\ > » * ,. 
 
 
 \/ ;>-^* 
 
 
 ^■^ «:.^ 
 r ^'^ 
 
 4 o> 
 
 is 'eJ ' 
 
 0^. 
 
 
 A 
 
 ^. 
 
 i/i»H^* 
 
 0^ 
 
 ^O Jv^-^^ ^ 
 
 
 ?! 
 
 
 
 
 
 -^^n^ 
 
 
 \ 
 ■>*_ 
 
 
 '■ « » 
 
 
 
 '•^z ^ 
 
 -^0^ 
 
 r^^v 
 
 6 « •* ' 4 
 
 
 'bv*' r""~'. 
 
 ■■^U-o* 
 
 
 
 - ^^ 
 
 :5 A*^ 6 o " <• -. <^ 
 
 ^"^ 
 
 • c t *_"» 
 
 
 t-o^ 
 
 
 
 
 b V' 
 
 ^"•\ ">^||*;-' •^ -^ 
 
 
 (jiN * 
 

 
 ■ * " A 
 
 <. *-...^ ,0 
 
 » " « ^ "■*, 
 
 -'. % 
 
 '^, 
 
 
 <-'^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
DANIEL E. TILDEN'S 
 
 LETTER TO MR. GIDDINGS, 
 
 GIVING HIS REASONS FOR SUPPORTING 
 CrEIVERAIi SCOTT. 
 
 HoK. Joshua R. Giddings: 
 
 You and others have had occasion to bring my 
 name to the notice of the public, in your correspondence -with the 
 " True Democrat;" although noticed by you -with a liberality and 
 kindness due to our former friendship, others have referred to me and 
 to my course, Avith some bitterness of spirit, and have spoken in no 
 very complimentary terms of my motives. But I do not make this a 
 gTOund of complaint. I was aware that, in combining with the whig 
 party, for the support of Gen. Scott for the Presidency, that my mo- 
 tives would be subject to misconstruction. These correspondents 
 doubtlesS; in their criticisms on my conduct, have expressed what they 
 believed to be due to truth, and to the cause they advocate. 
 
 But I feel unwilling to be disparaged in the public estimation, without 
 stating the reasons for the course I have resolved to pursue, and have 
 taken the liberty to do so, in the form of a communication to you, 
 knowing that you have the capacity to judge rightly of these reasons, 
 and the candor to give them the credit to which they are entitled. 
 
 In reply to these imputations upon my integrity, I shall simply say, 
 in my own behalf, that for the last twenty years I have been identified 
 with the anti-slavery cause, and during that time, if there be any act 
 of mine, which has evinced a want of zeal and earnestness of purpose 
 in support of it, my friends are at liberty to point it out. 
 
 The darkest hours, and those in which anti- slavery men were most 
 exposed to the power of temptation, have long since passed away. 
 This was when the early supporters of the cause, had to encounter the 
 opposition of those who now so zealously, and, I doubt not, from noble 
 and patriotic motives, support it 
 
 Yet the mistaken position assumed by mej <^at this most gloomj 
 

 period of our anti-slavery history, admonishes me that their conclusions 
 on this subject, are not to be relied upon as infallible, and I cannot 
 yield myself, contrary to the convictions of ray own judgment, to such 
 a course of action as they may deem it their duty to pursue. 
 
 During the period of my connection with the anti-slavery cause, 
 opposition to the unconstitutional demands of slavery has been, with 
 me, a matter of paramount obligation in politics, and my views of the 
 institution of slavery itself, and the dangerous influence which it is 
 exerting upon the destinies of the country, correspond, as you well 
 know, with your own ; for, during our long and familiar intercourse, 
 we have often had occasion to compare opinions upon this point. I 
 believe there is no interest which it is the duty of a republican country 
 to cherish, that is not endangered by the existence of the institution 
 of slavery. 
 
 Thus far there is no ground for controversy between us. But we 
 differ as to the poUtical means we shall employ, under present circum- 
 stances, to secure the object we aim at; and even this difference of 
 opinion, as between you and myseff, is of comparatively recent origin. 
 Up to the spring of 1848, with the same views we now entertain of 
 slavery and slave extension, we steadfastly maintained our connexion 
 with the whig party. Wc insisted, in our private conversation, and in 
 all our public addresses, that anti-slavery men were in duty bound to 
 co-operate with the Avhig party. We not only contended that for us, 
 as anti-slavery men, to maintain this connexion, was justifiable and 
 proper, but absolutely essential and necessary as the best means for 
 opposing the unconstitutional aggressions of the slave power with 
 which the country was then threatened. 
 
 ^\e both condemned the anti-slavery organization of 1844, and 
 urged anti-slavery men to co-operate with the whig party, in order that 
 we mio-ht make an effectual resistance to the annexation of Texas, 
 which was the great practical slave issue then before the country. 
 After the defeat of Mr. Clay, by the loss of New York, brought about, 
 as we believed, by this third party organization, we denounced their 
 action, and thought the course which they had deemed it their duty to 
 pursue, had done much to strengthen and perpetuate slavery in this 
 country ; and I think so yet. 
 
 We struggled together in Congress, against slave propagandism, 
 from 1843 to 1847. We resisted the annexation of Texas, and were 
 defeated on that issue by an overwhelming democratic vote, augmented 
 and strengthened by three southern whigs only. We next took our 
 stand against the war, believing that if further prosecuted it would result 
 in the a'cquisition of teritory, over which slavery would inevitably extend 
 itself. Upon, this issue we found ourselves in a meager minority of 
 fourteen. The war was prosecuted and the teritory acquired, and then 
 arose the great question Avhether it should be dedicated to freedom or 
 oppression. • 
 
 9NEXGHANQe 
 
 ^^^ 6 1917 
 
Tims stood matters on the assembling of the Whig National Conven- 
 tion, in June, 1848. This great question was pressing upon the 
 country ; the character of the presidential candidates and the result of 
 the coming presidential election, we then believed to be decisive of 
 this question. From the long agitation of the slavery question, in 
 Congress, you nor myself, were, probably, never mor« deeply excited 
 upon it, than at the meeting of this Convention. Yet, under these 
 •circurastrnces, our confidence in the whig party was still unshaken. 
 We still contided in them on this question of slave extension. 
 
 I was a member of the Philadelphia Convention, and an advocate of 
 the claims of Gen. Scott for the Presidency. He was the candidate of 
 that portion of the whig party who were most active in their opposition 
 to slavery extension. 1 believe none doubted, at that time, that Gen. 
 Scott was safe and reliable on this question, and I know well he was 
 bitterly assailed by the south, on account of his supposed anti-slavery 
 proclivities. 
 
 I visited Washington, and was there two or three days prior to the 
 meeting of the Convention, for the purpose of promoting the nomina- 
 tion of Gen. Scott. On account of your superior ability and experience, 
 and the great confidence reposed in you as an anti-slavery man, I was 
 in the habit of consulting you on all matters, where the question of 
 slavery was involved, and 1 recollect of talking with you on that occa- 
 sion, but I am not able to say, from my recollection of what was said 
 by you at that time, whether you were for Gen. Scott as the candidate 
 for the Presidency or not But I think I may safely state that you did 
 not dissuade me from ray purpose to support him. Had you done so, 
 it is not likely I should have forgotten it. 
 
 Gen. Scott was sustained in this Convention by the class of men who 
 sustained him in the BaItim.ore Convention in June last — by the Anti- 
 slavery portion of the Wriig party, (North) and by some Hberal minded 
 men from the South. There was this difference, however, at the last 
 Convention. On the opening of the ballotings, Gen. Scott got but one 
 vote from the South. He seemed to be emphatically a Northern can- 
 didate. He was born down in the Convention of '48 by the slave 
 holding South, aided and assisted by the commercial and manufacturing 
 interests of the North. 
 
 The friends of freedom were arrayed against these same interests 
 in the late Whig Convention, and for the first time in the history of 
 parties in this country, the slave-holding and money side of the scale 
 was made to kick the beam. I confess that when I saw the unyieldino- 
 course of these men, struggling for five days against these interests, 
 and reflected upon the indignities we received from these same inter- 
 ests in 1848, it begat within me a sentiment of friendship and respect 
 for them, which it will be difficult to overcome. I am very certain 
 that I must be sustained by strong reasons to justify me in deserting 
 these men. 
 
You will say that they triumphed by assenting to the compromise. 
 This is true ; and it is a point to which I intend to call your attention 
 by and by. 
 
 One word more as to the Convention of 1848. Gen. Taylor was 
 nominated. He was presented as the candidate of the South — his 
 history was a military history, and he had no other. We had no 
 knowledo-e of him save what was recorded of his acts upon the battle 
 field. We knew him to be intimately connected with the institution of 
 slavery, and with this knowledge we decided, and I think from the evi- 
 dence then before us, we decided correctly, that Gen. Taylor was not 
 to be trusted on the subject of slavery extension, and that we could 
 not support him. 
 
 Here our connexion with the Whig party ended. We organized a 
 new party at Buffalo, embodying, at the outset, one half of the entire 
 democracy of the State of New York. We adopted articles of faith 
 broad enough and liberal enough to catch every Democrat in Christen- 
 dom. After the Presidential election, the Democracy of M assachusetts, 
 Vermont and other New England States, seemed about to enlist under 
 our banner. This was also true of Wisconsin ; and distinguished men 
 of the party in Pennsylvania, Illinois, Michigan and other States, 
 appeared to be under marching orders for the Free Soil platform. 
 The Democrats of Northern Ohio were set down as certain for our 
 organization. 
 
 From these facts you and myself both supposed (at least this was 
 true of myself,) that the so called Democratic party, was about to 
 become democratic indeed, and our hopes began to centre in them 03 
 the party which was to make successful resistance to the further 
 encroachments of slavery. But no sooner was Franklin Pierce nomi- 
 nated, and the ancient war-cry of the party raised, than nineteen 
 twentieths of our Democratic allies deserted us, and go from one 
 extreme to the very verge of the other extreme on this question of 
 slavery. John Van Buren, one of the High Priests of this new order 
 of ours, declaring publicly, that henceforth one of the cardinal features 
 of his creed would be resistance to the agitation of the question of 
 slavery in or out of Congress, and under whatever form or color it 
 might be made. 
 
 i say nineteen-twentieths of these men deserted us, and I am not 
 sure as to the whereabouts of the other twentieth. Within the circle 
 of my personal acquaintance some few remain ; and one or two men 
 I know, who, since our organization, have sacrificed a high position in 
 the Democratic party, and for the sake of principle, combined with the 
 Free Democracy. And in other more favored sections of the country, 
 there may be Democrats, with us in 1848, who still adhere to your 
 organization. But so far as my knowledge extends, the number of 
 those who remain is small. 
 
 This was our first experiment with the Democratic party, and I 
 
submit to you if the experiment has not been most disastrous. 
 
 You may say that I have imitated the conduct of these men. Here 
 I wisli you to suspend your opinion, for it is upon this very point I 
 wish to be heard. 
 
 With these facts now before us, I submit to you the inquiry, which 
 party, relying upon the record, should we trust on this still pending 
 question of slavery extension? You answer neither! But one of them 
 must come into power and exercise an important, and I think a decisive 
 and final influence on this question of slavery. This, neither you or 
 myself have the power to prevent. 
 
 Gen. Taylor was elected in spite of our effort, and notwithstanding 
 the defection of Fillmore and Webster, the question of the increase of 
 the political power of the South by slave extension, stands just where 
 it did in the spring of 1848, when you and myself were both active 
 members of the Whig party, and employing it to accomplish our anti- 
 slavery purposes. You may reply that by the settlement of the 
 Mexican boundary question, slavery was extended. I admit that it 
 extended slave territory. I never beUeved that Texas had any more 
 rioht to the territory between the Neuces and the Rio Grande, than to 
 the West Indies. This, however, was simply a question of boundary, 
 upon which men differed in opinion, and the question whether slavery 
 should or should not be extended, was not involved in tha adjustment 
 of it. No concession of principle was here made to the slave power. 
 No recognition of the right to extend slavery by this government; and 
 no increase of the political power of the South, ta secure which all the 
 slave-holding effort of this nation is now enlisted. Texas, with her 
 boundaries enlarged, has still but her two votes in the United States 
 Senate. 
 
 Do you believe these favorable results would have been secured had 
 Cass instead of Taylor, been the successful candidate at that election ? 
 
 We have now so far recovered from the excitement awakened by the 
 stirring events of that campaign, and from the prejudices occasioned 
 by the intemperate assaults of our old associates, as to be able to decide 
 this question impartially. For my own part, I do not hesitate to say, 
 that much as I doubted and distrusted Gen. Taylor, his election oyer 
 Cass has preserved to us the privilege of again contesting the question 
 of slavery extension over the newly acquired Mexican territory ; and 
 tlae position of the Whig party to day, is in every respect, more favor- 
 able on this issue, than in 1848, when you and myself gave to it our 
 cordial support 
 
 Where is the change, let me inquire, which has come over the Whig 
 party that makes a connexion with it now so criminal, when it was so 
 very commendable and praiseworthy in 1848? I grant that it is not 
 an anti-slavery party, nor did we support it as such in '48. It seems 
 we did not adhere "to it at that time from any special attachment to 
 Whig principles, for we showed ourselves sufficiently loose footed as to 
 
these, and, jndeed ultra democratic, by endorsing the Buffilo resolutions 
 within two months after our separation from the Whigs. I admit, too, 
 that some of the leading men of this party are pro-slavery, and thus 
 they were in 1848. 
 
 If political organizations are but the means we employ to secure 
 something beyond them, and there be no demerit in separating from 
 them when other means are at command, which can be better employed 
 for our purpose, then I am at liberty to enquire of you, why it is, that 
 if the Whig party sustain their former relation to this same old issue of 
 slave extension, that we may not, without sacrifice of honor, again 
 combine with them? You may answer, it is because they are so 
 corrupt! I confess this ansewer is not satisfactory to me. I do not 
 anticipate, myself, a speedy reign of the saints in this country, and you 
 and myself are old enough, and have had experience enough of men 
 generally, and of politicians in particular, to decide at once, that an 
 efficient party — a majority party in this country, however it may be 
 brought into being, must embody a vast amount of corruption ; and if 
 you expect a Free Democratic party, mide up of a majoiity of the 
 voting men of this nation, which shall be less corrupt than either of 
 the old organizations, my humble opinion is.tliat you will be disappointed. 
 That your party now, in proportion to numbers, may embrace more, 
 honest-hearted and self-sacrificing men, than either of the old parties 
 I am not disposed to deny. 
 
 It seems to me, then, that there is not one reason that prompted us 
 to maintain our relation with the Whig party in 1848, and urge others 
 to connect themselves Avitli it, that does not exist now in all its force. 
 
 There is an answer of yours which I have already anticipated. You 
 insist that the National Whig party and their candidate, have endorsed 
 the compromise, fugitive slave law and all, and are no more entitled to 
 your confidence. 
 
 With regard to the character of this law, it is not possible for us to 
 differ. I think, with you, that the law is a disgrace to a civilized peo- 
 ple ; and more, that the clause of the constitution under which it 
 was framed, is as infamous as the law. After its passage, it was my 
 opinion we could make an issue for its repeal. I afterwards became 
 satisfied that no such thing could be done ; and I believed this to have 
 been the opinion of yourself and other Free Soil members of Congress 
 in permitting the law to remain upon the statute book for two years 
 without making one serious effort for its repeal. 
 
 I do not believe that the repeal of this law can be made a practical 
 anti-slavery issue; and while 1 am willing to give to it the importance 
 that it deserves, I will not permit my opposition to this law to so far 
 control my action as to render it a nullity upon issues which are prac- 
 ticable, and which, in my judgment, are of most pressing importance 
 to the country. 
 
 What are really your grounds of opposition to the fugitive law? Is it 
 
that men, struo-olins: for the o-lorious boon of liberty, are sent back into 
 bondaoe without a trial according to the forms of the common law : 
 Is this your objection? No! Your objection is that they are sent back 
 at all ! We have insisted on a jury trial for the slave in the courts of 
 the state from Avhich he should be claimed. The court, we well know, 
 is to take an oath to support the constitution of the United States and 
 the constitution of the state in which it disctiarges its judicial functions. 
 The court lays down the law to the jury; the jury swear to try the 
 case according to the law as laid down and the evidence. The fact that 
 the victim owes service is established, and he is hand cuffed and fettered 
 and dragged from our free soil, into hopeless bondage. How much higher 
 is the morality of that man, who insists upon, and is satisfied with pro- 
 ceedings like these, than the morality of the man who upholds the 
 fugitive law? 
 
 Garret Smith has classed slaveholding with murder. If this be true, 
 tliose who abet it are murderers; and the controversy, then, between 
 you and fugitive law men, is, as to the most approved manner of 
 committing the murder! 
 
 But to present this matter in a less objectional form. There is a 
 robbery to be committed — a human being is to be robbed of his 
 humanity — Samuel Lewis and yourself are for doing it in oneway and 
 Fillmore and Webster in ano^ier. Now, it seems tome, one not impli- 
 cated in the transaction, would feel dishonored by aiding either in this 
 controversy. For my own part, I wish to stear clear of it. I am very 
 sure that upon such an issue, honest men will never become earne'^t on 
 either side. There are difficulties here, which even the virtues of the 
 Free Democracy were not able to overcome. And how any one 
 occupying your position, can stand up before the faces of honest men, 
 and declaim against the corruptions of old organizations for upholding 
 the fugitiv-e law, and not have his eloquence roll back upon his own soul, 
 to deepen and strengthen his own sense of degradation and guilt, is 
 more than I can comprehend. I admit you have made an honest effort 
 to escape from legalized slavery. But the national taint of slavery was 
 upon you as upon the other parties. You counted without your host. 
 You over estimated the strength and purity of your purposes and have 
 failed. And why is not your party doomed to be engulphedin that vor- 
 tex of pollution which you say has overwhelmed your unfortunate and 
 despised predecessors ? 
 
 Now, sir, I have made up my mind that if I am so fettered by the 
 constitution of the country, that I cannot, as a politician, be true to 
 principle, I will, at least, in all matters pertaining to slavery, endeavor 
 to make myself useful in practice, and will so vote, in spite of the 
 restraints of party, as to teach the politicians of these free states, that 
 he who does most to strengthen and perpetuate slavery, does most to 
 weaken and destroy himself. 
 
 I understand the Pittsburg-h Convention to acknowledge the 
 
constitutianal obligation of the free states to return fugitive slaves. 
 Your 10th resolution reads as follows: 
 
 " No permanent xctllemrnt of the slave question can be looked far excrpt in the 
 practical, rccogidtion of the tru It, that .•■lavtry is sectional, and freedom national, hij 
 tlie total S'parat/on of the general governme7it from slavery, and the exercise of its 
 Icgilimate and con.slitvtioiial nijtncnce on the side rf freedom, and by leaving to the 
 Mlates the whole subject of davery,and the extradition of fugitives from service." 
 
 This resolution recognizes the doctrine of the return or surrendering 
 of fugitive slaves, and differing from the southern doctrine only in 
 this: that the obligation to legislate, to make efficient tlie clause of the 
 constitution, is by you thrown upon the states, instead of resting with 
 the general government, as com ended for by them. Now, if this obli- 
 gation be upon the states, the duty to legislate follows. Unless, in this 
 resolution, your Convention has paltered in a double sense — unless 
 they have intended to play the low party trick of obscuring their views 
 on this vitally important point, in order to strengthen their party 
 organization — unless this be true, then, have I rightly conceived the 
 meaning of this resolution, and your Convention stands committed, to 
 the return of fugitive slaves. 
 
 It is in vain to say you will not support the constitution ; to say 
 nothing of the bad faith of such a course ; it results from the necessity 
 of things, that each man in every political party swears to support the 
 constitution of the United States. He votes for you for Congress, and 
 in so doing, requires you, on taking your seat, to dedicate yourself anew 
 by an oath, to support this instrument, and what he does through you, 
 in this respect, he does by himself. 
 
 It is true your fugitive law, when framed, may be less offensive to 
 the constitution than the law of 1850; it may conform more to our 
 notions of the common law administration of justice; it may be less 
 dangerous to the rights of free men; less insolvent in its commands on 
 us to maintain and support it, and may threaten us with fewer penalties 
 for disobeying its requirements, and for these reasons we may rightfully 
 and consistently urge the repeal or modification of the existing law. But 
 in none of these questions, has the poor slave, for whom you labor, the 
 slightest interest. His enquiry is, for this heroic effort to gain my lost 
 liberty, am I to be subjected to the cruelties of a remorseless master? 
 Will your law drive me back to bondage, and quench forever within 
 every hope of freedom, and you answer. Yes! 
 
 But you may insist you do not contemplate state action for the 
 extradition of slaves — that your views are, that the constitution exe- 
 cutes itself — that it gives the master the right to capture, upon our 
 free soil, his slave by brute force. If this be the constitutional right of 
 tlie slave claimant, this same constitution imposes upon you the obliga- 
 tion to respect that right. 
 
 And do you admit, then, that you will stand by, having the power to 
 prevent it, and quietl}^ assent to the enslavement of your fellow men? 
 
I submit, with deference, to your clear views upon this subject, whether, 
 by any known rule of christian morality, the man who will do this, can 
 be regarded less culpable than him who directly legislates in aid of this 
 system of oppression. 
 
 There is one other theory, which was kindly and humanely dreamed 
 out, by one Mr. Spooner, to aid tsthpe from these difficulties. It is, that 
 the constitution of the United States is anti-slavery. This is made 
 out by a forced, and unnatural construction of language, from 
 whence an argument is deduced, which arrays itself against all history 
 and all the facts connected with this subject, and is ofiensive to truth 
 and common sense. It is based upon false premises, and its deductions 
 illogical and absurd. It is said many worthy men adopt it, and are 
 consoled by it; but it is doubtful, after all, if it be not more corroding 
 to conscience than the return of fugitive slaves. But neither you nor 
 myself can find any relief in this quarter. We have examined this 
 argument, and long since rejected it, and it would be the sublimation 
 of all hypocrisy for either of us to pretend to believe it. I am glad 
 to see that the Pittsburgh Convention did no discredit to its high 
 character by adopting it. 
 
 Now, sir, do you wish me to rally to the support of a third organi- 
 zation for the repeal of the fugitive law? and if so, where is the 
 ground that will remain firm under my feet in such a contest? Is it 
 that on which you stand ? I may insist that this law of Congress shall 
 be repealed, and that the states shall legislate ; or, J may contend that 
 the constitution executes itself; and, in all this, I support a pro-slavery 
 constitution, and stand pledged to the return of fugitive slaves; and 
 the difference between my position and that of the most ultra slave- 
 holder on this subject, is quite too narrow to predicate party action 
 upon, nor would it justify you or myself in separating from the whig 
 party, if, by our connexion with it, we could secure other important 
 results to the anti-slavery cause. Candor constrains us to admit that 
 there is progress in this party on this subject. Sixty-six members of 
 the Convention, representing sixty-six congressional districts, refused 
 their assent to the compromise measures, and still refuse, and, for aught 
 I know to the contrary, are as anti-slavery as you or myself. This is 
 an important acquisition of anti-slavery strength since the time you 
 stood the only advocate of this cause in Congress. I cannot see that 
 the condition of this party is so hopeless as you represent it to be, and, 
 above all, I cannot see how its character has so changed as to now 
 make it criminal in you or myself to act with it. 
 
 I have thus far endeavored to show that there is no valid reason 
 against co-operating with the whig party in the coming election. I 
 now propose to show that there is an absolute necessity for it, if we 
 ii^tend to secure any solid advantage in the war so long waged against 
 the aggressions of slavery. Your candidate, Mr. Hale, thinks the 
 democratic party should be beaten in this election ; and I think so too. 
 
10 
 
 He wishes (of course) others to help beat them, and I am willing myself 
 to help, and this constitutes the only difference between us. 
 
 We cannot hide from ourselves the fact that either Gen. Scott or 
 Gen. Pierce must be President, on the 4th of March next, and exert, 
 for four years, that gigantic power which has been so fruitful of evil to 
 the cause of anti-slavery in this country — and there is another fact, 
 which no one better understands than yourself, that it is by the lever- 
 age of presidential elections and presidential power, that the slave 
 interest operates to accomplish all of its ambitions designs. You also 
 know how completely it has subjected the democracy to its power. 
 You know that its serpent coil is around every bone and muscle of that 
 party — that every aspirant for presidential honors, looks to it alone for 
 favor, and labors to outdo his competitors in devotion to its interests ; 
 and how by this course, he induces his honest, but Winded and mis- 
 guided followers at the North, to imitate his corrupt example. 
 
 You well understand the artful policy it has imposed upon the 
 democratic party, in order to concentrate all power in its own hands : 
 First by insisting that it is the constitutional duty of the executive to 
 defeat the action of Congress, in any case of ordinary legislation, when- 
 ever his individual opinion shall stand in conflict with the opinions of 
 the people — and after acquiring this augmentation of the executive 
 power, how it has secured the executive itself, by forcing upon the 
 party, the rule, that the minority shall control the majority in conven- 
 tions for the selection of presidential candidates, giving to herself 
 thereby the choice of the man. 
 
 We cannot blind ourselves to the fact, if we would, that this 
 democratic party, in this free country, has become the passive instru- 
 ment in the hands of this slave power; and I can see no diff'erence 
 between striking at the power itself, and striking at the instrument, by 
 the use of which alone, this power can become dangerous to us. 
 
 I cannot believe the South feel an interest in retaining the Fugitive 
 law. They understand that an issue must be made with the abolition 
 sentiment of the North, and this presents the strongest point to rally 
 upon, under the constitution. Their experience of this law, must have 
 already convinced them that it will soon become a dead letter; nor can 
 they have any real interest in the maintenance of slavery in the District 
 of Columbia. They reason, of course, as you would reason in their 
 situation. You would not hope to resist this growing sentiment in favor 
 of liberty, in this age, so active in every part of the civilized world, so as 
 to maintain this fugidve law, or retain slavery in the capitol of this 
 Republic. But one thing you would do — you would labor to interpose 
 some barier to this sentiment, that it might not impress itself upon the 
 legislation of the countiy in a way to interfere with slavery or its inter- 
 ests. Your effort would be for some political power that would atford 
 you this protection. In my judgment, southern men reason as you 
 Avould reason in their circumstances. 
 
11 
 
 They understand, as you now do, that there must be interests 
 springing from this institution of slavery, which will ever be antagonist 
 to the interests of the free states. 
 
 Power has passed forever from the hands of the South in the House 
 of Representatives. They have thirty votes in the Senate, Delaware 
 included, and the free states thirty-two. Delaware must soon be ranked 
 with the free states, thus giving the North a majority of four votes over 
 the South. We have the territories of New Mexico, Utah, Orep-on and 
 Minnesota, and there is no constitutional objection to their admission 
 into the Union at the next session of Congress. Should they be admit- 
 ted as free states, it would make a majority of twelve in the Senate 
 against the South, counting Delaware as a free state. 
 
 Now, to counteract this state of things, the whole strength of the 
 slavery extensionists, it seems to me, must inevitably be exened. Noth- 
 ing is more clear to my own mind than that they will strive to secure, 
 in their own hands, a negative power in the Senate, to protect slavery 
 and its interests against the action of Congress, whenever it may become 
 necessary to do so. It is not to be supposed that they will, without an 
 effort, confide in the hands of the North, the whole legislative power 
 of the government, to be wielded against their institutions in any con- 
 tingency. And they understand, as you do, that what is to be done in 
 this business, must be done quickly. That soon the anti-slavery senti- 
 ment of the country will so strengthen, that it will be out of their 
 power to effect it. 
 
 Whether the South shall add these'slave states and restore to herself 
 the balance of power, is the practical anti-slavery issue of to-day; and 
 all others are unimportant in comparison Avith it. The abolition of 
 slavery in the District of ( Columbia, may be rightfully insisted on in 
 vindication of a great principle; but as a question of humanity, it can 
 have no interest. Its effect, probably, would not be to liberate one 
 human being from slavery. For the repeal of the fugitive law, T con- 
 fess I feel no special interest. If we are to have a fugitive law at all, 
 should not its features be so odious as to shock the moral sense of the 
 country ? Such a law in a country where there is even a tolerable 
 regard for human rights, could not be enforced. May not your doctrine 
 of extradition be altogether too comely, too respectable ; may it not 
 burnish the guilt and consecrate the crime of extradition ? 
 
 If I am rio-ht as to the true issue, will not the South, under the four 
 year's administration of Franklin Pierce, consumate their design of 
 adding slave states to this Union ? Should they fail to do this," the 
 fault will be all their own. Jf it be not accomplished during his admin- 
 istration, we need have no fears of it hereafter. They have selected 
 their own man for this work, and no one questions that they have 
 made a. most happy selection. The history of Mr. Pierce, so far as I 
 know it, is made up of services in the cause of slavery. He is incor- 
 rigible in his views upon this subject. He tells us that his old opinions 
 
12 
 
 remain unshaken by all the liglit whicli has been shed upon tlie subjct 
 in the last seventeen years. He says his opinions have undergone no 
 change since 1835. Few other men in the free states, I think, can say 
 this. He was the first man in Congress to gag the free men of the 
 North, and he tells us he would do it now. By his vote in 1835, he 
 o-ave to Mr. Pinckney the privilege of making a special report against 
 tlie abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and against the 
 rioht of petition, (himself being one of the committee,) and two weeks 
 after, denied to John Quincy Adams the privilege of making a like 
 report in behalf of freedom, presenting the other side of this question; 
 and he tells us that he would now repeat this outrage. In 1837 he 
 allowed Mr. Clay to be heard in the Senate against the abolition of 
 slavery in the District, and the next day refused to hear Mr. Morris in 
 behalf of Ohio, on the other side of tliis same question. He is ready 
 to do the same thing now. 
 
 The only thing that tended in any way to relieve his character from 
 the just indignalion of every true friend of human rights, was a 
 rumor prevalent, that he had condemned the principles of the fugitive 
 law. But he tells lus that this rumor is false; and that he has absolutely 
 done nor said nothing concerning slavery, to relieve his manhood from 
 hopeless and irretrievable infamy. 
 
 Now, with such a man for President, selected by the South, (a fact 
 which he refers to as the most flattering circumstance connected with 
 his nomination,) conscious that he owes his elevation to the slave interest, 
 and is but the creature of their will, and with a Democratic majority 
 in both houses of Congress, pledged to resist, even so much as a prayer 
 in behalf of freedom, and all this strengthened and backed up by the 
 verdict of the nation, endorsing the principles of Pierce and his party, 
 it does appear to me insane to doubt that slavery will secure all it ever 
 can secure under this government. 
 
 Will the election of "Gen. Scott defeat this scheme for the admission 
 of more slave states ? and this brings me to the end of what I have to 
 say on this subject. 
 
 I have no belief that Gen. Scott will represent your peculiar views 
 or my own on this question of slavery. I expect his position to be 
 national on this subject. I expect him to stand where the greatest of 
 Southern Whigs — the author of the compromise — stood. Mr. Clay 
 stated in the Senate, that he would never consent to the increase of 
 slavery in this country. I expect him to stand where Mr. Benton stands. 
 That Gen. Scott will ever occupy a position more favorable to slavery 
 than either of these men, no man with any knowledge of his history, 
 can believe. 
 
 Whether Gen. Scott endorsed the Whig resolutions or not — whether 
 he has assented to the fugitive law or not, or i) that part of the com- 
 promise which admits Utah and New Mexico into the Union with or 
 without slavery, as the inhabitants of thsse states shall determine, can 
 
13 
 
 be of no importance for us to know in this crisis. It is too low ground 
 upon which to rest the decision of the question made between you and 
 myself; and I will simply state, on this point, that his position has been 
 misrepresented. No feature of the Whig creed is better defined than 
 that in relation to the exercise of the veto power. Whenever, m the 
 judgment of the executive, legislation is in violation of the constitution, 
 and where it is hasty and inconsiderate, the President may interpose 
 his veto. The constitutional objection cannot arise on the repeal of a 
 law, nor will your action for the repeal of the fugitive law, be, in all 
 probability, very hasty. This is not a question of expediency settled 
 by the Whig party, but a question of constitutional power. This policy 
 declares that the executive has no power, under the constitution, to 
 interpose his veto, except in the cases referred to. This doctrine Gen. 
 Scott endorses and stands pledged to the whole nation to maintain. 
 North and South understand his position alike. When he takes his 
 oath of office, he swears not to interfere with the action of the people 
 for the repeal of this law. 
 
 Now, if the intention be, not to rest the decision of this momentous 
 question upon technichalities alone, ff a practical view is to be taken of 
 this eminently practical question, then Gen. Scott's position, even as you 
 understand it, is not an objection to your supporting him. 
 
 But here is the decision, it seems to me, we are called on to make, 
 and by this decision we should be governed. Is the position of the 
 respective candidates so defined that the election of either will amount 
 to an expression of the people for or against the admission of more 
 slave states into the Union? I hold, beyond doubt, that it is. That the 
 election of Pierce will be a triumph of the South, and the election of 
 Scott, a Northern triumph. I have already shown that the position of 
 Pierce is southern and slave-holding— that'he is the favorite and selec- 
 ted candidate of the most inveterate and uncompromising slavery 
 propagandist in this nation, and if by his election, the nation shall 
 endorse his position, no power you can interpose, will prevent slavery 
 from acquiring all it can hope to acquire under the present government. 
 Why should they wait? Will there ever be a time more favorable for 
 doing what they have to do, than under his administration ; and is not 
 every moment's delay full of danger to them ? 
 
 On the other hand, what is the position of Gen. Scott ? It is a 
 conservative, national position — a position adverse to the schemes of 
 the ultra slave holders of the South, and no one can deny it, if they 
 will consult the facts. His whole life testifies his hostility to slavery. 
 With his high position and available character as a candidate for the 
 presidency,')'0u have seen his party South, for years, resisting his nom- 
 ination. You have seen their sympathisers at the North doing the same 
 thing, and when nominated, the most prominent and influential men at 
 the South abandoning him and going over and cheerfully support- 
 ing Pierce; and you see these Northern sympathisers here, still 
 
14 
 
 refusing to sustain Lira, And as I have already said, and as you well 
 know, tliose who brought forward and sustained Gen. Scott in the Con- 
 vention, are men thoroughly opposed te the extension of slavery; and 
 if elected, can we reasonably doubt that his election will be taken as an 
 expression of the people against the admission of any more slave states 
 into this Union ? and that this expression, no Northorn politician of 
 either party will dare to trifle with. 
 
 My hope for our cause is not so much in what the Whig party T,'ill 
 do, as in what the Democratic party will be detered from doin<>-; for 
 the power in both branches of Congress will be in their hands. All 
 we can interpose to prevent the anticipated mischief, is the election of 
 Gen. Scott, and it will be sufficient for this purpose. You nor myself 
 are not left to conjecture on this subject. Before Mr. Polk's election, 
 there was scarcely a Northern Democrat to be found, bold enough to 
 take strong ground for annexation; and after his election, scarcely any 
 to be found who would take ground against it. 
 
 These Northern men do not ftivor slavery because they love darkness 
 rather than light; but as a means to gratify their ambition for place 
 and power. Teach them that the people are against them, and they 
 have no further motive for betraying the North. You may talk of the 
 moral influence of your vote for Mr. Hale, upon them. This is not 
 what they heed. It is efficient voting that they care for — voting that 
 will thrust them from office and its emoluments. 
 
 You may tell me tliat both parties stand committed to the admission 
 of New Mexico and Utah into the Union with or without slavery, as the 
 people of those states shall decide. Let it be conceeded. And I hold 
 that the people of these territories may be safely trusted with the 
 decision of this quesfion, uninfluenced by government officials. But 
 let the doctrine that slave holders have now, the right to remove to 
 these territories Avith their slaves, (the doctrine of the South) be recog- 
 nized by the executive — let him select for Governors, Judges and other 
 officers for these territories, men of these views, and who can doubt 
 that these territories will decide for slavery. And do you question that 
 Gen. Pierce will select such men ? Do you believe that Gen. Scott will 
 doit? 
 
 There can be no doubt that Oregon and Minnesota will come into 
 the Union as free states, ac d even with New Mexico and Utah admit- 
 ted as slave states, the free states will have four majority over the 
 South in the Senate. This will not do! She must have a division of 
 California or Texas, or the annexation of Cuba, or all these — nothing- 
 short of these will answer her wants. You surely cannot doubt that 
 all this would be defeated under the administration of Gen. Scott. 
 
 Now, Sir, we have labored long in this anti-slavery cause, and good 
 results have folloAved. Much has been done to rectify a false public 
 sentiment in the country, and we are approaching the crisis on this 
 subject. And are you not, by yielding to a false and pernicious senti- 
 
15 
 
 ment of allegiance to party organization, about to throw away all you 
 have gained ? With all candor and respect, I say to you, this is my 
 belief. 
 
 Should Pierce be elected, my opinion is, it will be the end of 
 political anti-slavery. I do not believe you can get up sufficient 
 interest, after the (juestion of the annexation of slave states shall be 
 put to rest, to keep alive your organization. As machinery for working 
 moral convictions, it is, most clearly, the poorest ever invented. As it 
 increases in strength it increases in corruption. I see no object of nny 
 great practical importance which you can labor foi. Men will not 
 labor for political abstractions — their affections will be engrossed by 
 their own private affairs as xisual. We have so many active business 
 interests, that questions must arise in all the states bearing upon these 
 interests, upon which the people will take issue at the ballot boxes, and 
 concerning which new political combinations will be made. And my 
 humble belief is, that if Pierce is e]ected,"you bring the Free Soil 
 movement to an inglorious end. 
 
 These are my reasons for sustaining Gen. Scott; I submit them 
 with diffidence; not that I doubt their correctness, but because they 
 stand opposed to the views of those who are distinguished by their 
 position, by their philanthrophy, their eloquence, and all those other 
 qualities which give to their opinions, the force of authority. I know, 
 however, that this subject of human WTongs, is all powerful in its 
 appeals to our sympathies; that it stirs to their profoundest depths, the 
 strongest passions of the human heart, and that you are now laboring 
 under this strong excitement, a condition not the most [favorable for 
 right results upon this subject; nor can I forget that others equally 
 distinguished, under similar feeling, and from motives equally pure, 
 have committed errors the most extravagant to be found in the annals 
 of mankind. 
 
 DATs^IEL R. TILDEN. 
 
f 46 
 
^"•^^. ' 
 
 
 .# "^. 
 
 ^, 
 
 A^^ 
 
 '^^0^ 
 40^ 
 
 ^o V^' 
 
 o. 
 
 V r^ 
 
 ■S^/ .0" 
 
 :.- --Ca 
 
 v .^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 s.°-ni.^ -."'; 
 
 
 '^v'" : ''^'^^ ^^J '^9'^' 
 
 
 0^ t'VL*- o 
 
 
 '^o' .Ov% ^-if^ 
 ,0 
 
 
 
 
 V ,^^'^k^,,^^y.-Mk^\. ,.c° /^^/. °-. 
 
 "^0* 
 
 
 
 
 '** .**• 
 

 C" ♦* 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 »-- '^^ ,0^ . ^Oo .4 
 
 ■■ 'o » » » 
 
 ^ 
 
 bV 
 
 ^ -.-^^^ 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 > » 
 
 o' .0 
 
 
 
 -.-^^ii^,^ 
 
 ,0- » / i 
 
 
 
 .0' 
 
 
 ,.v^. :^^;^^. 
 
 ^^W' 
 
 .V--.