a href="#page312">312</a>;<br> + effect of war between Spain and Great Britain, +<a href="#page312">312</a>;<br> + ceded to France and to United States, +<a href="#page312">312</a>;<br> + work of Lewis and Clark, +<a href="#page312">312</a>;<br> + treaty of Utrecht, +<a href="#page312">312</a>;<br> + Astoria founded, +<a href="#page312">312</a>, +<a href="#page313">313</a>;<br> + joint occupation agreement, +<a href="#page313">313</a>;<br> + agreement of 1828, +<a href="#page314">314</a>;<br> + effect of Whitman's work, +<a href="#page316">316</a>;<br> + in platform of 1844, +<a href="#page318">318</a>;<br> + effect of election of 1844, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + Tyler's message of 1844, +<a href="#page321">321</a>;<br> + Polk's first message, +<a href="#page324">324</a>;<br> + his recommendations, +<a href="#page324">324</a>;<br> + the question before Congress, +<a href="#page324">324</a>;<br> + the action of Congress, +<a href="#page324">324</a>, +<a href="#page325">325</a>;<br> + treaty of June, 1846, +<a href="#page326">326</a>;<br> + bill reported by, +<a href="#page340">340</a>, +<a href="#page341">341</a>;<br> + Thompson's amendment, +<a href="#page341">341</a>;<br> + the Douglas bill, +<a href="#page341">341</a>;<br> + defeat of Burt's amendment, +<a href="#page341">341</a>;<br> + Wick's proposal, +<a href="#page341">341</a>, +<a href="#page342">342</a>;<br> + speech by Rhett, +<a href="#page342">342</a>, +<a href="#page343">343</a>;<br> + end of the second bill, +<a href="#page343">343</a>;<br> + new bill by Douglas, +<a href="#page343">343</a>;<br> + special message of Polk, +<a href="#page344">344</a>;<br> + Hall's amendment, +<a href="#page344">344</a>;<br> + views of Calhoun and Davis, +<a href="#page344">344</a>;<br> + Davis moves amendment, +<a href="#page344">344</a>;<br> + effect of Davis and Hale on action of Senate, +<a href="#page345">345</a>;<br> + motions of Bright and Clayton, +<a href="#page346">346</a>;<br> + the Clayton bill, +<a href="#page346">346</a>, +<a href="#page347">347</a>;<br> + the final settlement, +<a href="#page347">347</a>;<br> + bill approved, +<a href="#page348">348</a><br> +<br> +Orleans, Territory of,<br> + organized, +<a href="#page55">55</a>;<br> + slavery in, +<a href="#page55">55</a>;<br> + erected into Commonwealth, +<a href="#page56">56</a><br> +<br> +Osceola,<br> + begins hostilities, +<a href="#page290">290</a>;<br> + defeated, +<a href="#page290">290</a><br> +<br> +Ossawattomie, Kansas,<br> + destroyed by Missourians, +<a href="#page445">445</a>;<br> + effect of the attack, +<a href="#page445">445</a><br> +<br> +Ostend, the manifesto from, +<a href="#page408">408</a><br> +<br> +Otis, Harrison Gray,<br> + voting, +<a href="#page74">74</a>;<br> + position on Maine-Missouri bill, +<a href="#page83">83</a><br> +<br> +Oxford University, Professor Senior of, +<a href="#page186">186</a><br> +<br> +<br> +P<small>ACIFIC</small> O<small>CEAN</small>, claims in the north of various nations, +<a href="#page123">123</a>, +<a href="#page311">311</a>, +<a href="#page324">324</a>, +<a href="#page325">325</a>, +<a href="#page326">326</a>, +<a href="#page341">341</a>, +<a href="#page358">358</a>, +<a href="#page375">375</a>, +<a href="#page379">379</a>, +<a href="#page381">381</a><br> +<br> +Palo Alto, battle of, +<a href="#page330">330</a><br> +<br> +Panama Congress,<br> + early negotiations, +<a href="#page147">147</a>, +<a href="#page148">148</a>, +<a href="#page149">149</a>;<br> + commissioners of United States named, +<a href="#page149">149</a>, +<a href="#page150">150</a>;<br> + popular views of the movement, +<a href="#page150">150</a>;<br> + analysis of vote in Senate, +<a href="#page150">150</a>, +<a href="#page151">151</a>;<br> + relation of vote to slavery, +<a href="#page151">151</a>;<br> + nature of opposition, +<a href="#page153">153</a>;<br> + adjournment of the congress, +<a href="#page153">153</a>, +<a href="#page154">154</a>;<br> + discussion of the results, +<a href="#page154">154</a>, +<a href="#page155">155</a>;<br> + effect of question on Republican party, +<a href="#page155">155</a><br> +<br> +Paredes y Arrillago, Mariano,<br> + leader of military party, +<a href="#page328">328</a>;<br> + overthrows Herrera, +<a href="#page328">328</a>;<br> + refuses to receive Slidell, +<a href="#page328">328</a><br> +<br> +Paris, treaty of. <i>See</i> +<a href="#treaty">Treaty</a><br> +<br> +Parker, Severn E., on Conference Committee, +<a href="#page88">88</a><br> +<br> +Parker, William, opposition to fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page373">373</a><br> +<br> +Parkers, the, in Crafts case, +<a href="#page368">368</a><br> +<br> +Parma, Duke of, +<a href="#page23">23</a><br> +<br> +Parrot, John T., voting, +<a href="#page73">73</a><br> +<br> +<i>Partus sequitur ventrem,</i> +<a href="#page43">43</a>, +<a href="#page44">44</a>, +<a href="#page45">45</a><br> +<br> +Pate, H. C.,<br> + captured at Black Jack by Brown, +<a href="#page441">441</a>;<br> + rescued by Sumner, +<a href="#page442">442</a><br> +<br> +Patton, John M.,<br> + speaks in House, +<a href="#page259">259</a>;<br> + conclusion from his position, +<a href="#page259">259</a><br> +<br> +Pawnee, Kansas, legislature meets at, +<a href="#page422">422</a><br> +<br> +Pearce, James Alfred,<br> + introduces bill on Texan boundary, +<a href="#page363">363</a>;<br> + not voting on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page398">398</a>, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of, +<a href="#page3">3</a>;<br> + provision for gradual emancipation, +<a href="#page48">48</a>, +<a href="#page62">62</a>, +<a href="#page63">63</a>;<br> + attitude to tariff bill of 1823, +<a href="#page111">111</a>;<br> + relation to Cumberland Road, +<a href="#page116">116</a>;<br> + attitude to internal improvements bill of 1817, +<a href="#page118">118</a>;<br> + attitude to internal improvements bill of 1822, +<a href="#page119">119</a>;<br> + conventions nominate Jackson for presidency, +<a href="#page136">136</a>;<br> + in election of 1824, +<a href="#page137">137</a>, +<a href="#page138">138</a>, +<a href="#page139">139</a>;<br> + attitude toward tariff bill of 1827, +<a href="#page158">158</a>;<br> + in election of 1828, +<a href="#page162">162</a>, +<a href="#page164">164</a>;<br> + attitude on Maysville road bill, +<a href="#page168">168</a>;<br> + petitions for abolition, +<a href="#page252">252</a>, +<a href="#page253">253</a>;<br> + memorial on Texas, +<a href="#page296">296</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +Pennsylvania railroad, system begun, +<a href="#page169">169</a><br> +<br> +Pensacola, +<a href="#page24">24</a>, +<a href="#page25">25</a>, +<a href="#page32">32</a><br> +<br> +Perdido River, the, +<a href="#page21">21</a>, +<a href="#page22">22</a>, +<a href="#page23">23</a>, +<a href="#page25">25</a><br> +<br> +Perote, captured by Scott, +<a href="#page333">333</a><br> +<br> +Peru, treaty of 1823 with Columbia, +<a href="#page147">147</a><br> +<a name="petition"></a> +<br> +Petition, Right of,<br> + early action on abolition petitions, +<a href="#page253">253</a>;<br> + the Chinn-Dickson controversy, +<a href="#page254">254</a>;<br> + Slade's motion, +<a href="#page254">254</a>;<br> + Polk's ruling, +<a href="#page255">255</a>;<br> + Jackson's petition and Hammond's motion, +<a href="#page255">255</a>;<br> + relation of the Constitution to the right of petition, +<a href="#page255">255</a>, +<a href="#page256">256</a>;<br> + customary procedure before 1834, +<a href="#page256">256</a>;<br> + wrangle over Hammond's two motions, +<a href="#page256">256</a>;<br> + the final arrangement, +<a href="#page256">256</a>;<br> + Adams's appeal for right of petition, +<a href="#page257">257</a>;<br> + reply by Jones, +<a href="#page257">257</a>;<br> + Granger's and Ingersoll's claim as to District of Columbia, +<a href="#page257">257</a>;<br> + demand of Wise, +<a href="#page257">257</a>, +<a href="#page258">258</a>;<br> + Slade's declaration of war on slavery, +<a href="#page258">258</a>;<br> + Garland's argument, +<a href="#page258">258</a>;<br> + disposal of the question, +<a href="#page258">258</a>;<br> + revived by Adams, +<a href="#page258">258</a>, +<a href="#page259">259</a>;<br> + ruling of Speaker, +<a href="#page259">259</a>;<br> + Southern members take advanced ground, +<a href="#page259">259</a>, +<a href="#page260">260</a>;<br> + effort of Adams at peace, +<a href="#page260">260</a>;<br> + decision on the fifty-fourth rule, +<a href="#page260">260</a>;<br> + the contest precipitated, +<a href="#page260">260</a>;<br> + Pinckney resolutions quoted, +<a href="#page261">261</a>;<br> + the new rule of procedure, +<a href="#page261">261</a>, +<a href="#page262">262</a>;<br> + affair of February 6, 1837, +<a href="#page262">262</a>;<br> + rule as to petition by slaves, quoted, +<a href="#page262">262</a>;<br> + further attempt at agitation by Slade, +<a href="#page262">262</a>;<br> + increase of petitions, +<a href="#page263">263</a>;<br> + the standing rule of 1840, quoted, +<a href="#page263">263</a>;<br> + effect of this step, +<a href="#page263">263</a>, +<a href="#page264">264</a>;<br> + disposal of the question by the Senate, +<a href="#page264">264</a>, +<a href="#page265">265</a>;<br> + the Vermont petition, +<a href="#page265">265-269</a>;<br> + position of Calhoun, +<a href="#page270">270</a>;<br> + disposal by Swift's motion, +<a href="#page270">270</a>;<br> + significance of the contest, +<a href="#page274">274-277</a>;<br> + result of the struggle, +<a href="#page296">296</a><br> +<br> +Petigru, James L., relation to nullification, +<a href="#page181">181</a><br> +<br> +Phelps, Samuel Shethar, on Committee of Thirteen, +<a href="#page360">360</a><br> +<br> +Philadelphia, Pa., constitutional convention at, +<a href="#page49">49</a><br> +<br> +Phillips, Wendell, opposes fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page373">373</a><br> +<br> +Philosophy of the eighteenth century, +<a href="#page47">47</a><br> +<br> +Philosophy of 1776, +<a href="#page52">52</a><br> +<br> +Pickering, Timothy, committee service, +<a href="#page3">3</a><br> +<br> +Pierce, Franklin,<br> + nominated for presidency, +<a href="#page376">376</a>;<br> + elected, +<a href="#page377">377</a>;<br> + relation to Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page401">401</a>, +<a href="#page403">403</a>;<br> + views of historians stated and considered, +<a href="#page401">401</a>, +<a href="#page402">402</a>;<br> + signs Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page404">404</a>;<br> + views on emigration to Territories, +<a href="#page410">410</a>;<br> + appoints Shannon Governor of Kansas Territory, +<a href="#page427">427</a>;<br> + Shannon's report to, +<a href="#page431">431</a>;<br> + appeal from "Free-state" party in Kansas, +<a href="#page431">431</a>;<br> + proclamation as to Kansas, +<a href="#page432">432</a>;<br> + disapproves Col. Sumner's course, +<a href="#page443">443</a>;<br> + takes active steps as to Kansas, +<a href="#page446">446</a><br> +<br> +Pinckney, Henry Laurens,<br> + reports resolution on control of slavery, +<a href="#page261">261</a>;<br> + resolution re-enacted, +<a href="#page262">262</a><br> +<br> +Pinkney, William,<br> + argument on powers of Congress, +<a href="#page84">84-86</a>;<br> + argument restated, +<a href="#page86">86</a>, +<a href="#page87">87</a>;<br> + effect of his argument, +<a href="#page87">87</a>;<br> + on conference committee, +<a href="#page88">88</a><br> +<br> +"Platte County Self-defensive Association," formed, +<a href="#page414">414</a>, +<a href="#page415">415</a><br> +<br> +Pleasants, James, committee service, +<a href="#page3">3</a><br> +<br> +Poinsett, Joel Roberts, effort with reference to "Monroe Doctrine," +<a href="#page128">128</a><br> +<br> +Point Isabel, base of supplies, +<a href="#page329">329</a><br> +<br> +Polignac, Jules Auguste Armand Marie de, declaration of Canning, +<a href="#page125">125</a><br> +<br> +Political philosophy, French, +<a href="#page129">129</a>, +<a href="#page139">139</a>, +<a href="#page193">193</a><br> +<br> +Polk, James Knox,<br> + ruling as Speaker, +<a href="#page255">255</a>;<br> + quoted, +<a href="#page256">256</a>;<br> + confused rulings, +<a href="#page256">256</a>;<br> + further ruling on procedure as to petitions, +<a href="#page259">259</a>;<br> + conclusion from his position, +<a href="#page259">259</a>;<br> + decision on fifty-fourth rule, +<a href="#page260">260</a>;<br> + nominated for presidency, +<a href="#page309">309</a>;<br> + attitude of abolitionists, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + elected President, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + first annual message, +<a href="#page324">324</a>;<br> + his recommendations, +<a href="#page324">324</a>;<br> + the question before Congress, +<a href="#page325">325</a>;<br> + the action of Congress, +<a href="#page325">325</a>, +<a href="#page326">326</a>;<br> + Polk's dealings with the Senate, +<a href="#page326">326</a>;<br> + treaty of June, 1846, +<a href="#page326">326</a>;<br> + overtures to Mexico, +<a href="#page327">327</a>;<br> + the Slidell mission, +<a href="#page327">327</a>, +<a href="#page328">328</a>;<br> + duty as to Texan boundary, +<a href="#page329">329</a>;<br> + orders to General Taylor, +<a href="#page329">329</a>;<br> + message on Mexican War, +<a href="#page330">330</a>;<br> + authorized to call for volunteers, +<a href="#page331">331</a>;<br> + orders to Kearny, Sloat, Stockton, and Taylor, +<a href="#page331">331</a>;<br> + message of August 6, 1846, +<a href="#page334">334</a>;<br> + McKay's bill, +<a href="#page335">335</a>;<br> + Wilmot's amendment, +<a href="#page335">335</a>;<br> + Polk's message of December, 1846, +<a href="#page335">335</a>;<br> + empowered tacitly to secure California and New Mexico, +<a href="#page337">337</a>;<br> + the treaty offered through Trist, +<a href="#page337">337</a>;<br> + rejected by Mexico, +<a href="#page337">337</a>;<br> + recalls Trist, +<a href="#page338">338</a>;<br> + message to Congress, +<a href="#page338">338</a>;<br> + treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, +<a href="#page338">338</a>;<br> + sends treaty to Senate, +<a href="#page339">339</a>;<br> + special message on Oregon, +<a href="#page344">344</a>;<br> + message on California and New Mexico, +<a href="#page345">345</a>, +<a href="#page346">346</a>;<br> + approves Oregon bill, +<a href="#page348">348</a>;<br> + message on California and New Mexico, +<a href="#page348">348</a>;<br> + effect of message on California, +<a href="#page352">352</a>, +<a href="#page353">353</a><br> +<br> +Pomeroy, S. C., at Lawrence, +<a href="#page415">415</a><br> +<br> +Pontchartrain, Lake, +<a href="#page21">21</a>, +<a href="#page23">23</a><br> +<br> +Porto Rico, in Spanish-American troubles, +<a href="#page152">152</a>, +<a href="#page153">153</a>, +<a href="#page154">154</a><br> +<br> +Portsmouth, New Hampshire, +<a href="#page191">191</a><br> +<br> +Portugal, Clay's attitude to its colonies, +<a href="#page135">135</a><br> +<br> +Pottawattomie Creek,<br> + massacre on, +<a href="#page440">440</a>;<br> + the massacre characterized, +<a href="#page441">441</a>;<br> + and denounced by the settlers, +<a href="#page441">441</a>;<br> + effect of massacre, +<a href="#page442">442</a>;<br> + end of fighting occasioned by massacre, +<a href="#page447">447</a><br> +<br> +Potter, James, owner of Sims, +<a href="#page372">372</a><br> +<br> +Pratt, Thomas George, contention as to amendment of Chase's amendment, +<a href="#page394">394</a>, +<a href="#page395">395</a><br> +<br> +Prigg <i>vs.</i> Pennsylvania [16 Peters, 539], +<a href="#page363">363</a><br> +<br> +Protection,<br> + as regarded between 1815 and 1820, +<a href="#page109">109</a>;<br> + as voiced by the House in 1822, +<a href="#page110">110</a>;<br> + Monroe's messages of 1821 and 1822, +<a href="#page110">110</a>;<br> + bill of 1823, +<a href="#page111">111</a>;<br> + Monroe's message of 1823, +<a href="#page111">111</a>;<br> + bill of 1824, +<a href="#page112">112</a>.<br> + <i>See</i> <a href="#tariff">Tariff</a><br> +<br> +Prussia, King of, as arbiter for claims commission, +<a href="#page302">302</a><br> +<br> +Prussia, in Holy Alliance, +<a href="#page123">123</a><br> +<br> +Puebla, captured by Scott, +<a href="#page333">333</a><br> +<br> +<br> +Q<small>UAKERS</small>, petitions for abolition of slavery, +<a href="#page252">252</a>, +<a href="#page253">253</a><br> +<br> +Quincy, Edmund, opposition to fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page373">373</a><br> +<br> +<br> +R<small>AILROADS</small>,<br> + begun in the United States, +<a href="#page169">169</a>;<br> + relation to national improvements, +<a href="#page169">169</a>, +<a href="#page170">170</a><br> +<br> +Randolph, John, +<a href="#page11">11</a>;<br> + opposition to tariff of 1816, +<a href="#page12">12</a><br> +<br> +Rantoul, Robert, Jr., in Sims case, +<a href="#page372">372</a><br> +<br> +Red River, the, +<a href="#page33">33</a><br> +<br> +Reeder, Andrew H.,<br> + arrives at Fort Leavenworth, +<a href="#page416">416</a>;<br> + character and work, +<a href="#page416">416</a>;<br> + action upon contested election cases, +<a href="#page420">420</a>;<br> + criticism by Robinson, +<a href="#page420">420</a>, +<a href="#page421">421</a>;<br> + disregard of his certificates of election, +<a href="#page421">421</a>, +<a href="#page422">422</a>;<br> + attitude of anti-slavery party, +<a href="#page421">421</a>;<br> + difficulties in treatment proposed by Robinson, +<a href="#page422">422</a>;<br> + calls legislature to meet at Pawnee, +<a href="#page422">422</a>;<br> + breaks with legislature over question of adjournment to Shawnee Mission, +<a href="#page423">423</a>;<br> + letter from Conway, +<a href="#page424">424</a>;<br> + removed from governorship of Kansas Territory, +<a href="#page425">425</a>;<br> + elected Congressional delegate, +<a href="#page425">425</a>;<br> + elected Senator by "Free-state" party, +<a href="#page426">426</a>;<br> + contest for seat in House of Representatives, +<a href="#page432">432</a>, +<a href="#page433">433</a>;<br> + indictment against, +<a href="#page435">435</a>;<br> + avoids arrest, +<a href="#page435">435</a>;<br> + Donaldson's reference to his resistance, +<a href="#page436">436</a><br> +<br> +Representatives, House of. <i>See</i> +<a href="#house">House of Representatives</a><br> +<br> +[Jeffersonian] Republican Party,<br> + its nationalization, +<a href="#page1">1-18</a>;<br> + its principles in 1801 and 1816, +<a href="#page3">3</a>;<br> + position on national bank, +<a href="#page4">4</a>, +<a href="#page5">5</a>;<br> + early principles, +<a href="#page17">17</a>;<br> + division, +<a href="#page38">38</a>, +<a href="#page103">103</a>, +<a href="#page104">104</a>, +<a href="#page115">115</a>;<br> + absorption of Federal party, +<a href="#page129">129</a>;<br> + effect of War of 1812, +<a href="#page130">130</a>;<br> + nature of the struggle of 1824, +<a href="#page130">130</a>;<br> + division of the party, +<a href="#page145">145</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + effect of Panama Congress, +<a href="#page155">155</a>;<br> + effect of tariff on division of party, +<a href="#page157">157</a>;<br> + power of Congress in its régime, +<a href="#page207">207</a>;<br> + principles on which it gained power, +<a href="#page239">239</a>;<br> + effect of War of 1812, +<a href="#page239">239</a><br> +<br> +Republican Party,<br> + brought to life, +<a href="#page388">388</a>;<br> + creed in the <i>National Era</i> address, +<a href="#page390">390</a>;<br> + effect of troubles in Kansas, +<a href="#page417">417</a>;<br> + the union of the various elements, +<a href="#page417">417</a>, +<a href="#page418">418</a>;<br> + effect of interference of Missourians in Kansas, +<a href="#page418">418</a>;<br> + as to possible effect of events in Kansas, +<a href="#page446">446</a>;<br> + Kansas assured to the party, +<a href="#page471">471</a><br> +<br> +Resaca de la Palma, battle of, +<a href="#page330">330</a><br> +<br> +Revenue. <i>See</i> +<a href="#tariff">Tariff</a><br> +<br> +Revolution of 1830, relation to abolition, +<a href="#page244">244</a><br> +<br> +Revolution, the American,<br> + slave laws before, +<a href="#page46">46</a>;<br> + effect upon slavery, +<a href="#page47">47</a>, +<a href="#page80">80</a><br> +<br> +Revolution, the French, +<a href="#page47">47</a><br> +<br> +Rhea, John, +<a href="#page31">31</a><br> +<br> +Rhett, Robert Barnwell,<br> + speech on control of Territories, +<a href="#page342">342</a>, +<a href="#page343">343</a>, +<a href="#page345">345</a>;<br> + views adopted by Calhoun and Davis, +<a href="#page344">344</a>;<br> + views on fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page367">367</a>;<br> + contention as to fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page371">371</a>;<br> + in debate on Foote's resolutions, +<a href="#page374">374</a><br> +<br> +Rhode Island, Commonwealth of, +<a href="#page13">13</a>;<br> + legislation on slavery, +<a href="#page48">48</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +Richardson, William A.,<br> + reports bill on Kansas and Nebraska, +<a href="#page400">400</a>;<br> + motion in House, +<a href="#page403">403</a>;<br> + yields management of Kansas-Nebraska bill to Stephens, +<a href="#page404">404</a><br> +<br> +Riley, Bennett, calls California convention, +<a href="#page353">353</a><br> +<br> +Rio del Norte River, +<a href="#page36">36</a><br> +<br> +Rio Grande River, +<a href="#page297">297</a>, +<a href="#page300">300</a>, +<a href="#page305">305</a>;<br> + Mexican troops on, +<a href="#page328">328</a>;<br> + claimed by Texas a boundary, +<a href="#page328">328</a>;<br> + scene of conflict, +<a href="#page329">329</a>, +<a href="#page330">330</a>, +<a href="#page331">331</a>, +<a href="#page332">332</a>;<br> + upper valley occupied by Doniphan, +<a href="#page332">332</a>, +<a href="#page337">337</a>, +<a href="#page338">338</a>, +<a href="#page354">354</a>, +<a href="#page361">361</a>, +<a href="#page363">363</a><br> +<br> +Rio Grande del Norte River, +<a href="#page290">290</a>, +<a href="#page297">297</a><br> +<br> +Rives, William Cabell, view of slavery, +<a href="#page265">265-267</a><br> +<br> +Roberts, Jonathan,<br> + motion on Maine-Missouri bill, +<a href="#page82">82</a>;<br> + position as to the bill, +<a href="#page83">83</a>;<br> + moves to amend, +<a href="#page83">83</a><br> +<br> +Robertson, George, committee service, +<a href="#page3">3</a><br> +<br> +Robinson, Charles,<br> + conference with leaders of Emigrant Aid Company, +<a href="#page413">413</a>;<br> + expedition to Missouri and Kansas, +<a href="#page413">413</a>, +<a href="#page414">414</a>;<br> + the founding of Lawrence, +<a href="#page415">415</a>;<br> + criticism of Reeder's action on contested election cases, +<a href="#page420">420</a>, +<a href="#page421">421</a>;<br> + plan of procedure for anti-slavery party in Kansas, +<a href="#page421">421</a>, +<a href="#page422">422</a>;<br> + sends for Sharpe's rifles, +<a href="#page423">423</a>;<br> + checks factions by the Lawrence speech, +<a href="#page423">423</a>, +<a href="#page424">424</a>;<br> + elected Governor of Kansas, +<a href="#page425">425</a>;<br> + message to legislature, +<a href="#page427">427</a>;<br> + negotiations with Shannon, +<a href="#page430">430</a>;<br> + at Franklin, +<a href="#page430">430</a>;<br> + communication with Sumner as to assault on Jones, +<a href="#page434">434</a>;<br> + indictment against, +<a href="#page435">435</a>;<br> + opinion as to purpose of Pottawattomie massacre, +<a href="#page441">441</a>;<br> + his release ordered, +<a href="#page446">446</a>;<br> + plan to capture Territorial government, +<a href="#page463">463</a>;<br> + conference with Wilson, +<a href="#page463">463</a>;<br> + difficulty of the situation, +<a href="#page464">464</a>;<br> + his work characterized, +<a href="#page471">471</a>, +<a href="#page472">472</a>;<br> + his work quoted, +<a href="#page473">473</a><br> +<br> +Rocky Mountains, +<a href="#page312">312</a>, +<a href="#page313">313</a>, +<a href="#page324">324</a>, +<a href="#page325">325</a>, +<a href="#page326">326</a>, +<a href="#page381">381</a><br> +<br> +Rush, Benjamin, proposal of Canning, +<a href="#page125">125</a><br> +<br> +Russia,<br> + in the North Pacific, +<a href="#page123">123</a>;<br> + edict as to northwest lands, +<a href="#page123">123</a>;<br> + in Holy Alliance, +<a href="#page123">123</a>, +<a href="#page124">124</a>;<br> + Adams's statement to Tuyl, +<a href="#page124">124</a>, +<a href="#page125">125</a>;<br> + the Czar in negotiation with Clay, +<a href="#page152">152</a>, +<a href="#page153">153</a><br> +<br> +Russian American Company claims in North Pacific, +<a href="#page123">123</a><br> +<br> +<br> +S<small>ABINE</small> R<small>IVER</small>, the, +<a href="#page33">33</a>, +<a href="#page36">36</a>, +<a href="#page290">290</a><br> +<br> +St. Augustine, +<a href="#page25">25</a><br> +<br> +St. Ildefonso, treaty of, +<a href="#page22">22</a>, +<a href="#page23">23</a>, +<a href="#page24">24</a>, +<a href="#page54">54</a>, +<a href="#page312">312</a><br> +<br> +St. Louis, +<a href="#page65">65</a>;<br> + Branscomb and Robinson at, +<a href="#page413">413</a>, +<a href="#page414">414</a><br> +<br> +St. Mark's, +<a href="#page25">25</a>, +<a href="#page32">32</a><br> +<br> +St. Mary's River, the, +<a href="#page22">22</a>, +<a href="#page30">30</a><br> +<br> +Salazar, José Maria,<br> + negotiations as to Panama Congress, +<a href="#page147">147</a>, +<a href="#page148">148</a>, +<a href="#page149">149</a>;<br> + cites Haytian affairs, +<a href="#page151">151</a><br> +<br> +Salt Creek Valley, pro-slavery convention, +<a href="#page414">414</a><br> +<br> +San Antonio, battle of, +<a href="#page334">334</a><br> +<br> +Sandford, John F. A.,<br> + owner of Dred Scott, +<a href="#page451">451</a>;<br> + defendant in federal courts, +<a href="#page451">451</a> <i>et seq.</i><br> +<br> +San Diego, Cal., occupied by Kearny, +<a href="#page332">332</a><br> +<br> +San Jacinto, battle of, +<a href="#page294">294</a>, +<a href="#page295">295</a><br> +<br> +San Jacinto River, +<a href="#page294">294</a><br> +<br> +Santa Anna, Antonio Lopez de,<br> + establishes presidential government in Mexico, +<a href="#page292">292</a>;<br> + opposition in Coahuila-Texas, +<a href="#page292">292</a>;<br> + war of Texan independence, +<a href="#page293">293</a>, +<a href="#page294">294</a>;<br> + a prisoner, +<a href="#page297">297</a>;<br> + in power again, +<a href="#page332">332</a>;<br> + his plan of action, +<a href="#page332">332</a>;<br> + battle of Buena Vista, +<a href="#page332">332</a>, +<a href="#page333">333</a>;<br> + battle of Cerro Gordo, +<a href="#page333">333</a>;<br> + battles of Contreras, San Antonio and Cherubusco, +<a href="#page334">334</a><br> +<br> +Savannah, Ga., +<a href="#page373">373</a><br> +<br> +Scott, Dred,<br> + his case as referred to in Buchanan's inaugural address, +<a href="#page447">447</a>, +<a href="#page448">448</a>;<br> + origin of the case, +<a href="#page449">449</a>, +<a href="#page450">450</a>;<br> + facts of the case, +<a href="#page450">450</a>, +<a href="#page451">451</a>;<br> + decision of Missouri Supreme Court, +<a href="#page451">451</a>;<br> + sold to Sandford, +<a href="#page451">451</a>;<br> + judgment in Circuit Court, +<a href="#page451">451</a>;<br> + case before Supreme Court, +<a href="#page451">451</a>;<br> + opinion of Justice Nelson, +<a href="#page452">452</a>;<br> + opinion of Justice Catron, +<a href="#page453">453</a>;<br> + opinion of Chief Justice Taney, +<a href="#page453">453</a>, +<a href="#page454">454</a>;<br> + opinion of Justice Curtis, +<a href="#page454">454</a>;<br> + criticism of the decision, +<a href="#page455">455</a>;<br> + criticism of Taney's argument, +<a href="#page455">455</a>, +<a href="#page456">456</a>;<br> + relation of inaugural and decision, +<a href="#page456">456</a>, +<a href="#page457">457</a>;<br> + opinion of Justice Curtis, +<a href="#page457">457</a>, +<a href="#page458">458</a>;<br> + distribution of the opinions, +<a href="#page458">458</a>;<br> + effect of the decision, +<a href="#page458">458</a>, +<a href="#page459">459</a>;<br> + effect of the dictum, +<a href="#page460">460</a><br> +<br> +Scott, John, secures reference of Missouri memorials, +<a href="#page74">74</a><br> +<br> +Scott, Martin, in Florida, +<a href="#page31">31</a><br> +<br> +Scott, Winfield,<br> + ordered to Charleston, +<a href="#page330">330</a>;<br> + his instructions, +<a href="#page330">330</a>, +<a href="#page331">331</a>;<br> + ordered against Vera Cruz, +<a href="#page332">332</a>;<br> + captures Vera Cruz, +<a href="#page333">333</a>;<br> + battle of Cerro Gordo, +<a href="#page333">333</a>;<br> + captures Jalapa, Perote, Puebla, +<a href="#page333">333</a>;<br> + effect of his successes, +<a href="#page337">337</a>;<br> + Trist at his head-quarters, +<a href="#page337">337</a>;<br> + battles of Molino del Rey and Chapultepec, +<a href="#page338">338</a>;<br> + takes Mexico, +<a href="#page338">338</a>;<br> + nominated for presidency, +<a href="#page376">376</a>;<br> + defeated, +<a href="#page377">377</a><br> +<br> +Sedgwick, Major, accompanies Shannon to Lawrence, +<a href="#page444">444</a><br> +<br> +Seminole War, +<a href="#page28">28</a>, +<a href="#page29">29</a>, +<a href="#page33">33</a>;<br> + results, +<a href="#page38">38</a>;<br> + cabinet intrigue on conduct of war, +<a href="#page220">220</a><br> +<br> +Seminoles, +<a href="#page32">32</a>;<br> + treaty of 1832, +<a href="#page290">290</a>;<br> + repudiate treaty and are expelled, +<a href="#page290">290</a><br> +<br> +Senate of the United States,<br> + passage of Bank bill, +<a href="#page8">8</a>;<br> + passage of tariff bill, +<a href="#page12">12</a>;<br> + pay of members, +<a href="#page16">16</a>;<br> + passage of internal improvements bill, +<a href="#page16">16</a>;<br> + action on censure of Jackson, +<a href="#page36">36</a>;<br> + ratifies treaty of 1819, +<a href="#page36">36</a>, +<a href="#page38">38</a>;<br> + effect of method of representation in, +<a href="#page63">63</a>;<br> + Missouri bill referred, +<a href="#page73">73</a>;<br> + vote on Tallmadge amendment, +<a href="#page74">74</a>;<br> + disagreement with House, +<a href="#page74">74</a>;<br> + Clay's suggestion of effect, +<a href="#page75">75</a>;<br> + Maine and Missouri bills in, +<a href="#page82">82</a>, +<a href="#page83">83</a>;<br> + the Thomas amendment, +<a href="#page84">84</a>;<br> + Pinkney's speech, +<a href="#page84">84-87</a>;<br> + Missouri-Maine bill, and Thomas amendment, +<a href="#page87">87</a>, +<a href="#page88">88</a>;<br> + the conference committee, +<a href="#page88">88</a>, +<a href="#page89">89</a>;<br> + significance of the compromise, +<a href="#page90">90-95</a>;<br> + Missouri constitution considered, +<a href="#page95">95</a>, +<a href="#page96">96</a>;<br> + passage of Smith bill on Missouri, +<a href="#page99">99</a>;<br> + bill defeated in House, +<a href="#page101">101</a>;<br> + work of second conference committee, +<a href="#page101">101-103</a>;<br> + plan to alter judicial system and limit number of Representatives, +<a href="#page109">109</a>;<br> + conference committee on tariff, +<a href="#page114">114</a>, +<a href="#page115">115</a>;<br> + recommendation of Cumberland road, +<a href="#page116">116</a>;<br> + vote on internal improvements bill of 1822, +<a href="#page118">118</a>, +<a href="#page119">119</a>;<br> + Clinton a member of, +<a href="#page132">132</a>;<br> + Crawford a member of, +<a href="#page133">133</a>;<br> + Clay a member of, +<a href="#page134">134</a>;<br> + Jackson a member of, +<a href="#page136">136</a>;<br> + opposition to Clay's appointment, +<a href="#page144">144</a>;<br> + action on Panama mission, +<a href="#page149">149</a>, +<a href="#page150">150</a>;<br> + Van Buren's statement on action of, +<a href="#page153">153</a>;<br> + Van Buren leader of opposition in, +<a href="#page155">155</a>;<br> + action on tariff bill, +<a href="#page159">159</a>, +<a href="#page160">160</a>;<br> + passage of tariff bill, +<a href="#page162">162</a>;<br> + South Carolina memorial in, +<a href="#page171">171</a>;<br> + Clay's proposal as to tariff, +<a href="#page186">186</a>;<br> + speeches of Clay and Hayne, +<a href="#page187">187</a>;<br> + vote on House tariff bill, +<a href="#page188">188</a>;<br> + conference committee, +<a href="#page188">188</a>;<br> + Benton's attack on Bank, +<a href="#page196">196</a>;<br> + report on the Bank, +<a href="#page198">198</a>;<br> + Benton's resolution on the Bank, +<a href="#page199">199</a>, +<a href="#page200">200</a>;<br> + relation of members to constituencies, +<a href="#page200">200</a>;<br> + memorial for recharter of Bank, +<a href="#page201">201</a>;<br> + Benton's attack on Bank, +<a href="#page201">201</a>;<br> + bill, for recharter passed, +<a href="#page201">201</a>, +<a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> + Jackson on duty of members, +<a href="#page206">206</a>;<br> + ratifies Indian Springs convention, +<a href="#page212">212</a>;<br> + Calhoun takes Hayne's seat in, +<a href="#page234">234</a>;<br> + Calhoun's statement in, +<a href="#page232">232</a>, +<a href="#page233">233</a>;<br> + "Force Bill" reported, +<a href="#page233">233</a>, +<a href="#page234">234</a>;<br> + Clay's proposition in, +<a href="#page235">235</a>, +<a href="#page236">236</a>;<br> + support of Calhoun, +<a href="#page236">236</a>;<br> + passage of "Force Bill" and of tariff bill, +<a href="#page237">237</a>;<br> + abolition petitions referred, +<a href="#page253">253</a>;<br> + contest on right of petition, +<a href="#page264">264</a>, +<a href="#page265">265</a>;<br> + Calhoun's efforts as to policy of, +<a href="#page268">268</a>;<br> + incident of the Vermont memorial, +<a href="#page269">269</a>, +<a href="#page270">270</a>;<br> + reference of President's message, +<a href="#page273">273</a>;<br> + Connecticut memorial on Texas, +<a href="#page295">295</a>;<br> + Clay resolutions adopted, +<a href="#page295">295</a>;<br> + Calhoun's statement, +<a href="#page295">295</a>, +<a href="#page296">296</a>;<br> + the Walker resolution on Texas, +<a href="#page298">298</a>, +<a href="#page299">299</a>;<br> + action on President's message as to refusals, +<a href="#page298">298</a>, +<a href="#page299">299</a>;<br> + effect of action, +<a href="#page300">300</a>;<br> + as to power over treaties, +<a href="#page307">307</a>, +<a href="#page308">308</a>;<br> + treaty with Texas, +<a href="#page308">308</a>, +<a href="#page309">309</a>;<br> + action as to Texas, +<a href="#page322">322</a>, +<a href="#page323">323</a>;<br> + action as to Oregon, +<a href="#page325">325</a>, +<a href="#page326">326</a>;<br> + bills on Mexico, and the Wilmot proviso, +<a href="#page335">335</a>, +<a href="#page336">336</a>;<br> + ratifies treaties with Mexico, +<a href="#page339">339</a>;<br> + Oregon bill in, +<a href="#page341">341</a>;<br> + action on Oregon bills, +<a href="#page343">343</a>;<br> + debate on Oregon bill, +<a href="#page344">344</a>;<br> + lack of result, +<a href="#page345">345</a>;<br> + Bright and Clayton on Oregon, +<a href="#page346">346</a>;<br> + passes Clayton bill, +<a href="#page347">347</a>;<br> + final agreement with House, +<a href="#page347">347</a>;<br> + action on erection of California and New Mexico, +<a href="#page349">349</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + Calhoun's last speech, +<a href="#page358">358</a>;<br> + Webster's Seventh of March speech, +<a href="#page359">359</a>;<br> + action on Texan boundary, +<a href="#page363">363</a>, +<a href="#page364">364</a>;<br> + completion of compromise measures, +<a href="#page363">363</a>, +<a href="#page364">364</a>;<br> + action on Shadrach case, +<a href="#page370">370</a>;<br> + action on President's powers, +<a href="#page371">371</a>, +<a href="#page372">372</a>;<br> + Foote's finality resolutions, +<a href="#page374">374</a>, +<a href="#page375">375</a>;<br> + petitions to, +<a href="#page375">375</a>;<br> + action on organization of Kansas and Nebraska, +<a href="#page381">381</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + Atchison, President <i>pro tem.</i>, +<a href="#page412">412</a>;<br> + memorials from Kansas, +<a href="#page433">433</a>;<br> + speech on the "Crime against Kansas," +<a href="#page439">439</a>;<br> + Brooks' assault, +<a href="#page439">439</a>, +<a href="#page440">440</a>;<br> + action on Kansas, +<a href="#page469">469</a>, +<a href="#page470">470</a>.<br> + <i>See</i> <a href="#congress">Congress of the United States</a><br> +<br> +Senior, Nassau William, cited, +<a href="#page186">186</a><br> +<br> +Sergeant, John,<br> + opposition to Lowndes's bill, +<a href="#page96">96</a>, +<a href="#page97">97</a>;<br> + nominated commissioner to Panama Congress, +<a href="#page149">149</a>;<br> + nomination confirmed, +<a href="#page150">150</a><br> +<br> +Sewall, Samuel E., in Sims case, +<a href="#page372">372</a><br> +<br> +Seward, William Henry,<br> + presents petitions for repeal of fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page375">375</a>;<br> + contest in convention of 1852, +<a href="#page376">376</a>;<br> + relation to Dixon and Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page387">387</a>, +<a href="#page388">388</a>;<br> + charge as to official conduct of Taney, +<a href="#page456">456</a><br> +<br> +Shadrach,<br> + escape to Canada, +<a href="#page370">370</a>;<br> + Clay's motion and Fillmore's message, +<a href="#page370">370</a>, +<a href="#page371">371</a><br> +<br> +Shannon, Wilson,<br> + becomes Governor of Kansas Territory, +<a href="#page427">427</a>;<br> + presides over Leavenworth convention, +<a href="#page428">428</a>;<br> + orders to Territorial militia, +<a href="#page429">429</a>;<br> + meets Lawrence committee at Shawnee Mission, +<a href="#page429">429</a>;<br> + goes to Lawrence, +<a href="#page430">430</a>;<br> + agreement with citizens of Lawrence, +<a href="#page430">430</a>;<br> + treats with Missourians at Franklin, +<a href="#page430">430</a>, +<a href="#page431">431</a>;<br> + report to President, +<a href="#page431">431</a>;<br> + gives troops to Sheriff Jones, +<a href="#page434">434</a>;<br> + dealings with citizens of Lawrence, +<a href="#page436">436</a>, +<a href="#page437">437</a>;<br> + orders troops to the Pottawattomie, +<a href="#page441">441</a>;<br> + his proclamation, +<a href="#page442">442</a>;<br> + orders troops out under Sumner, +<a href="#page442">442</a>;<br> + goes to Lawrence, +<a href="#page444">444</a>;<br> + treaty of August 17, +<a href="#page444">444</a>;<br> + resigns office, +<a href="#page444">444</a><br> +<br> +Shaw, Henry, voting, +<a href="#page73">73</a><br> +<br> +Shawnee Mission, Kansas,<br> + removal of legislature to, +<a href="#page423">423</a>;<br> + arrival of Governor Shannon, +<a href="#page427">427</a>;<br> + Lawrence committee at, +<a href="#page429">429</a><br> +<br> +Sherman, John, on committee for Kansas investigation, +<a href="#page433">433</a><br> +<br> +Shields, James, attitude to fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page368">368</a><br> +<br> +Sierra Nevada Mountains, +<a href="#page349">349</a><br> +<br> +Silliman, Benjamin, member of Emigrant Aid Society, +<a href="#page409">409</a><br> +<br> +Silsbee, Nathaniel, attitude to tariff of 1828, +<a href="#page162">162</a><br> +<br> +Sims, Thomas,<br> + arrest, +<a href="#page372">372</a>;<br> + trial and rendition, +<a href="#page372">372</a>, +<a href="#page373">373</a><br> +<br> +Slade, William,<br> + motion to print abolition petitions, +<a href="#page254">254</a>;<br> + compared with Adams, +<a href="#page254">254</a>;<br> + Polk's ruling on his attempt to debate, +<a href="#page255">255</a>;<br> + his motion tabled, +<a href="#page255">255</a>;<br> + declares war on slavery, +<a href="#page258">258</a>;<br> + his object, +<a href="#page259">259</a>;<br> + further attempt at agitation, +<a href="#page262">262</a><br> +<br> +Slave Code, Virginia code of 1705, +<a href="#page45">45</a><br> +<a name ="slavery"></a> +<br> +Slavery,<br> + beginnings in United States, +<a href="#page40">40</a>;<br> + early view of system, +<a href="#page40">40</a>;<br> + legal recognition, +<a href="#page41">41</a>;<br> + prohibited in Georgia, +<a href="#page43">43</a>;<br> + legislation in Virginia, +<a href="#page43">43</a>;<br> + Virginia statute of 1662, +<a href="#page44">44</a>, +<a href="#page45">45</a>;<br> + relation to Christian baptism, +<a href="#page44">44</a>;<br> + Virginia code of 1705, +<a href="#page45">45</a>;<br> + legislation on public relations of slavery, +<a href="#page46">46</a>;<br> + law of slavery before the Revolution, +<a href="#page46">46</a>;<br> + substantially abolished in Massachusetts, +<a href="#page48">48</a>;<br> + legislation in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, +Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia, +<a href="#page48">48</a>;<br> + letter of Luther Martin, +<a href="#page49">49</a>, +<a href="#page50">50</a>;<br> + in Constitution of 1787, +<a href="#page50">50</a>;<br> + status in Georgia and North Carolina cessions and in Kentucky, +<a href="#page50">50</a>, +<a href="#page51">51</a>, +<a href="#page56">56</a>;<br> + passage of fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page51">51</a>;<br> + abolition of slave trade by Congress, +<a href="#page51">51</a>;<br> + relation to cotton culture, +<a href="#page52">52</a>, +<a href="#page53">53</a>;<br> + in Louisiana territory, +<a href="#page54">54</a>, +<a href="#page55">55</a>, +<a href="#page57">57</a>, +<a href="#page65">65</a>, +<a href="#page72">72</a>, +<a href="#page88">88</a>;<br> + in Orleans Territory, +<a href="#page55">55</a>;<br> + in Louisiana Territory, +<a href="#page55">55</a>, +<a href="#page56">56</a>;<br> + in Missouri Territory and Commonwealth of Missouri, +<a href="#page56">56</a>, +<a href="#page65">65</a>;<br> + effect of abolition of foreign slave-trade, +<a href="#page57">57</a>;<br> + domestic slave-trade, +<a href="#page57">57</a>, +<a href="#page58">58</a>;<br> + relation of slavery to diplomacy, +<a href="#page58">58</a>;<br> + international status, +<a href="#page59">59</a>;<br> + relation of slavery to public policy, +<a href="#page60">60</a>;<br> + status in various States, +<a href="#page62">62</a>, +<a href="#page63">63</a>;<br> + division of Congress on territorial basis as to slavery, +<a href="#page63">63</a>;<br> + in the Territories, +<a href="#page63">63</a>;<br> + in Northwest Territory, +<a href="#page69">69</a>;<br> + in the Tallmadge amendment, +<a href="#page73">73</a>;<br> + slavery in Territories, +<a href="#page75">75</a>;<br> + Taylor's plan as to Missouri, +<a href="#page75">75</a>, +<a href="#page76">76</a>, +<a href="#page78">78</a>;<br> + Storrs's plan as to Missouri, +<a href="#page78">78</a>;<br> + Taylor's motion, +<a href="#page78">78</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + motion of Thomas, +<a href="#page84">84</a>, +<a href="#page87">87</a>, +<a href="#page88">88</a>;<br> + relation of slavery to Missouri struggle, +<a href="#page92">92</a>, +<a href="#page93">93</a>, +<a href="#page106">106</a>, +<a href="#page107">107</a>;<br> + status of slavery in 1776, 1787, 1820, +<a href="#page93">93</a>;<br> + slavery in national politics after 1820, +<a href="#page108">108</a>;<br> + relation of slavery to protection, +<a href="#page109">109</a>, +<a href="#page110">110</a>;<br> + relation of slavery to Panama Congress, +<a href="#page151">151</a>;<br> + relation to tariff, +<a href="#page157">157</a>;<br> + relation to Maysville road bill, +<a href="#page168">168</a>;<br> + relation to internal improvements, to Missouri struggle, and to tariff of 1828, +<a href="#page170">170</a>;<br> + view of Hayne and McDuffie, +<a href="#page177">177</a>;<br> + relation to the Bank question, +<a href="#page198">198</a>;<br> + effect of race domination, +<a href="#page244">244</a>;<br> + as regarded before 1830, +<a href="#page244">244</a>;<br> + humanitarianism of 1830, +<a href="#page244">244</a>;<br> + the philosophy of abolition and of its opponents, +<a href="#page245">245</a>;<br> + the true philosophy, +<a href="#page245">245</a>, +<a href="#page246">246</a>;<br> + slavery in the Constitution, +<a href="#page246">246-248</a>;<br> + possible ways of attacking slavery, +<a href="#page248">248</a>;<br> + Southampton insurrection, +<a href="#page248">248</a>, +<a href="#page249">249</a>;<br> + Floyd's message, +<a href="#page249">249</a> (<i>see</i> +<a href="#petition">Petition, Right of</a>);<br> + declaration of war by Slade, +<a href="#page258">258</a>;<br> + the contest precipitated, +<a href="#page260">260</a>;<br> + the Pinckney resolutions evoked, +<a href="#page261">261</a>;<br> + relation to denial of right of petition, +<a href="#page263">263</a>, +<a href="#page264">264</a>;<br> + views of Rives, +<a href="#page265">265-267</a>;<br> + views of Calhoun, +<a href="#page265">265-268</a>;<br> + significance of the contest over petitions and the mails, +<a href="#page274">274-277</a>;<br> + relation of Whig principles to slavery, +<a href="#page283">283</a>;<br> + relation of Whig and Democratic parties to slavery extension, +<a href="#page287">287</a>, +<a href="#page288">288</a>;<br> + slavery in Florida constitution of 1838, +<a href="#page290">290</a>;<br> + slavery in the Texas constitution of 1836, +<a href="#page294">294</a>;<br> + relation of slavery to recognition of Texas, +<a href="#page296">296</a>;<br> + relation of slavery to question of Texan annexation, +<a href="#page300">300</a>, +<a href="#page301">301</a>, +<a href="#page302">302</a>;<br> + Clay's views of relation of slavery and annexation, +<a href="#page319">319</a>;<br> + relation of slavery to Mexican War, +<a href="#page330">330</a>, +<a href="#page331">331</a>;<br> + the Wilmot proviso, +<a href="#page335">335</a>, +<a href="#page336">336</a>;<br> + Cass's view of relation of Mexican war and slavery, +<a href="#page338">338</a>;<br> + Thompson's amendment, +<a href="#page341">341</a>;<br> + Burt's motion as to the Wilmot proviso, +<a href="#page341">341</a>, +<a href="#page342">342</a>;<br> + meaning of Rhett's views, +<a href="#page343">343</a>;<br> + views of Calhoun and Davis as to slavery in territories, +<a href="#page344">344</a>;<br> + Democratic platform of 1848, +<a href="#page344">344</a>, +<a href="#page345">345</a>;<br> + Cass's letter to Nicholson, +<a href="#page345">345</a>;<br> + Whig platform of 1848, +<a href="#page345">345</a>;<br> + the Clayton bill, +<a href="#page346">346</a>, +<a href="#page347">347</a>;<br> + Free-soil platform of 1848, +<a href="#page347">347</a>, +<a href="#page348">348</a>;<br> + as to signature of Oregon bill, +<a href="#page348">348</a>;<br> + Douglas's and Smith's bills, +<a href="#page349">349</a>;<br> + Berrien's report, +<a href="#page349">349</a>, +<a href="#page350">350</a>;<br> + views of Berrien and Webster on slavery in Mexican acquisitions, +<a href="#page351">351</a>, +<a href="#page352">352</a>;<br> + Taylor's message of December 4, 1849, +<a href="#page354">354</a>;<br> + indication of policy in the Foote bill, +<a href="#page354">354</a>;<br> + relation of slavery to question of Texan boundary, +<a href="#page354">354</a>, +<a href="#page355">355</a>;<br> + question of slavery in District of Columbia, +<a href="#page355">355</a>;<br> + Clay's plan of compromise, +<a href="#page355">355</a>, +<a href="#page356">356</a>;<br> + opposition of Southerners, +<a href="#page356">356</a>, +<a href="#page357">357</a>;<br> + attitude of Davis, and of abolitionists, +<a href="#page357">357</a>;<br> + Calhoun's last speech, +<a href="#page358">358</a>;<br> + Webster's Seventh of March speech, +<a href="#page359">359</a>;<br> + Clay's report, +<a href="#page361">361</a>, +<a href="#page362">362</a>;<br> + the bills as adopted, +<a href="#page363">363</a>, +<a href="#page364">364</a>;<br> + slavery before and after 1850, +<a href="#page365">365-367</a>;<br> + relation of parties to slavery question, +<a href="#page377">377</a>;<br> + various policies as to slavery, +<a href="#page377">377-379</a>;<br> + situation in December, 1852, +<a href="#page380">380</a>, +<a href="#page381">381</a>;<br> + Douglas's report on Nebraska, +<a href="#page382">382-387</a>;<br> + dictum of the committee, +<a href="#page387">387</a>;<br> + Dixon's motion, +<a href="#page387">387</a>;<br> + dictum of Douglas as to act of 1820, +<a href="#page390">390</a>;<br> + controversy on the Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page390">390</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + speech of Houston, +<a href="#page393">393</a>;<br> + the <i>National Era</i> address, +<a href="#page399">399</a>, +<a href="#page400">400</a>;<br> + the struggle for Kansas, +<a href="#page407">407</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + indications of plan for extension, +<a href="#page408">408</a>;<br> + the question in Kansas, +<a href="#page412">412</a>;<br> + Robinson's declaration as to slavery in Kansas and Missouri, +<a href="#page424">424</a>;<br> + Kansas legislation on slavery, +<a href="#page424">424</a>;<br> + its effect on the North, +<a href="#page424">424</a>, +<a href="#page425">425</a>;<br> + the Topeka constitution, +<a href="#page425">425</a>;<br> + the Dred Scott case, +<a href="#page449">449-459</a>;<br> + effect of the Dred Scott dictum, +<a href="#page460">460</a>;<br> + further struggle in Kansas, +<a href="#page460">460-474</a>;<br> + the Lecompton constitution, +<a href="#page467">467</a>, +<a href="#page468">468</a>.<br> + <i>See</i> <a href="#kansas">Kansas, Territory of</a><br> +<br> +Slaves, introduced at Jamestown, +<a href="#page40">40</a>.<br> + <i>See</i> <a href="#slavery">Slavery</a><br> +<br> +Slidell, John,<br> + sent to Mexico, +<a href="#page327">327</a>;<br> + refused audience, and leaves Mexico, +<a href="#page328">328</a>;<br> + effect of his rejection, +<a href="#page329">329</a><br> +<br> +Sloat, John Drake, ordered to Upper California, +<a href="#page331">331</a><br> +<br> +Smith, Caleb B., reports bills on New Mexico and Upper California, +<a href="#page349">349</a><br> +<br> +Smith, Gerrit,<br> + the "Jerry rescue," +<a href="#page374">374</a>;<br> + signs <i>National Era</i> address, +<a href="#page389">389</a><br> +<br> +Smith, Persifer Frazer,<br> + assigned to command in Kansas, +<a href="#page443">443</a>;<br> + orders as to invaders of Kansas, +<a href="#page445">445</a>;<br> + sustains Cooke in disobeying Woodson, +<a href="#page445">445</a><br> +<br> +Smith, George W., candidate for Governor of Kansas, +<a href="#page468">468</a><br> +<br> +Smith, William,<br> + reports Maine-Missouri bill, +<a href="#page82">82</a>;<br> + position on the bill, +<a href="#page83">83</a>;<br> + presents bill to Senate on Missouri, +<a href="#page99">99</a>;<br> + bill passed by Senate and tabled by House, +<a href="#page99">99</a>;<br> + presents protest as to tariff, +<a href="#page170">170</a><br> +<br> +"Softs," the, attitude of Pierce, +<a href="#page402">402</a><br> +<br> +Soulé, Pierre, the Ostend manifesto, +<a href="#page408">408</a><br> +<br> +South Carolina, +<a href="#page8">8</a>, +<a href="#page9">9</a>;<br> + slave laws, +<a href="#page46">46</a>;<br> + repeals law against slave importation, +<a href="#page51">51</a>;<br> + as to citizenship law, +<a href="#page99">99</a>;<br> + protest against tariff of 1824, +<a href="#page115">115</a>, +<a href="#page116">116</a>;<br> + attitude to internal improvements bill of 1817, +<a href="#page118">118</a>;<br> + attitude to internal improvements bill of 1822, +<a href="#page119">119</a>;<br> + in election of 1824, +<a href="#page137">137</a>, +<a href="#page138">138</a>;<br> + opposition to tariff bill of 1827, +<a href="#page159">159</a>, +<a href="#page160">160</a>;<br> + legislature protests against tariff of 1828, +<a href="#page170">170</a>, +<a href="#page171">171</a>, +<a href="#page174">174</a>;<br> + attitude to Jackson's views, +<a href="#page172">172</a>;<br> + relation to McDuffie bill of 1830, +<a href="#page174">174</a>;<br> + attitude to McDuffie's argument, +<a href="#page176">176</a>;<br> + attitude to Congress in 1830-31, +<a href="#page178">178</a>;<br> + the tariff and Calhoun's work, +<a href="#page179">179</a>, +<a href="#page181">181</a>, +<a href="#page183">183</a>;<br> + nullification or rebellion, +<a href="#page183">183</a>;<br> + relation to Jackson's message of 1831, +<a href="#page184">184</a>;<br> + stock held in United States Bank, +<a href="#page203">203</a>;<br> + nullification earlier in Georgia, +<a href="#page210">210</a>;<br> + relation to the Indian troubles in Georgia, +<a href="#page220">220</a>;<br> + special meeting of legislature, +<a href="#page221">221</a>;<br> + the nullification convention and its work, +<a href="#page221">221</a>;<br> + the ordinance of nullification, +<a href="#page222">222</a>;<br> + committee to the legislature, +<a href="#page223">223</a>;<br> + addresses of the convention, +<a href="#page223">223</a>, +<a href="#page224">224</a>;<br> + Hamilton's message, +<a href="#page224">224</a>;<br> + Hayne's inaugural, +<a href="#page224">224</a>;<br> + the Replevin Act, +<a href="#page224">224-226</a>;<br> + change of representation in Senate, +<a href="#page224">224</a>;<br> + acts to enforce ordinance of nullification, +<a href="#page226">226</a>;<br> + opinion of Calhoun and others as to position of South Carolina, +<a href="#page226">226-228</a>;<br> + South Carolina in Jackson's' message of 1832, +<a href="#page228">228</a>;<br> + Jackson's proclamation of December 10, 1832, +<a href="#page228">228-230</a>;<br> + active steps taken by Jackson, +<a href="#page230">230</a>, +<a href="#page231">231</a>;<br> + feeling of the other States, +<a href="#page231">231</a>;<br> + Hayne's proclamation and the action of South Carolina, +<a href="#page232">232</a>;<br> + Jackson's message of January, 1833, +<a href="#page232">232</a>;<br> + Calhoun's statement in the Senate, +<a href="#page232">232</a>, +<a href="#page233">233</a>;<br> + the "Force Bill" reported, +<a href="#page233">233</a>, +<a href="#page234">234</a>;<br> + answers Replevin Act, +<a href="#page234">234</a>;<br> + attitude of Calhoun, +<a href="#page234">234</a>;<br> + postponement of execution of nullification ordinance, +<a href="#page235">235</a>;<br> + Bell's report on President's powers, +<a href="#page235">235</a>;<br> + Clay's proposals, +<a href="#page235">235</a>, +<a href="#page236">236</a>;<br> + attitude of Calhoun, +<a href="#page236">236</a>, +<a href="#page237">237</a>;<br> + attitude to Clay's bill, +<a href="#page237">237</a>, +<a href="#page238">238</a>;<br> + ordinance of nullification withdrawn, +<a href="#page238">238</a>;<br> + motive of leaders in affairs of nullification, +<a href="#page238">238</a>;<br> + effect of nullification considered, +<a href="#page238">238-241</a>;<br> + opinion of Jacksonian principles, +<a href="#page240">240</a>;<br> + convention in, +<a href="#page375">375</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a>;<br> + demands of South Carolinians in Kansas, +<a href="#page437">437</a>;<br> + the assault upon Sumner, +<a href="#page439">439</a><br> +<br> +South Carolina College, +<a href="#page173">173</a><br> +<br> +"South Carolina Exposition, The," +<a href="#page179">179</a><br> +<br> +South Sea, the, +<a href="#page33">33</a><br> +<br> +Southampton County, Virginia,<br> + slave insurrection, +<a href="#page248">248</a>, +<a href="#page249">249</a>;<br> + Floyd's message, +<a href="#page249">249</a>;<br> + passed over, +<a href="#page250">250</a>;<br> + effect on consideration of abolition petitions, +<a href="#page252">252</a><br> +<br> +"Southern Address," the, +<a href="#page374">374</a><br> +<br> +Spain,<br> + as to American possessions, +<a href="#page20">20</a>, +<a href="#page21">21</a>, +<a href="#page22">22</a>, +<a href="#page23">23</a>, +<a href="#page24">24</a>, +<a href="#page25">25</a>, +<a href="#page29">29</a>, +<a href="#page30">30</a>, +<a href="#page32">32</a>, +<a href="#page33">33</a>, +<a href="#page35">35</a>, +<a href="#page36">36</a>;<br> + cedes Louisiana territory, +<a href="#page54">54</a>, +<a href="#page65">65</a>;<br> + claims in North Pacific, +<a href="#page123">123</a>;<br> + relation to colonies and to Congress of Verona, +<a href="#page124">124</a>;<br> + attitude of Great Britain and United States as to her colonies, +<a href="#page125">125</a>;<br> + the "Monroe Doctrine," +<a href="#page125">125-128</a>;<br> + Clay's attitude to Spain's colonies, +<a href="#page135">135</a>, +<a href="#page152">152</a>, +<a href="#page153">153</a>;<br> + trouble in the colonies, +<a href="#page147">147</a>, +<a href="#page151">151-153</a>;<br> + boundary disputes with France and United States, +<a href="#page290">290</a>;<br> + treaty of 1819, +<a href="#page290">290</a>;<br> + revolt of Mexico, +<a href="#page291">291</a>;<br> + claim to Oregon, +<a href="#page311">311</a>;<br> + the Nootka Convention, +<a href="#page311">311</a>, +<a href="#page312">312</a>;<br> + effect of war with Great Britain, +<a href="#page312">312</a>;<br> + cedes Louisiana to France, +<a href="#page312">312</a>;<br> + cedes Florida, +<a href="#page313">313</a>;<br> + treaty of 1819, +<a href="#page318">318</a><br> +<br> +Spalding, Henry Harmon, missionary to Oregon, +<a href="#page315">315</a><br> +<br> +Spanish Government, +<a href="#page37">37</a><br> +<br> +Spear, Samuel T., opposes fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page368">368</a><br> +<br> +"Specie Circular," its results, +<a href="#page283">283</a><br> +<br> +<i>Squatter Sovereign,</i> the, misrepresentations as to Emigrant Aid Company, +<a href="#page411">411</a><br> +<br> +Stanton, F. P.,<br> + appointed secretary of Kansas Territory, +<a href="#page461">461</a>;<br> + as Acting Governor, negotiates with "Free-state" men, +<a href="#page461">461</a>, +<a href="#page462">462</a>;<br> + action on fraudulent elections, +<a href="#page465">465</a>;<br> + demands of "Free-state" men, +<a href="#page466">466</a>, +<a href="#page467">467</a>;<br> + calls legislature at Lecompton, +<a href="#page467">467</a>;<br> + removed, +<a href="#page467">467</a><br> +<br> +"States' rights,"<br> + founder of party, +<a href="#page2">2</a>;<br> + position of Webster, +<a href="#page6">6</a>;<br> + early condition of party, +<a href="#page122">122</a>;<br> + nucleus of party, +<a href="#page146">146</a>;<br> + Calhoun's doctrine, +<a href="#page179">179</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + as to the Bank, +<a href="#page194">194</a>, +<a href="#page195">195</a>;<br> + Benton's speech, +<a href="#page199">199</a>;<br> + Troup's attitude, +<a href="#page213">213</a>;<br> + Calhoun's position, +<a href="#page234">234</a>, +<a href="#page236">236</a>, +<a href="#page268">268</a>, +<a href="#page269">269</a>, +<a href="#page270">270</a>;<br> + King's views, +<a href="#page269">269</a>, +<a href="#page270">270</a>;<br> + and <i>see</i> +<a href="#page3">3</a>, +<a href="#page49">49</a>, +<a href="#page109">109</a>, +<a href="#page130">130</a>, +<a href="#page136">136</a>, +<a href="#page137">137</a>, +<a href="#page159">159</a>, +<a href="#page192">192</a>, +<a href="#page215">215</a>, +<a href="#page217">217</a>, +<a href="#page274">274</a><br> +<br> +Stearns, ——, sells rights to site of Lawrence, +<a href="#page415">415</a><br> +<br> +Stephens, Alexander Hamilton, management of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page404">404</a><br> +<br> +Stockton, Robert Field, ordered to Upper California, +<a href="#page331">331</a><br> +<br> +Storrs, Henry R.,<br> + voting, +<a href="#page73">73</a>;<br> + on Missouri affair, +<a href="#page78">78</a><br> +<br> +Storrs, Richard Salter, opposes fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page368">368</a><br> +<br> +Strange, Robert, motion in Senate, +<a href="#page270">270</a><br> +<br> +Stringfellow, B. F.,<br> + coeditor of <i>Squatter Sovereign,</i> +<a href="#page411">411</a>;<br> + formation of "Platte County Self-defensive Association," +<a href="#page414">414</a><br> +<br> +Sullivan, G., interview with Adams, +<a href="#page142">142</a>, +<a href="#page143">143</a><br> +<br> +Sumner, Edwin Vose,<br> + communication with Robinson as to assault on Jones, +<a href="#page434">434</a>;<br> + conditional offer of Lawrence citizens to surrender arms to, +<a href="#page437">437</a>;<br> + rescues Pate, +<a href="#page442">442</a>;<br> + returns to Fort Leavenworth, +<a href="#page442">442</a>;<br> + disperses legislature at Topeka, +<a href="#page443">443</a>;<br> + his act disapproved, +<a href="#page443">443</a>;<br> + retirement, +<a href="#page443">443</a>;<br> + attitude to Kansas affairs, +<a href="#page472">472</a><br> +<br> +Sumner, Charles,<br> + presents petitions for repeal of fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page375">375</a>;<br> + speech on fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page377">377</a>;<br> + effort to improve Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page388">388</a>;<br> + signs <i>National Era</i> address, +<a href="#page389">389</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a>;<br> + speech on the "Crime against Kansas," +<a href="#page439">439</a>;<br> + assaulted by Brooks, +<a href="#page439">439</a>, +<a href="#page440">440</a>;<br> + effect of assault modified by Pottawattomie massacres, +<a href="#page442">442</a><br> +<br> +Supreme Court of the United States, decisions by:<br> + Brown <i>vs.</i> Maryland, +<a href="#page195">195</a>, +<a href="#page198">198</a>;<br> + McCulloch <i>vs.</i> Maryland, +<a href="#page205">205</a>;<br> + Cherokee Nation case, +<a href="#page218">218</a>;<br> + Worcester <i>vs.</i> Georgia, +<a href="#page218">218</a>, +<a href="#page219">219</a>;<br> + <i>see also</i> +<a href="#page109">109</a>, +<a href="#page207">207</a>, +<a href="#page222">222</a>, +<a href="#page229">229</a>, +<a href="#page346">346</a>, +<a href="#page348">348</a>, +<a href="#page366">366</a>, +<a href="#page383">383</a>, +<a href="#page427">427</a>, +<a href="#page447">447</a>, +<a href="#page460">460</a>;<br> + Prigg <i>vs.</i> Pennsylvania, +<a href="#page363">363</a>;<br> + Dred Scott <i>vs.</i> Sandford, +<a href="#page447">447</a>, +<a href="#page449">449</a>, <i>et seq.</i><br> +<br> +Sutter land claims, war against, +<a href="#page413">413</a><br> +<br> +Swift, Benjamin,<br> + presents abolition petition, +<a href="#page269">269</a>;<br> + motion to lay on table, +<a href="#page270">270</a><br> +<br> +Syracuse, New York,<br> + meetings on fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page368">368</a>;<br> + the "Jerry rescue," +<a href="#page373">373</a>, +<a href="#page374">374</a><br> +<br> +<br> +T<small>ACUBAYA</small>, +<a href="#page153">153</a><br> +<br> +Tait, Charles, report, +<a href="#page74">74</a><br> +<br> +Tallmadge, James, +<a href="#page34">34</a>;<br> + amendment to Missouri bill, +<a href="#page66">66-74</a>;<br> + leader of restrictionists, +<a href="#page68">68</a><br> +<br> +Taney, Roger Brooke,<br> + appointed secretary of the treasury, +<a href="#page280">280</a>;<br> + ceases deposits in United States Bank, +<a href="#page280">280</a>;<br> + the contention as to propriety and legality, +<a href="#page280">280</a>, +<a href="#page281">281</a>;<br> + criticism by the Senate, +<a href="#page281">281</a>;<br> + opinion on Dred Scott case, +<a href="#page453">453</a>, +<a href="#page454">454</a>;<br> + criticism of his argument, +<a href="#page455">455</a>, +<a href="#page456">456</a>;<br> + charge as to divulging court secrets, +<a href="#page456">456</a>, +<a href="#page457">457</a><br> +<br> +Tappan, S. F., resists Sheriff Jones, +<a href="#page434">434</a><br> +<a name="tariff"></a> +<br> +Tariff,<br> + bill of 1816, +<a href="#page3">3</a>, +<a href="#page8">8</a>, +<a href="#page9">9</a>, +<a href="#page10">10</a>;<br> + views of Clay, +<a href="#page10">10</a>;<br> + speech of Calhoun, +<a href="#page10">10</a>, +<a href="#page11">11</a>, +<a href="#page12">12</a>;<br> + passed by House and Senate, +<a href="#page12">12</a>;<br> + attitude of Randolph and Telfair, and the New Englanders, +<a href="#page12">12</a>;<br> + act under comparison, +<a href="#page15">15</a>, +<a href="#page16">16</a>;<br> + Monroe's messages of 1821 and 1822, +<a href="#page110">110</a>;<br> + bill of 1823, +<a href="#page110">110</a>, +<a href="#page111">111</a>;<br> + failure of the bill, +<a href="#page111">111</a>;<br> + Monroe's message of 1823, +<a href="#page111">111</a>;<br> + bill of 1824, +<a href="#page112">112</a>;<br> + support of Tod, +<a href="#page112">112</a>, and of Clay, +<a href="#page112">112</a>, +<a href="#page113">113</a>;<br> + opposition of Webster, Cambreleng and Barbour, +<a href="#page113">113</a>, +<a href="#page114">114</a>;<br> + Hayne's theory, +<a href="#page114">114</a>;<br> + modified bill passed by House, +<a href="#page114">114</a>;<br> + House rejects Senate amendments, +<a href="#page114">114</a>;<br> + conference committee, +<a href="#page114">114</a>, +<a href="#page115">115</a>;<br> + characterization of tariff of 1827, +<a href="#page115">115</a>;<br> + attitude of various States toward tariff of 1824, +<a href="#page115">115</a>;<br> + protest of South Carolina, +<a href="#page115">115</a>, +<a href="#page116">116</a>;<br> + significance of the question, +<a href="#page129">129</a>;<br> + relation to slavery, +<a href="#page157">157</a>;<br> + act of 1824 a failure, +<a href="#page157">157</a>;<br> + memorials, +<a href="#page158">158</a>;<br> + Mallary bill of 1827, +<a href="#page158">158</a>;<br> + provisions, +<a href="#page158">158</a>;<br> + attitude of the various sections, +<a href="#page158">158</a>, +<a href="#page159">159</a>;<br> + bill passed by House, +<a href="#page159">159</a>;<br> + opposition of South Carolina, +<a href="#page159">159</a>, +<a href="#page160">160</a>;<br> + bill abandoned in Senate, +<a href="#page160">160</a>;<br> + bill of 1828 reported, +<a href="#page160">160</a>;<br> + its provisions, +<a href="#page160">160</a>;<br> + opposed and modified, +<a href="#page160">160</a>, +<a href="#page161">161</a>;<br> + analysis of vote in House, +<a href="#page162">162</a>;<br> + passed by Senate and approved, +<a href="#page162">162</a>;<br> + relation to party lines, +<a href="#page162">162</a>, +<a href="#page163">163</a>;<br> + South Carolina protests against bill of 1828, +<a href="#page170">170</a>, +<a href="#page171">171</a>, +<a href="#page174">174</a>;<br> + Jackson's message of December, 1829, +<a href="#page171">171</a>, +<a href="#page172">172</a>;<br> + its reception in South Carolina, +<a href="#page172">172</a>;<br> + its reference, +<a href="#page172">172</a>;<br> + question of origin of tariff bills, +<a href="#page173">173</a>, +<a href="#page174">174</a>;<br> + bill reported by McDuffie, +<a href="#page174">174</a>;<br> + its terms and disposal, +<a href="#page174">174</a>;<br> + manufactures committee bill, +<a href="#page175">175</a>;<br> + argument of McDuffie, +<a href="#page175">175</a>, +<a href="#page176">176</a>, +<a href="#page177">177</a>;<br> + passage of bills of 1830, +<a href="#page177">177</a>, +<a href="#page178">178</a>;<br> + Jackson's message of December, 1830, +<a href="#page178">178</a>;<br> + the work of Calhoun, +<a href="#page179">179-181</a>, +<a href="#page183">183</a>;<br> + the law in court, +<a href="#page182">182</a>, +<a href="#page183">183</a>;<br> + Jackson's message of December, 1831, +<a href="#page184">184</a>;<br> + two bills of 1832, +<a href="#page185">185</a>;<br> + disposal in House, +<a href="#page186">186</a>;<br> + Clay's resolution in Senate, +<a href="#page186">186</a>, +<a href="#page187">187</a>, +<a href="#page188">188</a>;<br> + House bill in Senate, +<a href="#page188">188</a>;<br> + amended and passed, +<a href="#page188">188</a>;<br> + distribution of vote in Senate, +<a href="#page188">188</a>;<br> + conference and bill becomes law, +<a href="#page188">188</a>;<br> + its effect on the situation, +<a href="#page188">188</a>, +<a href="#page189">189</a>;<br> + proposal in address of South Carolina convention, +<a href="#page224">224</a>;<br> + Jackson's message of December, 1832, +<a href="#page228">228</a>;<br> + bill reported by Verplanck, +<a href="#page231">231</a>, +<a href="#page232">232</a>;<br> + discussion of Verplanck bill, +<a href="#page235">235</a>;<br> + Clay proposes compromise tariff, +<a href="#page235">235</a>;<br> + his purposes, +<a href="#page235">235</a>, +<a href="#page236">236</a>;<br> + attitude of Calhoun, +<a href="#page236">236</a>;<br> + controversy over the bill, +<a href="#page236">236</a>;<br> + Clay's bill amended and substituted for Verplanck's bill, +<a href="#page237">237</a>;<br> + attitude of South Carolina, +<a href="#page238">238</a>;<br> + President's approval, +<a href="#page238">238</a>;<br> + result of modified bill of 1833, +<a href="#page283">283</a>;<br> + tariff bills vetoed by Tyler, +<a href="#page286">286</a><br> +<br> +Tassells, Cherokee Indian, executed, +<a href="#page218">218</a><br> +<br> +Taylor, John,<br> + supports Bank bill, +<a href="#page8">8</a>;<br> + presides over Columbia convention, +<a href="#page159">159</a><br> +<br> +Taylor, John W.,<br> + in Missouri bill debate, +<a href="#page68">68</a>;<br> + plan as to Missouri, +<a href="#page75">75</a>, +<a href="#page76">76</a>, +<a href="#page78">78</a>;<br> + new motion and argument, +<a href="#page78">78</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + on conference committee, +<a href="#page88">88</a>;<br> + attitude toward internal improvements bill of 1822, +<a href="#page119">119</a>;<br> + vote upon Maysville road bill, +<a href="#page168">168</a><br> +<br> +Taylor, Zachary,<br> + ordered to advance from Corpus Christi, +<a href="#page329">329</a>;<br> + demand of Ampudia, +<a href="#page329">329</a>;<br> + hostilities begun, +<a href="#page329">329</a>;<br> + battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma, +<a href="#page329">329</a>, +<a href="#page330">330</a>;<br> + occupies Matamoras, +<a href="#page331">331</a>;<br> + takes Monterey, +<a href="#page331">331</a>, +<a href="#page332">332</a>;<br> + battle of Buena Vista, +<a href="#page332">332</a>, +<a href="#page333">333</a>;<br> + battles of Contreras, San Antonio, and Cherubusco, +<a href="#page334">334</a>;<br> + armistice, +<a href="#page334">334</a>;<br> + presidential nominee, +<a href="#page345">345</a>;<br> + elected President, +<a href="#page349">349</a>;<br> + plan as to California, +<a href="#page353">353</a>;<br> + message of December 4, 1849, +<a href="#page353">353</a>, +<a href="#page354">354</a>;<br> + special message under consideration, +<a href="#page357">357</a>, +<a href="#page358">358</a>;<br> + death, +<a href="#page362">362</a><br> +<br> +Tehuantepec, Isthmus of, +<a href="#page337">337</a><br> +<br> +Telfair, Thomas, opposition to tariff of 1816, +<a href="#page12">12</a><br> +<br> +Tennessee, +<a href="#page31">31</a>, +<a href="#page32">32</a>, +<a href="#page35">35</a>;<br> + created a Commonwealth, +<a href="#page51">51</a>;<br> + with slavery, +<a href="#page62">62</a>, +<a href="#page63">63</a>;<br> + attitude to internal improvements bill of 1817, +<a href="#page118">118</a>;<br> + attitude to internal improvements bill of 1822, +<a href="#page119">119</a>;<br> + legislature nominates Jackson for the presidency, +<a href="#page136">136</a>;<br> + electoral vote in 1844, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +Territorial extension, position of Whig and Democratic parties, +<a href="#page287">287</a>, +<a href="#page288">288</a><br> +<a name="texas"></a> +<br> +Texas,<br> + early boundary dispute, +<a href="#page290">290</a>;<br> + Austin grant, +<a href="#page291">291</a>;<br> + efforts of United States to buy Texas, +<a href="#page292">292</a>;<br> + declares independence, +<a href="#page293">293</a>;<br> + the Mexicans defeated, +<a href="#page294">294</a>;<br> + constitution formed and Houston elected President, +<a href="#page294">294</a>;<br> + the Connecticut resolution, +<a href="#page295">295</a>;<br> + the Senate's resolution, +<a href="#page295">295</a>;<br> + Calhoun's position, +<a href="#page295">295</a>, +<a href="#page296">296</a>;<br> + House passes resolution, +<a href="#page296">296</a>;<br> + Morfit's mission, +<a href="#page296">296-298</a>;<br> + Jackson's message of December 21, 1836, +<a href="#page298">298</a>;<br> + Walker's resolution, +<a href="#page298">298</a>;<br> + Jackson's special message as to reprisals, +<a href="#page298">298</a>;<br> + Walker resolution adopted, +<a href="#page299">299</a>;<br> + Texas in diplomatic appropriation bill +<a href="#page299">299</a>;<br> + Jackson deals with agent of Texas, +<a href="#page300">300</a>;<br> + Texan independence recognized, +<a href="#page300">300</a>;<br> + the question of annexation, +<a href="#page300">300</a>, +<a href="#page301">301</a>;<br> + Wise's doctrine as to annexation, +<a href="#page302">302</a>;<br> + Whig address on annexation, +<a href="#page303">303</a>;<br> + negotiations of Upshur and Van Zandt, +<a href="#page304">304</a>;<br> + independence recognized by Powers, +<a href="#page304">304</a>;<br> + possibility of British interference, +<a href="#page304">304</a>;<br> + relations to Mexico, +<a href="#page305">305</a>, +<a href="#page306">306</a>;<br> + proposal of annexation, +<a href="#page305">305</a>;<br> + legal position, +<a href="#page306">306</a>;<br> + Murphy's assurance to President of Texas, +<a href="#page306">306</a>;<br> + Houston sends special envoy to Washington, +<a href="#page306">306</a>;<br> + Murphy's assurance disavowed, +<a href="#page307">307</a>;<br> + President's proposal to move forces, +<a href="#page307">307</a>;<br> + Texas treaty sent to Senate, +<a href="#page307">307</a>, +<a href="#page308">308</a>;<br> + President's view of constitutional position of Texas, +<a href="#page308">308</a>;<br> + treaty rejected by Senate, +<a href="#page308">308</a>;<br> + Benton's claim, +<a href="#page308">308</a>;<br> + opposition of Archer, +<a href="#page308">308</a>, +<a href="#page309">309</a>;<br> + "reannexation" in the Democratic platform, +<a href="#page309">309</a>;<br> + documents sent to House, +<a href="#page309">309</a>, +<a href="#page310">310</a>;<br> + in Democratic platform of 1844, +<a href="#page316">316</a>, +<a href="#page317">317</a>, +<a href="#page318">318</a>;<br> + the Clay letters, +<a href="#page319">319</a>;<br> + demands of abolitionists, +<a href="#page319">319</a>;<br> + the <i>National Intelligencer</i> letter, +<a href="#page319">319</a>, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + relation to annexation of election of Polk, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + Greeley's views as to triumph of annexation, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + Tyler's message of 1844, +<a href="#page320">320</a>, +<a href="#page321">321</a>;<br> + Ingersoll reports joint resolution, +<a href="#page321">321</a>;<br> + various views as to method of annexation, +<a href="#page321">321</a>, +<a href="#page322">322</a>;<br> + House passes enabling act, +<a href="#page322">322</a>;<br> + the Archer report in the Senate, +<a href="#page322">322</a>, +<a href="#page323">323</a>;<br> + the Walker amendment, +<a href="#page323">323</a>;<br> + measure signed by President, +<a href="#page323">323</a>;<br> + Texas admitted, +<a href="#page323">323</a>;<br> + annexation a casus belli for Mexico, +<a href="#page327">327</a>;<br> + Texas congress of December, 1836, +<a href="#page328">328</a>;<br> + the Rio Grande as boundary, +<a href="#page328">328</a>;<br> + President's duty as to Texan boundary, +<a href="#page329">329</a>;<br> + Congressional acts as to Corpus Christi, +<a href="#page329">329</a>;<br> + importance of Buena Vista, +<a href="#page333">333</a>;<br> + problem of Texan boundary, +<a href="#page354">354</a>, +<a href="#page355">355</a>;<br> + Clay's plan, +<a href="#page355">355</a>, +<a href="#page356">356</a>;<br> + opposition of Southerners, +<a href="#page356">356</a>, +<a href="#page357">357</a>;<br> + attitude of abolitionists, +<a href="#page357">357</a>;<br> + Webster's Seventh of March speech, +<a href="#page359">359</a>;<br> + Clay's report, +<a href="#page361">361</a>;<br> + extension of jurisdiction by Bell, +<a href="#page362">362</a>, +<a href="#page363">363</a>;<br> + passage of bill as to Texan boundary, +<a href="#page363">363</a>, +<a href="#page364">364</a>;<br> + dictum of Douglas as to annexation of Texas, +<a href="#page390">390</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a>.<br> + <i>See also</i> <a href="#coahuila">Coahuila-Texas</a><br> +<br> +Thayer, Eli,<br> + beginning of his work, +<a href="#page408">408</a>, +<a href="#page409">409</a>;<br> + his reasoning, +<a href="#page409">409</a>;<br> + organization effected, +<a href="#page409">409</a>, +<a href="#page410">410</a>;<br> + incorporation, +<a href="#page410">410</a>, +<a href="#page411">411</a>;<br> + conference with Robinson, +<a href="#page413">413</a>;<br> + reward offered for his head, +<a href="#page413">413</a>;<br> + sending of Sharpe's rifles, +<a href="#page423">423</a><br> +<br> +Thomas, Jesse B.,<br> + motion as to slavery, +<a href="#page84">84</a>, +<a href="#page87">87</a>, +<a href="#page88">88</a>;<br> + on conference' committee, +<a href="#page88">88</a><br> +<br> +Thompson, James,<br> + moves amendment to Oregon bill, +<a href="#page341">341</a>;<br> + amendment in Douglas bill, +<a href="#page341">341</a><br> +<br> +Thompson, Waddy,<br> + as minister to Mexico receives threat of war, +<a href="#page305">305</a>;<br> + opinion on slavery extension, +<a href="#page330">330</a><br> +<br> +Titus, Colonel,<br> + in troubles at Lawrence, +<a href="#page437">437</a>;<br> + captured, +<a href="#page444">444</a>;<br> + his release promised, +<a href="#page444">444</a><br> +<br> +Tod, John,<br> + reports tariff bill, +<a href="#page110">110</a>;<br> + bill fails, +<a href="#page111">111</a>;<br> + reports tariff bill of 1824, +<a href="#page112">112</a>;<br> + supports the bill, +<a href="#page112">112</a><br> +<br> +Tomlinson, Gideon, opposes report of Committee of Thirteen, +<a href="#page101">101</a><br> +<br> +Topeka, Kansas,<br> + convention at, <a href="#page425">425</a> (<i>see</i> +<a href="#kansas">Kansas, Territory of</a>);<br> + legislature at, dispersed, +<a href="#page443">443</a>;<br> + Cooke refuses to obey Woodson's order to attack Topeka, +<a href="#page445">445</a>;<br> + mass-meeting at, +<a href="#page464">464</a><br> +<br> +Topliff, C. W., dealings with Donaldson for Lawrence citizens, +<a href="#page438">438</a><br> +<a name="treaty"></a> +<br> +Treaty of April 11, 1713 (Utrecht), +<a href="#page312">312</a><br> +<br> +Treaty of 1762, between France and Spain, +<a href="#page21">21</a>, +<a href="#page22">22</a>, +<a href="#page23">23</a><br> +<br> +Treaty of Paris, February 10, 1763, between France, Great Britain, and Spain, +<a href="#page20">20</a>, +<a href="#page21">21</a>, +<a href="#page22">22</a>, +<a href="#page23">23</a><br> +<br> +Treaty of Paris, September 3, 1783, +<a href="#page22">22</a><br> +<br> +Treaty of 1790 (Nootka Convention), between Great Britain and Russia, +<a href="#page311">311</a><br> +<br> +Treaty of 1800 (St. Ildefonso), between France and Spain, +<a href="#page22">22</a>, +<a href="#page23">23</a>, +<a href="#page24">24</a>, +<a href="#page54">54</a>, +<a href="#page312">312</a><br> +<br> +Treaty of April 30, 1803, between France and the United States, +<a href="#page23">23</a>, +<a href="#page24">24</a>, +<a href="#page55">55</a>, +<a href="#page57">57</a>, +<a href="#page72">72</a>, +<a href="#page312">312</a>, +<a href="#page318">318</a><br> +<br> +Treaty of Fort Jackson, 1814, +<a href="#page26">26</a>, +<a href="#page29">29</a><br> +<br> +Treaty of December 24, 1814, between Great Britain and the United States, +<a href="#page9">9</a>, +<a href="#page26">26</a><br> +<br> +[Convention] of October 20, 1818, between Great Britain and the United States, +<a href="#page313">313</a>, +<a href="#page314">314</a><br> +<br> +Treaty of February 22, 1819, between Spain and the United States, +<a href="#page33">33</a>, +<a href="#page36">36</a>, +<a href="#page37">37</a>, +<a href="#page38">38</a>, +<a href="#page290">290</a>, +<a href="#page313">313</a>, +<a href="#page318">318</a><br> +<br> +Treaty of July 12, 1823, between Colombia and Peru, +<a href="#page147">147</a><br> +<br> +Treaty of July 12, 1823, between Colombia and Chili, +<a href="#page147">147</a><br> +<br> +Treaty of February 12, 1825, between United States and Creek Indians, +<a href="#page212">212</a>, +<a href="#page214">214</a><br> +<br> +Treaty of April 12, 1825, between Colombia and United Provinces of Central America, +<a href="#page147">147</a><br> +<br> +Treaty of September 20, 1825, between Colombia and Mexico, +<a href="#page147">147</a><br> +<br> +Treaty of January, 1826, between United States and Creek Indians, +<a href="#page214">214</a><br> +<br> +[Convention] of August 6, 1827, between Great Britain and the United States, +<a href="#page314">314</a>, +<a href="#page324">324</a><br> +<br> +Treaty of 1832, between United States and Seminole Indians, +<a href="#page290">290</a><br> +<br> +[Treaty] of April 11, 1839, between Mexico and the United States, +<a href="#page301">301</a><br> +<br> +Treaty of August 9, 1842, between Great Britain and the United States, +<a href="#page303">303</a><br> +<br> +Treaty of April 12, 1844, between Texas and the United States, +<a href="#page307">307</a>, +<a href="#page308">308</a>, +<a href="#page309">309</a><br> +<br> +Treaty of June 15, 1846, between Great Britain and the United States, +<a href="#page326">326</a>, +<a href="#page339">339</a><br> +<br> +Treaty of February 2, 1848, between Mexico and the United States, +<a href="#page338">338</a>, +<a href="#page339">339</a>, +<a href="#page354">354</a>, +<a href="#page355">355</a><br> +<br> +Tremont Temple, fugitive slave law meetings, +<a href="#page373">373</a><br> +<br> +Trist, Nicholas P.,<br> + offers treaty to Mexico, +<a href="#page337">337</a>;<br> + proposals rejected, +<a href="#page337">337</a>;<br> + signs treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, +<a href="#page388">388</a>;<br> + returns to Washington, +<a href="#page338">338</a>, +<a href="#page339">339</a><br> +<br> +Troup, George McIntosh,<br> + attempts survey of Creek land, +<a href="#page212">212</a>;<br> + letter from Barbour, +<a href="#page212">212</a>, +<a href="#page213">213</a>;<br> + controversy with Barbour and Adams, +<a href="#page213">213</a>, +<a href="#page214">214</a>;<br> + repudiates agreement of 1826, +<a href="#page214">214</a>;<br> + controversy with Administration as to surveys, +<a href="#page214">214</a>, +<a href="#page215">215</a>;<br> + his message to the legislature, +<a href="#page215">215</a><br> +<br> +Tucker, George, committee service, +<a href="#page3">3</a><br> +<br> +Turks, +<a href="#page45">45</a><br> +<br> +Turner, Nat, leads slave insurrection, +<a href="#page249">249</a><br> +<br> +Tuyl, Baron, declaration from Adams, +<a href="#page124">124</a>, +<a href="#page125">125</a><br> +<br> +Tyler, John,<br> + succeeds Harrison, +<a href="#page286">286</a>;<br> + vetoes bank bills and tariff bills, +<a href="#page286">286</a>;<br> + Cabinet resignations, +<a href="#page286">286</a>, +<a href="#page287">287</a>;<br> + friction with Whigs, +<a href="#page287">287</a>;<br> + accession to presidency, +<a href="#page301">301</a>;<br> + opens negotiations with Texas, +<a href="#page301">301</a>;<br> + relation to annexation, +<a href="#page302">302</a>;<br> + resignation of Webster, +<a href="#page303">303</a>;<br> + makes Upshur secretary of state, +<a href="#page303">303</a>, +<a href="#page304">304</a>;<br> + the London story of interference in Texas, +<a href="#page304">304</a>;<br> + attitude to Mexican threat of war, +<a href="#page305">305</a>;<br> + relation to Texan negotiation, +<a href="#page307">307</a>;<br> + as to defence of Texas, +<a href="#page307">307</a>;<br> + sends treaty to Senate, +<a href="#page307">307</a>, +<a href="#page308">308</a>;<br> + view of constitutional position of Texas, +<a href="#page308">308</a>;<br> + significance of Archer's criticism of annexation treaty, +<a href="#page309">309</a>;<br> + sends Texas documents to House, +<a href="#page309">309</a>, +<a href="#page310">310</a>;<br> + relations with Whitman, +<a href="#page315">315</a>, +<a href="#page316">316</a>;<br> + message of 1844, +<a href="#page320">320</a>, +<a href="#page321">321</a>;<br> + views as to method of annexation, +<a href="#page321">321</a>;<br> + signs measure for annexation of Texas, +<a href="#page323">323</a>;<br> + characterization of his acts, +<a href="#page323">323</a>, +<a href="#page324">324</a><br> +<br> +<br> +"U<small>NCLE</small> T<small>OM'S</small> C<small>ABIN</small>," +<a href="#page106">106</a><br> +<br> +"Underground," the, established, +<a href="#page368">368</a>.<br> + <i>See</i> <a href="#fugitive">Fugitive Slave Law</a><br> +<br> +United Provinces of Central America, treaty of 1825, with Colombia, +<a href="#page147">147</a><br> +<br> +United States Bank. <i>See</i> +<a href="#bank">Bank of the United States</a><br> +<br> +United States of America, the,<br> + effect of military statutes, +<a href="#page13">13</a>;<br> + national spirit in, +<a href="#page19">19</a>;<br> + territorial extension of, +<a href="#page20">20</a>;<br> + independence recognized, +<a href="#page22">22</a>;<br> + purchase of Louisiana, +<a href="#page23">23</a>;<br> + claims on Florida, +<a href="#page23">23</a>, +<a href="#page24">24</a>;<br> + occupation of Florida, +<a href="#page24">24</a>, +<a href="#page25">25</a>;<br> + effect of treaty of Ghent, +<a href="#page26">26</a>;<br> + affair at Nicholls Fort, +<a href="#page27">27</a>, +<a href="#page28">28</a>;<br> + character of Seminole War, +<a href="#page29">29</a>, +<a href="#page30">30</a>;<br> + relations with Spain as to occupation of Florida, +<a href="#page32">32</a>, +<a href="#page33">33</a>;<br> + treaty with Spain, +<a href="#page33">33</a>, +<a href="#page36">36</a>, +<a href="#page37">37</a>, +<a href="#page38">38</a>;<br> + transfer of Florida, +<a href="#page38">38</a>;<br> + slavery in, +<a href="#page40">40</a>, +<a href="#page50">50</a>, +<a href="#page52">52</a>, +<a href="#page53">53</a>;<br> + treaty of 1803, +<a href="#page55">55</a>;<br> + obligations to Georgia and North Carolina, +<a href="#page56">56</a>, and to France, +<a href="#page57">57</a>;<br> + attitude to slavery, +<a href="#page58">58</a>, +<a href="#page59">59</a>, +<a href="#page60">60</a>, +<a href="#page62">62-65</a>;<br> + debate on powers of general Government, +<a href="#page66">66</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + Taylor's discussion of powers, +<a href="#page79">79</a>, +<a href="#page80">80</a>;<br> + federal system of 1820, +<a href="#page87">87</a>;<br> + nature of the Union, +<a href="#page97">97</a>;<br> + effect of second Missouri compromise, +<a href="#page103">103</a>;<br> + significance of the compromise, +<a href="#page104">104-106</a>;<br> + commercial position, +<a href="#page112">112</a>, +<a href="#page113">113</a>;<br> + foreign relations of, in 1822, +<a href="#page122">122</a>;<br> + claims in the North Pacific, +<a href="#page123">123</a>;<br> + relation to Spain's American possessions, +<a href="#page124">124</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + attitude to Holy Alliance, +<a href="#page124">124</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + relations with Spanish-American states, +<a href="#page146">146</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + constitutional interpretation in the history of, +<a href="#page156">156</a>;<br> + relations with Great Britain, +<a href="#page164">164</a>;<br> + railroads in, +<a href="#page169">169</a>;<br> + tariff the necessary policy of, +<a href="#page171">171</a>;<br> + statistics from foreign trade of, +<a href="#page175">175</a>, +<a href="#page176">176</a>;<br> + meaning of the term, +<a href="#page180">180</a>;<br> + regard for laws of, +<a href="#page181">181</a>;<br> + danger of bank to, +<a href="#page202">202</a>;<br> + Jackson's view considered, +<a href="#page203">203</a>;<br> + as to veto power, +<a href="#page207">207</a>;<br> + effect of Jackson's bank veto, +<a href="#page207">207-209</a>;<br> + cession by Georgia to, +<a href="#page211">211</a>;<br> + treaty with Creek Indians, +<a href="#page212">212</a>;<br> + dispute as to title, +<a href="#page213">213</a>;<br> + treaty with Creek Indians, +<a href="#page214">214</a>;<br> + trouble with Georgia, +<a href="#page214">214</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + the issue as offered by South Carolina, +<a href="#page226">226</a>;<br> + principle of the governmental system of, +<a href="#page227">227</a>;<br> + the time for a revenue tariff, +<a href="#page228">228</a>;<br> + Jackson on the character of the Union, +<a href="#page229">229</a>;<br> + officers of, in South Carolina, +<a href="#page230">230</a>;<br> + resistance to laws checked, +<a href="#page234">234</a>;<br> + effect of events of 1832 and 1833, +<a href="#page238">238-241</a>;<br> + development of national purposes, +<a href="#page243">243</a>, +<a href="#page244">244</a>;<br> + abolition and opinion of slavery in, +<a href="#page244">244</a>;<br> + contest over use of mails of, +<a href="#page270">270</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + disputes as to deposits of, +<a href="#page280">280</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + treaty with Seminoles, +<a href="#page290">290</a>;<br> + recognition of Spanish rights, +<a href="#page290">290</a>;<br> + immigration into Texas from, forbidden, +<a href="#page291">291</a>;<br> + attempts to purchase Texas, +<a href="#page292">292</a>;<br> + importation of slaves into Texas from, allowed, +<a href="#page294">294</a>;<br> + as to recognition of Texan independence by, +<a href="#page295">295</a>, +<a href="#page296">296</a>;<br> + Morfit's report on Texas, +<a href="#page297">297</a>;<br> + question of natural boundaries, +<a href="#page300">300</a>, +<a href="#page301">301</a>;<br> + annexation of Texas proposed, +<a href="#page301">301</a>;<br> + diplomatic relations with Mexico, +<a href="#page301">301</a>, +<a href="#page302">302</a>;<br> + recognition of Texan independence by, +<a href="#page304">304</a>;<br> + relations with Mexico and Texas, +<a href="#page305">305</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + as to admission of Texas, +<a href="#page310">310</a>;<br> + purchase of Louisiana, +<a href="#page312">312</a>;<br> + claims in Oregon, +<a href="#page312">312</a>, +<a href="#page313">313</a>;<br> + conventions with Great Britain, +<a href="#page313">313</a>, +<a href="#page314">314</a>;<br> + Oregon and Great Britain, +<a href="#page314">314</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + as to claim on Texas and Oregon, +<a href="#page318">318</a>;<br> + Clay's views as to policy of, +<a href="#page319">319</a>, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + relations with Mexico, +<a href="#page320">320</a>, +<a href="#page321">321</a>;<br> + as to annexation of Texas, +<a href="#page321">321</a>;<br> + as to method of annexation to, +<a href="#page323">323</a>, +<a href="#page324">324</a>;<br> + claims to Oregon, +<a href="#page324">324</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + negotiations with Great Britain, +<a href="#page326">326</a>;<br> + suspension of diplomatic relations with Mexico, +<a href="#page327">327</a>;<br> + mission to Mexico, +<a href="#page328">328</a>;<br> + question of the Texan frontier, +<a href="#page328">328</a>, +<a href="#page329">329</a>;<br> + relations with Mexico, +<a href="#page329">329</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + military power in California, +<a href="#page332">332</a>;<br> + the Trist mission, +<a href="#page337">337</a>, +<a href="#page338">338</a>;<br> + treaty with Mexico, +<a href="#page338">338</a>;<br> + Rhett on the nature of the union, +<a href="#page342">342</a>, +<a href="#page343">343</a>;<br> + extension of public law of, +<a href="#page352">352</a>;<br> + relations to Cuba, +<a href="#page408">408</a>;<br> + relation to affairs in Kansas, +<a href="#page445">445</a> <i>et seq.</i><br> +<a name="upham"></a> +<br> +Upham, William,<br> + introduces amendment, +<a href="#page338">338</a>;<br> + opposition of Cass and rejection, +<a href="#page338">338</a><br> +<a name="uppercalifornia"></a> +<br> +Upper California,<br> + to be occupied to Sloat and Stockton, +<a href="#page331">331</a>;<br> + treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, +<a href="#page338">338</a>;<br> + Smith's bill, +<a href="#page349">349</a>.<br> + <i>See</i> <a href="#california">California</a><br> +<br> +Upshur, Abel P.,<br> + made secretary of state, +<a href="#page303">303</a>, +<a href="#page304">304</a>;<br> + negotiations with Van Zandt, +<a href="#page304">304</a>;<br> + letter to Murphy, +<a href="#page304">304</a>;<br> + formally proposed annexation, +<a href="#page305">305</a>;<br> + demand from Van Zandt, +<a href="#page306">306</a>;<br> + relation to Murphy's promise, +<a href="#page306">306</a>;<br> + death, +<a href="#page306">306</a><br> +<br> +Utah,<br> + Foote's bill for territorial organization, +<a href="#page254">254</a>;<br> + report of committee on territories, +<a href="#page360">360</a>;<br> + Committee of Thirteen, +<a href="#page360">360</a>;<br> + Clay's report, +<a href="#page360">360</a>, +<a href="#page361">361</a>;<br> + bill as to Utah passed, +<a href="#page362">362</a>;<br> + as to the Douglas report on Nebraska, +<a href="#page384">384</a>;<br> + Chase on Act of 1850, +<a href="#page391">391</a><br> +<br> +Utrecht, treaty of, +<a href="#page312">312</a><br> +<br> +<br> +V<small>AN</small> B<small>UREN</small>, M<small>ARTIN</small>,<br> + relation to Crawford, +<a href="#page133">133</a>;<br> + attitude toward civil service reform, +<a href="#page133">133</a>;<br> + in election of 1824, +<a href="#page137">137</a>;<br> + attitude upon Panama Congress, +<a href="#page153">153</a>;<br> + opposition to Adams on internal improvements, +<a href="#page155">155</a>;<br> + share in election of 1828, +<a href="#page164">164</a>;<br> + made secretary of state, +<a href="#page164">164</a>;<br> + his success in diplomacy, +<a href="#page164">164</a>;<br> + relation of Administration to the financial situation, +<a href="#page284">284</a>;<br> + message of September 4, 1837, +<a href="#page284">284</a>, +<a href="#page285">285</a>;<br> + origin of independent treasury idea, +<a href="#page285">285</a>;<br> + Van Buren's recommendation and the law of July 4, 1840, +<a href="#page285">285</a>, +<a href="#page286">286</a>;<br> + declines proposition of Texan annexation, +<a href="#page301">301</a>;<br> + resumed diplomatic relations with Mexico, +<a href="#page301">301</a>;<br> + treaty proclaimed, +<a href="#page301">301</a>, +<a href="#page302">302</a>;<br> + put aside by his party, +<a href="#page309">309</a>;<br> + nominated for presidency, +<a href="#page347">347</a>;<br> + popular vote in 1848 compared with that for Hale in 1852, +<a href="#page377">377</a><br> +<br> +Vanderpoel, Aaron, motion in House, +<a href="#page255">255</a><br> +<br> +Van Zandt, Isaac,<br> + negotiations with Upshur, +<a href="#page304">304</a>;<br> + proposal of Upshur, +<a href="#page305">305</a>;<br> + demand upon Upshur, +<a href="#page306">306</a><br> +<br> +Venezuela, +<a href="#page30">30</a><br> +<br> +Vera Cruz,<br> + campaign against, ordered, +<a href="#page332">332</a>;<br> + captured by Scott, +<a href="#page333">333</a><br> +<br> +Vermont,<br> + slavery forbidden, +<a href="#page62">62</a>, +<a href="#page63">63</a>;<br> + Rev. S. A. Worcester, of, +<a href="#page218">218</a>;<br> + abolition petition, +<a href="#page265">265</a>, +<a href="#page269">269</a>;<br> + position of Calhoun, +<a href="#page270">270</a>;<br> + disposal of Swift's motion, +<a href="#page270">270</a>;<br> + vacancy in Senate delegation, +<a href="#page398">398</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +Verona, Congress of, +<a href="#page124">124</a><br> +<br> +Verplanck, Gulian Crommelin,<br> + reports tariff bill, +<a href="#page231">231</a>, +<a href="#page232">232</a>;<br> + bill discussed, +<a href="#page235">235</a>;<br> + bill used in argument, +<a href="#page236">236</a>;<br> + Clay's bill substituted for Verplanck's bill, +<a href="#page237">237</a><br> +<br> +Virginia, Commonwealth of, +<a href="#page8">8</a>, +<a href="#page41">41</a>;<br> + legislation on slavery, +<a href="#page43">43</a>;<br> + statute of 1662, +<a href="#page44">44</a>, +<a href="#page45">45</a>;<br> + slave code of 1705, +<a href="#page45">45</a>;<br> + legislation on public elements of slavery, +<a href="#page46">46</a>;<br> + forbids importation of slaves, +<a href="#page48">48</a>;<br> + domestic slave-trade, +<a href="#page57">57</a>, +<a href="#page58">58</a>;<br> + as a type, +<a href="#page86">86</a>;<br> + relation to Cumberland road, +<a href="#page116">116</a>;<br> + attitude to internal improvements bill of 1817, +<a href="#page117">117</a>;<br> + attitude to improvements bill of 1822, +<a href="#page119">119</a>;<br> + stock held in United States Bank, +<a href="#page203">203</a>;<br> + relation to slavery in District of Columbia, +<a href="#page253">253</a>;<br> + anticipated by Connecticut in recognizing Texas, +<a href="#page295">295</a>;<br> + views as to policies on slavery, +<a href="#page378">378</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a><br> +<br> +"Virginia dynasty," the, extinct, +<a href="#page131">131</a><br> +<br> +Vivês, Francisco D., +<a href="#page37">37</a><br> +<br> +<br> +W<small>ADE</small>, E<small>DWARD</small>,<br> + signs <i>National Era</i> address, +<a href="#page389">389</a>;<br> + opposition to Douglas, +<a href="#page391">391</a><br> +<br> +Wakarusa River, the,<br> + settlement near, +<a href="#page414">414</a>;<br> + Missourians on, +<a href="#page429">429</a><br> +<br> +Walker, Isaac P.,<br> + motion as to Mexican acquisitions, +<a href="#page350">350</a>, +<a href="#page351">351</a>;<br> + declaration as to repeal of act of 1820, +<a href="#page395">395</a><br> +<br> +Walker, Robert John,<br> + offers resolution as to Texas, +<a href="#page298">298</a>;<br> + adopted, +<a href="#page299">299</a>;<br> + offers amendment to Texas resolution, +<a href="#page323">323</a>;<br> + appointed Governor of Kansas Territory, +<a href="#page461">461</a>;<br> + his address, +<a href="#page462">462</a>;<br> + party relations, +<a href="#page462">462</a>;<br> + declaration as to law controlling territorial election, +<a href="#page464">464</a>;<br> + action on fraudulent elections, +<a href="#page465">465</a><br> +<br> +Walker, Samuel, in command of "Free-state" forces in Kansas, +<a href="#page444">444</a><br> +<br> +Walla Walla, mission on the, +<a href="#page315">315</a>, +<a href="#page316">316</a><br> +<br> +War of 1812, +<a href="#page1">1</a>, +<a href="#page5">5</a>, +<a href="#page8">8</a>, +<a href="#page9">9</a>, +<a href="#page13">13</a>, +<a href="#page17">17</a>, +<a href="#page24">24</a>, +<a href="#page25">25</a>, +<a href="#page28">28</a>, +<a href="#page29">29</a>, +<a href="#page33">33</a>, +<a href="#page54">54</a>, +<a href="#page58">58</a>, +<a href="#page59">59</a>;<br> + effect upon political parties, +<a href="#page130">130</a>;<br> + effect on Republican party, +<a href="#page239">239</a>;<br> + as to Astoria, +<a href="#page313">313</a><br> +<br> +War with Mexico,<br> + a result of social development, +<a href="#page277">277</a>;<br> + relation of war to election of Polk, +<a href="#page320">320</a>;<br> + details, +<a href="#page327">327</a> <i>et seq.;</i><br> + the casus belli, +<a href="#page327">327</a>;<br> + the concentration of forces, +<a href="#page328">328</a>;<br> + point of conflict, +<a href="#page328">328</a>, +<a href="#page329">329</a>;<br> + beginning of hostilities, +<a href="#page329">329</a>;<br> + battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma, +<a href="#page329">329</a>, +<a href="#page330">330</a>;<br> + attitude of parties to war, +<a href="#page330">330</a>;<br> + character of war, +<a href="#page330">330</a>, +<a href="#page331">331</a>;<br> + Congress authorizes war, +<a href="#page331">331</a>;<br> + occupation of New Mexico and Upper California, +<a href="#page331">331</a>;<br> + capture of Monterey, +<a href="#page331">331</a>, +<a href="#page332">332</a>;<br> + seizure of California, +<a href="#page332">332</a>;<br> + return of Santa Anna and plans against Vera Cruz, +<a href="#page332">332</a>;<br> + battle of Buena Vista, +<a href="#page333">333</a>;<br> + capture of Vera Cruz, +<a href="#page333">333</a>;<br> + battle of Cerro Gordo, +<a href="#page333">333</a>;<br> + capture of Jalapa, Perote, and Puebla, +<a href="#page333">333</a>;<br> + battles of Contreras, San Antonio, and Cherubusco, +<a href="#page334">334</a>;<br> + armistice, +<a href="#page334">334</a>;<br> + Cass's view of relation of the war and slavery, +<a href="#page338">338</a>;<br> + battles of Molino del Rey and Chapultepec, +<a href="#page338">338</a>;<br> + capture of Mexico, +<a href="#page338">338</a>;<br> + opposition to the war, +<a href="#page338">338</a>;<br> + treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, +<a href="#page338">338</a><br> +<br> +War of 1861,<br> + an historical necessity, +<a href="#page65">65</a>;<br> + a result of social development, +<a href="#page277">277</a>;<br> + relation of events in Kansas to, +<a href="#page473">473</a>, +<a href="#page474">474</a><br> +<br> +War Department, +<a href="#page28">28</a>, +<a href="#page30">30</a>, +<a href="#page31">31</a>, +<a href="#page32">32</a>, +<a href="#page35">35</a><br> +<br> +Warrenton, Virginia, +<a href="#page138">138</a><br> +<a name="washingtondc"></a> +<br> +Washington, D. C., +<a href="#page2">2</a>, +<a href="#page33">33</a>, +<a href="#page124">124</a>, +<a href="#page299">299</a>, +<a href="#page300">300</a>, +<a href="#page301">301</a>, +<a href="#page302">302</a>, +<a href="#page304">304</a>, +<a href="#page307">307</a>, +<a href="#page313">313</a>, +<a href="#page315">315</a>, +<a href="#page327">327</a>, +<a href="#page330">330</a>, +<a href="#page339">339</a>, +<a href="#page375">375</a>, +<a href="#page389">389</a>, +<a href="#page401">401</a>, +<a href="#page426">426</a>, +<a href="#page428">428</a>, +<a href="#page439">439</a><br> +<br> +Washington Hall, fugitive slave law meetings, +<a href="#page373">373</a><br> +<br> +Washington <i>Union,</i> the, relation to President Pierce, +<a href="#page401">401</a>, +<a href="#page402">402</a><br> +<br> +Webb, James Watson, applies name to Whig party, +<a href="#page281">281</a>, +<a href="#page282">282</a><br> +<br> +Webster, Daniel,<br> + objection to Bank bill, +<a href="#page6">6</a>;<br> + as to tariff bill, +<a href="#page12">12</a>;<br> + qualifications as presidential candidate in 1824, +<a href="#page134">134</a>, +<a href="#page136">136</a>;<br> + attitude to tariff of 1828, +<a href="#page162">162</a>;<br> + Calhoun and the Hayne debate, +<a href="#page179">179</a>;<br> + relation to Jackson and the Bank, +<a href="#page191">191</a>;<br> + advice to Bank party, +<a href="#page201">201</a>;<br> + on Bank committee of Senate, +<a href="#page201">201</a>;<br> + answers Calhoun's argument, +<a href="#page237">237</a>;<br> + retires from Tyler's cabinet, +<a href="#page286">286</a>, +<a href="#page287">287</a>;<br> + New York speech on Texas, +<a href="#page301">301</a>;<br> + checks annexation plans, +<a href="#page303">303</a>;<br> + resigns from State Department, +<a href="#page303">303</a>;<br> + the Ashburton treaty, +<a href="#page303">303</a>;<br> + negotiation with Ashburton, +<a href="#page314">314</a>;<br> + views on slavery in Mexican acquisitions, +<a href="#page351">351</a>, +<a href="#page352">352</a>;<br> + Seventh of March speech, +<a href="#page359">359</a>;<br> + on Committee of Thirteen, +<a href="#page360">360</a>;<br> + attitude to fugitive slave law, +<a href="#page368">368</a>;<br> + denounced by Giddings, +<a href="#page369">369</a>;<br> + contest in Whig convention of 1852, +<a href="#page376">376</a>;<br> + death, +<a href="#page377">377</a><br> +<br> +Webster, Sidney, statement as to position of Washington <i>Union,</i> +<a href="#page401">401</a>, +<a href="#page402">402</a><br> +<br> +Welles, Gideon, Blair to Welles on Seward, +<a href="#page387">387</a>, +<a href="#page388">388</a><br> +<br> +Wells, William, as to Bank bill, +<a href="#page8">8</a><br> +<br> +West Florida, +<a href="#page21">21</a><br> +<br> +Weston, Missouri, meeting of residents of Platte County, +<a href="#page414">414</a><br> +<br> +Westport, Missouri, meeting of Whitman colonists, +<a href="#page316">316</a><br> +<br> +Wheeling, West Virginia, +<a href="#page116">116</a><br> +<a name="whig"></a> +<br> +Whig party,<br> + appearance, +<a href="#page38">38</a>, +<a href="#page104">104</a>;<br> + acquisition of name, +<a href="#page279">279</a>, +<a href="#page281">281</a>, +<a href="#page282">282</a>;<br> + significance of its composition and principles, +<a href="#page282">282</a>, +<a href="#page283">283</a>;<br> + relation to Gordon's independent treasury proposal, +<a href="#page285">285</a>;<br> + opposes independent treasury bill of 1840, +<a href="#page285">285</a>, +<a href="#page286">286</a>;<br> + convention of 1839, +<a href="#page286">286</a>;<br> + election of 1840, +<a href="#page286">286</a>;<br> + Bank bill and tariff bill as party measures, +<a href="#page286">286</a>;<br> + friction between Congress and President, +<a href="#page286">286</a>, +<a href="#page287">287</a>;<br> + relation of its principle to the new question of slavery and territorial extension, +<a href="#page287">287</a>, +<a href="#page288">288</a>;<br> + address on Texas annexation, +<a href="#page303">303</a>;<br> + convention nominates Clay for presidency, +<a href="#page309">309</a>;<br> + position on Polk's first message, +<a href="#page324">324</a>, +<a href="#page325">325</a>;<br> + attitude to Mexican War, +<a href="#page330">330</a>;<br> + platform of 1848, +<a href="#page345">345</a>;<br> + the Clayton bill, +<a href="#page346">346</a>, +<a href="#page347">347</a>;<br> + election of 1848, +<a href="#page348">348</a>, +<a href="#page349">349</a>;<br> + convention of 1852, +<a href="#page376">376</a>;<br> + tendency to division of party, +<a href="#page376">376</a>, +<a href="#page377">377</a>;<br> + election of 1852, +<a href="#page377">377</a>;<br> + controversy over Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page391">391</a>;<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page398">398</a>, +<a href="#page399">399</a>;<br> + vote in House on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page404">404</a>, +<a href="#page405">405</a>;<br> + meaning of the vote, +<a href="#page405">405</a>, +<a href="#page406">406</a>;<br> + as to leaders of Emigrant Aid Company, +<a href="#page413">413</a>;<br> + effect of Kansas struggle, +<a href="#page417">417</a>;<br> + tendency to dissolution, +<a href="#page417">417</a>, +<a href="#page418">418</a><br> +<br> +Whitfield, John W.,<br> + elected to Congress in Kansas, +<a href="#page417">417</a>;<br> + credentials accepted, +<a href="#page418">418</a>;<br> + contest for seat in House of Representatives, +<a href="#page432">432</a>, +<a href="#page433">433</a>;<br> + leads Missourians in Kansas, +<a href="#page441">441</a><br> +<br> +Whitman, Marcus,<br> + missionary to Oregon, +<a href="#page315">315</a>;<br> + settlement, and visit to Tyler, +<a href="#page315">315</a>;<br> + helped by the Administration, +<a href="#page315">315</a>, +<a href="#page316">316</a>;<br> + the Oregon colony, +<a href="#page315">315</a><br> +<br> +Wick, William W., moves amendment, +<a href="#page341">341</a>, +<a href="#page342">342</a><br> +<a name="wilkins"></a> +<br> +Wilkins, William,<br> + reports "Force Bill," +<a href="#page233">233</a>, +<a href="#page234">234</a>;<br> + bill used in argument, +<a href="#page236">236</a>;<br> + attitude of Calhoun, +<a href="#page236">236</a>;<br> + bill passed by Senate, +<a href="#page237">237</a>;<br> + and by House, +<a href="#page238">237</a>, +<a href="#page238">238</a>;<br> + approved, +<a href="#page238">238</a>;<br> + "Force Bill" considered, +<a href="#page240">240</a><br> +<br> +Williams, J. M. S.,<br> + in emigrant aid work, +<a href="#page411">411</a>;<br> + conference with Robinson, +<a href="#page413">413</a><br> +<br> +Wilmot, David,<br> + moves amendment, +<a href="#page335">335</a>;<br> + passed by House, +<a href="#page335">335</a>;<br> + no action in Senate, +<a href="#page336">336</a>;<br> + amendment again passed by House, +<a href="#page336">336</a> (<i>see</i> +<a href="#upham">Upham, William</a>);<br> + motion for amendment of Wilmot proviso, +<a href="#page341">341</a>, +<a href="#page342">342</a>;<br> + the proviso and the Whig platform of 1848, +<a href="#page345">345</a>;<br> + the proviso in Berrien's speech, +<a href="#page352">352</a>;<br> + the proviso in abolitionist demands, +<a href="#page357">357</a><br> +<br> +Wilson, Henry,<br> + meets Robinson at Lawrence, +<a href="#page463">463</a>;<br> + urges new census for Kansas, +<a href="#page463">463</a><br> +<br> +Wisconsin, Commonwealth of,<br> + vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page399">399</a>;<br> + early Republican party in, +<a href="#page418">418</a><br> +<br> +Wise, Henry A.,<br> + demand as to District of Columbia, +<a href="#page257">257</a>;<br> + doctrine on Texan annexation, +<a href="#page302">302</a>;<br> + connection of speech with President's policy, +<a href="#page303">303</a><br> +<br> +Witan, <a href="#page262">262</a><br> +<br> +Wood, S, N.,<br> + Jones serves writ on, +<a href="#page433">433</a>;<br> + as to "treason indictment," +<a href="#page435">435</a><br> +<br> +Woodbury, Charles Levi, connection with Sims case, +<a href="#page373">373</a><br> +<br> +Woodbury, Levi, beginning of Bank trouble, +<a href="#page191">191</a><br> +<br> +Woodson, Daniel,<br> + Acting-Governor of Kansas Territory, +<a href="#page425">425</a>;<br> + superseded by Shannon, +<a href="#page427">427</a>;<br> + again Acting-Governor, +<a href="#page444">444</a>;<br> + proclamation of August 25, +<a href="#page444">444</a>, +<a href="#page445">445</a>;<br> + orders Cooke to attack Topeka, +<a href="#page445">445</a><br> +<br> +Worcester <i>vs.</i> Georgia [6 Peters, 515], +<a href="#page218">218</a>, +<a href="#page219">219</a><br> +<br> +Worcester, Samuel A.,<br> + violation of Georgia statute, +<a href="#page218">218</a>, +<a href="#page219">219</a>;<br> + case of Worcester against Georgia, +<a href="#page219">219</a><br> +<br> +Worcester, Massachusetts, home of Eli Thayer, +<a href="#page408">408</a><br> +<br> +Wright, William, not voting on Kansas-Nebraska bill, +<a href="#page398">398</a><br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<br> +<center>THE AMERICAN HISTORY SERIES<br> +<br> +<i>Seven volumes, 12mo, with maps and plans.</i><br> +<i>Price per volume, $1.00, net.</i></center> +<br> + +<p>THE COLONIAL ERA.—By Rev. G<small>EORGE</small> P. F<small>ISHER</small>, D.D., LL.D., Professor of +Ecclesiastical History in Yale University.</p> + +<p>THE FRENCH WAR AND THE REVOLUTION.—By W<small>ILLIAM</small> M. S<small>LOANE</small>, Ph.D., +Professor of History in Columbia University.</p> + +<p>THE MAKING OF THE NATION.—By General F<small>RANCIS</small> A. W<small>ALKER</small>, LL.D., late +President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.</p> + +<p>THE MIDDLE PERIOD.—By J<small>OHN</small> W. B<small>URGESS</small>. Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of +Political Science and Constitutional Law in Columbia University.</p> + +<p>THE CIVIL WAR AND THE CONSTITUTION.—By J<small>OHN</small> W. B<small>URGESS</small>, Ph.D., LL.D., +Professor of Political Science and Constitutional Law in Columbia +University. 2 vols.</p> + +<p>RECONSTRUCTION AND THE CONSTITUTION.—By J<small>OHN</small> W. B<small>URGESS</small>, Ph.D., +LL.D., Professor of Political Science and Constitutional Law in +Columbia University.</p> +<br> + +<p>"The 'American History Series,' now in the course of publication by +the Scribners, constitutes one of the most valuable contributions as +yet made to the connected history of the United States, and is certain +to find a place in every city and town library, and among the +prescribed text-books of our colleges and schools."—<i>The New York +Sun.</i></p> +<br> +<p>A series of seven volumes containing a connected history of the United +States from the discovery of America to the present day. Divided into +four distinct epochs, each of which is treated by a writer of eminence +and of special authority in this field. The volumes are sold +separately and each contains maps and plans.</p> + +<p>The authorship represents the best scholarship of the times.</p> + +<p>The literary value of each volume is noteworthy.</p> + +<p>The student has here a comprehensive history prepared expressly for +his use by men experienced in the needs and methods of class +instruction.</p> + +<p>The general reader finds what he is constantly seeking, an authentic +account which he can read as he would a story and rely upon as an +impartial recital of events.</p> + +<p>The volumes are sold separately, enabling those interested in one +distinct epoch to find what they wish without unnecessary expense.</p> +<br> +<center><i>Sent, postpaid, at the given price. Correspondence in regard to class +use particularly invited.</i></center><br> +<br> +<p>"For practical service in the American college curriculum this Series +thus far is admirably suited. Nothing better has yet been proposed as +a plan of instruction in American history than these four +books."—President J<small>OHN</small> F<small>RANKLIN</small> C<small>ROWELL</small>, Trinity College, N. C.</p> + + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Middle Period 1817-1858, by +John William Burgess + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE MIDDLE PERIOD 1817-1858 *** + +***** This file should be named 35558-h.htm or 35558-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/5/5/5/35558/ + +Produced by Ron Swanson + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> + diff --git a/35558-h/images/1.jpg b/35558-h/images/1.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..d4df2fe --- /dev/null +++ b/35558-h/images/1.jpg diff --git a/35558-h/images/2.jpg b/35558-h/images/2.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..2098166 --- /dev/null +++ b/35558-h/images/2.jpg diff --git a/35558-h/images/3.jpg b/35558-h/images/3.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..da07371 --- /dev/null +++ b/35558-h/images/3.jpg diff --git a/35558-h/images/4.jpg b/35558-h/images/4.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..cf78a05 --- /dev/null +++ b/35558-h/images/4.jpg diff --git a/35558-h/images/5.jpg b/35558-h/images/5.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..278a880 --- /dev/null +++ b/35558-h/images/5.jpg diff --git a/35558-h/images/6.jpg b/35558-h/images/6.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..492d60e --- /dev/null +++ b/35558-h/images/6.jpg |
