THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 .4? 
 
 
THE AMERICAN HISTORY SERIES 
 
 Five volumes, IZmo, with maps and plans. 
 
 THE COLONIAL ERA. By Rev. GEORGE P. FISHER, 
 D.D., LL.D., Professor of Ecclesiastical Hietory in 
 Yale University. $1.25. 
 
 THE FRENCH WAR AND THE REVOLUTION.-By 
 WILLIAM M. SLOANE, Ph.D., Professor of History in 
 Princeton University. $1.25. 
 
 THE MAKING OF THE NATION.-By Gen. FRANCIS 
 A. WALKER, President of the Massachusetts Institute 
 of Technology. $1.25. 
 
 THE MIDDLE PERIOD. -By JOHN W. BURGESS, Pro 
 fessor of Hietory, Political Science, and International 
 Law in Columbia University. $1.75. 
 
 THE CIVIL WAR AND RECONSTRUCTION. By JOHN 
 W. BURGESS, Professor of History, Political Science, and 
 International Law in Columbia University. In Press. 
 
THE AMERICAN HISTORY SERIES 
 
 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 1817-1858 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN W. BURGESS, PH.D., LL.D. 
 
 PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AND DEAN OP 
 
 THE FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, IN COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK 
 
 WITH MAPS 
 
 
 
 
 NEW YORK 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER S SONS 
 
 1897 
 
33 
 
 COPYRIGHT, 1897, BY 
 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER S SONS 
 
 TROW DIRECTORY 
 
 PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY 
 NEW YORK 
 
To the memory 
 
 of 
 my former teacher, colleague, and friend, 
 
 JULIUS HAWLEY SEELYE, 
 
 philosopher, theologian, statesman, and educator, 
 
 this volume is reverently 
 
 and affectionately 
 
 inscribed 
 
 
PREFACE 
 
 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 im- 
 maculateness 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 dif 
 ferent 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 ani 
 mosities, the friendships, and the relations between 
 parties and sections which prevail to-day. 
 
 Serious and delicate as the task is, however, the time 
 has arrived when it should be undertaken in a thor 
 oughly impartial spirit. The continued misunderstand 
 ing 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 
 
Vlll PEEFACE 
 
 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. 
 
 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 abomina 
 tion, and its chief cause, slavery, as a great evil ; and 
 I cannot say that these feelings have been much modi 
 fied, if any at all, by longer experiences and maturer 
 thought. I have, therefore, undertaken this work with 
 many misgivings. 
 
 | Keenly conscious of my own prejudices, I have ex 
 erted 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 rea 
 soning under the influences of their own particular 
 situation. And I have with sedulous care avoided ail 
 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 
 
PREFACE IX 
 
 to use no secondary material ; that is, no material in 
 which original matter is mingled with somebody s in 
 terpretation of its meaning. If, therefore, the facts 
 in my narration are twisted by prejudices and precon 
 ceptions, I think I can assure my readers that they 
 have suffered only one twist.j 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 ir heri- 
 tance from their predecessors. 
 
 I have been especially repelled by the flippant super 
 ficiality of the foreign critics of this period of our his 
 tory, and their evident delight in representing the 
 professions and teachings of the " Free Republic " as 
 canting hypocrisy. It has seemed to me a great mis 
 fortune that the present generation and future genera 
 tions 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. 
 
 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 writ 
 ten 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 
 
X PREFACE 
 
 produce anything more than another pair of narratives 
 from the old contradictory points of view ; and he 
 did not explain how it would. 
 
 \ 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; be 
 cause 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, 
 
PREFACE XI 
 
 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 stultifica 
 tion of themselves when at their best as men and heroes. 
 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 reason 
 ing have been, I think, duly appreciated, and patiently 
 explained, while the right has been willingly acknowl 
 edged to them and honor accorded them whenever and 
 wherever they have had the right and have merited 
 honor, and while unbounded sympathy for personal suf 
 fering 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 interpreta 
 tion 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 
 
Xll PREFACE 
 
 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 Provi 
 dence for their perfection. 
 
 I have not, in the following pages, undertaken to 
 treat all 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 re 
 cord, connection, and interpretation of such events is 
 what I call history in the highest sense, as distinguished 
 from chronology, narrative, and romance. Both neces 
 sity and philosophy have confined me to these. * ! 
 
 I cannot close these prefatory sentences without a 
 word of grateful acknowledgment to my friend and 
 colleague, Dr. Harry A. Gushing, for the important 
 services which he has rendered me in the preparation 
 of this work. 
 
 JOHN W. BURGESS. 
 
 323 WEST FIFTY-SEVENTH STREET, NEW YORK CITY. 
 January 22, 1897. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 THE NATIONALIZATION OF THE OLD REPUBLICAN PARTY, . 1 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 THE ACQUISITION OF FLORIDA, 19 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 .^SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE 1820, . . 39 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 THE CREATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI, . 61 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 THE BEGINNING OF THE PARTICULARISTIC REACTION, . 108 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1824, . . . .131 
 
XIV CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 THE DIVISION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, . . . 145 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION TO INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS 
 AND PROTECTION, 1G6 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE UNITED STATES BANK AND THE PRESIDENTIAL CON 
 TEST OF 1832, 190 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 NULLIFICATION, 210 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 ABOLITION, . 242 
 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 THE BANK, THE SUB-TREASURY, AND PARTY DEVELOP 
 MENT BETWEEN 1832 AND 1842, 278 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 / TEXAS, .289 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 OREGON, 311 
 
CONTENTS XV 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 THE " RE-ANNEXATION OF TEXAS AND THE RE-OCCUPA 
 TION OF OREGON," 318 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 THE WAII WITH MEXICO, . .327 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 THE ORGANIZATION OP OREGON TERRITORY AND THE COM 
 PROMISE OF 1830, 340 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 THE EXECUTION OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW, AND THE 
 ELECTION OF 1852, 3C5 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 THE REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE, . . . 380 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS, 407 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 THE DRED SCOTT CASE, ... t ... 449 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS CONCLUDED, . 460 
 
XVI CONTENTS 
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 THE ELECTORAL VOTE IN DETAIL, 1820-1856, . . . 475 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 THE CABINETS OF MONROE, ADAMS, JACKSON, VAN BUREN, 
 HARRISON, TYLER, POLK, TAYLOR, FILLMOUE, PIERCE, 
 
 AND BUCHANAN-1816-1858, 485 
 
 CHRONOLOGY, 491 
 
 BIBLIOGRAPHY, 497 
 
 INDEX, 503 
 
 LIST OF MAPS. 
 
 PACING 
 PAGE 
 
 FLORIDA AT THE TIME OP ACQUISITION 32 
 
 TEXAS AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION, . . . . 296 
 OREGON AS DETERMINED BY THE TREATY OF 1846, . . 312 
 CALIFORNIA AND NEW MEXICO IN 1850, . . . .336 
 NEBRASKA AND KANSAS, 1854-1861, 468 
 
All 
 
 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE NATIONALIZATION OF THE OLD REPUBLICAN 
 PARTY 
 
 General Character of the Acts of the Fourteenth Congress Madi 
 son s Message of December 5th, 1815 Change in the Prin 
 ciples of the Republican Party The United States Bank Act 
 of 1816 Report of the Bank Bill by Mr. Calhoun Mr. Cal- 
 houn s Argument in Favor of the Bill Webster s Objections 
 to the Bank Bill- -Mr. Clay s Support of the Bank Bill Pas 
 sage of the Bank Bill by the House of Representatives The 
 Passage of the Bank Bill by the Senate The United States 
 Bank of 1816 a Southern Measure The Tariff Bill Framed by 
 the Committee on Ways and Means The Tariff Bill Reported 
 The Character of the Tariff Bill Mr. Calhoun s Speech 
 upon the Tariff Bill -The Passage of the Tariff Bill The 
 Army and Navy Bill The Bill for National Improvements 
 Mr. Calhoun s Advocacy of this Bill The Opposition to the 
 Internal Improvements Bill Passage of the Bill by Congress 
 Veto of the Bill by the President The Failure of Congress 
 to Override the Veto. 
 
 IT is no part of my task to relate the events of the 
 War of 1812-15. That has already heen 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. 
 
2 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 Those acts and policies were shaped and adopted 
 
 under the influence of those experiences, and this influ- 
 
 Gei erai enGQ was so P re d m inant, at the moment, in 
 
 character of the minds of the leading men in the Govern- 
 
 the acts of the n , , , 
 
 Fourteenth ment and throughout the country as to ex 
 clude, 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. 
 
 It was the President himself, however, one of the 
 chief founders of the " States -rights " party, Mr. Madi 
 son, who set the direction toward centralization in the 
 Congressional legislation of 1815-17. In his annual 
 Madison s message of December 5th, 1815, he recom- 
 DecemDe/sth! mended the increase and better organization 
 isis. O f the arm y an( j 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. 
 
 This is a very different political creed from that 
 promulgated by President Jefferson when the Republi 
 can 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 
 
THE OLD REPUBLICAN PARTY 3 
 
 " States," were recommended and urged upon the atten 
 tion of the national lawgivers. 
 
 From a " States -sovereignty " party in 1801, the Re 
 publican party had manifestly become a strong national 
 party in 1816 ; that is, if we are to take the change in 
 two Presidential messages, to which we have of^helejJub- 
 referred, as containing the political prin- ^an party, 
 ciples of that party at these two periods of its existence. 
 
 As the Congress of 1801 showed itself, in its legisla 
 tion, to be in substantial accord with President Jeffer 
 son 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. 
 
 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 mes 
 sage which related to the establishment of an states U Bank 
 uniform national currency to a select com- Actof1816 - 
 mittee. 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 sup 
 ported it, as containing the views and the sentiments of 
 the leading Southern Republicans in the House. 
 
4 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 This committee came speedily to the conclusion that 
 the nationalization of the monetary system was the most 
 Report of pressing need of the country, and within a 
 by e M? cli 1 month from the date of the appointment of 
 houn. j s 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. 
 
 ^ln his great argument in support of the bill, delivered 
 on February 26th, Mr. Calhoun dismissed at the out- 
 Mr, cai- set an J consideration of the constitutional- 
 menfin a fa g vo; % of the bill That is > ^ simply assumed 
 of the Bill. ft&t Congress had the power to pass the bill, 
 and declared that the public mind was entirely made up 
 and settled upon that point. 
 
 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 ques 
 tion that the Eepublican party, down to 1812, regarded 
 the establishment of an United States bank by Con 
 gress as an usurpation of power not granted by the Con 
 stitution. 
 
 Five years constitute a short period of time for the 
 accomplishment of so important a change in the public 
 
THE OLD REPUBLICAN PAKTY 5 
 
 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 neces 
 sities of the War that had developed a powerful na 
 tional opinion upon the subject of the financial system 
 of the country. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun also declined to discuss the question 
 whether banks were favorable or unfavorable to pub 
 lic 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 Govern 
 ment 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 He declared, finally, that the only questions which 
 demanded consideration were those relative to the ex 
 isting 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 
 
6 THE MIDDLE PEKJOD 
 
 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 liquida 
 tion. This was clear, generous, and patriotic. No one 
 made a fairer statement of the case, and no one advo 
 cated a more national remedy in its treatment. 
 
 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 
 objec e tion 8 e to 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 re 
 deem their currency in specie by refusing to accept for 
 Government dues the bills of banks which did not pay 
 specie on demand. 
 
 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 Mr. Clay did not leave the House long in doubt con- 
 
THE OLD REPUBLICAN PARTY 7 
 
 cerning his views. lie quickly revealed and avowed 
 that noted change of opinion upon this subject, which has 
 been commonly accounted one of his great- 
 est inconsistencies, but which may be very support of a the 
 properly considered as simply manifesting 
 that growth in patriotism and national spirit experienced 
 by almost all the leading men of the country, outside o! 
 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 re 
 spect to the matter was contained in the clause of the 
 Constitution which conferred upon Congress the author 
 ity 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 re 
 quire the enlarged interpretation of the powers of Con 
 gress under this clause upon the subject of the monetary 
 system of the country. 
 
 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 
 
 . ., . Passage of 
 
 privileges of the proposed Bank had been in- the Bank Bill 
 
 ? , by the House 
 
 creased by amendment during the progress of Represent- 
 of the bill through the House. The Bank and ative8 
 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 
 
8 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 the Bank should always be chosen from among the Gov 
 ernment directors, and reserving to Congress the power 
 to permit a temporary suspension of specie payment by 
 the Bank, were stricken out. 
 
 During the passage of the bill through the Senate 
 only a single senator expressed any doubts of its con- 
 The passage stitutionality, Mr. Wells, of Delaware. Mr. 
 Bm the throuSh Wells did not den J the Power of Congress to 
 the senate. 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 uncon 
 stitutional. On the other hand, Senators Barbour, of 
 Virginia, Taylor, of South Carolina, and Bibb, of Geor 
 gia, 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. 
 
 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 
 
 The United , , >, . -, 
 
 states Bank creation by Congress is strong evidence of 
 
 of 1816 a, i ,1 , ,.. 
 
 southern the great growth in national opinion and sen 
 timent throughout the country, away from 
 the national indifference of the Jeffersonian metapol- 
 itics of 1800. 
 
 A review of the Tariff Act of 1816 will bring us to the 
 The Tariff of same conclusions concerning the great nation- 
 1816. alizing influence of the War. 
 
 The rate of duty upon the principal articles of im 
 ported goods was, before the War, twelve and one-half 
 per centum ad valorem. From a rate of five per cen 
 tum 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 Repub 
 lican Congresses, until, in 1812, it had reached the 
 
THE OLD REPUBLICAN PARTY 
 
 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. 
 
 At the outbreak of the War double duties were im 
 posed 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 con 
 clusion of peace with England. 
 
 The ratifications of the Treaty of Ghent were ex 
 changed 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. 
 
 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 
 
 T h e Bi 1 1 
 
 committee. At that moment this commit- framed by the 
 tee was composed of seven members, four on ways* and 
 from Commonwealths south of Maryland, Means - 
 and three from those north of Maryland. Mr. Lowndes, 
 of South Carolina, was its chairman. It is fair, there 
 fore, to call it a Southern committee, and to regard the 
 bill which it produced as a Southern measure. 
 
 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 meas 
 ure contained virtually the continuation of the war 
 
10 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 tariff as the permanent rule and policy /in time of peace. 
 It was now manifestly a protective tariff, and it was in- 
 
 The Tariff tended to be such. Mr. Ingham of the corn- 
 Bin reported. m ittee 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 com 
 mittee s propositions. 
 
 It is entirely evident, however, that the committee 
 did not regard the bill as proposing advantages for the 
 
 The char- manufacturers only, or as having for its prin- 
 TarTff sin the c ^P a ^ a ^ m * ne increase of the wages of the em 
 ployees 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 any 
 body to rest upon a perfect and permanent principle. 
 Mr. Clay himself said of it, "that the object of pro 
 tecting manufacturers was, that we might eventually 
 get articles of necessity made as cheap at home as th^y 
 could be imported, and thereby to produce an indepen 
 dence of foreign countries ;" that "in three years we 
 could judge of the ability of our establishments to fur 
 nish those articles as cheap as they were obtained from 
 abroad, and could then legislate with the lights of expe 
 rience ;" and that "he believed that three years would 
 be sufficient to place our manufacturers on this desir 
 able footing." 
 
 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 
 
THE OLD REPUBLICAN PARTY 11 
 
 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 con 
 fined to questions of detail he had refrained from join 
 ing in it ; but now that the general policy of M r . c a i - 
 the measure had been attacked he felt obliged upoS Ve P Ta? 
 to come forward in support of that policy, iffBm - 
 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 de 
 stroyed the commerce of the country with foreign pow 
 ers, 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 manufact 
 ured goods, but would create home markets for agricul 
 tural 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 actions on each 
 
12 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 v policies, for the reason that the absence of 
 such mutual dependence would tend toward disunion, 
 and disunion comprehended almost the sum and sub 
 stance of our political dangers, against which,, there 
 fore, we ought to be perpetually guarded. 
 
 Calhoun was in his thirty-fifth year when he advanced 
 these views. The sentiments which they revealed can 
 not, therefore, be ascribed to the enthusiasm of youth 
 and inexperience. They rested upon the settled convic 
 tions of a mature man. They stand in need of no com 
 ment. They speak for themselves. We shall search 
 the reports of the debate in vain for anything wiser, no 
 bler, 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 major 
 ity in its favor was, however, nearly two to 
 
 of the Tariff one. In the Senate, the vote was nearly four 
 to one for it. Though Southern in its im 
 mediate origin, it certainly had the support of the na 
 tion, 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. 
 
 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 
 
THE OLD REPUBLICAN PARTY 13 
 
 series of acts for the increase of the Army and the Navy, 
 and for their thorough reorganization. The Repub 
 lican doctrine of 1800 was, that there was no 
 need of a national army; that the militias and 6 Va vy 
 of the Commonwealths were a sufficient mili- I 
 tary 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 infan 
 try, and one regiment of artillerists, not more than 
 thirty-five hundred men. No increase of this force had 
 been permitted between 1802 and 1812. 
 
 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 organi 
 zation, the United States was not a nation. With such 
 an experience as this, Congress and the people were 
 thoroughly converted from the particularistic doctrin 
 ism of 1800, and now manifested their strong national 
 spirit in the willingness to place a large standing mili 
 tary force in the hands of the central Government in 
 times of peace. 
 
 By the Act of March 3rd, 1816, Congress fixed the 
 peace footing of the Army at ten thousand men, exclud 
 ing the corps of engineers ; and by the Act of April 
 24th, of the same year, it reorganized, or rather re- 
 
14 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 created, the general staff, upon the principle that the 
 staff should be as complete in time of peace as in time 
 of war. 
 
 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. 
 
 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 thor 
 oughgoing confidence in the national Government had 
 established itself in the brain and heart of the people 
 and of their leaders. 
 
 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 sys 
 tem of national internal improvements to the second 
 session, that of 1816-17. 
 
 At the opening of this session, Mr. Calhoun, again, 
 
 came forward with a motion for the appointment of a 
 
 committee, which should consider the ques- 
 
 Nationai im- tion of setting aside the bonus to be paid by 
 
 provements. 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 perma 
 nent 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 
 
THE OLD REPUBLICAN PAETY 15 
 
 apart of the funds above indicated for the construction 
 of roads and canals. 
 
 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 Vas most opportune for 
 the consideration of the question, on account of the 
 fact that all party and sectional feelings had Mr. cai- 
 given way to "a liberal and an enlightened Jja^y "of^S 
 regard for the general concerns of the na- Bl11 - 
 tion," Mr. Calhoun again pronounced his warning con 
 cerning 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 tenden 
 cies 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 sen 
 timents. 
 
 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 
 
16 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 com 
 mon defence and general welfare of the country at its 
 own discretion, both as to object and amount.. He in 
 sisted 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 con 
 struction upon other powers. It was all in his best 
 strain, and showed Mr. Calhoun still as the chief advo 
 cate of national union and national development. No 
 other person seemed to equal him in breadth of view 
 and purity of patriotism. 
 
 The measure met, however, with more opposition than 
 
 the Bank Bill or the Tariff Bill had experienced. Two 
 
 The DOST y ears ^ P eace na d cooled the ardor of the 
 
 tion to the in- national spirit somewhat, and the people 
 
 ternal Im- , \ , , . . r . 
 
 provements were dropping back into the narrow spheres 
 
 of ordinary life and business routine. 
 Moreover, the great hue and cry raised by the dema 
 gogues 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. 
 
 Nevertheless, the great power and earnestness with 
 
 which Mr. Calhoun. addressed himself to the task of 
 
 carrying the bill through its different stages 
 
 Passage of , ... 
 
 the Bill by 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. 
 
THE OLD REPUBLICAN PARTY 17 
 
 To the great surprise of the friends of the measure, the 
 President returned the bill to Congress on March 3rd, 
 with his obiections. These were, summed up 
 
 i xv xl, Veto of the 
 
 in a single sentence, that there was no war- EHI by the 
 rant in the Constitution for the exercise of the I 
 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 appro 
 priation 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 in 
 ternal 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. 
 
 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 ori 
 gin, 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 
 2 
 
18 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 creed as the country settled down again into the hum 
 drum of ordinary life. 
 
 The national Republicans looked upon his act, how 
 ever, as an apostasy, and the House of Eepresentatives 
 The failure repassed the bill by an increased majority 
 ove C rrid? es t 8 he and with considerable feeling. The major- 
 veto, jty was g^ii^ however, not sufficient to over 
 come the veto, and thus the first earnest attempt to 
 commit the nation to a general system of internal im 
 provements 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. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE ACQUISITION OF FLORIDA 
 
 The Influence of Physical Geography upon Political Development 
 Defect in the Southern Boundary of the United States before 
 1819 The Treaty of Paris of 1763 The Boundary between 
 Louisiana and Florida Occupation of Florida by the United 
 States Forces during the War of 1812 The Hold of the 
 Spaniards on Florida Weakened by the War of 1812 The 
 British Troops in Florida during and after the War of 1812 
 Nicholls and his Buccaneer State in Florida The British 
 Government s Repulse of Nicholls s Advances Destruction of 
 the Nicholls Fort by the United States Forces. The Seminole 
 \y ar The Fight at Fowltown The Seminole War Defensive 
 McGregor on Amelia Island General Gaines sent to Amelia 
 Island General Jackson placed in Command in Florida His 
 Orders Jackson s Letter to President Monroe Jackson s 
 Operations in Florida The First Treaty for the Cession of 
 Florida to the United States Jackson s Popularity in conse 
 quence of the Seminole War The Attempt in Congress to 
 Censure Jackson The same Attempt in the Cabinet The 
 Failure of the Attempt to Censure Jackson in Congress As 
 sumption of the Responsibility for Jackson s Acts by the Ad 
 ministration Jackson Triumphant The Treaty of Cession 
 Attacked in Congress, but Ratified by the Senate Rejection 
 of the Treaty by the Spanish Government Resumption of 
 Negotiations -The New Treaty Ratified by the Senate and by 
 the Spanish Government Political Results of the Seminole 
 War. 
 
 IT was entirely natural that the quickening of the 
 national spirit and the growth of the national conscious 
 ness throughout the United States, in the decade be 
 tween 1810 and 1820, had, for one of their results, the 
 
20 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 extension of the territory of the United States, at some 
 point or other, to its natural limits. 
 
 The element of physical geography ahvays plays a 
 large part in national political development. The nat- 
 
 Theinflu- ur ^ territorial basis of a national state is a 
 enceof physi- geographical unity. That is, it is a territory 
 upon poimdi separated by broad bodies of water, or high 
 mountain ranges, or broad belts of uninhab 
 itable 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 ter 
 ritory, 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 boun 
 daries, for a completely national state is the sovereign 
 organization of a people having an ethnic unity upon a 
 territory which is a geographic unity. 
 
 In the second decade of this century, and down to the 
 latter part of it, the United States had not acquired the 
 
 Defect in territory of the country as far as to the nat- 
 boundary he af ura ^ southern boundary east of Louisiana, 
 state? "blfore This Boundary was, of course, the Gulf of 
 i8i9. 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. 
 The Treaty of Paris of 1763 was the first great inter- 
 
THE ACQUISITION OF FLORIDA 21 
 
 national agreement which gave a fair degree of definite- 
 ness to the claims of England, France, and Spain, upon 
 the North American continent. In this The Treat 
 Treaty, France surrendered Canada, Cape of Paris of 
 Breton, and all claims to territory east of the 
 Mississippi Kiver, 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 Iber 
 ville, and of the Lakes Maurepas and Pont char train, 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. 
 
 In this same instrument, Spain surrendered to Great 
 Britain Florida and every claim to territory east and 
 southeast of the Mississippi. 
 
 The boundary between Louisiana and Florida had, to 
 that time, been the River Perdido. After the cessions 
 aftove mentioned to Great Britain, the Brit- The boun . 
 ish Government united the part of Louisiana iomsian^and 
 received from France with Florida, and then Florida, 
 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. 
 
 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. 
 

 22 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 The Treaty of 1762 between France and Spain, having 
 been concluded before the Treaty of 1763 between 
 France and Great JBritain, 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. 
 
 In this same year, Great Britain recognized the inde 
 pendence of the United States, with a southern boun 
 dary extending from the point where the Mississippi 
 River is intersected by the thirty^first parallel of lati 
 tude, along this parallel to the Eiver 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 oi 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 reces 
 sion 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. 
 
 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: 
 
THE ACQUISITION OF FLORIDA 23 
 
 k<r 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 stip 
 ulations 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." 
 
 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 counter 
 claim 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 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 boun 
 dary of Louisiana was the one intended both in the Treaty 
 
24 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 de 
 velopment 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. 
 
 The United States enforced its claim by military oc 
 cupation of the disputed district before the close of the 
 War of 1812. 
 
 During the course of the war, the British forces had 
 occupied Pensacola. The Spanish governor either could 
 
 occupation not, or would not, prevent them from doing 
 theWfte? so - Florida became thus, in spite of its 
 fufi n f g r the nom i na l neutral status, a base of operations 
 war of 1812. f or the enemy of the United States. No 
 more convincing evidence of the necessity for its annex 
 ation 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. 
 
 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 author 
 ities, in order to avoid a conflict with Spain while en 
 gaged 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 
 
THE ACQUISITION OF FLORIDA 25 
 
 President to occupy Florida east of the Perdido tem 
 porarily. 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. 
 
 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 The ho]d of 
 1812, the Spanish occupation in Florida was JJ? f fj? t^ft 
 confined substantially to three points Pen- ^ a e ke ^ r of 
 sacola, St. Mark s, and St. Augustine. The 1812 - 
 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. 
 
 We have noticed the occupation of Pensacola by the 
 British troops during the War of 1812, and their ex 
 pulsion by General Jackson from this posi- 
 
 7. . ^ T ..__, A ., . , , The British 
 
 tion in JNovember 01 1814. Alter this, they troop 
 
 concentrated upon the Appalachicola and Lfter U the g war 
 established a fort some fifteen miles above Ofl812> 
 the mouth of this stream for their head-quarters and 
 base of operations. The British commander, one Col 
 onel 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. 
 
26 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 Lon 
 don, 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. 
 
 Before leaving the Appalachicola, he had incited the 
 Indians and their negro auxiliaries to continue hos- 
 tilities against the United States, by repre- 
 ?tSte senting to them that the ninth article of the 
 in Florida. 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 repre 
 sented 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 In 
 dians ; and the pledge as to these only was condi 
 tioned 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 hostili 
 ties, therefore, after the announcement, made this whole 
 article nugatory. 
 
 Nicholls left the fort, with all its munitions, in the 
 hands of the negroes and Indians. The garrison con- 
 
THE ACQUISITION OF FLORIDA 27 
 
 sisted of some three hundred negroes and about twenty 
 Indians. 
 
 The British Government would not listen to Nicholas 
 proposition for an alliance between Great ^^ British 
 Britain and the buccaneering state which he Government s 
 
 , , ,. -, ., repulse of 
 
 was endeavoring to establish upon territory Nicholas ad- 
 belonging politically to Spain. 
 
 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 Deetruction 
 then, when forbearance had ceased to be a oftheNichoiis 
 virtue, did the work itself. The fort was uSteAates 
 destroyed by the explosion of its magazine, i 
 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. 
 
 ProfessorjEOQ Holat r 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 civiliza 
 tion 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 at- 
 titude toward the slaves of Georgia may have been to pre 
 vent 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 cap 
 tured 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 re 
 garded the entire incident as a prostitution of the military 
 power of the United States to the private greed of slave- 
 
28 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 hunters, and to have discovered in it a most convincing 
 proof of the canting hypocrisy of the free Eepublic. 
 In view of all the facts of the case, this certainly appears 
 to be a very crude appreciation of the subject. 
 
 This same historian calls the attack upon the Nicholls 
 
 fort the beginning of the Seminole War. It appears, 
 
 The semi- however, more like the termination of the 
 
 nole War. War of jg^ go for ag the negrQ outlawg of 
 
 Florida were participant in that War, than like the be 
 ginning of a new war. Generals Gaines and Jackson 
 and the War Department of the Government seem to 
 have so comprehended the event. 
 
 After the destruction of the Nicholls Fort, of the 
 Negro Fort, as it was then called, there was comparative 
 peace, for a few months, on the frontier. With the begin 
 ning 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 mo 
 ment. The conflict between civilization and barbarism 
 is irrepressible, and arises as often from the encroach 
 ments of civilization as from the onslaughts of barbar 
 ism. 
 
 In November of 1817, General Gaines endeavored to 
 secure an interview with the chief of the hostile Indians, 
 The fight at but the chief refused to visit the General, 
 itown. whereupon the General sent a detachment of 
 soldiers to the chiefs village, called Fowltown, to repeat 
 his invitation, and to conduct the chief and his war 
 riors 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 de 
 stroyed the village. A few Indians were killed in the 
 conflict. 
 
THE ACQUISITION OF FLORIDA 29 
 
 The Indian agent, Mitchell, called this event the be 
 ginning of the Seminole War. It was certainly some 
 thing 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. 
 
 Following the fight at Fowltown hostilities became 
 much more active. Fowltown was situated north of the 
 Florida line, upon territory ceded by the The gem 
 Creeks to the United States in the Treaty of j^ v ^ ar de - 
 Fort Jackson. If, therefore, the incident of 
 November 20th was the beginning of the Seminole 
 War, it stamps that War as defensive in its char 
 acter. The troops of the United States were attacked 
 upon the territory of the United States. If the fur 
 ther 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 inter 
 national custom required that of her. When, now, we 
 add to this the consideration that Spain had pledged 
 
30 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 pur 
 suit 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. 
 
 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 Fior- 
 on Amelia ida, just below the mouth of the St. Mary s 
 River, and had, in the name of the Govern 
 ments of Buenos Ayres and Venezuela, proclaimed the 
 independence of Florida against Spain. They made 
 the island an entrepot for the smuggling of slaves into 
 the United States, a storehouse for the results of their 
 robberies, and head-quarters generally for piratical ex 
 peditions. 
 
 By a secret act of the year 1811, the Congress of the 
 United States had declared its unwillingness to have 
 
 General Florida, or any part of it, pass from the 
 AnJeiiaTiriu nan( ^s of Spain into those of any other pow- 
 and - er, and had authorized the President to pre 
 
 vent it. Acting upon this authority, the President in 
 structed General Gaines to go to Amelia Island and take 
 possession of it. 
 
 About ten days later, December 26th, 1817, the Presi 
 dent assigned General Jackson to the command of the 
 
THE ACQUISITION OF FLORIDA 31 
 
 troops acting against the Indians. The day before the 
 issue of the order to General Jackson, the War Depart 
 ment had received the news of the Indian at- 
 
 T . , i." i i -i GeneralJack 
 
 tack upon Lieutenant ocott s boat while as- son placed in 
 cending the Appalachicola with supplies for ModSa? H 
 
 the United States troops at Fort Scott. The order8 
 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, be 
 sides 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 in 
 structed "to penetrate from Amelia Island, through 
 Florida, to the Seminole towns, if his force would jus 
 tify 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." 
 
 When Jackson received these orders he was in Ten 
 nessee. He wrote immediately to the President : " Let 
 it be signified to me through any channel 
 (say Mr. J. Rhea) that the possession of the letter to Presi- 
 Floridas would be desirable to the United d 
 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 
 
32 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 the President s fault if he did not. General Jackson 
 certainly could not be held accountable for the Pres 
 ident s strange negligence in examining official corre 
 spondence, 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 Administra 
 tion desired him to occupy Florida. 
 
 Upon taking command Jackson called his Tennessee 
 veterans to him, and reached with them the Florida 
 frontier in March of 1818. 
 
 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 hos- 
 
 Jackson s ,.-,.,. -^ , . , ., 
 
 operations in tihties were an Englishman, named Am- 
 brister, and a Scotchman, named Arbuthnot, 
 together with two Indian chiefs named Hillis Hajo 
 and Himallemico. 
 
 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 re 
 quired a speedy termination of the War with the Semi- 
 noles, "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 re 
 fuge 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 Presi 
 dent assumed the responsibility for Jackson s deeds, but 
 offered to restore St. Mark s and Pensacola, and there 
 with 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 dis- 
 

THE ACQUISITION OF FLORIDA 33 
 
 posed to do so. Spain accepted the offer, fulfilled in a 
 way the conditions, and the places were restored to her 
 jurisdiction. 
 
 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 norni- ^^^ flrgt 
 nal. She now, therefore, agreed to cede it Treaty for the 
 to the United States. The treaty bears F?oridato the 
 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 ad 
 jacent islands dependent thereon, to the United States ; 
 /and agreed with the United States that the boundary be 
 tween the two powers in North America should be the 
 west bank of the Sabine Eiver 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 par 
 allel of north latitude, and thence this line of latitude 
 to the South Sea. ) 
 
 This settlement of boundary included that of all 
 other claims, of whatever character, of the Government, 
 citizens, or subjects of either power against the Govern 
 ment, citizens, or subjects of the other. All such were 
 mutually renounced. 
 
 The results of the Seminole War raised General Jack 
 son to a still higher plane of popularity than he pos 
 sessed 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 con- 
 2 
 
34 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 ceived, 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 ex- 
 
 Jackson s . ^ * n -j 
 
 popularity m istmg aspirants for the presidency were ex- 
 
 o^h^seim- cited 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. 
 
 This procedure certainly had no connection whatso 
 ever with the question of slavery extension through the 
 The attempt acquisition of Florida. When we find Tall- 
 ceSSfSk- niadge, of New York, the self-same per- 
 B0n - son who introduced, at the same session, the 
 
 proposition for restricting slavery in Missouri, defending 
 Jackson s course in every particular, while Cobb, of Geor 
 gia, attacked it, and when we consider that John Quin- 
 cy 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. 
 
 Crawford, of Georgia, the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 was the prime aspirant for presidential honors, after 
 Monroe should have completed his two 
 attempt in & Se 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 govern 
 ment 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 con- 
 
THE ACQUISITION OF FLORIDA 35 
 
 ceived 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 can 
 didate for the successorship to Monroe, and who stood 
 against the whole Cabinet in Jackson s defence, and car 
 ried the day against both Crawford and Calhoun com 
 bined. 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 atti 
 tude of Adams in the question was noble and disinter 
 ested, 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. 
 
 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 of the attempt 
 orders of the War Department. They said jacfifoi^Yn 
 he had no right to call upon his old soldiers Congre88 - 
 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 
 
36 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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. 
 
 The Administration had, under the influence of the 
 Secretary of State, Mr. Adams, already assumed the re- 
 Assumption sponsibility for Jackson s acts, had upheld 
 sfbmty res f o n r their legality, and was even then bringing its 
 bySe AdmS- negotiations with Spain, in regard to the ces- 
 istration. s i on o f Florida, to a successful close ; while 
 the British Government had refrained from any inter 
 ference on account of the treatment of Ambrister and 
 Arbuthnot. 
 
 The attempt to suppress Jackson broke down thus 
 upon all sides, and he emerged from the assaults of his 
 Jackson tri r ^ va ^ s w ^^ a greater popularity than he had 
 umphant. ever before enjoyed, and with improved pros 
 pects as a presidential candidate. With the worship 
 accorded to a hero he now enjoyed the sympathy ex 
 tended to a martyr. 
 
 The Treaty itself, ceding the Floridas, did not escape 
 attack. Adams regarded it as a great diplomatic tri- 
 The Treaty umph for the United States, but Clay ex- 
 - pressed great disappointment with it, because 
 t sacrificed, as he viewed it, the claims of the 
 senate. United States to the territory between the 
 
 Sabine and the Eio del Norte. And Crawford, who was 
 seizing every opportunity to discredit the Administra 
 tion, by encouraging it to false measures from his place 
 in the Cabinet, and then professing publicly his disap 
 probation of them, also saw in the point emphasized by 
 Clay a prime occasion for making political capital. 
 
 The Senate showed what its members thought of such 
 manoeuvres by a speedy and unanimous vote in ratifica 
 tion of the Treaty. 
 
THE ACQUISITION OF FLORIDA 37 
 
 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, Rejection of 
 and perhaps to his chances for the presi- fh e Danish 
 dency. But it did not prove to be such. Government. 
 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 Vives, to 
 take the place of Don Onis, and to renew negotiations 
 on the subject, gave Mr. Adams the opportunity to in 
 sist upon the cession of Florida with the extinguishment 
 of the above-mentioned grants. 
 
 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 sue- f 
 ceeding chapter. The effect of this agitation t 
 was to arouse some doubt in the minds of those opposed 
 to the extension of slavery in regard to the expe 
 diency of any addition to the territory of the United 
 States southward. Mr. Adams himself felt the influ 
 ence 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 extinguish 
 ing the above-mentioned land grants, was finally rati 
 fied by both Governments, two years after the date of 
 
38 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 the original agreement between Mr. Adams and Don 
 Onis. 
 
 The vote of ratification by the Senate of the United 
 States was again practically unanimous. Only four 
 
 The new votes were recorded against it ; and of these 
 byTheSte f ur ne was cast by a brother-in-law of Mr. 
 Spanish 7 GOV- cla J one ^J a subservient friend of the same 
 ernment. 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 ter 
 ritorial 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. 
 
 It was^ to be expected that this territory would be 
 erected into a Commonwealth in which the institution of 
 
 Political re slavei T would be legalized ; but this did not 
 suits of the deter the statesmen of the North from secur- 
 
 SeminoleWar. , n -. . . ,. 
 
 ing the great advantages just indicated. Rad 
 ical abolitionism had not yet blinded them to the general 
 and paramount interests of the Union. In fact, the re 
 sults 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 per 
 sonal 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. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 SLAVERY IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE 1820 
 
 First Appearance of Slavery in the British North American Col 
 onies Early Theory of the Benefits of Slavery The Earliest 
 Legal Recognition of Slavery in the Colonies Northern Col 
 onies not well Adapted to Negro Labor The Southern Col 
 onies well Adapted to Negro Labor Negro Slavery a Tempo 
 rary Necessity in -the South Was Negro Slavery an Error and 
 an Evil from the first ? Slavery Legislation in the Southern 
 Colonies Partus Sequitur Ventrem Definitions of the Slave 
 Class The Test of the Slave Status as Fixed by the Virginia 
 Statute The Legal Position of the Slave Tendency Toward 
 Serfage in the Code of 1705 Public Relations of the Slave 
 System The General Object of the Laws in respect to Slaves 
 Slavery and the Revolutionary Ideas of the Rights of Man 
 First Prohibition upon Slave Importation Abolition of Slav 
 ery in the Northern Commonwealths after the Beginning of 
 the Revolution Slavery and the Constitution of 1787 Reac 
 tion against the Humanitarian Principles of the Revolution 
 Abolition of the Foreign Slave-trade by Congress Cotton 
 Culture and the Cotton-gin The Effect of the Return to the 
 Arts of Peace upon the Ideas Concerning Slavery Slavery 
 During the War of 1812, and the Years just before and just after 
 this War Slavery in the Louisiana Territory Slavery in the 
 Territory West of North Carolina and Georgia Slavery in 
 Louisiana a Different Question from Slavery in the North 
 Carolina and Georgia Cessions Interest in Slavery in Mary 
 land and Virginia Increased by the Acquisition of Louisiana 
 The Domestic Slave trade The Relation of Slavery to the 
 Diplomacy of the United States. 
 
 IT is not easy to define the term slavery in the abstract 
 without unfitting it for application to the great majority 
 
40 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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. 
 
 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 defini 
 tion and in the nature of an abstract proposition. 
 
 It began its existence, like most institutions and re 
 lations, as a social custom. Most of the historians 
 First appear- record the appearance of a Dutch merchant 
 e?y?n the Brit- ship at Jamestown, in the year 1619, having 
 AmeiSan r coE negroes on board, and inform us that twenty 
 onies. o f 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 col 
 onists 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 concep 
 tion 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. 
 
 Early theory T , ^ -i i -n j i T i T 
 
 of the benefits It was a firmly and universally established 
 opinion of the time that the attachment of 
 infidels to Christians in the relation of servant to mas 
 ter was vastly beneficial to the infidel, certainly so when 
 
SLAVERY IN THE STATES BEFORE 1820 41 
 
 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 There can be no reasonable doubt that the negroes 
 transferred from slavery in Africa to slavery in the 
 English- American colonies themselves felt the amelio 
 ration of their condition, and were, in general, entirely 
 contented with their new lot. 
 
 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 
 
 , ., _ The earliest 
 
 than in Virginia that it first received legal legal recogni- 
 
 recognition, and began to be changed from a 
 purely domestic institution by suffering gov- r 
 ernmental regulation. In the Massachusetts " Funda 
 mentals," 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 in 
 troduction 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. 
 
 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 
 
42 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 work to be done in these sections was not suited to his 
 capacity. The Northern colonies had not, indeed, at 
 
 Northern that early day, developed the finer forms of 
 wen nie adapted industry which have subsequently distin- 
 tonegroiabor. g u i sne d that part of the country. They 
 were then, as to their internal pursuits, almost as com 
 pletely 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 
 
 The south- and discretion. On the other hand, the vast 
 wSi adapted l eve ^ areas of good soil, the warm, uniform 
 to negro labor. c ii ma to, and the simple crops of the Southern 
 colonies furnished the conditions favorable to the em 
 ployment of negro labor. 
 
 It is not easy to see how the rich swamp-lands of these 
 colonies could ever have been reclaimed and made 
 
 Negro siav- tributary to the civilization of the world in 
 rSyneSty an J wa J but b J tne employment of negro 
 in the south, 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 ma 
 laria, 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 pro- 
 
SLAVERY IN THE STATES BEFORE 1820 43 
 
 duction of their most valuable contributions to the com 
 forts of civilized man. The solution of the problem 
 was negro slavery. 
 
 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 solu- Wag 
 tion which was reached, and we shall be slavery an er- 
 
 . T ., -, ror and an evil 
 
 wiser if we seek to understand it clearly, in- from the first? 
 stead of wasting our energies in its condemnation, re 
 membering 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 
 then 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 acknowl 
 edged themselves in error, and joined in the movement 
 for the introduction of negro slave-labor. 
 
 The conditions above mentioned were undoubtedly 
 the chief causes of the more rapid and pronounced de 
 velopment of negro slavery in the Southern slavery leg- 
 colonies. And that more rapid and pro- southern^oK 
 nounced development directs us rather to the nies - 
 legislation of the Southern colonies than to that of the 
 Northern, in following the legalization of the relation. 
 
 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 chil 
 dren of slaves. Where legalized marriage does not ex 
 ist, 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. Partus sequitur ventrem is the rule 
 
44 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 not only of the civil law, but of every system of law 
 
 regulating the accidents of descent among people where 
 
 Partus ee- ^ e m i n g^ n g f the sexes is not controlled 
 
 quitur ven- by civilized marriage. Insuperable obstacles 
 
 present themselves in the attempt to apply 
 any other rule. It was no unusual or arbitrary enact 
 ment of the Virginia legislature which, in 1662,, pre 
 scribed 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. 
 
 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 
 
 Definitions 
 
 of the slave 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 seek 
 ing 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 Gov 
 ernment, 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 con 
 version. 
 
 The test of the slave status was then necessarily fixed 
 by legislation. The Virginia statute declared all ser 
 vants 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 
 
SLAVERY IN THE STATES BEFORE 1820 45 
 
 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 partus sequitur ventrem, which the slave sta- 
 
 rule was re-enacted, became the test of the by the vir- 
 
 slave class. At the same time heavy penal- e 
 
 ties were attached to the marriage or cohabitation of 
 
 white women with slaves. 
 
 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 prece- The le al 
 dents. Concisely stated, this legislation pro- position of the 
 vided 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 obe 
 dience 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 con 
 sequence thereof, without incurring the penalties of 
 felony ; that the slave could be sold or inherited as per 
 sonal property ; and that the offspring of the female 
 slave belonged to the master owning her at the time of 
 its birth. 
 
 The wilful killing of a slave by anyone, even the 
 master, was accounted murder, and extraordinary tribu 
 nals, without a jury, were constituted for Tendency 
 the protection of his person. The Code of J^JTin the 
 1705 even contained regulations which in- code of 1705. 
 dicated 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 
 
46 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 law governing the descent of personal property, seem 
 to have completely neutralized that tendency before the 
 middle of the century had been reached. 
 
 Naturally the private law accidents of the relation 
 were first developed and fixed, but very soon the rights 
 Pub He re- and powers of the community in regard to 
 the* slave 8 sys- * ne institution began to claim attention. 
 tem - The public peace and welfare must be safe 
 
 guarded against the possible conduct of the slave, on 
 the one hand, and of the master, on the other. 
 
 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 planta 
 tion 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. 
 
 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 re 
 quired that any master giving freedom to his slave should 
 pay the cost of his transportation out of the colony. 
 
 Such was substantially the law of negro slavery in all 
 
 The enerai ^ ^e c l n i es a ^ the beginning of the dec- 
 
 ?aw C s in re? a( ^ e Before *^ e Revolution. It was perhaps 
 
 B p e c t to more severe than this in South Carolina, and 
 
 it was certainly less so in Massachusetts. 
 
 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. 
 
SLAVERY IN THE STATES BEFORE 1820 47 
 
 It does certainly appear that the century of law-mak 
 ing 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. 
 
 But the period of the Revolution brought with it a 
 great change of view in regard to the moral- S ] aver and 
 ity of slavery, and this change of idea pro- Re ideas 
 
 duced great modifications in the law of of the rights 
 slavery, all of which tended not only toward 
 an improvement of the condition of the slave, but also 
 toward the ultimate extinction of slavery. 
 
 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 ex 
 isting 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 con 
 sciousness 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. 
 
48 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 The Continental Congress took the first step in this 
 direction. Two years before it declared independence 
 First prohi- it prohibited any further importation of 
 slave on impoi> slaves, and repeated the prohibition two years 
 tation. later. These acts are good evidence that, at 
 
 the moment, the question of slavery was regarded as a 
 matter of national concern, 
 
 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 Con 
 federate Congress succeeded the Continental Congress, 
 it did so upon the basis of a written constitution, or 
 rather articles of union, which vested no powers whatso 
 ever in it over the subject of slavery. 
 
 The separate colonies, now become "States "by the 
 theory of the Articles of Confederation, took up the 
 Abolition of question. Massachusetts abolished slavery 
 substantially by her constitution of 1780. 
 after Pennsylvania provided for gradual emanci- 
 S th^Slevoh? P a ti n by a statute of the same year. Ehode 
 tfon. Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire fol 
 
 lowed the example of Pennsylvania. And New York, 
 New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia forbade 
 any further importation of slaves. 
 
 Under such impulses and influences the Confederate 
 Congress, in spite of the fact that no power in respect 
 The Ordi- * slavery had been conferred upon it, as- 
 nanceof 178T. sume .d 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^mpli- 
 cation from any provision in the Articles of Confedera 
 tion. To justify the exercise of it by the Confederate 
 
SLAVERY IN THE STATES BEFORE 1820 49 
 
 Congress it is necessary to go back to the general prin 
 ciple of political science that, as there was no govern 
 ment for this territory but the Confederate Congress, 
 and as there were no limitations in the Articles of Con 
 federation upon the powers of the Congress in this 
 territory, the powers of that Congress must have ex 
 tended in this territory to all subjects usually regulated 
 by government. 
 
 The claim sometimes made that this Ordinance was a 
 treaty between the "States" forming the Confedera 
 tion, or between them and the " States" to be formed 
 out of that territory in the future, is altogether untena 
 ble. It was nothing more nor less than a legislative act 
 of the Congress. 
 
 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 dis 
 senting voice. 
 
 At the same moment that this measure was being con 
 sidered in the Congress, the Constitutional Convention, 
 sitting at Philadelphia, was framing the na 
 tional Constitution of 1787. The attitude the a Smst?tu- 
 which the nation would assume in this new i 
 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. 
 
 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 let 
 ter to the legislature of Maryland upon the work of the 
 3 
 
50 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 Convention of 1787, a very significant passage concern 
 ing 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." 
 
 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 recogni 
 tions 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 Col 
 leges. 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 ex 
 isting " 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 momen 
 tous 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 Constitu 
 tion of 1787. 
 
 From 1787 to 1808 the reactionary course was pur 
 sued almost without a single break. Kentucky was 
 made a Commonwealth with the slave status. The Con 
 gress 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 
 
SLAVERY IN THE STATES BEFORE 1820 51 
 
 that slavery should not be forbidden therein by Con 
 gress. The slave Commonwealth of Tennessee was im 
 mediately formed out of a part of this terri- Reaction 
 tory. The vast territory of Louisiana, in 
 which slavery existed wherever it was in- 
 habited, was added to the domain of the tion - 
 Union. The District of Columbia, the seat of the gen 
 eral Government, was made a slave-holding commu 
 nity, 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 impor 
 tation of slaves, and opened the way wide for a vast in 
 crease of the slave population. 
 
 These last acts seem to have aroused the conscious 
 ness of the Congress to the rapidity with which the 
 whole country was becoming again subject to Abolition of 
 the slave-holding interests. The Congress Jfi^tStef? 
 resisted the importunities of the Indiana lead- congress, 
 ers, 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. 
 
 It has been customary to ascribe the great revulsion 
 
52 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 of view in regard to slavery, which certainly manifested 
 
 itself everywhere in the United States between 1790 
 
 and 1807, to cotton culture and the cot- 
 
 Cotton CUlt- i mi ,..! 
 
 ure and the ton-gin. The invention of the cotton-gm, 
 ton-gin. in the first part of the last decade of the 
 eighteenth century, and the increased demand for cot 
 ton fabrics throughout the world, had made the cul 
 tivation of cotton highly profitable. An increase in 
 cotton culture was naturally encouraged by such en 
 hanced profits, and this tendency produced an increased 
 demand for negro labor and for new lands, since the cot 
 ton crop requires a warm climate and low lands, and ex 
 hausts the soil very rapidly. Those parts of the country 
 adapted to cot ton-raising felt, therefore, a renewed inter 
 est in the increase of negro labor and in territorial exten 
 sion. And those parts not so adapted felt an indirect 
 interest in the same, since the increased and still increas 
 ing 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 
 The effect ^ m ^ n ^ an( ^ feeling produced by the War 
 of the return with the motherland, and came to the task 
 
 to the arts of . ,,_,, f 
 
 pea v ce upon ot re-establishing the relations 01 peace and 
 
 the ideas con- , ,. ?, . ,, i in 
 
 cerning siav- everv-day life and business, they should regain 
 a calmness of judgment, a respect for vest 
 ed 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 cen- 
 
SLAVERY IN THE STATES BEFORE 1820 53 
 
 tury upon the great question. They saw a great in 
 terest developing which was bringing wealth and com 
 fort 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 indepen 
 dent existence upon the doctrine of human freedom. 
 It is not at all, then, unnatural that they arrived at the 
 conclusion that the further importations of the bar 
 barians from Africa was the only solution of the ques 
 tion for which the time was ripe. They sincerely be 
 lieved 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.^ 
 
 This appeared to the men of that day, both of the 
 North and of the South, to be the only safe way to pro 
 ceed in solving the question of the relation between the 
 highly civilized Anglo-American race and the grossly 
 barbaric negro race in the United States. AYe 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 suffi- 
 
54 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 cient evidence that the mass of them were insincere 
 either in act or thought. The contention that they 
 were is more partisan than truly historical. 
 
 The decade between 1807 and 1817 was filled with the 
 questions of foreign relations, of foreign war, and of the 
 
 slavery dur- results of foreign war. The suspension, and 
 i8?2 b aM a the then the almost entire destruction, of foreign 
 ffif 3*jl5 commerce by the British Orders in Council, 
 after this war. the Napoleonic decrees, the JeSersonian em 
 bargo, 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 pe 
 cuniary 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. 
 
 Notwithstanding all this, however, the slavery inter 
 est was steadily waxing in influence and power through - 
 
 siaver in out ^ s period. First of all the existence 
 the Louisiana and the extension of slavery in the vast ter 
 ritory 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, be 
 fore 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 
 ] 800 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 revolution 
 ary ideals. He did not disturb the custom of slave-holding 
 
SLAVEEY IN THE STATES BEFOKE 1820 "55 
 
 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 inhabi 
 tants 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 The United States Government, however, not only 
 permitted the continuance of the custom of slave-hold 
 ing in Louisiana, but when, in 1804, Congress divided 
 this vast region into two parts by the thirty-third par 
 allel of latitude, and organized the southern portion as 
 the Territory of Orleans, and placed the northern por 
 tion under the jurisdiction of the Governor and judges 
 of the Territory of Indiana, it, at the same time, author 
 ized 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 
 
56 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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. 
 
 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 re 
 pealed or modified by the legislature of the Territory of 
 Missouri. 
 
 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 
 
 the territory territory ceded by them to the United States. 
 
 Carolina" Tnd 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. 
 
 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 main 
 tain slavery in the province of Louisiana and in the 
 
SLAVERY IN THE STATES BEFORE 1820 57 
 
 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 obli- slavery in 
 gated itself to France to protect the property 
 of the inhabitants of the province. But the 
 Government of the United States was under garth d garo- 
 no obligation to any citizen of the United gia cessions. 
 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 in 
 crease in the power of the slave-holders over the general 
 Government. 
 
 In consequence of this vast territorial extension of 
 slavery the interest of the more Northern of the old 
 slave-holding Commonwealths in slavery was, Interest in 
 during this period, greatly re-enlivened. 
 
 Maryland and Virginia were already, in 1807, Virginia in- 
 
 i i -j.1 i rrvu f creased by the 
 
 overstocked with slaves. The opening up of acquisition of 
 the virgin lands of the Southwest to the im 
 migration of masters and slaves from the older Common 
 wealths, and the abolition of the foreign slave-trade, 
 now made the Southwest an excellent market for the 
 surplus slave population of these older Commonwealths. 
 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 The domes . 
 traffic justified it by the claim that it was tic slave-trade. 
 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 
 
58 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 population over a larger area would make future eman 
 cipation easier, and less dangerous to the supremacy of 
 the white race. There was a certain force in this rea 
 soning. The mass of the slave-holders seem to have been 
 fully convinced of its soundness, although it did not en 
 tirely quiet the consciences of the best men among them 
 to the many painful incidents connected with the sepa 
 ration of the slaves, made subject to this traffic, from 
 their old homes and associations. 
 
 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 perpetua 
 tion and extension of slavery, and beclouded their con 
 sciences in respect thereto. 
 
 Finally, the capture and abduction of negro slaves by 
 the British forces during the War of 1812, and the de 
 mand of the slave-holders that the United 
 
 The relation ~ 
 
 of slavery to States Government should secure the restitu- 
 
 the diplomacy , . , , . , , c , i 
 
 of the United tion oi their slaves, or compensation for the 
 loss of them, from the British Government, 
 moved the United States Government to assume its atti 
 tude toward slavery in the administration of the inter 
 national 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 Govern 
 ment 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. 
 
SLAVERY IN THE STATES BEFORE 1820 59 
 
 This criticism is rather taking, but a sound view of 
 the Constitution will hardly support it. In making the 
 United States Government the exclusive organ for deal 
 ing with foreign countries, the Constitution impliedly 
 confers upon that Government a protectorate against for 
 eign 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 na 
 tional 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 prin 
 ciple 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 prin 
 ciple 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 it 
 self. 
 
 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. 
 
 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 politi 
 cal system, chiefly if not solely, to the demands of their 
 internal interests, and to solve the problems of their 
 
60 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 
 
 polity irom the point of view of their domestic institu 
 tions. 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 politi 
 cal 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. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE CREATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 
 
 The Growth of Slavery not Seriously Checked by the Prohibition 
 of the Foreign Slave-trade The General Government Power 
 less Against Slavery in the Existing Commonwealths The 
 Powers of the General Government in Respect to Slavery in 
 the Territories The Powers of Congress in the Admission of 
 new "States" into the Union Slavery in the Missouri Terri 
 tory The First Petition from Missouri Territory for the Per 
 mission to form a Commonwealth The Second Petition, and 
 the First Bill in Congress, for the Admission of Missouri The 
 Tallmadge Amendment to the Bill Passage of the Amend 
 ment by the House of Representatives Passage of the Origi 
 nal Bill by the Senate The Missouri Bill during the Session 
 of 1819-20 M-. Taylor s Proposition The Bill for the Admis 
 sion of Maine Reported and Passed by the House of Repre 
 sentatives The Failure of Mr. Taylor s Plan The Missouri 
 Bill again before the House of Representatives Mr. Taylor s 
 Amendment to the Bill The Independent Missouri Bill of 
 the Senate The Refusal of the Senate to Disconnect the two 
 Measures The Conference on the Subject, and the First Mis 
 souri Compromise President Monroe s Approval of the Com 
 promise Review of the Points Involved in the Contest The 
 Revival of the Missouri Struggle The Missouri Constitution 
 in Congress Mr. Lowndes s Bill for the Admission of Missouri 
 with the Instrument Unchanged Defeat of the Lowndes Bill 
 in the House Passage of the Senate Bill with a Proviso by the 
 Senate The Senate Bill Tabled by the House Mr. Clay and 
 the Second Missouri Compromise Passage of the Second Mis 
 souri Compromise Act The General Effects of the Decisions 
 Reached in the Missouri Question. 
 
 ALREADY before the year 1819, as we have seen in 
 the preceding chapter, had it become manifest that the 
 
62 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 influences and measures relied upon by the forefathers 
 for the ultimate extirpation of negro slavery were not 
 
 The growth effecting the desired result in the Common- 
 s f e 8 r a i V o e u y sTy wealths south of the line of Pennsylvania 
 the 6 C proh\bJ and of the Ohio - I* was evident that the rsv- 
 foreign f siave^ olutioiiary enthusiasm for universal liberty 
 trade. arid 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 im 
 portation 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 estab 
 lished Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Missis 
 sippi 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 free 
 dom 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. 
 
 All had been done by the United States Government, 
 however, against slavery within the existing Common- 
 
 The euerai wea ^ ns that the Constitution allowed. Be- 
 Goverument fore anything more could be undertaken, 
 against siav- the Constitution itself would have to be so 
 Sting 1 com- amended as to authorize it. The extraordi- 
 
 monwealths. !_ n / ,-t ...... 
 
 nary majorities required for the initiation 
 and adoption of amendments made it practically im 
 possible 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 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 63 
 
 which slavery was forbidden, and five in which it was per 
 mitted Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
 and Alabama making thus the number upon each side 
 the same. And although the population in the Common 
 wealths 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 Represent 
 atives stood consequently in favor of the former sec 
 tion/in the ratio of 104 to 79, still the method of repre 
 sentation in the Senate, and the equality in the number 
 of the Commonwealths permitting, with those prohibit 
 ing, slavery, stood firmly in the way of any amendment 
 of the Constitution, either favorable or unfavorable to 
 the slavery interest. 
 
 The Constitution furnished, however, an indirect way 
 of reaching the desired result. It gave the Congress 
 general powers within the Territories and did The powers 
 not restrict these powers in behalf of slav- 
 ery. Congress might thus prohibit slavery 
 in the Territories, and the Territories would Territories, 
 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 perpe 
 tuated by Commonwealth law. And when a sufficient 
 number of free Commonwealths had been thus created 
 to give the necessary majorities to amend the Constitu 
 tion in the direction of abolition, slavery might be ex 
 tinguished 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 Con 
 gress had already forfeited, in part, the opportunity, by 
 failing to keep the southern portion of Louisiana Terri 
 tory under a Territorial organization until slavery could 
 have been eradicated in it. And it was probably, in 
 
64 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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. 
 
 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, 
 The powers new Commonwealths out of the Territories 
 fhe^Tm 8 !?- of the United States. This power is ex- 
 " states "into Passed in general terms, and in its employ- 
 the Union. ment 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 Con 
 stitution, in regard to the extent of this power, was cor 
 rect, 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 ex 
 istence 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 develop 
 ment. 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 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 65 
 
 tried in the creation of the Commonwealth of Missouri 
 and it failed. It is this which constitutes the signifi 
 cance of the great movement. The result attained 
 made the abolition of slavery by the United States Gov 
 ernment, through legal and peaceable means, an utter 
 impossibility. It contributed, at least, toward making 
 the War of 1861 an historical necessity. 
 
 As we have seen in the preceding chapter, slavehold- 
 ing had become established by custom in the vast region 
 known as the Louisiana province, wherever it was in 
 habited, 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 Com 
 monwealth, Louisiana, and one slave-holding Territory, 
 Missouri. 
 
 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 the SssouS 
 had the legislature of the Territory done Territory - 
 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 Govern 
 ment or by the Territorial government, forbidding it, 
 slavery would be likewise legal wherever the Territory 
 might become settled. 
 
 Before the beginning of the year 1818, the popula 
 tion 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. Dur 
 ing the Congressional session of 1817-18, petitions ap- 
 5 
 
66 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 peared in the House of Representatives from this pop 
 ulation, praying for the erection of that part of Missouri 
 The first Territory, bounded roughly by the thirty - 
 SuBsottri f Te sixth P arallel of latitude on the south, the 
 ritory for the line of longitude passing through the point 
 
 permission to . _ S T ^ 5 
 
 form a Com- oi confluence oi the .Kansas Itiver 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 Com 
 monwealth 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. 
 
 Early in the following session, that of 1818-19, the 
 Speaker of the House of Representatives presented a 
 
 The second memorial from the Territorial legislature of 
 Missouri which contained substantially the 
 same prayer as the petitions presented at 
 of Missouri, 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. 
 
 It was upon this day, and during this first debate, that 
 Mr. James Tallmadge, of New York, offered the famous 
 
 The Taii- amendment to the bill, which precipitated a 
 menP to^the discussion, that lasted for more than a year, 
 bm - 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 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 67 
 
 divide the country upon geographic lines, a question 
 which, therefore, threatened the dissolution of the 
 Union. 
 
 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." 
 
 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 ques- The debate 
 tions involved. The discussion proceeded S 
 from the two points of view of constitutional men *- 
 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 es 
 tablish Common wealth governments, or, in the language 
 
68 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 of the Constitution, " States/ upon the territory belong 
 ing to the United States, or to some " State " or " States " 
 already within the Union. This is, without any reason 
 able doubt, its only meaning. For if it had any refer 
 ence 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. 
 
 This was not, however, the point at issue in the Mis 
 souri question. That point was, whether, in the crea- 
 The exact tion of new Commonwealths by Congress 
 ?ulinthe a first upon territory already within the Union, and 
 Mtesouriques 6 subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the 
 tion. general Government, Congress had the con 
 
 stitutional 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, con 
 tended that Congress possessed this power. Their ar 
 gument, reduced to a pair of propositions, was, that the 
 Constitution did not require Congress to "admit new 
 States into this Union/ but only empowered Congress! 
 to do so at its discretion ; that therefore Congress couldl 
 refuse to admit at its discretion, and that if Congress 
 could admit or refuse to admit at its own discretion, itl 
 could admit upon conditions, upon such conditions as iq 
 might deem wise to impose, and could make the contin 
 ued existence of the new Commonwealth, as a Common 
 wealth, depend upon the continued observance by it of 
 these conditions. 
 
 They pointed to the precedents of Ohio, Indiana, and 
 Illinois, upon all of which Congress had imposed, as aeon- 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 69 
 
 dition of their assumption of Commonwealth powers and 
 government as " States of the Union," the requirement 
 that their constitutions should not be repug- 
 
 Tti6 Drccp- 
 
 nant to the " Ordinance of the Northwest dents cited m 
 Territory of 1787," the sixth article of which T U afimadge 
 provided that there should be neither slav- a 
 ery nor involuntary servitude, except as a criminal 
 penalty, in the Territory, from which these Common 
 wealths were carved out. They contended that Con 
 gress thus prohibited slavery in these new Common 
 wealths 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. 
 
 They further pointed to the precedent of Louisiana, 
 upon whose "admission into the Union as a State," 
 Congress imposed the conditions that the new Common 
 wealth should use the English language as its official 
 language, should guarantee the writ of habeas corpus and 
 trial by jury in all criminal cases, and should incorpo 
 rate in its organic law the fundamental principles of civil 
 and religious liberty. 
 
 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 Ar ument 
 might l admit into the Union," but obligated fortheamend- 
 
 ment from the 
 
 Congress to do so by the constitutional pro- duty of the 
 
 . . , . , , .. ,, , , ,T TT -i i United States 
 
 vision which makes it the duty 01 the United to guarantee a 
 States Government to guarantee a republican form V/gov- 
 form of government to every Commonwealth every 6 c om" 
 of the Union. That is, they claimed that m nweaith. 
 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. 
 
 Having thus, from their point of view, vindicated the 
 
70 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 
 from morals ethics, specifically recognized in the Declara 
 tion of Independence, and therefore a prin 
 ciple 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. 
 
 There is no question that Mr. Tallmadge and his 
 friends had taken strong ground, and that it would re 
 quire extraordinary efforts to dislodge them. 
 
 During the first debate upon the subject, the oppo 
 nents of the restriction do not seem to have been so clear 
 Replies to i n their own minds in reference to the prin- 
 S e th?re8tric- c ipl es involved as they became later, and 
 tionists. 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 ad libitum be 
 tween 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 her- I 
 self or should have it determined for her by the Con- 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 71 
 
 /gress 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 Con 
 stitution 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 Common 
 wealth or not was a power reserved by the Constitu 
 tion to each Commonwealth for itself, and that the 
 attempt to introduce a distinction between the old Com 
 monwealths and the new, in regard to the possession of 
 this power, was an attack upon the first principle of fed 
 eral 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 war 
 rant from the Constitution itself. 
 
 They disputed outright the constitutionality of the 
 restrictions in regard to slavery which Congress had im 
 posed 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. 
 
 They did not deny the claims of the restrictionists 
 that slavery was ethically wrong and economically de 
 structive, but they contended that the evil and the im 
 policy 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 
 
72 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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. 
 
 They contended, finally, that the treaty with France 
 by which Louisiana was ceded to the United States 
 The pledge contained an express provision pledging the 
 8iave?r a o?ert? United States Government to protect all the 
 \n the treaty existing property rights of the inhabitants 
 of cession. O f the province, and to admit these inhabi 
 tants, 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. 
 
 There is no question that hostility to slavery colored 
 the views of the restrictionists in regard to the consti 
 tutional powers of Congress, and there is also no ques 
 tion 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 ar 
 gument in the question of constitutional law, and main 
 tained it throughout the debate. They did not express 
 themselves as clearly and as exactly as the political scien 
 tist 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 Con 
 gress possessed the constitutional power to act in the 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 73 
 
 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 Com 
 monwealths, which the interpretation that the restric- 
 tionists placed upon the clause of the Constitution 
 vesting Congress with the authority to "admit new 
 States into this Union" involved. 
 
 The ethical and economical influences and consider 
 ations weighed more heavily in the minds of the -North 
 ern members than the arguments from constitutional 
 law, although they asserted that the Constitution also 
 was upon their side. 
 
 They carried the first part of Mr. Tallmadge s amend 
 ment, the prohibition upon the further introduction of 
 slavery into Missouri, by a majority of eleven passage of 
 votes, and the second part, the provision for ^end ment 
 the emancipation of all slaves born in Mis- o^e^eTtS 
 souri, after its admission as a Commonwealth, tives - 
 when they should have reached the age of twenty-five 
 years, by a majority of four votes. 
 
 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. 
 
 It was upon February 17th, 1819, that the Missouri 
 bill was finally passed by the House and The m ^ 
 sent to the Senate. It was immediately read JJJgJ^ in 
 twice in the Senate and referred to the com 
 mittee in charge of the bill for admitting Alabama. 
 
74 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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. 
 
 The annals of Congress state that "a long and ani 
 mated 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 Pennsyl 
 vania, voted against the entire amendment, and Daggett, 
 of Connecticut, and even Rufus King, of New York, re 
 corded their voices against the second part of it. 
 
 The bill admitting Missouri, without the Tallmadge 
 amendment, passed the Senate on March 2nd, and was 
 Passage of returned to the House substantially in this 
 bm e by gi the form. The House immediately refused to 
 Senate. 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 fa 
 natical and incendiary passions, both at the North and at 
 the South, during the following recess of the Congress. 
 
 At the beginning of the session of 1819-20, Mr. Scott 
 secured the reference of the memorials concerning the"" 
 The Mis- admission of Missouri, presented at the pre- 
 fngtheses^on ceding session, to a select committee. On 
 of 1819-20. t } ie f n ow i n g 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 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 75 
 
 government. This new bill was read twice and referred 
 to the committee of the Whole House for discussion. 
 
 Warned by the experiences of the preceding session, 
 the restrictionists now took another tack. The olic 
 
 They developed the plan of delaying the of the restric- 
 J J tiomsts to de 
 
 formation of any more Commonwealths in lay the admis- 
 
 the Missouri Territory until Congress could new common^ 
 abolish slavery in the whole of it. 
 
 _J)uring 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 restric 
 tionists, and not denied by their opponents, that Con 
 gress 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 govern 
 ment. This seems to have been considered by nearly 
 all, if not quite all, as a fair interpretation of that pro 
 vision of the Constitution which vests in Congress the 
 power to make all needful rules and regulations respect 
 ing 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 Missis 
 sippi 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 popula 
 tion, which would, by local law, maintain the free status. 
 Mr. John W. Taylor, of New York, seems to have formu 
 lated 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 
 
76 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 pro 
 posed postponement to the second Monday of January. 
 
 Mr. Taylor s plan was moderate in its character. He 
 did not propose to emancipate slaves already held with 
 in these Territories or their issue born there- Mr Ta y ]or > s 
 in, but simply to prevent any further in- proposition, 
 crease 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. 
 
 The people resident in that part of Massachusetts 
 known as the district of Maine had, through delegates 
 in convention assembled, framed a Commonwealth con 
 stitution and government. The assent of Massachusetts 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOUKI 77 
 
 had been regularly given to the division of the old 
 Commonwealth. And on December 8th, 1819, Mr. 
 Holmes, of Massachusetts, presented to the The petition 
 House of Representatives a petition from yentioVfn 
 the constitutional convention in the district ^Sawon ^ 
 of Maine, praying for the admission of Maine. 
 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 satisfac 
 tory, and the people of the district were hardly able to 
 clear themselves from the charge of an undue assump 
 tion of powers. The petition was, however, immediately 
 referred to a committee, with Mr. Holmes as chair 
 man. On the 21st, Mr. Holmes reported a bill to the 
 House providing for the admission of the The bm for 
 district as a Commonwealth. On the 30th, the admission 
 the House, in committee of the Whole, ported and 
 took up the bill for consideration, and in IZseofVe^ 
 the course of the debate upon it Mr. Clay reeentatives - 
 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 110 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 Con 
 stitution 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. 
 
78 THE MIDDLE PEEIOD 
 
 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, 
 
 The failure 
 
 of Mr. Taylor s Mr. Taylor stated to the House that the 
 venting 1 " s?av- committee had instructed him to ask for 
 ery extension. iia discharge. The House agreed to his 
 request, and he immediately moved that a new com 
 mittee be appointed, and "instructed to report a bill" 
 prohibiting the further admission of slaves into the 
 Territories of the United States west of the Missis 
 sippi Eiver. This motion evidently appeared to the 
 House to be a prejudgment of the whole question, since 
 it postponed the consideration of it indefinitely. 
 
 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, 
 
 The Missouri ,,.-. , n , , , 
 
 bin again be- Mr. Taylor moved for another week s delay, 
 
 fore the House -in > ^ i > i i 
 
 ofRepresenta- and the motion was lost by only a single 
 vote. On the next day the House, in com 
 mittee 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 s motion was lost. 
 
 Whereupon Mr. Taylor moved that the people of 
 
 Missouri should be required to ordain and establish in 
 
 their constitution the prohibition of slavery 
 
 Mr. Taylor s L J 
 
 amendment to and involuntary servitude, except as a pun- 
 
 thebill. . , , . . J . ,, j /^ 
 
 ishment for crime, in the proposed Common 
 wealth. Conceding, as the result of the discussions, and 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 79 
 
 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 Constitu 
 tion of the United States did not impose upon the orig 
 inal Commonwealths. Could Congress effect indirectly 
 what it could not do directly? 
 
 Mr. Taylor s argument rested substantially upon the 
 proposition, upheld by the restrictionists during the 
 preceding session, that if Congress could ad- Mr. Taylor s 
 mit, it could refuse to admit, and if it could S|p?rtSf h 
 admit or refuse to admit, it could admit upon amendment - 
 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 Govern 
 ment 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 Con 
 stitution, 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 bring 
 ing of slaves into the United States from foreign coun 
 tries. And he suggested that territory acquired by the 
 United States subsequent to the formation of the Con 
 stitution need not be treated with the same considera 
 tion, as to the rights of its inhabitants, as that which 
 
80 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 belonged to the United States at the time of the forma 
 tion of the Constitution. 
 
 Of course the members from the South resisted Mr. 
 
 Taylor s conclusions. But they were not alone in their 
 
 Replies to P 08 ^ 011 - Some of the strongest opponents 
 
 Mr. Taylor s of slavery from the North stood up with 
 
 reasoning. 
 
 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. 
 
 After demonstrating most convincingly that the 
 clauses of the Constitution which vested in Congress 
 Mr.Hoiras? s the power to prohibit the migration of per- 
 "glit$ sons into the United States after 1808 and 
 amendment. ^ regulate commerce between the Common 
 wealths 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 pos 
 sessed 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 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 81 
 
 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, exer 
 cise within the original Commonwealths; and that if 
 Congress assumed to exercise such power, and the peo 
 ple of the Territory seeking the Commonwealth status 
 should even accept the imposed condition, the new 
 Commonwealth had the right and the power to free it 
 self from the condition, and the Congress was powerless 
 to prevent it. 
 
 Mr. McLane, of Delaware, a Commonwealth whose 
 legislature had instructed the representatives from the 
 Commonwealth in Congress to support all Mr Mc 
 measures for preventing the spread of slavery Lane s argu- 
 
 ., m . / . ., / TT \ MA* ment against 
 
 in the Territories of the Union west of the the a mend- 
 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 " re 
 sided elsewhere than in Congress ; that Congress must 
 admit a " State," not a Territory or a province or any 
 thing but a "State;" that a "State/ in the system of 
 federal government of the United States, was an or 
 ganization 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 this Union, not into some other union ; and that 
 this Union was a system of federal government, in 
 which the relations between the general Government 
 6 
 
82 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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. 
 
 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 de 
 scribed in the memorial to the House, had been pre 
 sented in the Senate, and referred to the Judiciary Com- 
 
 The inde- Hiittee. On January 3rd, 1820, the House 
 iSrt n bi/of bil1 admitting Maine was sent into the Senate. 
 the senate. ]\f r> J ame s Barbour, of Virginia, immedi 
 ately gave notice of his intention to move the connec 
 tion 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 for 
 mally proposed it. 
 
 The House bill admitting Maine was immediately re 
 ferred to the Judiciary Committee, which committee al- 
 
 Theconnec- ready had the Missouri bill in its charge, 
 * and on January 6th, Mr. Smith, of South 
 Carolina, the chairman of this committee, 
 muting 111 Mit re P rted from it to the Senate the House 
 souri. "bi]} admitting Maine, with an amendment 
 
 authorizing the people of Missouri, within the general 
 geographical boundaries already described, to form a con 
 stitution and Commonwealth government. The amend 
 ment contained no restrictions or conditions with regard 
 to slavery. 
 
 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 Judi- 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 83 
 
 ciary Committee, with the instruction that the bill 
 should be divested of the amendment in regard to Mis 
 souri. 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. 
 
 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 appear 
 ance was caused by the unwarranted action of the peo 
 ple of Maine in proceeding so far as they had done with 
 out asking the consent of Congress, for which wrongful 
 procedure presumptuous Maine should not be rewarded 
 and respectful Missouri punished. 
 
 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 Sen- The refugal 
 ators from the Northern Commonwealths of the senate 
 
 to disconnect 
 
 voted with the Southerners in refusing to thetwomeas- 
 separate the two subjects. 
 
 The question then came upon the contents of the bill 
 as reported by the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Eoberts 
 immediately moved to amend the bill by a provision pro 
 hibiting the further introduction of slavery into Mis 
 souri. The arguments upon this motion were sub 
 stantially a repetition of what had already been said 
 
84 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 upon the subject in the House of Eepresentatives. The 
 amendment was voted down, on February 1st, by a large 
 majority. -f- 
 
 On the 3rd, Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, offered an 
 amendment, which was destined to play a very impor- 
 Mr. Thomas s tant part in the further development of the 
 S^oimfmea?- subject. It was the proposition to exclude 
 ure - 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 ques 
 tion of procedure, the question whether the two sub 
 jects should be united in one bill. The Senate had only 
 voted not to recommit the bill to the Judiciary Commit 
 tee 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. Thom 
 as, therefore, withdrew his motion for the moment. 
 
 It was at this stage of the proceedings, when ap 
 parently there was nothing before the Senate but the 
 question of the union of the two subjects, 
 great that Mr. Pinkney of Maryland made his 
 
 a gainst the brilliant and unanswerable argument upon 
 
 the question of the powers of Congress in 
 tne premises. It diifered logically very little 
 !m e os el? 1 b t fr m M r - McLane s powerful analysis of the 
 the constitu- subject in the House, but it was elaborated 
 
 1 1 o n on the 
 
 original Com- and embellished as only Mr. Pinkney s 
 
 monwealths. , i t j 111 i mi " i 
 
 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 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 85 
 
 in sovereignty,, capable of everything which the Con 
 stitution does not forbid, or authorize Congress to for 
 bid. It is an equal union between parties equally 
 sovereign. They were sovereign, independent of the 
 Union. The object of the Union was common pro 
 jection 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 tke residue ; 
 and it is into that 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, crip 
 pled 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 in 
 ter pares. This is a Union inter disparates, between 
 giants and a dwarf, between power and feebleness, 
 between full proportioned sovereignties and a misera 
 ble 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 this 
 Union, that is the Union of the Federal Constitution, 
 that you are to admit or refuse to admit. You can ad 
 mit 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 this Union that you open for the entrance of a 
 new party. If you make it enter into a new and addi 
 tional compact is it any longer the same Union ? . . . 
 But it is a State which you are to admit. What is a 
 State in the sense of the Constitution ? It is not a 
 State in general, but a State as you find it in the Con 
 stitution. . . . Ask the Constitution. It shows you 
 
86 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 pre 
 scribe 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 Constitu 
 tion a State with all such sovereignty as belongs to the 
 original parties ; and it must be into this Union that 
 you are to admit it, not into a Union of your own dic 
 tating, formed out of the existing Union by qualifica 
 tions and new compacts, altering its character and ef 
 fect, 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/" 
 
 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 ulti 
 mate sovereignty, through the Constitution, between the 
 central Government and the Commonwealths. The as 
 sumption by the central Government of the authority to 
 redistribute these powers in a different manner, in any 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 87 
 
 given case, is an assumption of sovereignty, the Consti 
 tution-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 gov 
 ernment 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. 
 
 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 
 
 , . , i . ,. Pinkney s 
 
 committee contained no further restrictions argument suc- 
 upon the Commonwealth powers of Missouri, 
 but had reference only to what remained of the Louis 
 iana territory north and west of the boundaries of the 
 proposed Commonwealth. 
 
 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. The adop- 
 Thomas immediately renewed his motion to T h ^ a ** 
 amend the bill by the addition of a clause SJ^fiSiK 
 prohibiting slavery in the Louisiana territory ^ the pae- 
 above thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, Mai -^f n "JJyg 
 outside of the boundaries of the proposed amended. 
 Commonwealth of Missouri. After an attempt, on the 
 
88 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 one side, to carry this line up to the fortieth parallel, 
 and a counter attempt on the other to make the prohibi 
 tion extend to all the territory west of the Mississippi, 
 except that already under Commonwealth, government, 
 or in process of being put under Commonwealth govern 
 ment by the existing bill the result of which would 
 have been the prohibition of slavery in the just organ 
 ized Territory of Arkansas Mr. Thomas s 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 Kepresentatives. 
 
 The form of the bill was now the House bill in regard 
 
 to Maine, with the Missouri bill and the Thomas propo 
 
 sition attached to it as amendments. The 
 
 of Eepresent- House voted to disagree to these amend- 
 
 to agree to the ments, and sent the bill, stripped of them, 
 
 combination. 
 
 mediately to insist upon its amendments, and the House 
 answered with a vote insisting upon its position. There 
 upon, the Senate requested a conference with the House 
 upon the subject, and appointed Mr. Pinkney, Mr. 
 The confer- Barbour, and Mr. Thomas as its representa- 
 and tives. 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 with 
 out 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 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 89 
 
 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 con 
 tained in them. The House also accepted the recom 
 mendations and voted the necessary provisions upon its 
 part. 
 
 When the measures were placed before President 
 Monroe for his approval, he called a meeting of the 
 Cabinet to consider the subject. There was president 
 no difficulty except upon a single point, the JJovSTof tie 
 prohibition of slavery in the remainder of Compromise, 
 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 organiza 
 tion ? 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 in 
 terpreted 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 constitu 
 tional. The President signed the Maine bill on the 3rd 
 of March and the Missouri bill on the 6th (1820). 
 
90 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 So far as the questions of constitutional and parliamen 
 tary law were concerned,, the settlement reached was in 
 Review of accordance with right principles. It was 
 voivedh? the ri g h t that the two subjects, which the Senate 
 contest. 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 im 
 pose 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 Constitu 
 tion 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 pow 
 ers 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 prin 
 ciple 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 prin 
 ciple of the separation of subjects which differ in es 
 sence 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 pro 
 cedure, 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 at 
 tempt to make Congress the distributor of powers be 
 tween the general Government and the Commonwealths 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 91 
 
 was abandoned. The power whichjnade the Constitu 
 tion 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 con 
 dition of federal government. If the general Govern 
 ment 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 Com 
 monwealths possess such power, the system is the loosest 
 form of confederation, an international league. 
 
 It is true that the Constitution may authorize the 
 general Government to limit the powers of the Common 
 wealths in regard to certain specified points and the fed 
 eral 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 sov 
 ereignty 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. 
 
 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 gen 
 eral Government to the Commonwealths, which will 
 hardly bear the test of correct history and exact polit 
 ical 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 Con 
 stitution ; that its powers are the residue after what the 
 Constitution vests exclusively in the general Govern- 
 
92 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 raent and denies to the "States* shall have been sub 
 tracted 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 ad 
 mitted was created by the Constitution, through the 
 people inhabiting the district to be formed into a Com 
 monwealth, 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 Common 
 wealths. 
 
 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 Consti 
 tution against an unwarranted attempt to stretch Con 
 gressional power. 
 
 Finally, the compromise provision, drawing the line of 
 thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes through the Louisi 
 ana 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 exclu 
 sive jurisdiction of the general Government, was tanta- 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 93 
 
 mount 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 conces 
 sion 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. 
 
 The compromise upon the line of thirtv-six degrees 
 and thirty mi mi tea was, therefore, a very decided limi 
 tation 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. 
 
 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. 
 
94 THE MIDDLE PEEIOD 
 
 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. 
 
 Surrounded in thought with the ideas and conditions 
 of 1820, it is difficult to see why the balance of advan 
 tage contained in the compromise provision of the Mis 
 souri 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 Consti 
 tution 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 com 
 promise. The restriction placed by the House on Mis 
 souri 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 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 95 
 
 masters with their slaves, and how mnch 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 Com 
 monwealth, 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. 
 
 It was confidently hoped and believed that the com 
 promise 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. 
 
 But the peace proved to be only an armistice. In 
 less than twelve months the battle was raging The revival 
 again with more than its former fury. of theMieeou- 
 
 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, pro 
 posed to be established by that law, to enact measures 
 for preventing mulattoes and free negroes from immi 
 grating into and settling within the Commonwealth. 
 On November 14th, 1820, this instrument was pre 
 sented to the Senate of the United States, and on the 
 16th to the House of Kepresentatives, for 
 
 ., , ,. The Missouri 
 
 the purpose 01 moving these bodies to pass constitution in 
 an act admitting Missouri into the Union as 
 a Commonwealth. The instrument was immediately re 
 ferred by each House to a committee ; and on the 23rd, 
 Mr. Lowndes, the chairman of the House Committee, 
 
96 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 reported a bill for effecting this result, and, on the 
 29th, Mr. Smith reported a bill of like tenor to the 
 Senate. 
 
 Mr. Lowndes s 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 pos 
 sible repugnance of the provision to that clause in the 
 Constitution of the United States which guarantees to 
 the citizens of each Commonwealth all the 
 
 Mr. Lown- . . ..... 
 
 des s bill for privileges and immunities of citizens in every 
 
 the admission * , .. , , . . , , 
 
 of Missouri other Commonwealth ; but said that the pro- 
 Btrtunent in- vision 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 interpreta 
 tion or not, the judiciary of the United States, and not 
 the Congress, should determine the question of repug 
 nance between the Missouri instrument and the Con 
 stitution 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 per 
 mission to form Commonwealth government, and by vir 
 tue of the act of her people in forming a Commonwealth 
 constitution, and he declared that the refusal or fail 
 ure of Congress, at this time, to pass a formal act of ad 
 mission could not reduce her again to the Territorial 
 status. 
 
 Mr. Sergeant, the spokesman of the opposition to Mr. 
 Lowndes s report, met these propositions with the 
 serious op- counter - propositions, that a Territory be- 
 tne 8 Lowndes comes a Commonwealth of the Union only 
 bilL 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 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 97 
 
 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 Terri 
 tory remains a Territory until the passage of this lat 
 ter act ; that the provision in the Missouri instrument 
 in regard to the exclusion of mulattoes and free ne 
 groes 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. 
 
 There is no doubt that, from the point of view of a 
 correct political logic, the opponents of Mr. Lowndes s 
 propositions in regard to the making of a Common 
 wealth 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 se 
 cede 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. 
 
 They also stood upon the firmer ground in holding 
 7 
 
98 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 con 
 vinced, 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 Constitu 
 tion as the judges do. The revisory powers of the Ju 
 diciary 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. 
 
 On the other hand, when a citizen of one Common 
 wealth immigrated into and settled in another, it was 
 The protec- a i lies tio n whether he did not lose the right 
 rihts of citf * treated as a citizen in the latter Com- 
 of one monwealth, in so far as the Constitution of 
 the United States, as it was in 1820, was con- 
 cerned, and become subject to the laws of 
 united states. the ^^ Commonwealth as to his status. If 
 he were only passing through, or sojourning temporarily 
 in, the latter Commonwealth, it was clear that the Con 
 stitution of the United States protected him as a citizen 
 of another Commonwealth, but when he changed his resi 
 dence 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 citi 
 zens and residents of the latter Commonwealth. 
 
 It must be remembered, however, that the immediate 
 question involved in the provision of the Missouri in 
 strument was whether a Commonwealth could prohibit 
 the citizens of other Commonwealths from immigrating 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 99 
 
 into, and gaining residence and citizenship within, it 
 self. 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 cer 
 tainly 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 im 
 migrate into, and become a citizen of, South Carolina, 
 when the laws of South Carolina did not admit negroes 
 to citizenship. 
 
 On December 13th (1820), after a long, earnest, and, 
 at times, acrimonious debate, the Lowndes 
 measure for the admission of Missouri was th 
 defeated by a vote of ninety-three to seventy- House! n the 
 nine. 
 
 The bill presented by Mr. Smith in the Senate was 
 taken up for consideration on December 4th. The argu 
 ments pro and con were about the same as passage of 
 those offered in the House, but the bitter- ^fSS^SS 
 ness of feeling which seemed to animate the b ? the senate- 
 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 pro 
 vision 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 im 
 munities of citizens in the several States/ 
 
 The House tabled this bill on the same day that it re 
 jected the measure offered by its own committee. But 
 what now was the status of Missouri ? Her people had 
 
100 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 Ter- 
 
 wii tabled by ritorial officials exercising governmental pow- 
 
 the House. TT 
 
 ers. 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. 
 
 After some futile attempts made by Mr. Eustis, of 
 
 Massachusetts, for the admission of Missouri upon a 
 
 Mr. ciay future day, provided the obnoxious clause 
 
 ond Missouri should be expunged from her organic law be- 
 
 Compromise. fore that day ^ Mf Q lay came f orwar( J an( J ag _ 
 
 sumed the management of the question. 
 
 On January 29th, 1821, he asked the House to go into 
 committee of the Whole to consider the Senate bill ad 
 mitting 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. 
 
 On February 10th, 1821, Mr. Clay reported the recom 
 mendations 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 citi 
 zens of any of the States of this Union ; and provided 
 also, 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 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 101 
 
 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 : and provided further, that nothing herein 
 contained shall be construed to take from the said State 
 of Missouri, when admitted into this Union, the ex 
 ercise of any right or power, which can now be consti 
 tutionally exercised by any of the original States." 
 
 Mr. Tomlinson, of the committee, took the floor 
 against the report, and showed so conclusively that the 
 legislature of a Commonwealth could not 
 
 ,.,,-, , ,, ,, The failure 
 
 bind the makers 01 the organic law 01 the of Mr. days 
 Commonwealth, and that, therefore, any ob 
 ligation which the legislature of Missouri might assume 
 toward Congress might prove nugatory, that the Senate 
 bill, with the amendment offered by Mr. Clay s commit 
 tee, was voted down. 
 
 Mr. Clay waited ten days after this in order to let the 
 feelings of the members become mollified, and on Feb 
 ruary 22nd, one of the most significant days 
 in American history, made his final attempt stcomd at- 
 
 TT n ,-, , tempt to se- 
 
 to secure a compromise. He moved that cure a com- 
 members to a conference committee be ap- pro: 
 pointed 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. 
 
 On the 26th, Mr. Clay reported the results of the 
 conference, in the form of a resolution of the follow 
 ing tenor : " Eesolved, by the Senate and House of 
 Representatives of the United States, in Congress as- 
 
102 THE MIDDLE PEEIOD 
 
 sembled, that Missouri shall be admitted into this Union 
 on an equal footing with the original States in all re 
 spects whatever, upon the fundamental con- 
 - dition, that the fourth clause of the twenty- 
 sixth section of the third article of the con 
 stitution 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 trans 
 mit 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 Con 
 gress, the admission of the said State into this Union 
 shall be considered as complete." 
 
 It will be seen that this recommendation contained the 
 same objectionable feature as did that of the committee 
 Passage of of Thirteen of the House, that is, the propo- 
 MteBonriCom? sition to rely upon the Missouri legislature 
 promise Act. to en ter into an obligation to Congress, which 
 should bind all future legislatures and also the constit 
 uent power of the Commonwealth. It was, therefore, at 
 tacked 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 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 103 
 
 Senate for concurrence,, and, after a brief debate, was 
 voted by that body on the 28th, by a large majority. 
 
 The great struggle was at last over, and it was sin 
 cerely hoped that the " era of good feeling," so sudden 
 ly 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. 
 
 In the first place, the decision involved the constitu 
 tional and political principle that, in the federal sys 
 tem of government generally, and in the The general 
 system of the United States in particular, 
 the powers of government are, and must be, 
 distributed by the sovereignty behind, and tion - 
 supreme over, both the general Government and the 
 Commonwealths, and not by either of the two govern 
 ments, 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 South 
 erners 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 main 
 tained. 
 
 It introduced, therefore, the principle which led nec 
 essarily to a division of the all-comprehending Repub 
 lican party into two branches, the one branch holding 
 
104 THE MIDDLE PEKIOD 
 
 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. 
 
 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 mis 
 leading. 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. 
 
 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 Constitu 
 tion. 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 Con 
 gress, 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. 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 105 
 
 In the third place, the Missouri decision involved the 
 principle that there was, before the Fourteenth Amend 
 ment 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 pro 
 tect 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 Common 
 wealth within the jurisdiction of another Commonwealth, 
 whose laws might be directly contradictory to those oi 
 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. 
 
 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 Com 
 monwealths having the same powers and privileges as 
 the older Commonwealths ; and that, therefore, the po 
 litical 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. 
 
 Finally, the Missouri decision taught the South that 
 there was a provision in the Constitution of the United 
 
106 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 States which probably made it possible for the Northern 
 Commonwealths to force, through the power of the gen 
 eral 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 Common 
 wealths for the purpose of keeping the slaves under 
 stricter discipline and in denser ignorance. It increased 
 vastly, if it did not introduce, that utter misunderstand 
 ing 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 
 Sou th, 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 mis 
 understanding, therefore, which proved irreconcilable 
 so long as the subject of it remained. 
 
 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 peace- 
 
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MISSOURI 107 
 
 able 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 ap 
 pears 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. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE BEGINNING OF THE PARTICULARISTIC REACTION 
 
 Slavery and the Industrial Policies of the Union President Mon 
 roe and Protection after 1820 The Committee on Manufac 
 turesThe Tariff Bill of 1823 The General Character of the 
 Bill, and its Failure to Pass President Monroe s Message of 
 1823, and Protection The Tariff Bill of 1824 Mr. Clay s 
 Argument in its Support Mr. Clay s Argument Answered 
 The First Expression of the Doctrine that Protection and 
 Slavery were Hostile Interests The Bill Amended and Passed 
 The Tariff of 1824 not yet Considered Sectional Legislation 
 South Carolina and the Tariff of 1824 The Historical De 
 velopment of the Doctrine of Internal Improvements- -Madi 
 son s Ideas upon Internal Improvements The Bill of 1822 for 
 Internal Improvements Passage of the Bill, and Analysis of 
 the Vote upon it The Bill in the Interests of the West- 
 President Monroe s Veto, and Communication of May 4th, 1822 
 President Monroe s Argument, and the Vote upon the Veto 
 Congressional Act of 1824 for Distinguishing National from 
 Local Improvements Foreign Relations During Monroe s 
 Second Term Russia and the Northwest Coast of America 
 The Holy Alliance The Congress at Verona Mr. Adams s 
 Declaration to Baron Tuyl Mr. Canning s Proposal to Mr. 
 Rush Mr. Canning s Declaration to Prince Polignac The 
 " Monroe Doctrine " The Meaning of the Monroe Propositions 
 in 1824 Failure to Commit Congress to these Propositions 
 The Particularistic Reaction Scarcely Discoverable before 1824. 
 
 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 
 
BEGINNING OF PARTICULARISTIC REACTION" 109 
 
 first opened the eyes of the slaveholders to the bearings 
 of the slavery interest upon all the questions of consti 
 tutional law and public policy. From the slavery and 
 point of view of that interest their attitude ^HcSs^S 
 toward all these questions was more and more union, 
 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. 
 
 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 num 
 ber of members in the House of Eepresentatives. 
 
 The purpose of all these projects is apparent. In 
 deed, their proposers said openly and frankly that their 
 purpose was to lessen and limit the powers of the gen 
 eral Government in the interests of " States -rights." 
 
 It was natural, however, that the new spirit of par 
 ticularism should attack the policies of the Government 
 rather than the structure of the political system, or, 
 more correctly, should undertake to control these poli 
 cies before it sought to transform that system. 
 
 We have seen with what unanimity and national en 
 thusiasm the protection of home industries was re 
 garded, in the half decade between 1815 and 1820, as a 
 measure indispensable to the attainment and mainten 
 ance of industrial independence. Not even Calhoun 
 then understood the relation between this policy and 
 the interests of slavery. The Presidents, Madison and 
 
110 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 Monroe, were utterly oblivious to it. Even after the 
 Missouri struggle, Mr. Monroe continued to recommend 
 President the protection of manufactures for the at- 
 Jf?o r tect a ion tainment of industrial independence as the 
 after 1820. truQ 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 slave 
 holder and a very conservative man. 
 
 The House of Eepresentatives, the body which had 
 upheld even radically national views of the character 
 of the political system during the Missouri 
 mitteeon struggle, very naturally responded to Mr. 
 ree 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 sub 
 ject 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. 
 
 On January 9th, 1823, Mr. Tod, of Pennsylvania, the 
 chairman of the Committee on Manufactures, reported a 
 
 The Tariff tariff bill. ^ proposed to nearly double the 
 BUI of 1823. existing duty upon iron, quadruple that upon 
 coarse woollens, and to increase the custom-house valu 
 ation of dyed cotton goods by some forty per centum. 
 
BEGINNING OF PARTICULARISTIC REACTION 111 
 
 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 importa 
 tion of coarse cottons and woollens and bar iron. In 
 fact, Mr. Tod conceded that the prohibition of the im 
 portation 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. 
 
 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 characfer ner of 
 trend of political history. These facts were its failure to 
 
 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. Cot 
 ton and commerce, and that meant slavery and com 
 merce, were beginning to discover their affinity. 
 
 President Monroe, however, does not seem to have 
 shared this view of the subject. In his mes- President 
 sage of December 2nd, 1823, he again recom- Monroe s Mes- 
 
 1 1 TTi- 1 . J.1 Sa S 6 Of 1823 
 
 mended additional protection to " those ar- andprotec- 
 ticles which we are prepared to manufacture, 
 or which are more immediately connected with the de 
 fence and independence of the country/ 
 
 Thus encouraged by the President, the House of Rep- 
 
112 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 resentatives again referred the question of increasing 
 the tariff to Mr. Tod s committee. 
 
 On January 9th, 1824, Mr. Tod brought in his new 
 
 bill. It was a more moderate proposition than that of 
 
 The Tariff * ne Preceding session ; still it provided for 
 
 BUI of 1824. a substantial increase of the duties on wool 
 
 lens and iron. 
 
 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 in 
 dependence in the manufacture of the necessaries of 
 life, from the necessity of creating new and more re 
 munerative employments for labor, and from the policy 
 of developing better home markets for agricultural prod 
 ucts. 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. 
 
 Mr. Clay made the great argument in defence of the 
 
 measure. He elaborated the patriotic reason in every 
 
 direction. He pointed out the utter de- 
 
 argument ay in peiidence of the country upon foreign mar- 
 
 its support. ketg ^ both f Qr the gale of itg agr i cu i tura i pro( }_ 
 
 ucts 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 de 
 pendent upon Europe for manufactured articles. And 
 he urged the accomplishment of industrial independence 
 
BEGINNING OF PARTICULARISTIC REACTION 113 
 
 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 con 
 trol ; 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 in 
 creased 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. 
 
 Webster for Massachusetts, Cambreling 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 argument* 1 aif- 
 country, and demonstrated the destructive Bwered - 
 effects of a high tariff upon agriculture and commerce, 
 and upon the existing manufacturing interests them 
 selves. 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 domes 
 tic markets would not at all compensate for the loss of 
 8 
 
114 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 foreign markets ; that commerce would thus be de 
 stroyed 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 
 pressionofthe frankly declared that the slave labor of the 
 
 doctrine that ~ ., ^ .. _ ., , . ., , , 
 
 protection South could not be used in the development 
 we /e a hostiie 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. 
 
 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 Massa 
 chusetts, Maine, and the city of New York made com 
 mon cause with the agricultural interests of the South 
 against the bill, it could not be strictly regarded as sec 
 tional legislation, it could not develop into a political 
 and constitutional question between the North and the 
 South. 
 
 "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 
 
 The bill ,. -, ,. ,. 
 
 amended and several very substantial modifications upon it 
 in the direction of more moderate protection. 
 In the Senate the bill suffered still further modifica 
 tion in the same direction. The burden of the Senate s 
 amendments fell, however, on the wool- and hemp-grow 
 ing and liquor-distilling West. It was for this reason 
 that the House of Eepresentatives refused to concur in 
 
BEGINNING OF PARTICULARISTIC REACTION 115 
 
 them. Recourse was then had to a conference commit 
 tee, which arranged a compromise that gave a little less 
 protection than the House had voted, and a little more 
 than the Senate had voted. 
 
 The tariff of May, 1824, was still only a moderately 
 protective tariff. It was certainly in only one partic 
 ular anything like prohibitory ; it preserved the high 
 tariff of 1816 on coarse cotton goods. In other re 
 spects it was not much more than a continuation of the 
 reasonable duties already imposed. 
 
 So long as the tariff remained moderately protective, 
 and was approved in Kentucky and Missouri, and disap 
 proved in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 
 
 ivr ^ xt, "j, * TVT v i The tariff of 
 
 Maine, and the city of JNew York, and so long 1824 not yet 
 as its burdens were generally believed to fall secSona? e ieg? 
 ultimately upon the consumers of the duti- 18latlon> 
 able 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 estab 
 lishment of these industries in the South, and had be 
 gun to treat the tariff question in a manner to develop 
 a party issue out of it. But this tendency had not ad 
 vanced 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. 
 During the passage of the bill public meetings had 
 been held throughout South Carolina pro- 
 
 . , , ooutn Car- 
 
 testing against it, and the year subsequent oima and the 
 
 to its enactment the South Carolina legisla 
 ture denounced it as unconstitutional, but the people 
 
116 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 of the Commonwealth acquiesced, though with very bad 
 temper, in the execution of the law. 
 
 The other question of internal policy, to which cer 
 tain of the historians refer as suffering under the baleful 
 influences of the slavery interest immediately after 1820, 
 was the question of national internal improvements. 
 
 This question became a definite issue in Congress for 
 the first time on December 19th, 1805, when a committee 
 The histori- of the Senate, charged with the duty of re- 
 ment d of el ?he porting to the Senate an opinion as to how 
 d^trine of m- fa e mone y appropriated in the Enabling Act 
 provements. f or Ohio ought to be applied, recommended 
 the use of it for the building of a road across the Alle- 
 ghanies from Cumberland, in Maryland, to a point upon 
 the Ohio River, near Wheeling, in Virginia. 
 
 If we may take the first Act passed by Congress, that 
 of March 29th, 1806, in regard to the matter as express 
 ing 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 Com 
 monwealths 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. 
 
 The second stage in the evolution of opinion upon 
 the subject was attained in the year 1817, when Mr. 
 
 Madison s Madison vetoed Mr. Calhoun s bill for setting 
 t d e e r a na? n i- aside tne bonus and the dividends to be paid 
 provements. to the Government by the United States 
 Bank as a fund for constructing roads and canals, and 
 
BEGINNING OF PAETICULARISTIC REACTION 117 
 
 improving the navigation of water-courses in the several 
 Commonwealths. This bill proposed to authorize the 
 general Government to expend the money, thus appro 
 priated, 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 The vote upon the vetoed bill in the House of Rep 
 resentatives 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 Caro- 
 
118 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 lina 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 in 
 terest 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 na 
 tional 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. 
 
 The third stage in the development of constitutional 
 interpretation in reference to this subject was attained 
 The bin of in the year 1822. In May of that year Con- 
 na? fmprove- gress passed a bill appropriating money for 
 meats. tb e re p a j r O f the Cumberland road, and au 
 
 thorizing 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 ex 
 pending 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 mes 
 sage of March 3rd, 1817, were not the views of the coun 
 try in 1822 upon the subject of internal improvements. 
 
 It is interesting and instructive to analyze the vote 
 upon this bill. In the House of Representatives the 
 
BEGINNING OF PARTICULARISTIC REACTION 119 
 
 members from the New England section were nearly 
 evenly divided, pro and con. The majority of the 
 New Yorkers voted against it. The Penn- Passage of 
 sylvanians were nearly balanced. The Mary- anaiysis o/the 
 landers voted for it. The Virginians were vote upon it. 
 against it by a decided majority. The North Carolin 
 ians were indifferent. The South Carolinians and 
 Georgians abandoned their high national ground of 
 1817, and voted unanimously against it. The Kepre- 
 sentatives from the Northwest went unanimously for 
 it ; and those from Kentucky now wheeled into line 
 with them. Lastly, while the Tennesseeans still main 
 tained their attitude of indifference, the members from 
 the Commonwealths south of Tennessee, and west of 
 Georgia, all voted for the bill. 
 
 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. 
 
 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 honor 
 able a man as John W. Taylor, of New York, said of this 
 bill that it was so important in its character, and pro 
 posed 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. 
 
 If we review the analysis of the vote in the House of 
 Representatives we shall see that the entire West tak- 
 
120 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 ing the Appalachian range as the dividing line, for 
 
 that period, between the East and the West was for 
 
 The bin in ^ e k*^> wn il e the whole East, with the excep- 
 
 the interests tion of Maryland, which was specially inter- 
 
 of the West. . -. . ., J ^ .,, . , .. 
 
 ested in the road, was- either against it or in 
 different 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 com 
 paratively poor, and wanted the nation to help it out 
 of the mud. This is unquestionably the plain state 
 ment of the situation from the point of view of inter 
 ests. The interests of slavery played but little part, if 
 any at all, in the distribution of the vote. 
 
 President Monroe promptly vetoed the bill, on the 
 
 ground that it was in excess of the powers granted 
 
 p dnt ^ Congress by the Constitution. He also 
 
 Monroe sveto, se nt a communication, of the same date 
 
 andcommum- 
 
 cation of May as the veto, to the House oi xtepresenta- 
 
 4th, 1S22. . . ,..,.. . . 
 
 tives, explaining his views upon the princi 
 ples of the Constitution generally, and upon those pro 
 visions specially, which could be regarded as vesting 
 powers in the general Government concerning internal 
 improvements. The paper is prolix, confused, and con 
 fusing, 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 ap 
 propriate 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 
 
BEGINNING OF PARTICULARISTIC REACTION 121 
 
 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 na 
 tional 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. 
 
 The President s views were apparently convincing 
 to many who had voted for the bill. Upon p resident 
 its passage, the vote in the House of Kepre- 
 
 sentatives was eighty-seven for, and sixty- the vote upon 
 
 th.6 V6tO 
 
 eight against, the measure. After the veto, 
 
 it stood sixty-eight yeas and seventy-two nays. 
 
 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 ex 
 pend the appropriation by causing the improvements to 
 be planned and constructed was generally regarded, in 
 1824, as a necessary consequence of the power to appro 
 priate money for the same. The acts of Congress ap 
 propriating money for the construction and repair of 
 roads, canals, etc., after, as well as before, that date, 
 seem to proceed upon this theory. 
 
 The great difficulty which lay in the way of the 
 realization of President Monroe s principle of the ap 
 propriation of national money for internal improve 
 ments of a national character was the proper deter 
 mination of the question as to what improvements were 
 really of that character. The danger was that the ap- 
 
122 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 propriation bills would become log-rolling measures for 
 the purpose of obtaining national money for matters 
 of local concern. This difficulty was distinctly felt, and 
 cong res- Congress undertook to meet it by the Act of 
 i824 a for d2- A P ril 30tll > 1824, which authorized the Presi- 
 natfonai h from dent to cause " surveys, plans, and estimates 
 to be made of the routes of such roads and 
 canals as he might deem of national impor 
 tance," and required him to lay the same before Con 
 gress. 
 
 From all this it is apparent that, down to the presi 
 dential 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 particu 
 laristic practice in the working of the governmental sys 
 tem 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 con 
 sideration of these relations was acting as a certain 
 hindrance to the development of parties upon internal 
 issues. 
 
 The menace, or perhaps it would be more correct to 
 
 say the apparent menace, came from two quarters ; but in 
 
 Foreign re- neither case did it relate immediately to the 
 
 Mon?^^ territory or interests of the United States. 
 
 In both cases it was consequential and more 
 
 or less remote. 
 
BEGINNING OF PARTICULARISTIC REACTION 123 
 
 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 cen- Russ j a an a 
 tury 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, re 
 garded 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 discon 
 tent should become hostile in its nature. The Govern 
 ment of the United States declared its dissent from the 
 Russian pretensions, and the matter rested momentarily 
 with that. 
 
 At the same time the other danger was developing. 
 The European reaction against the terrible excesses of 
 the Revolution and the despotism of Bona- The H } y 
 parte had assumed the form of an alliance 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 com 
 bination 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 
 
124 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 political doctrine of the Holy Alliance Powers, the 
 doctrine of the jure divino 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 hos 
 tility. 
 
 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 
 
 The Con- , , . TT , . _ 
 
 gressatvero- congress of these powers at Verona, which 
 had been assembled to consider the question 
 of aiding the Spanish Government to suppress the in 
 surrection 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. 
 
 To the United States the supposed intentions of Rus 
 sia in respect to the Pacific coast appeared the more 
 immediate danger, and the United States 
 decuiration to Government addressed its diplomacy to this 
 Baron Tuyi. qnestion first< On July 17th? 1823, the Sec 
 retary 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 con- 
 
BEGINNING OF PAETICULARISTIC REACTION 125 
 
 tinents are no longer subjects for any new European 
 colonial establishments." 
 
 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. Mr. can - 
 James, Mr. Benjamin Rush, a joint declara- poslf to *?" 
 tion by the British Government and the ^ U8h - 
 Government of the United States to Europe, that the 
 two Governments would not remain indifferent to ar 
 intervention by the Holy Alliance Powers to restore the 
 Spanish authority over Spain s revolting American colo 
 nies. Both commercial interests and political principles 
 moved the British Government to make this proposi 
 tion. 
 
 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 de 
 clared for his Government to the French Mr Can . 
 ambassador at St. James, Prince Polignac, ring s deciara- 
 
 , ~ i -n " On k P*" 11106 
 
 that Great Britain would resist any interven- Poiignac. 
 tion on the part of the Holy Alliance Powers in the ques 
 tion 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. 
 
 Mr. Monroe dealt first with the question of Russian 
 
126 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 colonization upon the Pacific coast. After informing 
 Congress of the instructions which had been given to the 
 The "Mon- Minister representing the United States at 
 roe Doctrine." g^ Petersburg f or 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 con 
 dition which they have assumed and maintained, are 
 henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future 
 colonization by any European powers." 
 
 Toward the close of the message Mr. Monroe ad 
 dressed 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 hemi 
 sphere we are, of necessity, more immediately connected, 
 and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened 
 and impartial observers. The po^*ical 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 
 
BEGINNING OF PARTICULARISTIC REACTION 127 
 
 States and those powers, to declare that we should con 
 sider 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 inde 
 pendence we have on great consideration and on just 
 principles acknowledged, we could not view any inter 
 position for the purpose of oppressing them, or con 
 trolling in any other manner their destiny, by any Eu 
 ropean 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 be 
 hold such interposition, in any form, with indifference. 
 If we look to the comparative strength and resources 
 of Spain and these new Governments, and their dis 
 tance 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." 
 
 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 es- The mean 
 tablishment of new European colonies in ing of the 
 
 . , . , . . , . , TT T * i Monroe prop- 
 
 America, the intervention of the Holy Al- ositions in 
 liance Powers in the question between Spain 
 and her revolting American colonies, and the forcible 
 imposition by these powers of the jure divino monarchy 
 
128 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 under 
 standing these statements as Mr. Monroe understood 
 them. 
 
 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 pos 
 sibility of the arising of which passed entirely away be 
 fore 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 colo 
 nial establishments in America, or the intervention of 
 the Holy Alliance Powers in the question between Spain 
 and her revolting American colonies, or the forcible im 
 position of the jure divino monarchy, the political sys 
 tem of these powers, upon the new republican govern 
 ments of South and Middle America. 
 
 The month following the publication of this message, 
 January, 1824, Mr. Clay attempted to move Congress to 
 Failure to indorse that part of the President s opinions 
 grSrto C the n se which referred to the intervention of the 
 propositions. 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 intel 
 ligence to make diplomatic opinions, advanced by the 
 Administration, either laws of the land, or joint or con 
 current resolutions of the legislative department of the 
 Government. 
 
BEGINNING OF PARTICULARISTIC REACTION 129 
 
 Thus neither in the question of the tariff, nor in that 
 of internal improvements, nor, naturally, in the diplo 
 matic questions, is anything more than the The ^^ 
 faint beginnings of the particularistic reac- laristic reac- 
 
 , -,. i xi -111 t ion scarcely 
 
 tion to be discovered in the period between discoverable 
 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 ab 
 sorption of the whole voting population in the Republi 
 can party. In the presidential election of that year 
 the candidate of the Eepublican party, Mr. Monroe, 
 received two hundred and thirty-one of the two hun 
 dred 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, in 
 fluences of the French political philosophy, which rolled 
 like a tidal wave over the country during the last dec 
 ade 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 set 
 tled 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 Fed 
 eral party, as the upholder of centralization, enjoyed 
 
130 THE MIDDLE PEKIOD 
 
 over the Kepnblican party, as the champion of <f States - 
 rights," had been lost by the nationalization of the 
 Eepublican party through the War of 1812, and the de 
 nationalization 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 com 
 pleted growth and fructification. The presidential con 
 test of 1824 could not, therefore, be fought under the 
 issues of party principles. It was little more, and, under 
 the circumstances, it could be little more, than a per 
 sonal contest between the leaders of the Eepublican 
 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. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1824 
 
 General Character of the Presidential Contest of 1824 John 
 Quincy Adams DeWitt Clinton William H. Crawford John 
 C. Calhoun Daniel Webster Henry Clay Andrew Jackson 
 The Nomination of Presidential Candidates in 1824 Failure 
 of the Electors to Elect the President Territorial Distribution 
 of the Electoral Vote New York in the Election of 1824 
 South Carolina in the Election of 1824 Pennsylvania in the 
 Election of 1824 The Election in the House of Representa 
 tives Clay Master of the Situation Clay s Support of Adams, 
 and Kremer s Charge of Bargain and Corruption The Elec 
 tion of Adams by the House of Representatives Clay and the 
 Secretaryship of State Threats of the Organization of an 
 Anti-administration Party The Bargain between Clay and 
 Adams a mere Suspicion Clay s Nomination to the Secretary 
 ship of State in the Senate The Composition of the new Anti- 
 administration Party. 
 
 As has been pointed out, from 1820 to 1824 the po 
 litical arena was clear of the combats of principles, and 
 furnished the tilting-ground for the -jousts 
 
 . . - . . General 
 
 oi personal ambition. The " Virginia dy- character of 
 nasty" became extinct with the expiration of tial contest of 
 Monroe s second term, and the way was open J 
 for anyone to enter the lists who was willing to risk 
 the shocks of the encounter. 
 
 At no time in our history has the roll of our political 
 nobility been more full of brilliant names and char 
 acters. 
 
132 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 First of all, there was John Quincy Adams, the Secre 
 tary of State, the " knight without fear and without 
 John Quincy reproach," blunt, grim, almost rude, through 
 Adams. an unconscious suspicion that politeness 
 
 might encourage the approach of temptation ; now fifty- 
 seven years old, and trained in statecraft and diplo 
 macy almost from childhood ; the best equipped states 
 man and the most experienced statesman which America 
 had up to that time produced ; ready to serve his coun 
 try 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. 
 
 Then, there was DeWitt Clinton, noble in personal 
 appearance, dignified in manners, eloquent in debate, 
 DeWitt ciin- sagacious and far-sighted in business, a lover 
 ton - 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 revolu 
 tionize 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. 
 
 Then, there was William H. Crawford, a Virginian by 
 birth and a Georgian by education ; a man of large 
 wmiam H. wealth and of imposing bearing ; enjoying a 
 Crawford. very great reputation for statesmanship with 
 out any easily discoverable foundation therefor ; now 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1824 133 
 
 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. 
 
 Then, there was Calhoun, grave, pure, and patriotic 
 as Adams himself, and almost as puritanic ; South Caro 
 linian by birth, Scotch-Irish by blood, Pres- John c Cal . 
 byterian in religion, and New Englander by houn - 
 education ; great, both in dialectics and in the admin 
 istration of affairs ; rather more given to introspec 
 tion 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 occa 
 sions ; 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 
 
134 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 then as Monroe s Secretary of War for both terms, 
 which office he still held. 
 
 Then, there was Webster, of the same age with Oal- 
 houn, though as yet only five years in public service ; 
 Daniel Web- ^ ne mos ^ majestic personality which Amer- 
 ster - ica 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 re 
 straints 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. 
 
 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 
 
 Henry Clay. , J . 
 
 siren s song, elegant and gallant in his man 
 ners, perfectly irresistible in conversation, jovial and 
 cheery and happy, the prince of good fellows, loved 
 and worshipped by everybody who knew him ; enthusi 
 astic 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 prop 
 agandist 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 Eep- 
 resentatives, 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 tar- 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1824 135 
 
 iff, of national internal improvements, and of the cause 
 of the South American States in their struggle for inde 
 pendence against Spain and Portugal of what he called 
 the American system of political and industrial inde 
 pendence. 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 ques 
 tion 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. 
 
 And lastly, Jackson, the noblest Roman of them all ; 
 ignorant and irascible indeed, but virtuous, brave, and 
 patriotic beyond any cavil or question; Andrew 
 faithful and devoted in his domestic life, Jackson - 
 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 ; ear 
 nest, terrible in the inflexibility of his purposes ; excited 
 by opposition to an ever-increasing degree of determina 
 tion ; unflinching and recklessly daring in the perform 
 ance 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 poli- 
 
136 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 ticians 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 coun 
 try 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 
 I the majority of the people as disqualifications for hold- 
 l ing the office. 
 
 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. Dif 
 ferent 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. 
 
 Webster was not put forward by anybody, and did not 
 
 offer himself as a candidate. Clay was nominated by the 
 
 The nomina- legislature of Kentucky. Jackson was nomi- 
 
 identiaf cKdi- nated b .Y tne legislature of Tennessee, and by 
 
 dates in 1824. ^wo 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. 
 
 As was to be expected, the electors did not choose 
 
 Failure of any one of the four, since the Constitution 
 
 Secfthe ?^ requires a majority of the whole number of 
 
 sident. ^he electors for a choice. Jackson led with 
 
 ninety-nine votes ; Adams was next with eighty-four ; 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1824 137 
 
 Crawford followed with forty-one ; and Clay came last 
 with thirty-seven. 
 
 The electoral vote was distributed territorially as 
 might have been naturally anticipated,, except in two 
 particulars. These were, the failure of Van Territorial 
 Buren to secure the electoral vote of New SfS SSeS 
 York for Crawford, and the solid vote of ralvote - 
 Pennsylvania and South Carolina for Jackson. These 
 facts had some significance in connection with subse 
 quent developments, and require a little explanation. 
 
 New York was one of the Commonwealths which, down 
 to 1824, permitted the Legislature to choose the presiden 
 tial electors. In 1823 the Legislature was still 
 under the control of Van Buren and his col- in the Election 
 leagues in the " Regency," the Albany ma 
 chine, 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 opposi 
 tion 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 Legisla 
 ture, in consequence of this act, that, in the Common 
 wealth elections of 1824, the "Regency" party was 
 driven from power, and the new Legislature chose elec 
 tors who cast the electoral vote of the Commonwealth 
 chiefly for Adams, as the Northern candidate. 
 
 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" ver 
 sus -the powers of the Union at issue, or that South 
 
138 THE MIDDLE PEEIOD 
 
 Carolina was still nationally disposed ; and that, either 
 there was no tariff question at issue, or South Caro- 
 south caro- }& had not yet clearly discovered the 
 Eiectioi/of hostility of the tariff to her interests, or 
 1824. ghg Believed Jackson to be opposed to the 
 
 tariff. 
 
 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 let 
 ter 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 tabula rasa 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. 
 
 It is somewhat more difficult to account for the atti 
 
 tude of Pennsylvania. We are now so accustomed to 
 
 consider Pennsylvania the " tariff State "par 
 
 Pennsylva- -,, ,-1 , ., -i-no -i, / 
 
 niaintheEiec- excellence, that it is difficult to conceive of a 
 
 tionof 1824. 
 
 deed, 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 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1824 139 
 
 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 sys 
 tem of cabinet succession to the presidency is little less 
 dangerous and anti-republican than the hereditary mon 
 archies 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." Ad 
 ams, Crawford, and Calhoun were then members of 
 President Monroe s cabinet, and Clay was Speaker of 
 the House of Eepresentatives. 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 Mon 
 roe 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 in 
 ference 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. Jack 
 son in the r61e 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, 
 
140 THE MIDDLE PEKIOD 
 
 nevertheless, strictly true that the "Old Hero" knew 
 how to make himself very acceptable to the ladies. Penn 
 sylvania was, chiefly, by this conjunction of influences, 
 carried for Jackson by an overwhelming majority. 
 
 The failure of the electors to give a majority to any 
 one of the candidates threw the election into the House 
 The Election of Eepresentatives, which is empowered by 
 5 ^preseih the Constitution to choose, in such a case, 
 tatives. one O f the three who shall have received the 
 
 highest number of electoral votes. 
 
 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 
 of 01 1L ma 8itS- 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 al 
 most 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 rea 
 soned, therefore, that not only the Eepresentatives 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 Com 
 monwealths had voted, and as to whether the legislat 
 ures of the respective Commonwealths possessed any 
 power to instruct the members of the House of Repre 
 sentatives from the several Commonwealths in regard to 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1824 141 
 
 the casting of their votes, the opinion finally prevailed 
 that each Representative was entirely free to vote ac 
 cording 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 can 
 didate upon whom his favor might fall. 
 
 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 Clay , 8 eup . 
 that he would support Adams. Crawford ^^^3 
 was a man of exhausted powers, unfit physi- charge of bar- 
 cally and mentally to discharge the duties of ruption. 
 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 Penn 
 sylvania, Kremer by name, gave it out in public print 
 that there was a bargain between Adams and Clay, ac 
 cording 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 dele 
 gations from Ohio and Kentucky in the House had 
 declared their intention of supporting Adams. The 
 small mind of Kremer could not conceive of this atti 
 tude on the part of Clay save from the point of view of 
 selfish interests. Clay immediately called for an inves 
 tigation of the charge by the House, but Kremer sneaked 
 out of it. 
 
 On February 9th, 1825, the two Houses of Congress 
 met in joint assembly to count the electoral vote. It 
 
142 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 was immediately found that no candidate had a ma 
 jority, and that, therefore, the choice lay with the 
 House. The House, on the same day, and 
 on the first ballot, elected Adams. The del- 
 fe e P r?s?n e ta f egations from thirteen of the twenty-four 
 tives - Commonwealths voted for him. The dele 
 
 gations 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 elec 
 toral votes, to himself and to Clay, and from three of 
 the Commonwealths which had given the majority of 
 their electoral vote to Jackson. 
 
 The twelfth day of February, 1825, is the date in Mr. 
 Adams s 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 ac 
 count 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 deter 
 mined opposition to the administration would be organ 
 ized from the outset ; that the opposition would use the 
 name of General Jackson as its head ; and that the admin 
 istration 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/ 
 
 Exactly who the Calhounites were at that moment, as 
 
 distinct from the followers of Adams and Clay, is dim- 
 
 cult to determine, since all the electors who 
 
 the h OTgtniza- voted for Adams for President also voted for 
 
 1 : Calhoun for Vice-President, except eight 
 tion party. e i ec tors f rom Connecticut and one from New 
 Hampshire, and of the thirty-seven electors who voted 
 
THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1824 143 
 
 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 No sufficient evidence has ever been produced to con 
 vince a judicial mind that Adams and Clay had come to 
 any understanding in regard to this matter 
 either before Clay announced publicly that bJween ar ciay 
 he should support Adams, or afterward. But meV^uTpi- 
 men generally do not have judicial minds. cion 
 "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 advan 
 tage of it. Conscious as both Adams and Clay doubt 
 less 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 cor 
 rectly 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 sub 
 stantiate 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. 
 
144 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 The opposition began at once their attack in the 
 
 Senate under the issue of Clay s appointment. Fifteen 
 
 clay s nomi- ^ ^ IQ ^ or ty - one Senators present voted 
 
 nation to the against it. Among the fifteen was Jackson, 
 
 Secretaryehi p & 
 
 of state in the who, upon his way, a few days later, from 
 Washington to his home in Tennessee, re 
 peated and re-enlivened the charge of " bargain and cor 
 ruption." It is more than probable that Jackson be 
 lieved 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 fre 
 quently met with, and it is a most dangerous force with 
 which to deal. The " Old Hero " possessed it in an 
 extraordinary degree. 
 
 Despite the fact that there were no material differ 
 ences in political principles, and the further fact that 
 Adams retained Monroe s cabinet so far as 
 
 The compo 
 sition of the he could, appointing new members only to 
 
 new Anti-ad- . ,, . , .. . J 
 
 ministration the positions made vacant therein by his own 
 and Calhoun s promotion to the presidency 
 and the vice-presidency, and by Crawford s refusal to ac 
 cept the Treasury for another term, it was now per 
 fectly evident that Jackson, Calhoun, and Crawford, 
 with their followers, were determined upon an organized 
 opposition to the Adams-Clay Administration, no mat 
 ter 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. 
 
CHAPTEE VII. 
 
 THE DIVISION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 
 
 Personal Differences, and Party Division Military Confederation 
 of the Spanish- American States Invitation to the United 
 States to send Representatives to the Congress at Panama The 
 Acceptance of the Invitation Opposition in the Senate to the 
 sending of Representatives to Panama Popular Sympathy in 
 the United States for the South - American States The 
 President s Nominations Confirmed The Haytian Question 
 at the Congress Cuba and Porto Rico Real Nature of the 
 Opposition to the Panama Mission The Failure of the Panama 
 Congress Adams on Internal Improvements in his Message of 
 December 6th, 1825 Van Buren s Resolution against Internal 
 Improvements The Practices of the Adams Administration in 
 respect to Internal Improvements The Chief Practical Diffi 
 culty in the way of a National System of Internal Improve 
 mentsThe Tariff of 1824 a Failure The Tariff Bill of 1827 
 Development of the Industrial Antithesis between the North 
 and the South Hostility to the Measure in South Carolina 
 The Tariff of 1828 The Character of the Bill as Reflected in 
 the Analysis of the Vote Upon It The Tariff of 1828 not a 
 Complete Party Measure The Presidential Campaign of 1828 
 still Dominated by Personal Considerations Election of Jack 
 son Advent of the Parvenus Foreign Affairs under Jackson s 
 Administration The Democratic Party and its Divisions. 
 
 IN" the absence of any well-defined differences in 
 political opinions, and in the state of determined per- 
 10 
 
146 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 sonal hostility between the leaders developed by the 
 
 election of 1824, the fact that Adams and Clay took 
 
 broad national views, placed a liberal construc- 
 
 ferences, and tion upon the Constitution, and insisted upon 
 
 party division. . * , 
 
 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 wel 
 fare, 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. 
 
 One of the most patent indications of the correctness 
 of the proposition that the opposition in principle be 
 tween the National Republican party and the Demo 
 cratic party, as the Administrationists and the Anti-ad- 
 ministrationists 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 rela 
 tions with which the Adams Administration had to deal 
 in the years 1825 and 1826. 
 
 The Spanish Americans had taken the cautious utter 
 ances of President Monroe, in his December message of 
 s anish- 1823, for much more than he meant them. 
 American in- They thought, or prof essed to think, that the 
 
 terpretations J 6 r > 
 
 of "the Mon- Government had pledged itself to meet 
 
 roe Doctrine." . , ,. * jr * -n j T j> 
 
 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 pro 
 nounced 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 sub- 
 
THE DIVISION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 147 
 
 stantial aid from the United States in the further course 
 of their struggle with Spain and her possible allies. 
 
 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 Militar 
 with Peru, bearing date of July 12th, 1823, confederation 
 
 .,,;?,.,. , .. J , of the Span- 
 
 by another with Chili ot the same date, by 
 
 another with the United Provinces of Cen 
 tral America, of April 12th, 1825, and by another with 
 Mexico, of September 20th, 1825, the Eepublicof Colom 
 bia had established a military confederation between 
 these five states, and had pledged them to send plenipo 
 tentiaries 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." Accord 
 ing 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. 
 
 During the spring of the year 1825 the Ministers of 
 Colombia and Mexico sought Mr. Clay, and communi 
 cated to him the desires of their respective Inyit tio 
 governments to have the United States send the United 
 
 , . . States to send 
 
 representatives to this proposed congress ; representa- 
 
 \ , ,. . . ,, -, | . ., , . tives to the 
 
 but before giving the formal invitation they congress at 
 asked to know if it would be accepted. They l 
 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. 
 
 Clay s genial spirit was much excited by the grand 
 prospect of a league of the American states under the 
 
148 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 in 
 vitation to send representatives to the congress, to be 
 held the following October at Panama, would be accept- 
 
 The Presi- e & D J the United States. The President, 
 ff to accept however, proceeded rather cautiously. He 
 the invitation. 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 responsi 
 bility. 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 diplo 
 matic 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 in 
 quiries, 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 prosecu 
 tion. 
 
 The answers to these inquiries were not received until 
 the following November, and in Mr. Clay s letter ac- 
 
 The acce t- knowledging their receipt, they were said 
 anceonhem- to be not entirely satisfactory to the Presi 
 dent. The ministers were informed, how 
 ever, that the President had resolved to send commis- 
 
THE DIVISION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 149 
 
 sioners 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 neu 
 trality of the United States. 
 
 As a matter of fact, the replies from the Governments 
 of Colombia and Mexico to President Adams s questions 
 would have been regarded as highly unsatis 
 factory by any judicious mind, entirely un- dent too hasty 
 committed ; for, while they left the Presi- a 
 dent 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. 
 
 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 opposition 
 Senate of the United States by the Presi- 
 dent s message of December 26th, 1825, ask- 
 ing the Senate to approve his nominations of ma - 
 Richard 0. Anderson and John Sergeant as ministers 
 from the United States to the "Assembly of American 
 Nations at Panama," a very strong opposition to the pro 
 ject 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. 
 
 The committee, which was the regular committee on 
 
150 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 com 
 promise the neutrality of the United States, and involve 
 the United States in entangling connections with for 
 eign powers. This report was made to the Senate on 
 January 16th, 1826. The Senate debated, in secret ses 
 sion, the questions involved in the report during the lat 
 ter 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 mili 
 tary 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 repre 
 sentatives to the congress was, that the congress was 
 only a meeting, in one place, of the plenipotentiaries of 
 the diiferent 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. 
 
 The strong sympathy of the people of the United 
 States for the cause of independence in Middle and South 
 
 Popular America really violated the spirit of neutral - 
 th^Unlte d ity, and the influence of this sympathy upon 
 lou- AmlS tne 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. 
 
 The friends of the mission at last won the day by a 
 vote of twenty-four to nineteen. Fifteen Northern 
 
 The Presi- Senators voted to send representatives to the 
 Sons So 1 ?- congress, and seven voted against doing so. 
 Nine Southern Senators voted to send repre 
 sentatives, and twelve voted against doing so. This 
 
THE DIVISION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 151 
 
 vote hardly sustains the claim of certain of the his 
 torians, that the slavery interest was the primal cause 
 of the opposition to the Panama mission. N O in flu - 
 One of the most eminent among these says ^ perceptl- 
 that the historical significance of the contest 
 over the question was that slavery threw inations - 
 aside its municipal character, its character as a Common 
 wealth 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 in 
 terest 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 outre to an American lawyer. The 
 Constitution of the United States imposed the interna 
 tional protection of all such interests and institutions 
 upon the general Government when it reserved such in 
 terests and institutions to the jurisdiction of the Com 
 monwealths 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 Consti 
 tution and the country. 
 
 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 The Hay- 
 true that Hayti had been for thirty years in jj*^" 68 ^ 
 a state of chronic insurrection and revolution, s res8 - 
 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 
 
152 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 them 
 selves or their families to be made subject to any such 
 fate ; and, it may be confidently hazarded, that no North 
 erner, at that day, viewed such possibilities with any 
 thing 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-contin 
 ued, 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 influ 
 ence 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 bet 
 ter. At least, the Haytian question was no chief ground 
 of opposition to the mission, and certainly no chief 
 ground in favor of the mission. 
 
 It is more probable that one of the reasons which 
 moved President Adams and Mr. Clay to urge attend- 
 cuba and ance upon the congress was to be in a posi- 
 Porto Rico. j on to res t r ain 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 resub jugate them, and would by a continuance of 
 hostilities exasperate them and excite them to attack 
 
THE DIVISION OF THE EEPUBLICAN PARTY 153 
 
 Cuba and Porto Kico 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 at 
 tempt 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 Al 
 liance to the aid of the Spanish King for the resubjection 
 of his former American colonies. The policy of Presi 
 dent Adams s Administration was clearly opposed to the 
 occupation of Cuba arid Porto Eico, either by the Span 
 ish Americans or by any European state other than 
 Spain herself. In this matter, also, the Administration 
 and the opposition held the same view. 
 
 The only natural explanations of the determined op 
 position to the Panama mission were, thus, either the 
 dread of embarrassing entanglements with 
 the Spanish- American states, and the conse- of^he n a ppo- 
 quent compromise of the status of neutrality Panama miS 
 toward them and their motherland, or the sion< 
 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 ut 
 tered 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, af 
 ter a hard battle ; but if they had only taken the other 
 side and refused the mission, we should have had 
 them." 
 
 The debate continued so long, however, that the con 
 gress at Panama adjourned to Tacubaya before the rep- 
 
154 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 resentatives from the United States appeared. Spain 
 ceased to wage war against her former colonies. The 
 Holy Alliance did not interfere. The Span- 
 of the Panama ish- American states suspended their opera 
 tions against Cuba and Porto Rico. Hayti 
 remained in isolated barbarism. And the congress of 
 the American nations never reassembled. 
 
 It is possible that the jingo policy of the Administra 
 tion 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 en 
 tanglements 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 ac 
 complished. 
 
 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 protec 
 torate 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 na 
 tions. 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 suf 
 ficiently consolidated and powerful to assume the duties 
 of instructor and guardian over them. It is not prob 
 able that any opportunity for doing good or receiving 
 good was lost by the non-attendance of representatives 
 
THE DIVISION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 155 
 
 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 The question of internal improvements was a better 
 issue, from this point of view. In his first annual mes 
 sage President Adams took high national A dams on 
 ground upon this subject. (Jle seemed to 
 attribute to the general Government un- 
 limited power to construct roads and canals, 6th 1825 - 
 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 s ideas. While 
 Mr. Van Buren, the leader of the opposition in the Sen 
 ate, offered a resolution in that body, a fort 
 night after the message, which declared that 
 Congress did not possess the power to make 
 roads and canals within the respective Com- ment8 
 monwealths, and proposed the formation of an amend 
 ment to the Constitution, which should prescribe the 
 powers that the general Government should have over 
 the subject of internal improvements. 
 
 Mr. Adams seems to have yielded before the opposi 
 tion in this matter, and to have thus avoided 
 making it a further issue. In his subse- tices of the 
 
 T r> -i -i TAT./I Adams Ad- 
 
 quent messages he confined himself chiefly to ministration 
 observations upon the work done by the en- intern?i ect im- 
 gineers appointed under the Congressional P rovements - 
 Act of April 30th, 1824, for making surveys, plans, 
 
156 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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, or 
 ganized under Commonwealth law, and subject to Com 
 monwealth 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 emi 
 nent domain. 
 
 The opposition, however, which had been excited at 
 first by Mr. Adams s proposition to make a large ad 
 vance 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 Ad 
 ministration chiefly from this point of view. This at 
 titude must not yet, however, be ascribed wholly or 
 chiefly to the conscious influences of the slavery inter 
 est. 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 ten 
 sion of war and the enthusiasm of strong national ex 
 ertion, did more to determine it than the views of the 
 slaveholders in regard to the interests of their peculiar 
 institution. 
 
 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.. Natu- 
 
THE DIVISION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 157 
 
 rally 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 The chief 
 and his board of engineers the laving out practical diffi- 
 
 . culty in the 
 
 oi such routes as the President might decide way of a na- 
 
 -. -11,1 n tional system 
 
 to be required by the general welfare, the of internal im- 
 
 scramble for national money to be expended pro 
 
 for local purposes increased from one session to another. 
 
 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. 
 
 The great purpose of the Tariff of 1824 was to give the 
 American manufacturers of coarse woollens a substan 
 tial control of the home markets. In two The Tarfff 
 years of trial this result had not been real- of 1824 a fau- 
 ized. A vast amount of capital had been 
 transferred from other enterprises to build new woollen 
 mills, and the markets were so glutted with their fab 
 rics 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 bonaftde American mer 
 chants, 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 prac 
 tically 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 
 
158 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 manufacturers of woollens in New England and Penn 
 sylvania memorialized Congress, during the latter part 
 of the year 1826, representing themselves to be in dire 
 distress and praying for aid. These memorials were re 
 ferred to the Committee on Manufactures of the House 
 of Eepresentatives for report. On January 10th, 1827, 
 the chairman of this committee, Mr. Mallary, of Ver 
 mont, introduced a bill to meet the difficulties above 
 described. 
 
 This bill proposed to introduce a system of minimal 
 valuations at the custom-house instead of taking the 
 
 The Tariff foreign invoice as the basis for the levy of 
 BUI of 182T. th e duty, as was the existing practice, and it 
 placed the valuation of coarse woollens so high as prac 
 tically 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 valua 
 tions. 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 or 
 der to secure the support of the West to the measure. 
 
 The industrial antithesis between the North and the 
 South became more exactly organized under the issue 
 presented by this bill. Massachusetts joined 
 ment of the the high protection ranks, and Kentucky 
 tithesis ia bT- went over to the side of the South. Mis- 
 North Lathi souri, however, still voted for the tariff, 
 South while New York City still preserved its atti 
 
 tude 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 Eepre 
 sentatives, Ingham and Buchanan. The attitude of 
 
THE DIVISION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 159 
 
 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 prac 
 tice 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. 
 
 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 The bin 
 been made since 1824 toward that result. Keof Rep- 
 The bill passed the House on February 10th, resentatives. 
 1827, but the Senate did not reach its consideration be 
 fore the conclusion of the session. 
 
 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 Hostility to 
 must trace the history of nullification in jjj e s uta e car!> 
 South Carolina. In the summer following lina - 
 the Congressional session of 1826-27 the chief person 
 ages of the Commonwealth assembled at Columbia. 
 The Governor, Mr. Taylor, presided, and the principal 
 orator of the occasion was the President of the Col 
 lege 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 
 
160 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 was calculated to give rise to the inquiry whether the 
 Union Avas of any benefit, under such conditions, to the 
 Southern Commonwealths. 
 
 Copies of these resolutions were sent to the legislative 
 
 bodies of the several Southern Commonwealths, but they 
 
 evoked no response whatsoever. The pro- 
 
 Thebillneg- . ^ , , , ,, 
 
 lected by the posed tanii 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. 
 
 At the beginning of the next session of Congress, 
 that of 1827-28, the Committee on Manufactures brought 
 The Tariff i n another bill. It advanced the duty on 
 iron by from ten to fifteen per centum ; it ad 
 vanced the duty on wool by from about fifty to more than 
 one hundred per centum, imposing both a specific and 
 an ad valorem duty upon it. It changed the duty upon 
 woollen goods costing less than $2.50 a square yard from 
 an ad valorem to a specific duty, and increased the duty 
 by about twenty per centum. It retained the ad va 
 lorem duty on woollens costing more than $2.50 a square 
 yard, and increased the same by about twenty per cen 
 tum, 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 imme 
 diately, and by about eighty per centum in three years. 
 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 substan 
 tial benefit out of the measure. Mr. Mallary, the chair- 
 
THE DIVISION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 161 
 
 man 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, how 
 ever, 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. 
 
 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 hot widen the domestic mar 
 ket for raw cotton. It would increase the price of wool 
 len 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 discern 
 ible, 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. 
 
 Some of the Southerners, like Colonel Hayne, frankly 
 replied that they could not establish manu- The gouth 
 f actures with slave labor ; while others, like emers not yet 
 Mr. McDuffie, threatened ruin to the North- lYare iab & or 
 ern manufacturers if they succeeded in hav- employed 1 in 
 ing the duties raised so high as to drive the manufacture - 
 South, with its cheap slave labor, into manufactures. 
 11 
 
162 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 The vote in the House of Representatives reflects 
 quite perfectly the character of the bill. The members 
 The charac- from the wool- and hemp-growing sections 
 aTrffle^Vin supported the bill ; those from the manu- 
 te voKpon facturing section were indifferent ; those 
 it- from the shipping and commercial sections 
 
 opposed it ; and those from the planting section opposed 
 it unanimously. 
 
 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. 
 
 While thus it cannot be said that the " Jackson 
 men " voted against this bill and the Administration men 
 
 The Tariff for it, still there was something which looked 
 ownpiete n pai? ^6 an approach, toward this relation. Cer- 
 t y measure. tainly the Southern wing of the Jacksonians, 
 or of the Democratic party, as the Jacksonians now called 
 
THE DIVISION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 163 
 
 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. 
 
 The party divisions of 1828 were still largely domi 
 nated 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. 
 
 The campaign of 1828 was not fought upon the issues 
 of any well-established differences in political and eco 
 nomic policies. Jackson and his followers The resi _ 
 simply appealed to the mass of the people, denttai cam- 
 
 11 paign of 1828 
 
 especially to the lower classes, "to turn the star dommat- 
 rascals out," on the ground that the "Old coSKSS^- 
 Hero," the friend of the people, had been t 
 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. 
 
 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 Election of 
 of Mason and Dixon s line, except Delaware Jackson - 
 and Maryland, gave its electoral vote entire to Jackson 
 and Calhoun ; and in addition thereto Pennsylvania 
 
164 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 gave them its entire vote, New York gave them twenty 
 of its thirty-six votes, Maine one of its nine, and Mary 
 land five of its eleven. 
 
 It was a tremendous bouleversement. The mob of 
 malcontents had gotten together, had pulled together, 
 Advent of an( l had accomplished their purpose. The 
 the parvenus. ^ ru ]i n g c i ass j n 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 intro 
 duction of a new class of eligibles into the official posi 
 tions. 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. 
 
 Jackson placed Van Buren at the head of the Depart 
 ment of State, and under the influence of this most as- 
 Foreign af- tute politician started out upon his presiden- 
 Jactoon sld- tial career. The foreign diplomacy of the 
 ministration. Administration was naturally successful. 
 The disputes with Great Britain in regard to the north 
 east boundary of the United States, and in regard to 
 trade between the United States and the British colo 
 nies, and the dispute with France in regard to in 
 demnity for the spoliations committed by the French 
 upon American commerce in the first years of the cen 
 tury, were successfully dealt with, by a judicious admi-xt- 
 ure of shrewdness, conciliatoriness, and firmness. These 
 questions were not, however, of sufficient importance to 
 
THE DIVISION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 165 
 
 turn the attention from the internal questions of con 
 stitutional interpretation and governmental policies. 
 
 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 TheDemo- 
 and to the working of the Government. J 5^ divL^ 
 The party was composed of three tolerably ions - 
 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 aristocra 
 cies. 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 Gov 
 ernment would allow. It was a great task for the Ad 
 ministration to maintain the combination, and keep a 
 reliable majority in Congress. 
 
4 
 
 CHAPTEE VIII. 
 
 DEMOCRATIC OPPOSITION TO INTERNAL IMPROVE 
 MENTS AND PROTECTION 
 
 Jackson s Ideas Concerning Internal Improvements The Maysville 
 Road Bill The Slavery Question not Involved in the Vote on 
 the Bill or in the Veto Railway Building Begun The Com 
 mencement of the Struggle for the Repeal of the Tariff of 
 1828 Jackson 011 the Tariff of 1828, in his First Annual Mes 
 sage George McDuffie as South Carolina s Political Economist 
 Dr. Thomas Cooper Mr. McDuffie s Tariff Bill The Tariff 
 Bill of 1830 McDuffie s Amendment McDuffie s Doctrine 
 that the Producers of Exports Pay Finally the Duties on the 
 Imports The Acceptance of Mr. McDuffie s Doctrine at the 
 South Growing Belief in the Incapacity of Slave Labor for 
 Manufacture The Tariff Pronounced Unconstitutional 
 Growth of the Protection Idea Jackson 011 the Tariff and 
 the Surplus Revenue Derived therefrom, in the Message of 
 December, 1830 Southern Disappointment "The South 
 Carolina Exposition " Calhoun s Doctrine of " States rights 
 Nullification in Theory The Nullification and Aiiti nullifi 
 cation Parties in South Carolina First Attempt to try the 
 Validity of the Tariff in the United States Courts Nullifica 
 tion and Rebellion Jackson s Message of December, 1831, 
 on the Tariff Issue The Bill from the Committee on Ways 
 and Means The Tariff Bill of 1832 from the Committee on 
 Manufactures Passage of the Tariff of 1832 by the House of 
 Representatives The t; American System." 
 
 IN his first annual message President Jackson referred 
 to the general dissatisfaction with the manner of deal- 
 
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PROTECTION 167 
 
 ing with the question of internal improvements which 
 had prevailed to that time, and proposed that the gen 
 eral Government should abandon the subject JackBOn B 
 entirely and should distribute the surplus of ideas concem- 
 
 ,i i ^ > xi n ing internal 
 
 the revenue, above the wants of the Govern- improve 
 ment, among the Commonwealths, and leave 
 to them the expenditure of the money upon internal 
 improvements. 
 
 The Congress, however, paid no regard to the Presi 
 dent s recommendation. In May, 1830, it sent up to 
 the President for his approval a bill author- The Mayg . 
 izing and requiring the Government to take ville Road Bill< 
 stock in a Kentucky turnpike, running from Maysville 
 on the Ohio River to Lexington, some sixty miles in 
 ward. 
 
 The President vetoed the bill, May 27th. His spe 
 cial reason was that the road was not a national, but a 
 local, matter. He did not attack the Mon- The veto of 
 roe principle upon the general subject of in- the blll> 
 ternal improvements, but he referred to the recommen 
 dation 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 na 
 tional 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 Govern 
 ment to undertake internal improvements, they should 
 
168 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 re 
 pair. This he declared to be necessary to any satisfac 
 tory exercise of powers upon the general subject by the 
 Government. 
 
 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. 
 
 The exact question at issue was not, as we have 
 seen, the general policy of internal improvements, but it 
 The s la- was whether the Maysville road was a na- 
 no7 uSvoived tional improvement. An analysis of the 
 te th bmOT in vote 1T P n tne Sllb j ect ma J not ; therefore, 
 the veto. 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 North 
 west 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 Repre 
 sentatives 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 un 
 compromising 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 pro 
 nounced it unconstitutional, and was inclined to the 
 
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PROTECTION 169 
 
 view,, as we have seen, that internal improvements gen 
 erally were left by the Constitution for the Common 
 wealths to construct and control. 
 
 It is usual to attribute to the veto of this bill the 
 overthrow of the policy of internal improvements bv the 
 general Government. This proposition will TOO much 
 hardly bear close examination. Congress 
 continued to make appropriations for inter- 
 nal improvements, which the President usu- 
 ally vetoed, if they were in separate bills, 
 
 L J cribed to the 
 
 and usually approved, if they were included veto. 
 in the general appropriation bills. It is calculated that 
 while Adams signed appropriations for internal im 
 provements 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. 
 
 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 building W 5e- 
 parent of the New York Central system, gun 
 was begun in 1825. In 1827 the survey of the Boston 
 and Albany line was begun. The same year the Penn 
 sylvania 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 na 
 tional money for internal improvements became more 
 and mom confined to the specific improvements of rivers 
 and Harbork. The roads and canals of a national char 
 acter were being made unnecessary by the extension of 
 
170 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 the railways. It is undoubtedly, then, far more plausi 
 ble 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 con 
 viction that the general Government did not have the 
 constitutional powers adequate to the successful estab 
 lishment and protection of a system of works based 
 upon that policy, and to the unsatisfactory experience 
 which the country had had in attempting to distin 
 guish local from national enterprises and to confine ap 
 propriations to those of the latter character. 
 
 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 con- 
 structionists 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 com 
 merce 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 con 
 nection between their peculiar interest and a policy 
 upon this subject by the general Government is dis 
 coverable. 
 
 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 con 
 trolling. 
 
 On February 10th, 1829, Mr. William Smith, the 
 senior Senator from South Carolina, presented to the 
 Senate the protest of the Legislature of South Caro- 
 
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PROTECTION 171 
 
 lina against Congressional protection to domestic man 
 ufactures. This memorial pronounced all such acts 
 to be unconstitutional, except as incidental The co in 
 to raising the revenue or regulating com 
 merce, and impolitic even then, when their 
 operation would be unequal upon the dif- Ofl82 8- 
 ferent sections of the country, and felt by any sec 
 tion 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 un 
 lawful resistance. The Legislature asked that the pro 
 test should be entered on the journal of the Senate. 
 The Senate, however, only ordered it to be printed. 
 
 The South Carolinians promised themselves, never 
 theless, some measure of relief from what they supposed 
 would be the policy of the newly elected President. Be 
 ing 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 exer 
 cised a prevailing influence in determining his attitude 
 toward the subject. 
 
 In his message of December 8th, 1829, he wrote 
 that the Tariff of 1828 had not proved itself so bene 
 ficial to the manufacturers or so iniurious 
 
 J Jackson on 
 
 to commerce and agriculture as had been an- Jig Tariff of 
 ticipated ; that he regretted that all nations fi r 8 1 annual 
 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 
 
172 THE MIDDLE PEKIOD 
 
 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. 
 Jackson s Evidently, according to this doctrine, the 
 Tariff a s tb a cn i e ^ reductions should fall upon articles 
 general policy. no t coming into competition with home prod 
 ucts, such articles as tea, coffee, etc., at that time 
 termed the unprotected articles. Jackson had thus an 
 ticipated Clay s American system of the tariff by nearly 
 three years, as we shall see. 
 
 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 Bep- 
 resentatives 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. 
 
 The claim was now put forward, however, that the 
 P r perly belonged to the domain of 
 
 Geor e MC 
 Duffle as south the Committee on "Was and Means. Mr. 
 
 George McDuffie, of South Carolina, was at 
 this moment the chairman of this commit 
 tee. He was a man of keen intelligence, strong cour- 
 
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PROTECTION 173 
 
 age, and great persistence. He was the political econ 
 omist 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 politi 
 cal economy from the notorious, if not fa- Dr Thomas 
 mous, Dr. Thomas Cooper, the British Pres- Co P er - 
 ident of South Carolina College. It is true that Mr. 
 McDuffiVs college days had passed before Dr. Cooper 
 taught in the institution, but the Doctor wrote and pub 
 lished much upon economic and political subjects be 
 tween 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 Eng 
 lishman 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 de 
 gree 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 rad 
 ical views and his violent expressions of them soon drew 
 attention to him here. He was one of the men pros 
 ecuted 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 Govern 
 ment 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 cul 
 pable 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. 
 
 Mr. McDuffie argued that the power to impose a tariff 
 
174 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 was not expressly vested by the Constitution in the Gov 
 ernment ; 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, con 
 tended 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. 
 
 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. Conse 
 quently, on February 5th, 1830, Mr. McDuffie 
 He s* Tariff 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 ad va 
 lorem upon woollen fabrics. 
 
 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 mod 
 erate tariff men, rather than out and out free traders. 
 To the unprejudiced mind of the present day it cer 
 tainly 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. 
 
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PROTECTION 175 
 
 Meanwhile the Committee on Manufactures were 
 very deliberately maturing a measure. It was reported 
 to the House early in April, and taken up The Tariff 
 for consideration on the loth. It was Biiiofisso. 
 nothing more than an administrative measure for the 
 purpose of securing a stricter execution of the existing 
 tariff. 
 
 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 oifered such an McDuffie s 
 amendment, which provided for a return to Amendment, 
 the duties imposed before 1824 upon woollens, cottons, 
 iron, hemp, etc. 
 
 It was in support of this amendment that he made his 
 famous argument of April 29th, 1830, in which he de 
 veloped, for the first time, the doctrine in re- McDuffle , g 
 gard to the final payment of the duties which doctrine that 
 furnished the economic basis of nullification, of 6 export? 
 That doctrine was that the producers of the the duties a ou 
 exports, which are exchanged in the foreign the imports - 
 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 de 
 clared it to be self-evident that when a producer of ex 
 ports 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. 
 
 Mr. McDuffie then drew from the statistics of the 
 foreign trade of the United States the fact that the sec 
 tions cultivating cotton and rice, constituting less than 
 
176 THE MIDDLE PEEIOD 
 
 one-fifth of the Union, both in territory and population, 
 produced thirty of the fifty-eight millions worth of an 
 nual 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. 
 
 If this were true it was indeed a grievous burden. And 
 if the people of the South, or that part of the South de- 
 The danger voted to the production of these staples, be- 
 lieved it to be true, then would the reason for 
 one g rea t scruple against resistance to the ex 
 ecution of the tariff laws be removed, namely, the gen 
 eral 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 gen 
 eral 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. McDufne, and, under the existing dis- 
 tribittion of the articles of export, there could not fail 
 to be aeveloped a most bitter sense of wrong and op 
 pression on the part of the producers of the Southern 
 staples. 
 
 The Southerners, especially the South Carolinians, did 
 embrace the new doctrine, apparently, at least, with all 
 sincerity. It was utterly futile that Mr. 
 ance of Mr. Gorham and Mr. Everett pointed out to them 
 doctrine at the the fact that they consumed only a compara 
 tively 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 
 
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PROTECTION 177 
 
 hearts were already too much attached to be drawn away 
 by argument. 
 
 It was in this speech, furthermore, that Mr. McDuffie 
 abandoned his former view of the capacity of slave labor 
 for manufacturing industry, and embraced Growin be 
 and enounced the doctrine held before this liefintheinca- 
 by Colonel Hayne upon that subject, which ISS/formaS 
 was that slave labor could only be employed l 
 successfully in agriculture. This was, of course, another 
 necessary element in the consolidation of the interests 
 of the South against the tariff. 
 
 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 un- The Tariff 
 constitutional, but only such a tariff as sacri- Sn^oSJtiti? 
 ficed one interest to another, or the interests tional - 
 of one section to those of another. This he claimed the 
 existing tariff did do. The belief in the unconstitution 
 ally of the tariff was, of course, another necessary ele 
 ment in the preparation for resistance to its execution. 
 
 Finally, Mr. McDuffie uttered, in this speech, the. 
 threat of resistance to the execution of the MC Duffle s 
 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. McDufnVs amendment was voted down. 
 
 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 pro 
 vided for a stricter enforcement of the existing laws. 
 
 By another bill, which received the President s 
 approval on May 20th (1830), eight days be- Growth of 
 fore this administrative bill was signed, the the protection 
 duties on tea, coffee, and cocoa had been re 
 duced. This meant that the protectionists were very 
 12 
 
178 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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. 
 
 In the message of December 7th, 1830, President Jack 
 son defended the constitutionality of the protective 
 Jackson on s J stem > sai( i that the existing tariff needed 
 thelurpfus some correc tions in details, and expressed the 
 revenue de- opinion that no law reducing duties could be 
 
 rived there 
 from, in the made which would be satisfactory to the 
 
 message of A 1,1 , , 
 
 December, American people that would not leave a con 
 siderable surplus in the Treasury. He sug 
 gested the employment of such surplus upon internal 
 improvements under the direction of the legislatures 
 of the several Commonwealths. 
 
 This was a stunning blow to the hopes of the South 
 erners. The extinction of the debt and the existence 
 southern ^ an unem ply e d surplus were the condi- 
 disappoint- tions to which they had looked forward as ne- 
 
 inent. . , , . . ,, * 
 
 cessitatmg in all conservative minds the re 
 duction 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 con 
 sider any propositions looking toward a reduction of 
 duties. 
 
 It is hardly a cause of wonder that the South Carolin 
 ians 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 
 
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PROTECTION 179 
 
 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. 
 
 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 ,, TheSouth 
 the paper which he furnished the South Car- Carolina ^EX- 
 olina Legislature, which served as the basis of 1 
 the first pronunciamento from that body upon the sub 
 ject, the so-called South Carolina Exposition. This 
 document by Mr. Calhoun was comparatively temperate 
 in its language and not very clear in its political doc 
 trines and its constitutional interpretation. The great 
 debate between Hayne and Webster on the floor of the 
 Senate, over which body Mr. Calhoun, as Vice-Presi- 
 dent, presided, in regard to the fundamental principles 
 of the Union, taught Mr. Calhoun several very impor 
 tant 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 " consti 
 tutional 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 caihoun s 
 on the Relations of the States and Federal W^fiYe? 
 Government," and in his "Address to the ri g ht8 -" 
 People of South Carolina," both published in the sum 
 mer of 1831, he shows that he had maturely reflected 
 upon all that had been said and written upon the fun 
 damental 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 Presi 
 dent. With him the question of the tariff had now, 
 
180 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 therefore, been removed from the domain of govern 
 mental policy into that of constitutional powers and 
 political principle. This was the point of view which 
 he took in the documents just mentioned. 
 
 He began, as innovators generally do, with the asser 
 tion 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 sov 
 ereign 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." Sov 
 ereignty w r as 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 in- 
 terpose, interpose individually, not collectively as they, 
 ( of course, might do constitutionally through the regu 
 lar form of procedure for amending the Constitution. 
 
 Calhoun, like ever} 7 other real statesman of his day, 
 r held that there is a domain of liberty secured not only 
 to the minority, but to the individual, by the Constitu 
 tion, 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 Govern 
 ment, from doing so. The answer to this question de 
 veloped by precedent, and formulated clearly by Web 
 ster 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 
 
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PROTECTION 181 
 
 Senate to fill them, and that they were interested, there 
 fore, in the usurpations of power by the Government. 
 He further held that these courts could not decide polit 
 ical questions, although these questions might incident 
 ally 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 re 
 sort, against governmental usurpation, save through the 
 power of "each of the parties to the com- Nullification 
 pact" to prevent the execution within the intbeor y- 
 territory subject to its jurisdiction of such governmental 
 measures as it might deem usurpations. 
 
 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, The nuiim- 
 had been able to prevent the outbreak of 
 nullification. The leaders of this party were 
 among the most distinguished and influential lina - 
 men of the Commonwealth. They were Mr. Dray ton, 
 the member of Congress from the Charleston district, 
 Judge Johnson of the United States Supreme Court, 
 Mr. Pettigrew, 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 gov 
 ernment 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 man- 
 
182" THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 ner, 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 accom 
 plished. 
 
 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 at 
 tempt to modify the tariff, they prevented the nullifies 
 from securing a sufficient majority in the Legislature to 
 order the call of a convention. The nullifiers had com 
 mitted 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. 
 
 But the publication of Calhoun s new doctrine in the 
 capture of summer of 1831 gave great strength to the 
 
 the municipal IT.C n . ., 
 
 government nulliners, and in the municipal election of 
 by tne a nuiiif the latter part of the year they captured 
 
 the mayor ship of Charleston. 
 
 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 usur 
 pation in any given case was a process in the United 
 First at- States courts. Unless they could say that 
 tn?a]idVof they had tried this means in vain, they would 
 Si united sti11 have to suffer the imputation of too hasty 
 states courts. ac ti n, 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, 
 
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PROTECTION 183 
 
 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 sub 
 mitted 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. 
 
 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 re 
 bellion. They said that no true South Carolinian could 
 accept the first, and that, therefore, the Nullification 
 choice lay between nullification and rebel- and "beuion. 
 lion. 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 as 
 serted 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 sus 
 pend the operation of a Congressional act upon its citi 
 zens which it considered unconstitutional, until conven 
 tions 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. 
 
 The Unionists, however, branded the doctrine as a 
 deception. An editorial in one of their principal news 
 papers contained this sentence : " But this everlasting 
 cant of devotion to the Union, accompanied by a recom 
 mendation to do those acts that must necessarily destroy 
 
184 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 it, is beyond patient endurance from a people not abso 
 lutely confined in their own mad-houses/ It was clear 
 to them, at the outset, that nullification was piecemeal 
 secession and rebellion. 
 
 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 
 
 Jack son s 
 
 message of message was laid before the two Houses. It 
 1831, on t h e 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 pub 
 lic 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 pro 
 duce 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 manufact 
 urer required that the change should be prospective. 
 
 There was no suggestion in the message of increasing 
 the expenditures of the Government for internal im 
 provements, or for any other purpose. The plain in 
 ference 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. 
 
 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 
 
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PROTECTION 185 
 
 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 wliich 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 Commit 
 tee on Commerce, since the power to impose The queg . 
 duties was incident either to the raising of proper f 
 revenue or to the regulation of commerce. Jmme li 
 The result of the contention was that a reso- Bills - 
 lution was introduced, and taken up, requesting the Com 
 mittee 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. 
 
 The bill from the Committee on Ways and Means pro 
 vided for the reduction of the duty to twelve and one- 
 half per centum ad valorem on all articles ; _ 
 on some, immediately and totally, but on the from the com- 
 
 ,. , i 11 -, mittee on 
 
 more important articles gradually, and in a ways and 
 period of a little more than three years. 
 
 This was undoubtedly an ill-digested measure. It 
 was not only a radical reduction of duties, but it was an 
 indiscriminate reduction. Mr. McDumVs own com 
 mittee were not unanimous in recommending it. 
 
 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 The Tariff 
 Treasury, of December 7th, 1831, and pro- gin of 1332 
 
 , ,, J . fromtheCom- 
 
 posed the repeal of the existing system of mittee on 
 
 1 . . , , L . . J Manufactures. 
 
 minimal valuations and the duty on coarse 
 
 wool altogether, and a slight reduction of the duties 
 
 on fine wool and woollen fabrics. 
 
186 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 It was calculated that Mr. Adams s bill would reduce 
 the receipts from the customs by about five or six mill 
 ions of dollars, leaving thus still an annual surplus of 
 some five or six millions after the extinguishment of 
 the debt. 
 
 Mr. McDuffiVs 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 s bill was then taken up. It was understood 
 as proposing a slight reduction all around. It was in 
 tended 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 sub 
 mit to it. 
 
 The House, however, was neither convinced by his 
 
 argument nor intimidated by his threat. It passed 
 
 Paesage of the bil1 on Jnne 28th > b J a lar ge majority, a 
 
 1832 T b a y rii th e m ^ 0rit y f m re than *WO to One. 
 
 rcsentatfve? 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 manu- 
 
 factures a system of permanent high duties, and for 
 
 abolishing, or greatly reducing, the duties upon all other 
 
 articles. 
 
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS AKD PROTECTION 187 
 
 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 man 
 ufacturing experience should affect. 
 
 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, TheAmer- 
 in his famous three days speech, to develop ican s y stem -" 
 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 corne 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. 
 
 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. 
 
188 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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, how 
 ever, 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. 
 
 On June 29th the House bill appeared in the Senate, 
 and was referred by that body to its Committee on 
 
 The bill in Manufactures. On July 2nd Mr. Dickerson 
 the senate. reported from this committee the House bill, 
 with a series of amendments to it, proposed by the com 
 mittee. 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. 
 
 The House of Representatives refused to concur in 
 some of the amendments, and the measure was sent to 
 
 The bill as a Conference committee. This committee 
 finally passed, patched up a compromise, and the bill be 
 came a law on July 14th. 
 
 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. 
 
INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PROTECTION 189 
 
 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 cancella 
 tion, hoping for a general reduction of duties by some 
 thing 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 prac 
 tical 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 Sys 
 tem." 
 
 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 hope 
 lessly, 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 re 
 mains for us to trace briefly the history of the attempt 
 to apply it. Before, however, we can do this intelli 
 gently, we must consider the other political develop 
 ments of the year 1832, occasioned chiefly by the presi 
 dential election of that year, but affecting directly or in 
 directly the attitude of the Administration toward 
 events in South Carolina, and the attitude of Congress 
 toward the President in dealing with nullification. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE UNITED STATES BANK AND THE PRESIDENTIAL 
 CONTEST OF 1832 
 
 Jackson and the Bank in his First Annual Message Jackson s Re 
 lations to the Portsmouth Branch of the Bank Jackson s 
 Opposition in Principle to the Bank The Political Science of 
 the Constitution of 1787 Western Democracy The West and 
 the " Money Power " of the East" States rights " and the 
 Bank The Case of Brown and Maryland Democracy and 
 Socialism Benton s Attack on the Bank Benton Repulsed 
 Jackson and Benton The Bank and the People The Exist 
 ence of the Bank made a Political Issue Jackson s Second 
 Attack on the Bank Jackson s Plan for a Bank Benton s 
 Resolution against the Re-charter of the Bank Jackson s 
 Challenge to make the Continued Existence of the Bank the 
 Issue in the Campaign of 1832 The Challenge Accepted The 
 Bank s Petition for Re charter Benton s Charge of Illegal 
 Practices Passage of the Bill for Re-charter The Veto of the 
 Bank Bill The Bank and Foreign Powers The Bank and 
 the West The Bank and the Rich Structure and Powers of 
 the Bank Jackson on Executive Independence Von Hoist s 
 Criticism of the Veto Message The President s Real Meaning. 
 
 IK his first annual message, that of December 8th, 
 1829, President Jackson began his war upon the United 
 Jackson and States Bank. He declared in it that the con- 
 w!fiSt I Sm stitutionality and expediency of the law creat- 
 ai message. j n g fa e B an k were we ^ questioned by a large 
 portion of the people; and that its failure to establish a 
 sound and uniform currencyj the great end of its ex 
 istence, must be admitted by all. 
 
THE UNITED STATES BANK 191 
 
 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 
 
 Jackson s 
 
 documents referred to m that report, recent relations to 
 historians attribute President Jackson s first mouth branch 
 attack upon the United States Bank to a per 
 sonal feud between his friends in New Hampshire and 
 Mr. Webster s friends there. 
 
 Senator Levi Woodbmy, of New Hampshire, the 
 leader of the Jackson party in New Hampshire, endeav 
 ored, in the summer of 1829, to have Jeremiah Mason, 
 Mr. Webster s great friend, removed from the pres 
 idency of the branch of the United States Bank at Ports 
 mouth, 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, re 
 moved 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 Treas 
 ury, Mr. Ingham, asked Mr. Biddle, the president of the 
 United States Bank, to have Mason removed, and his Sec 
 retary 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. 
 
 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 re- 
 
192 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 solved 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 s ideas of Jackson s attitude 
 in the Bank question, and that the historians have writ 
 ten the account of the Bank controversy under the in 
 fluence of Adams s representations. 
 
 There is undoubtedly some truth in this view of the 
 matter, but it is far from being the whole truth. It is 
 Jackson s n ot even that part of the truth which is 
 $\S to most valuable to the student of American 
 
 Bank. history. There was an opposition in prin 
 ciple to the United States Bank, as well as a personal 
 conflict between leaders in regard to it. That oppo 
 sition in principle was the opposition of et States rights " 
 democracy to centralized privilege. 
 
 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 pub 
 lic 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 re 
 sult. 
 
 The political science or theory upon which the Con 
 stitution of 1787 was founded was thoroughly English. 
 The political ^ recognized social distinctions, and its most 
 constitution fundamental principle was compromise be- 
 ofiT87. tween conflicting interests. It was substan 
 
 tially in harmony with social conditions, on the one side, 
 
THE UNITED STATES BANK 193 
 
 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 Consti 
 tution 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 set 
 tlement 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 dis 
 tinction between the rich and the poor could not at first 
 exist, or be, for many years, developed ; and the distinc 
 tion 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 re 
 sults of the levelling experiences of the camp, the wilder 
 ness, 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 pro 
 duced, which began after 1820 to make itself western 
 powerfully felt in modifying the original con- Democracy, 
 servative principles of the institutions of the country. 
 Connect with these new social conditions, and the po- 
 13 
 
194 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 litical principles evolved out of them, the fact that the 
 West, like all new countries,, had little money or capital, 
 
 The west and was a constant borrower from the East, 
 "money ww- in order to furnish itself with roads, imple- 
 er"oft ast. ments, means of transportation, and manu 
 factured articles, and we have the forces and the inter 
 ests 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. 
 
 The " States rights " opposition to the Bank had 
 been aroused more than a decade before Jackson s mes- 
 
 states sa e of 1839 \The Bank and its branches 
 il gh - 8 "i and were the sole depositories of the funds of 
 
 tne Bank. A 
 
 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 
 r><^ payment. It was one of the purposes for which Con 
 gress 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 re 
 spective 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 Common 
 wealths. 
 
 In 1818 the Legislatures of Ohio and Maryland im 
 posed 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. 
 
THE UNITED STATES BANK 195 
 
 In the February term of 1819 the Supreme Court of 
 the United States decided the famous case of Brown 
 and Maryland, declaring the act of Congress The cage 
 creating the Bank constitutional, and the Brown and 
 act of the Maryland Legislature undertak 
 ing 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 direc 
 tors 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 en 
 tirely from its unlawful demand. 
 
 This defeat of the " States rights" attack, and the ex 
 cellent 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. 
 
 It was during this period, however, that the " State 
 socialistic " characteristic of radical democracy received 
 a strong development in the Commonwealth Democracy 
 of Kentucky, through the relief measures anasociai- 
 for debtors ; which measures threatened to 
 destroy the constitutional guarantees of private prop 
 erty. 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 
 
196 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 " anti-relief " party elected a majority of the legislative 
 members, and the new Legislature repealed the act es 
 tablishing the new court. 
 
 Jackson s friends in Kentucky belonged almost ex 
 clusively to the " relief party," and it is hardly fanciful 
 to attribute to this movement in Kentucky some influ 
 ence 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 man 
 aged for the benefit of the people. 
 
 On March 3rd, 1828, Senator Benton began his warfare 
 
 upon the Bank. He attacked its privilege of being 
 
 the depository of Government monev. He 
 
 Benton s at- . 3 , -, , , , ,, .. 
 
 tack on the 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 West 
 ern Democracy upon privilege, as being opposed to the 
 principle of universal equality. 
 
 There were, however, enough practical men in the 
 Senate who considered this privilege as only a fair com- 
 Benton re- pensation for the service rendered by the 
 pulsed. 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 inter 
 est on deposits, to reject Mr. Benton s resolution. Ben- 
 ton repeated his motion on January 1st, 1829, but with 
 no greater success. 
 After March 4th, 1829, the leadership of the party was 
 
THE UNITED STATES BANK 197 
 
 in the hands of the President, and Benton became Jack 
 son s lieutenant in the Senate. There had been per 
 sonal feuds between the two men, but they j ac k8onand 
 now harmonized politically, and in no point Benton - 
 did that harmony become more complete than in the 
 war against the Bank. 
 
 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 be 
 tween 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 exist 
 ence 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. 
 
 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 constitu 
 tionality and expediency of the law creating and he th?pe 
 the Bank, and it is certain that the Bank ple 
 was not considered by all to have failed in the estab 
 lishment of a sound and uniform currency. It is far 
 more probable that the people generally acquiesced in 
 
198 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 the decision of the Court pronouncing the Bank law 
 constitutional, and that the majority of the people, at 
 that moment,, regarded it as ^ood policy, and believed 
 that the Bank had fairly fu Hilled 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 extraordi 
 nary 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 Cpngress which seemed wise to him, 
 in regard to the re-charter of the Bank. That an ex 
 piring law is constitutional is not always a convincing 
 argument for its re-enactment. 
 
 The President s criticism occasioned an investigation 
 
 The exist- i n to the principle and status of the Bank, 
 
 Sank made 1 a an ^ brought the Bank question into the poli- 
 
 political issue. ticg Q f the da ^ 
 
 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 de 
 fending 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 remem 
 bered, Mr. McDuffie, the political economist of the 
 slavery interest. To his mind the Bank question had 
 evidently little connection with the slavery question. 
 
 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 
 second 8 att?ck a Government bank. His proposition was 
 ank for a bank as a branch of the Treasury De 
 partment, based on the deposits of the funds of the 
 Government and also on those made bv individuals, but 
 
THE UNITED STATES BANK 199 
 
 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. 
 
 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 re 
 quire no charter of incorporation, would plan for a 
 have neither stockholders, nor debtors, nor bank " 
 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 Gov 
 ernment 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 re 
 deemed 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 cor 
 poration of private persons, to be exercised for their 
 private gain. This will be at once recognized as a dem 
 ocratic, " States rights," socialistic scheme in the essen 
 tial elements of its composition. 
 
 Before the report of the Finance Committee of the 
 Senate upon this part of the message was presented 
 Senator Benton offered a resolution, on Feb- Benton , 8 
 ruary 2nd, 1831, which provided that the resolution 
 charter of the Bank ought not to be renewed, charter of the 
 In his speech supporting the resolution the * 
 senator developed the whole " States rights/ socialistic, 
 democratic argument against the Bank with great elab 
 oration, both in principle and in detail. 
 
200 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 insti 
 tution 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 ex 
 pire without any substitute being created for it. 
 
 The Senate was not, however, convinced by Mr. Ben- 
 ton s argument, and refused to allow him to introduce 
 his resolution. 
 
 In his message of December 6th, 1831, President Jack 
 son referred to what he had said in former messages 
 
 cha5e c n k l n to concernin g the Bank, and closed his allusion 
 
 make toe con- 
 
 ence ec o f The i n g thus conscientiously discharged a con- 
 
 eiauKBuirs v^ui^ci juiiig unc jutuiK, a-nu cioseti nis allusion 
 make toe con- with the following significant words : "Hav- 
 
 tinned pvisf:- , t 
 
 stitutional duty, I deem it proper, on this 
 1832 - occasion, without a more particular refer 
 ence to the views of the subject then expressed, to leave 
 it for the present to the investigation of an enlightened 
 people and their representatives/ 
 
 This language certainly seemed to imply that the 
 President would, so far as he was able, make the ques- 
 
 The chai- tion of the re - charter of tn e Bank one of the 
 ijnge accept- 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 Eepresentatives in Congress, a ma 
 jority 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. 
 
 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 
 
THE UNITED STATES BANK 201 
 
 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 Republi 
 cans for the presidency, was certain that under the is 
 sue 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 Janu 
 ary 9th, 1832, sent in the memorial for a re-charter. 
 
 Senator Dallas presented the memorial, but said that he 
 personally had discouraged its presentation at that junc 
 ture out of apprehension that the question 
 of the re-charter of the Bank might, at the pJiWon^o ? 
 moment, be drawn into real or imagined con- re - charter - 
 flict 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. 
 
 The Senate referred the petition for re-charter to a 
 committee composed of Mr. Dallas, Mr. Webster, Mr. 
 Ewing, Mr. Hayne, and Mr. Johnston. 
 
 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 Sen- C h?4e of m e- 
 ate, however, repelled the attack and refused gal P ractices - 
 to allow Mr. Benton to introduce his resolution declar 
 ing such drafts illegal. 
 
 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 the biiffor re- 
 existing charter in 1836. charter. 
 
202 . THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 of 
 fered 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 mo 
 ment 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 The veto message was a curious pot-pourri of strength 
 and weakness, of sound statesmanship and cheap dema- 
 The veto of gogism, of shrewd politics and silly common- 
 the Bank Bill. p} aces< \y e mav arrange its score of points 
 tinder 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 foreign 
 ers. 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 
 
THE UNITED STATES BANK 203 
 
 them, was in the United States, and therefore under the 
 control of the United States Government, could endan 
 ger 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 and foreign 
 to the ordinary mind that this would be an pov 
 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 ex 
 plained but is inexplicable. 
 
 The second object was apparently the excitement of 
 the West against the East. The President declared that 
 the West was being made financially tributary The Bank 
 to the East by the Bank. He presented the and tt>eWe 8 t. 
 statistics of stockholding and interest-paying throughout 
 the different sections of the country in proof of this state 
 ment. He affirmed that thirteen millions five hun 
 dred and twenty-two thousand dollars worth of the stock 
 was owned in the Northeastern and Middle Common 
 wealths, 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 
 
204 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 from the Northeastern and Middle Commonwealths, and 
 three hundred and fifty-two thousand and five hundred 
 and seven dollars of them from the Southern Common 
 wealths. 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. 
 
 The third object to which the President addressed 
 himself in the message was to call the attention of the 
 The Bank poor to the proposition that the Government 
 and the rich. was f avor i n g the rich through the Bank. The 
 President called the Bank a monopoly, which means 
 privilege conferred by Government on a few at the ex 
 pense 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 conse 
 quence 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 seven 
 teen millions for the charter, and that the money thus 
 acquired from the supposed stockholders by the Gov 
 ernment would effect the remission of just so much 
 taxation upon the people. The President saw also, 
 
THE UNITED STATES BANK 205 
 
 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 de 
 nounced 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 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 Presi- 
 
 Structure 
 
 dent objected to the unnecessarily large and powers of 
 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 poweXof the Bank to 
 coin money, as he called the power J#T issue its notes. 
 
 The final division of the messidge, according to our 
 arrangement, contains the disquisition upon the relation 
 of the departments of the Government to Jackgon on 
 each other in operating the Constitution, and executive in- 
 the relation of the general Government to the 
 Commonwealths in regard to jurisdiction over the busi 
 ness 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 co- 
 
206 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 ordinate authorities of the Government. "The Con 
 gress, the Executive, and the Court/ he said, " must 
 each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Con 
 stitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to sup 
 port 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 legisla 
 tive capacities, but to have only such influence as the 
 force of their reasoning may deserve." 
 
 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 pow 
 ers, and without infringing the powers of the Common 
 wealths ; 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. 
 
 One of the most celebrated historians of American 
 politics has indulged in a very severe criticism upon this 
 Von Hoist s part of the message, claiming that President 
 the^vet^mes- Jackson virtually asserted therein the power 
 sage. t initiate legislation, full co-ordination with 
 
 the Houses of Congress in legislation, and an indepen- 
 
THE UNITED STATES BANK 207 
 
 dence of Congress, and especially of the Judiciary, which, 
 in practice, would render constitutional law an impossi 
 bility./ 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 
 
 an examination, that the President meant dent s real 
 
 meaning. 
 
 that in the formation of administrative meas 
 ures by the Congressional committees in charge of the 
 same, the views of the Administration ought to be ob 
 tained ; that the President is not limited by the Con 
 stitution 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 Ju 
 diciary have declared it constitutional, nor even pre 
 vented from repealing a law, simply because the Judi 
 ciary 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. ; Conserva 
 tive American lawyers, jurists, and publicists approve all 
 of this as not only the letter but also the spirit of the 
 Constitution. 
 
 Instead of destroying the Constitution in theory by 
 the doctrine of this veto, it looks more as if the Presi 
 dent did something to rescue the " check and Jackson s 
 balance" system of government, provided in lS?utive n in- 
 the Constitution, from the threatened dom- de P endence - 
 ination of a single department over the others in it. 
 The fact is, Congress had succeeded, during the regime 
 of the old Republican party in American politics, in 
 winning a power over the President which the Consti 
 tution did not authorize. The members of Congress 
 had selected all of the Presidents, from Jefferson to 
 Jackson, either by nomination or by actual election. 
 
208 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 The machinery constructed by the Constitution for the 
 election of the President was wanting in its most neces 
 sary 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 na 
 tional assembly of persons in the country, and being the 
 chosen political leaders from the different Common 
 wealths, naturally glided into the habit of constituting 
 themselves, in caucus, the connecting link between the 
 electoral colleges jn 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 nomi 
 nation, or of so scattering their votes as to give no person 
 a majority, in which latter case the election of the Presi 
 dent 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 Representa 
 tives 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 indi 
 vidual members of Congress, exercised an ever increas 
 ing control over his acts and his policy. The encroach 
 ing legislature was fast developing the principle of 
 parliamentary government as the principle of the Ameri 
 can system, while the Constitution provides the principle 
 of executive independence and presidential administra 
 tion. 
 
 Again, the judicial department had appeared to as 
 sume the position that it possessed the supreme inter 
 
THE UNITED STATES BANK 209 
 
 preting 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 re 
 gard to questions primarily of political science, public 
 law, and even public policy. 
 
 The President s Bank veto called a halt in these ten 
 dencies, 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 am? the Congress, in the election which was 
 then about to take place. 
 
 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 prin 
 ciple of government banking, moved the masses, cer 
 tainly 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- al 
 together probable that an overwhelming majority would 
 have been found in its favor. Against the veto, how 
 ever, 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 coun 
 try with him in the unequal contest, and that the peo 
 ple had made the principles of the Jacksonian democ 
 racy the ruling spirit of the Constitution. 
 14 
 
CHAPTEK X. 
 
 NULLIFICATION 
 
 The Indian Question in Georgia The Indian Springs Convention 
 The Repudiation of the Agreement The Controversy be 
 tween the Administration and Georgia The Creek Convention 
 of 1826 The Governor of Georgia Repudiates the Convention 
 of 1826 The President Submits the Matter to Congress Geor 
 gia and the Cherokees Jackson and the. Indian Question 
 Indian Policy before Jackson The Case of the Cherokee 
 Nation The Case of Worcester against Georgia The Failure 
 of the President to Execute the Decision in the Worcester Case 
 Jackson and Calhoun The Call of the Convention of 1832 
 in South Carolina The Nullification Ordinance The Ad 
 dresses Issued by the Convention The Acts of the Legislature 
 of South Carolina for the Execution of the Ordinance The 
 Meaning of Nullification as Understood by the Nullifiers 
 Jackson s View of Nullification The President s Procla 
 mation of December 10th The President s Military Prepara 
 tions The President s Instructions to the Customs Officers in 
 South Carolina The Popular Approval of the President s 
 Course The Verplanck Tariff Bill Governor Hayne s Coun 
 ter-Proclamation The President s Message of January 16th, 
 1833 Calhoun s Explanations in the Senate The "Force 
 Bill" The Postponement of the Execution of Nullification 
 The Compromise Tariff Mr. Calhoun s Support of Mr. Clay s 
 Bill The Opposition to the Bill Passage of the " Force Bill" 
 by the Senate Passage of the Compromise Tariff Bill and the 
 * Force Bill " by Congress The Nullification Ordinance With 
 drawn. 
 
 BEFORE nullification was resolved upon in South Car 
 olina, something like it had been applied in Georgia. 
 
NULLIFICATION 211 
 
 In the year 1802 Georgia formally ceded the lands 
 claimed by the Commonwealth west of the Chatta- 
 hoochee River to the United States for the 
 sum of one million two hundred and fifty question TS 
 
 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. 
 
 Between 1 802 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 Common 
 wealth, 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 sentimen 
 talists, within the legal limits of the Commonwealth. 
 
 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 ex 
 tent ; 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 
 
212 1HE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 title, an incumbrance which the general Government 
 was obligated to remove ; and that, after the Govern 
 ment should discharge this duty, Georgia s title would 
 be perfect, without any formal transfer of these lands 
 to Georgia by the Government. 
 
 In 1819 the Legislature of Georgia memorialized Pres 
 ident Monroe to hasten the work of the Government in 
 The demand extinguishing the Indian claims. In the 
 - J ear 1824 tne Creek chiefs in council re- 
 s l ve( ^ that no ^ a ^^ ^ the l an( ls claimed 
 claims. by the Creeks should be relinquished. 
 
 Nevertheless, President Monroe s administration suc 
 ceeded, in February of 1825, in negotiating an agree 
 ment with certain of the Creek chieftains ac- 
 
 springs ^Cov- cording to which they relinquished to the 
 United States the Creek claims to all lands 
 lying within the limits of Georgia, and also to lands ly 
 ing to the northwest and to the west of the Common 
 wealth. This agreement was ratified by the Senate of 
 the United States in March of the same year. 
 
 The Governor of Georgia, Mr. Troup, immediately de 
 
 spatched the public surveyors to lay out the relinquished 
 
 territory. They were resisted by the Ind- 
 
 ation 6 of pu the ians, who declared their repudiation of the 
 
 agreement. agreement of February 12th with the gen 
 
 eral Government. 
 
 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 
 
NULLIFICATION 213 
 
 expected him to abandon the survey until it could be 
 made in accordance with the provisions of the agree 
 ment which allowed the Indians until September 1st, 
 1826, for their removal, and guaranteed them against all 
 encroachments before that date. 
 
 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 versy between 
 defence of his position. He claimed that trationand 
 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 re 
 lieved by it of an incumbrance, and that, therefore, no 
 additional act was necessary on the part of the Govern 
 ment to authorize Georgia to take possession and exercise 
 jurisdiction. He declared that he would not postpone 
 the survey, and advised the legislature of the Com 
 monwealth to defend Georgia s rights by armed re 
 sistance, which recommendation the legislature seemed 
 about to approve. 
 
 The President sent General Gaines to the scene of ac 
 tion, and authorized him to place the militia of the 
 Commonwealths adjoining Georgia in readiness for ser 
 vice. 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 pur 
 poses 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 
 
214 THE MIDDLE PEEIOD 
 
 firm, and the Governor was obliged to yield for the mo 
 ment. 
 
 The Administration was apparently convinced that 
 the agreement of 1825 was not fairly obtained, and, in 
 The creek J anuai 7 f 1826, entered into another agree- 
 ?826 Venti n f men t w ^h ^ e Creeks, which, while recogniz 
 ing the nullity of the agreement of 1825, se 
 cured the extinguishment of their claims to all lands in 
 Georgia lying east of the Chattahoochee, and to a consid 
 erable tract north and west of this river. The Ad 
 ministration 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. 
 
 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 
 
 . 
 
 or of Georgia all, perfected by the agreement of 1825. He 
 
 repudiates the n n . , -, -, . , , 
 
 convention of 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 Presi 
 dent 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 
 
NULLIFICATION" 215 
 
 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. 
 
 President Adams was deeply impressed with the 
 seriousness of the situation. He felt that he must up 
 hold the dignity and authority of the Gov- The 
 ernment at all hazards and by all the means 
 intrusted to him by the Constitution and congress, 
 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 mat 
 ter 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. 
 
 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 Georgia and 
 them to emigrate. In December of 1827, the Cherokees. 
 the legislature passed a law extending the criminal ju 
 risdiction 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 dis- 
 
216 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 creetly and courteously resolved not to embarrass the 
 new Administration by committing the Government to 
 any position in the question. 
 
 President Jackson was even less inclined than his 
 
 predecessor to allow the Indian question to resolve itself 
 
 into the question of the constitutional spheres 
 
 Ote*indi an of authority between the Union and the Com- 
 
 monwealths. 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 Common 
 wealth. 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 po 
 litical 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 ad 
 vice, and the council of chiefs resolved that no lands 
 claimed by the Cherokees should be relinquished, ex 
 cept 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. 
 
 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 
 
NULLIFICATION 217 
 
 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 un 
 molested. 
 
 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 Govern 
 ment 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. 
 
 The Administration of Mr. Adams, and the Adminis 
 trations of all of his predecessors, had apparently inclined 
 to the view that the Indian tribes were al- 
 
 ... Indian pol- 
 
 ready states, having dominion over, and icy before 
 
 Jackson 
 
 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 Gov 
 ernment of the United States could have anything to 
 do with them. 
 
 This was a crude and an impracticable view of the re 
 lation. It contained more of sentiment and humanitari- 
 anism 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 
 
218 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 even by judicial decisions. The necessities of civiliza 
 tion have forced the country to follow the course out 
 lined by President Jackson, and that is certainly good 
 evidence of its correctness. 
 
 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 liv 
 ing or being within the same % 
 
 The Indians then caused an original bill to be filed in 
 the Supreme Court of the United States against Georgia, 
 The case of together with a supplemental bill praying 
 Nation her kee ^ or a temporary injunction to restrain the 
 Commonwealth from enforcing its jurisdic 
 tion, and for the issuing of a subpoena to Georgia to ap 
 pear 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 quali 
 fied to sue in the United States Courts. This decision 
 was pronounced immediately after the execution of the 
 Cherokee Tassells by the Georgia authorities, in defi 
 ance 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. 
 
 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 vio- 
 
NULLIFICATION 219 
 
 lated the Georgia statute, which made it a criminal of 
 fence to reside among the Cherokees after March 1st, 
 1831, without a license from the Governor, The case of 
 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 peniten 
 tiary 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 dis 
 charged. 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 judg 
 ment, 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 prop 
 erly 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 jurisdic 
 tion of the Commonwealth over the Cherokee lands and 
 over all persons residing or being on them, unconstitu 
 tional, null, and void, and the arrest, trial, and sentence 
 of Mr. Worcester under the same to have been, there 
 fore, without warrant of law. 
 
 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 Com 
 monwealth pardoned him as his own act of grace. 
 
 It was certainly the duty of the President of the 
 
220 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 United States to have executed this decision of the 
 
 Court with all the power necessary for the purpose 
 
 which the Constitution conferred upon him. 
 
 The failure 
 
 of the Presi- He did not do it. It is said on very good 
 
 dent to exe- ,-,, , i ^ 
 
 cute the deci- authority that he intimated, at least, that 
 Worcester 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 de 
 mocracy, a real " States rights " principle. 
 
 There is no doubt that the South Carolinians were en 
 couraged by the course of events in Georgia to believe 
 
 Jackson and tliat tlie ^ woul(i have something like the 
 caihoun. same experiences and results in their con 
 test 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 unconstitution 
 ally 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. Caihoun was his defender. Jack 
 son 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 Caihoun was for arraigning him 
 and Adams was his defender. Jackson immediately de 
 manded an explanation of Caihoun, but the reply did 
 not at all satisfy him, and the hostility which he had 
 
NULLIFICATION 221 
 
 felt for Crawford was now turned with redoubled force 
 against Calhoun. Calhoun was now regarded by Jack 
 son as a traitor to Jackson, and that meant, in Jackson s 
 mind, that he was a traitor to his country. Any move 
 ment against the Government or the laws of the United 
 States headed by Calhoun would be considered by Jack 
 son as rebellion, most surely so while Jackson was Presi 
 dent. 
 
 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 The ca]J of 
 of South Carolina, in the autumn of 1832, the conven- 
 for the purpose of effecting through it the south caro- 
 assembly of the convention of the Com 
 monwealth. The party in favor of nullification had at 
 last secured both branches of the Legislature, and on 
 October 24th, 183-2, the assembled Legislature voted to 
 issue the call for the convention, and appointed Novem 
 ber 19th as the day upon which it should meet. 
 
 The convention assembled at the time designated, 
 elected Governor Hamilton as its chairman, and ap 
 pointed a committee of twenty -one mem- The work of 
 bers to consider the situation and report ^ O e n 
 a proposition to meet it. In due time this tion - 
 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 pro 
 tection of manufactures, of the ten years of fruitless 
 struggle in Congress by the South against the oppres 
 sion inflicted by the protective system upon that section, 
 and of the theories advanced by the fathers of the Re 
 public for meeting, in last instance, such a condition of 
 affairs ; and, second, the famous Ordinance of Nullifica 
 tion as the remedy of last resort. The convention voted 
 to receive the report and to adopt its recommendations. 
 
222 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 On November 24th the convention passed, in solemn 
 form, the Ordinance of Nullification of the existing 
 tariff laws of the United States. 
 
 The convention declared and ordained in this instru 
 ment, that " the several acts and parts of acts of the 
 Congress of the United States, purporting to 
 
 The Nullifi- , , <. ,-, . . ,. A , -, 
 
 cation ordi- be laws tor the imposing oi duties and im 
 posts on the importation of foreign commo 
 dities, 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, con 
 tracts, 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." 
 
 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 in 
 volving 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 pro 
 ceed 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 
 
NULLIFICATION 223 
 
 oath to obey, execute, and enforce the Ordinance, under 
 penalty of dismissal and disqualification, and finally, it 
 declared that South Carolina would regard her connec 
 tion 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 Common 
 wealth, or enforce the nullified acts otherwise than 
 through the civil tribunals of the country. 
 
 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 nulli 
 fied acts, and give full eif ect to the nullifying Ordinance, 
 from and after February 1st, 1833, and commanded the 
 obedience of all persons within the limits of the Com 
 monwealth to the Ordinance and the legislative acts 
 passed for its execution. 
 
 With the Ordinance the convention issued two ad 
 dresses, one to the people of South Carolina, and the 
 other to the peoples of the other Common- The Ad _ 
 wealths, naming each separately. The one to jjy e f h e | jf u d ~ 
 the people of South Carolina contained the vention - 
 theory of nullification, as elaborated by Calhoun, and 
 the justification of its employment in the existing situa 
 tion. 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 announce 
 ment 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 op 
 pression upon the people of South Carolina, and a dec 
 laration of the spirit and feeling of the convention, and 
 of the people it represented, toward the Union, the Con- 
 
224 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 stitution and the people of the manufacturing Com 
 monwealths. 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 com 
 ing 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. 
 In a message of November 27th, Governor Hamilton 
 The Ordi- communicated to the legislature of the Com- 
 monwealth the Ordinance of Nullification 
 
 Legislature of an( j recommended the enactment of meas- 
 Una. ure s by that body for the execution of the 
 
 Ordinance. 
 
 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-presi 
 dency, might be made South Carolina s representative 
 in the Senate, or, as the South Carolinians now consid 
 ered it, South Carolina s ambassador to the Govern 
 ment 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. 
 
 The Legislature immediately passed the acts required 
 The Acts of by the convention and recommended by the 
 
 the Legisla- n. nvprrmr 
 ture for the vrOVei or. 
 
 th e e uti o n rd?- The first act, termed the Eeplevin Act, 
 nance. authorized any consignee of merchandise, or 
 
 any person lawfully entitled to the possession of mer 
 chandise, 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 dam- 
 
NULLIFICATION 225 
 
 ages 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. 
 
 This Act also authorized any person paying the nulli 
 fied duties to recover the money paid, with interest on 
 the same, by an action, in a court of the Common 
 wealth, 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 cor 
 pus, and to maintain an action for unlawful arrest and 
 imprisonment. 
 
 It declared the sale of any property seized by a United 
 States court, in execution of the nullified Acts, to be il 
 legal, 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. 
 
 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 
 
 15 
 
226 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 > 
 
 a similar penalty upon the offence of hiring, letting, or 
 procuring any place to be used as a place of confine 
 ment for such person. 
 
 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. 
 
 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 nulli 
 fied Acts in South Carolina. It authorized the Gov 
 ernor 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 pur 
 chase arms, accoutrements, and ammunitions, and to 
 appoint his military staff ; and it authorized and obli 
 gated the Governor to use military power in suppress 
 ing opposition to. the laws of the Commonwealth by 
 combinations too powerful to be controlled by the civil 
 officers. 
 
 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. 
 
 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 op 
 position ? 
 
 As we have seen, Calhoun and the members of the 
 
NULLIFICATION 227 
 
 nullifying convention held it to be the latter.^They 
 argued that the reserved powers of the Common 
 wealths are recognized by the Constitution ; The mean _ 
 that every conceivable power is reserved to ing of Nuiim- 
 
 cation as un- 
 
 the Commonwealths,, except such as are derstood by 
 
 ITT n r* i ii- ,1 i r\ tlie Nullifiers. 
 
 vested by the Constitution 111 the general Gov 
 ernment 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 prin 
 ciple of the governmental system of the United States 
 that general criminal jurisdiction belongs exclusively to 
 the Commonwealths ; and that the employment of mili 
 tary 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. 
 
 It is entirely evident that the South Carolina states 
 men and lawyers thought they had so fashioned the 
 laws of the Commonwealth as to force the general Gov 
 ernment to the first violation of legal order in attempt 
 ing 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 
 
228 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 right ; and it is impossible to prove that they were in 
 sincere. 
 
 The great question now was, what attitude the gen 
 eral 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. 
 
 In his message of December 4th (1832), President 
 Jackson referred briefly to the events of the preceding 
 Jackson s mon th i n South Carolina, but did not seem 
 Jcation Num " ^ ^ ave fr^ty 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 th*e President sufficient 
 power to suppress any attempts which might be imme 
 diately made against the supremacy of the Government. 
 
 He devoted a much larger portion of the message to 
 a consideration of the tariff, and declared that the time 
 The Tariff had arrived for the United States to enter 
 Mess/JeTf u P n the realization of the policy of a tariff 
 1832. f or re venue only, and of the ultimate limita 
 
 tion of protection to those articles of domestic manu 
 facture indispensable to the country in time of war. 
 
 It is possible that the President did, after all, under 
 stand the serious nature of the situation from the out 
 set, and hoped, by his pronounced recommendations in 
 regard to the tariff, and his very mild utterances con 
 cerning 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 embar 
 rassing position. 
 
 He waited for six days, and then issued the noted 
 proclamation of December 10th, which presented the 
 
NULLIFICATION 229 
 
 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 T h e 
 United States law over Commonwealth law, So n 
 demonstrated the true character of nullifi- cembenoth. 
 cation as rebellion, and declared the President s inten 
 tion to execute the laws of the United States against any 
 and all opposition. 
 
 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 Presi 
 dent 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. 
 
 The President stopped the loop-hole 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 tlie general Government was the body 
 designated by the Constitution to determine that ques 
 tion, and not a Commonwealth convention. 
 
 After warning the nullifiers to desist from their un 
 lawful enterprise, the President closed his message with 
 an eloquent appeal to the people of South Carolina to 
 
230 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 withdraw from their unjustifiable and dangerous posi 
 tion, 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 Govern 
 ment and the laws. 
 
 Already before the passage of the Ordinance of Nulli 
 
 fication, the President had caused the United States 
 
 . military officers stationed in and about 
 
 dent s military Charleston to be informed of their danger, 
 
 preparations. , , . .,, 
 
 had ordered two artillery companies irom 
 Fort Monroe to Fort Moultrie, had commanded General 
 Scott to go to Charleston and do what might be neces 
 sary 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. 
 
 The President had also caused the collectors of the 
 customs at Charleston, Georgetown, and Beaufort to be 
 The Presi- reminded of their powers under the laws of 
 tne United States, and had authorized them 
 
 cer8 t0 iS 8 sou?h * ma ke use of all the revenue cutters in the 
 Carolina. 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. 
 After the passage of the Ordinance, the President or 
 dered five more companies of artillery from Fort Monroe 
 to Fort Moultrie, commanded the removal of the cus 
 tom-house from Charleston to Castle Pinckney, and sent 
 General Scott to Charleston Harbor to take command, 
 
NULLIFICATION 231 
 
 on the spot, of all the forts and garrisons there, instruct 
 ing him to avoid collision with the forces of the Com 
 monwealth 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. 
 
 The brave, loyal, and patriotic, yet wise and consid 
 erate, stand taken by the President was supported with 
 great unanimity and enthusiasm throughout The popular 
 the North ; and though the people of the SIKSiXnS 
 Southern Commonwealths felt more sym- course - 
 pathy with their South Carolina brethren, yet the dis 
 sent from the President s views and attitude in that sec 
 tion was rare and feeble. The nation was with the 
 President, and the President had done his duty nobly 
 and fearlessly. 
 
 The turn now came upon Congress. Would Congress 
 sustain the President, and give him all the means nec 
 essary 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 Representa 
 tives to its Committee on Ways and Means, 
 and on December 27th, 1832, the chairman pijnck Tariff 
 of that committee, Mr. Verplanck, of New Ill- 
 York, reported a bill from the committee which pro 
 posed 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 al 
 most equal dignity the application of the Ordinance, 
 
232 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 so long as there was any probability of the passage of 
 this bill. 
 
 Seven days before the introduction of this bill, Gov 
 ernor Hayne had issued a counter-proclamation to the 
 Governor President s proclamation of December 10th, 
 ter^prodama-" which he went over again the ground of 
 tion. nullification and secession, warned the citi 
 
 zens of South Carolina against the President s "perni 
 cious " doctrines, and accused the President of indulg 
 ing 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 Con 
 gress, and caused to be read in that body. 
 
 The President was much ruffled by the arrogant lan 
 guage of the Governor and Legislature, and when the 
 Verplanck bill appeared, it must have looked 
 dentS Me ?- * ^ m * mucn like surrendering the entire 
 !? ge i6th J S~ fi^d? 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 Govern 
 ment. On January 16th, 1833, he sent another mes 
 sage 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 neces 
 sary for the execution of the revenue laws. 
 
 The message was referred by the Houses of Congress 
 to their respective committees on the Judiciary ; but im 
 mediately 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 
 
NULLIFICATION 233 
 
 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 explanations 
 of Nullification was passed, before .the con- J 
 vention had assembled, United States troops had been 
 sent to Charleston Harbor ; and he declared that, pre 
 vious 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 atti 
 tude of resistance. 
 
 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 "Force 
 the collection of the revenue. This bill Bill< " 
 provided for expending 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 Cir 
 cuit Courts of the United States, by means of proof laid 
 before the Circuit Court that the defendant had peti 
 tioned 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 Common- 
 
234 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 wealth court, in case of the failure of that court to fur 
 nish a copy, an affidavit, or other evidence, as the cir 
 cumstances 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 mar 
 shals, 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 Presi 
 dent 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 re 
 sistance to the execution of the revenue laws too power 
 ful to be overcome by the civil officers of the general 
 Government. 
 
 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 Re 
 plevin 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 com 
 pletely of South Carolina s proposed legal resistance to 
 the execution of the laws of the United States. 
 
 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 de 
 clared to be indisputable, and which must, therefore, 
 prevent the passage of the bill. The discussion upon 
 
NULLIFICATION 235 
 
 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. 
 
 The chiefs of the nullifiers, professing to feel that the 
 Government was yielding, reassembled in The postpone- 
 convention in the last days of January, and Sutkm of e n u1- 
 postponed the execution of their Ordinance lification - 
 until the end of the existing Congressional session. 
 
 On February 8th, Mr. Bell, the chairman of the Ju 
 diciary committee of the House of Representatives, re 
 ported to that body that his committee did not recom 
 mend 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. 
 
 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 The Com 
 gradual reduction of the duties to a revenue promise Tar- 
 basis. The revenue basis was fixed in the 
 bill at twenty per centum ad valorem on all articles 
 then paying a higher duty, and the excess was to be re 
 mitted in biennial instalments, and entirely abolished 
 from and after June 30th, 1842. The free list was slight 
 ly extended, and cash payments, from and after June 
 30th, 1842, were provided. 
 
 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 al- Mr. ciay on 
 low South Carolina to withdraw with dignity the 8ituation - 
 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 
 
236 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 asserted that they were only trying to invent legal meth 
 ods 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. 
 
 Mr. Calhoun immediately indicated that the bill would 
 
 Mr. cai- have his support, and would solve the difficul- 
 
 po U r n t s of 8 U Mr~ ^ Q8 between South Carolina and the general 
 
 clay s bin. Government. He professed to see in it the 
 
 concession of about all that South Carolina had asked. 
 
 The opposition to the bill came from three quarters 
 from the protectionists, who clung to the existing 
 The opposi- law, from the strong nationalists, who were 
 tiontothebm. a g a j ns t an y show of compromise with nullifi 
 cation, and from the strict parliamentarians who held 
 that any bill touching the tariff must originate in the 
 House of Eepresentatives. 
 
 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 vindica 
 tion of their position would be attained. They were in 
 clined 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 de 
 clared that the citizens of South Carolina would, should 
 it become law, resist its execution " at every hazard, 
 even that of death itself/ 
 
NULLIFICATION 237 
 
 On the following day Mr. Webster answered Mr. 
 Calhoun s argument,, and demonstrated so clearly the 
 nationality of the Constitution, the su- passage of 
 premacy of the laws of the United States, Bm" by r the 
 and the rebellious character of nullification, senate, 
 that the Senate was convinced of the necessity of pass 
 ing 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 protec 
 tionists 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 for 
 eign invoice. The protectionists were satisfied by this, 
 but Mr. Calhoun immediately declared that South Caro 
 lina 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 con 
 cluded to abandon his opposition to the amendment, 
 and to vote for the bill. 
 
 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 Passage of 
 House of Representatives in substituting the 
 Clay bill for the Verplanck bill, and pass- 
 ing it on the 26th, and sending it to the y congress. 
 Senate for concurrence. The Senate now passed the 
 House bill on March 1st, and the House imme 
 diately passed the Wilkins bill, against the protest of 
 
238 THE MIDDLE PEKIOD 
 
 the South Carolinians that it could now have no pur 
 pose since every member of Congress from South Caro 
 lina had voted for the new Tariff Act. 
 
 The President signed both bills at the same time, 
 The nuiiifi- March 2nd, and South Carolina rescinded 
 nlnce w?th" tne Nullification Ordinance, 
 drawn. ft j s no t easy to see what principles or 
 
 what party finally triumphed in this contest, or to com 
 prehend all the motives of the chief actors in it. It has 
 been said, or hinted, that Mr. Calhoun, 
 general 68 re- chagrined and disappointed at not gaining 
 the presidency in 1832, was induced to take 
 the course which he followed in reference to nullifica 
 tion by the hope of breaking up the Union and win 
 ning, thus, the presidency of a Southern confedera 
 cy ; 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 Jack 
 son, and his fear of trusting him with extraordinary 
 powers, than by any dread of the destruction of the 
 Union. 
 
 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 partic 
 ular 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 
 
NULLIFICATION 239 
 
 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. 
 
 From the point of view of the present, a point so 
 much more national than any reached before 1 860, the 
 settlement of 1833 is usually regarded as a great misfor 
 tune, 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. 
 
 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 advo 
 cacy of which Mr. Jefferson and the Republicans turned 
 the Federalists out of power and captured the Govern 
 ment ; that under the pressure of foreign war and 
 through its results, the Republican practice in adminis 
 tering 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 hum 
 drum 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 sovereign 
 ty* government, and liberty than were ever expressed 
 
240 THE MIDDLE PEEIOD 
 
 by any preceding President, certainly mark a great ad 
 vance in the development of the national theory of the 
 Constitution. 
 
 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 Jack 
 son s friends undertook, it was said with authority from 
 Jackson himself, to explain them away, so startled were 
 they by their strong nationalism. 
 
 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 recog 
 nized 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. 
 
 And besides the Proclamation there was the "Force 
 Bill," which rested upon the same theory of the politi 
 cal 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. 
 
 It is true that the passage of the new Tariff Act ap 
 peared 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 
 
NULLIFICATION 241 
 
 words of the President and the Congress, and the popu 
 lar 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 un 
 derstood 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 every 
 body 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 en 
 forcement of its principles. 
 
CHAPTER XL 
 
 ABOLITION 
 
 The Philosophy of Abolition William Lloyd Garrison The Civil 
 Status under the Constitution of 1787 Points at which Slavery 
 Could be Legally Attacked Garrison s Methods The South 
 ampton Massacre The Attempt to Suppress the Abolition 
 Movement at the North Growth of the Abolition Movement 
 The Methods of the Moderate Abolitionists The Abolition 
 Petitions The Earlier Method of Dealing with the Petitions- 
 Beginning of the Conflict over the Abolition Petitions The 
 New Method for Dealing with Petitions in the House of Rep 
 resentativesTrue View of the Right of Petition Mr. Polk s 
 Fatal Error in Regard to the Right of Petition The Pinckney 
 Resolutions The New Rule of the House of Representatives 
 in Regard to the Abolition Petitions The Increase of Peti 
 tions, and the Denunciation of the Pinckney Rule The Final 
 Denial of the Right of Petition on the Subject of Slavery by 
 the House of Representatives The Abolition Petitions in the 
 Senate Mr. Rives and Mr. Calhoun in Regard to the Morality 
 of Slavery Mr. Calhoun s Resolutions in Regard to the Politi 
 cal Relations of Slavery The Anti-Slavery Petition from the 
 Vermont Legislature The Abolition Documents and the United 
 States Mails The Postmaster-General s Ruling in Regard to 
 the Abolition Documents in the Mails Jackson on the Use of 
 the Mails by the Abolitionists Mr. Calhoun s Report and Bill 
 on the Subject Clay s Criticism of Calhoun s Proposition 
 The Act of Congress Protecting the Abolition Documents in 
 the Mails General Results of the Struggle over the Right of 
 Petition and the Freedom of the Mails. 
 
 a state has fairly accomplished the primal 
 end of establishing its governmental system, its pub- 
 
ABOLITION 243 
 
 lie 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 th <Fg^ ds of 
 state be found to have succeeded in so bal 
 ancing these two principal objects of its public policy 
 as to make the resultant of its two main lines of prog 
 ress 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 exist 
 ence of national distinctions. But in all the convul 
 sions of political history, described as advance and reac 
 tion, 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. 
 
 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 poSf of^the 
 national development. The United States, j^*St 
 which had been excessively humanitarian states 6 United 
 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 ap 
 peared, at the close of the period, to be the sole princi 
 ples of the policy of the country. 
 
 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 
 
244 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 longer period, than it was. But curiously and fortu 
 nately, the race domination in the South produced 
 economic conditions which demanded trade and com 
 merce with the world, and which finally forced upon 
 the North the conviction that the cause of those condi 
 tionsrace 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 inter 
 course and human rights. 
 
 In the summer of 1830 the wave of revolution rolled 
 again over Europe. The rights of man, the brother 
 hood of man, and the sovereignty of the peo- 
 tionof iS! u " pie, were the principles which pressed again 
 to the front. While no actual connection 
 can be established between the Ee volution of 1830 in 
 Europe and the rise of Abolition in the United States, 
 yet they belong to the same period of time, and har 
 monize 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 mani 
 festations appear spontaneously and coetaneously in 
 widely separated places. 
 
 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 in 
 vented, and, in some slight degree, had been put into 
 
ABOLITION 245 
 
 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 prin 
 ciple of human liberty and the rights of man, a sin 
 which called for immediate expiation by instantaneous, 
 unqualified, and uncompensated abolition. 
 
 There is nothing strange about the philosophy of 
 Abolition. It is simply the idealistic view of the be 
 ginning and the progress of human history. 
 
 ,., . . , J The philos- 
 
 It assumes liberty as the original state 01 ophy of Abo- 
 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 satis 
 faction 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 humani- 
 tarianism. Its political principle, in the language of 
 its chief exponent, was : " The world our country, and 
 all mankind our countrymen." 
 
 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. 
 
 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 civili- 
 
246 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 zation, not by its distance from the perfect condition, 
 but by the fact of its advance upon,, or its retrogression 
 from, the stage immediately antecedent. 
 
 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 mis 
 sion in the fourth decade of the nineteenth century in 
 American history. 
 
 If we must give a name, a date, and a place to the 
 first open appearance of a movement which was a prod 
 uct of the age, that name is Garrison ; the 
 Lloyd GarrS 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 im 
 pelled 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 ex 
 pressed, were revolutionary, almost anarchic. 
 
 There is now certainly little question that the deter 
 mination 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 
 
ABOLITION 247 
 
 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 The civil 
 principles the Abolitionists were only proph- th? u con U stitu- 
 ets ahead of their time, and must be ac- tionofirar. 
 corded the honor which belongs to such. On the other 
 hand, it is entirely unquestionable that the Consti 
 tution of the United States recognized to the Com 
 monwealths, 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 ques 
 tion at all that the slavery or freedom of the negro race 
 within the several Commonwealths was, under the Con 
 stitution 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 slave- 
 holding 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 funda 
 mental 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 G-overnment was vested by the Consti 
 tution with the general powers of exclusive government 
 in the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the 
 places owned by the United States within Common 
 wealths and used by the general Government for govern- 
 
248 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 mental purposes. But so long as the Constitution re 
 mained what it was, there was no constitutional power 
 in the general Government to attack slavery in the Com 
 monwealths ; 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 ex 
 clusive, the general Government should act fairly toward 
 all the members of the Union. 
 
 Nevertheless, here were legal points of attack for the 
 Abolitionists. They might memorialize Congress for 
 
 Points at the abolition of slavery in the Territories and 
 ?oui C d h bei a eg e aY- in the District, and for the initiation of an 
 iy attacked. 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 ini- 
 
 Garrison s tiate such an amendment. But Garrison 
 methods. W ould have nothing to do with the Constitu 
 tion, 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 agree 
 ments, and his fanatical disregard of other men s opin 
 ions 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 other 
 wise reach. 
 
 In August of 1831, a slave insurrection broke out in 
 Southampton County, Va., under the leadership of a 
 
ABOLITION 249 
 
 negro named Nat Turner, and more than sixty white 
 persons, most of them women and children, were mas 
 sacred in cold blood. The Southerners said, The gouth 
 and no doubt believed, that the insurrec- P e ton mas " 
 tion 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 lan 
 guage in which they were expressed not so much be 
 fore 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 burn 
 ing 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 
 
250 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 righteous conscience was fully aroused, and not the fury 
 of a guilty conscience. 
 
 The details of the breaking up of the Abolition meet 
 ings and of the destruction of the Abolition printing- 
 The attem t P resses by * ne citizens of the Northern Com- 
 to suppress monwealths, as well as those of the South- 
 
 the Abolition 
 
 movement at ampton massacre, may be passed over, in a 
 work like this, with the single remark that 
 only one person, the Rev. Mr. Lovejoy, was killed in 
 these collisions ; that this happened under circum 
 stances 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 giv 
 ing provocation. 
 
 The things of importance to the student of constitu 
 tional history in connection with these events are the 
 increase of the Abolitionists in number, their organiza 
 tion 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. 
 
 So long as men only talk and write, it is the impulse 
 of our Anglo-Saxon character to place no further re 
 straint 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 
 
ABOLITION 
 
 the United States. Persecution is the soil in which 
 new movements grow best, no matter what may be the 
 character of the movement. 
 
 In a single year from the date of the first number of 
 Garrison s newspaper, The Liberator, that is, in January 
 of 1832, the New England Anti-slavery So 
 ciety was formed, and in December of 1833 the Abolition 
 the American Anti-slavery Society was or- E 
 ganized, which soon established branches in many 
 quarters. The exaggerated demands of the Southern 
 ers, that the Northern Commonwealths should forbid 
 Abolition agitation by law, thus identifying the in 
 terests of slavery with the denial of the freedom of 
 speaking and writing in the Northern Commonwealths, 
 helped greatly to swell the ranks of the Abolition 
 ists, and to mollify public opinion in the North against 
 them. 
 
 The new Abolitionists were naturally of a more mod 
 erate type than Garrison, and most of them would lis 
 ten only to regular legal methods for the The me th- 
 accomplishment of their purposes. The Moderate lt- 
 quickening of the public opinion in the iitiomgts. 
 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 
 Hiany 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 im 
 partial justice to all its parts. 
 
 Petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District 
 of Columbia had been sent to Congress, generally from 
 
252 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 Quaker sources, almost from the day that the capital 
 of the country was established there, but they were 
 The Aboii- n t numerous and were not pushed by any 
 tion petitions. an ti_ s lavery 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 interfer 
 ence with the domestic institutions of the slaveholding 
 Commonwealths. 
 
 It was in the session of 1831-32, that the first mutter- 
 ings of the petition storm were heard. On December 
 12th, 1831, Mr. John Quincy Adams presented, in 
 the House of Eepresentatives, fifteen petitions from 
 sundry inhabitants of Pennsylvania, the chief prayer of 
 all of which was for the abolition of slavery in the Dis 
 trict 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 peti 
 tions, for this purpose, to the regular committee of the* 
 House for the District. 
 
 There was in this little to indicate the terrible earnest 
 ness which Mr. Adams later displayed in behalf of the 
 Abolition petitions. He seemed at this time to be an 
 noyed at being asked to present them, and to feel that 
 there were superior moral reasons why a slavery agita 
 tion should not be excited within the halls of Congress. 
 But all this was soon to change. Mr. Adams s growth 
 
ABOLITION 253 
 
 in 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. 
 
 The committee on the District reported, on December 
 19th, that as the District was composed of cessions of 
 territory from Maryland and Virginia, it T he earlier 
 would, in the opinion of the members of the Baling d with 
 committee, be unwise, if not unjust, for Con- the petitions, 
 gress 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 re 
 spective territories. This report seemed to settle the 
 question for the session, and no more petitions appeared 
 in either House. 
 
 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. 
 
 It was first in the session of i.833-34, 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 com 
 mittee 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. 
 
254 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 It was not until the session of 1834-35, that the first 
 real note of the conflict was sounded. On January 
 26th, 1834, 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. 
 
 Mr. Chinn, of Virginia, the chairman of the regular 
 committee on the District, resented Mr. Dicksoir s rude 
 assault, and moved to lay the petitions and Mr. Dick- 
 son s motion on the table. The House voted Mr. 
 Chinn s motion by a large majority. 
 
 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, 
 
 Beginning . 
 
 of the con- upon the presentation of a petition, contam- 
 
 flict over the . ,, , 
 
 Abolition peti- mg 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 im 
 mediately 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. 
 
 The House first voted to lay the petition on the table. 
 
ABOLITION 255 
 
 The Speaker, Mr. James K. Polk, then put Mr. Slade s 
 motion to print. Whereupon Mr. Slade attempted to de 
 bate 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. Blade s motion on the table, and the House 
 voted to do so by a large majority. 
 
 Two days later the play was on again. Mr. Jackson, 
 of Massachusetts, presented a petition from sundry citi 
 zens of Massachusetts, containing the usual Mr. Ham- 
 prayer, and moved its reference to a select 
 committee. Whereupon Mr. Hammond, of 
 South Carolina, moved that the petition tion - 
 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. 
 
 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 pe 
 tition, 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, oi course, be so used as not to vio 
 late 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 
 
256 THE MIDDLE PEEIOD 
 
 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 ask 
 ing for a redress of grievances. 
 
 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, dur 
 ing 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 re 
 ceive 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 
 The new no ^ ^ re ^ use * receive the petition, or had 
 method ^f or voted to consider its contents at once. After 
 pe?itk.n8 W1 in a day of heated debate and three days of ad- 
 
 the House of . J , ., J 
 
 Represent a- journment, 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. 
 
ABOLITION 257 
 
 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 pe 
 tition. 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 re 
 port from the committee, and a vote upon the report. 
 Mr. Jones, of Virginia, met Mr. Adams s as- True view 
 sertions quite successfully, and showed con- of the^nght 
 clusively 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 es 
 tablish 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 in 
 terests of the whole people to the obstinacy of a small 
 number of the people. 
 
 Mr. Jones s 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 an 
 other firebrand into the House during this debate, in 
 the form of an intimation that Congress The power 
 had the constitutional power to abolish slav- 
 
 ery in the District of Columbia. The South- the District of 
 
 ,, , Columbia. 
 
 erners now advanced to the position of deny 
 ing that power to Congress, and Mr. Wise, of Virginia, 
 in a long and violent speech, demanded that Congress 
 17 
 
258 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 dec 
 laration 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. Blade 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. 
 
 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 en 
 croached upon the power of the House over its rules of 
 procedure, nor opened the way for anti-slavery agitation 
 in Congress. 
 
 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 Massa- 
 
ABOLITION 259 
 
 chu setts containing the usual prayer, and said that " in 
 conformity with the course heretofore adopted, he 
 should move that the petition, without read- 
 
 Mr Folk s 
 
 ing, be laid on the table." Mr. Patton inter- fatal error in 
 rupted Mr. Adams with an inquiry addressed ri|ht d of P ed- 
 to the Speaker as to whether the petition had tlon 
 been received by the House, and the Speaker replied that 
 it had not. He said that, upon looking up the author 
 ities, he " had formed the opinion that the first ques 
 tion 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 Con 
 gress. 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 South 
 erners by the position now assumed by Mr. Patton and 
 Mr. Polk, and then by Mr. Glascock, who, immedi 
 ately after the ruling of the Speaker, moved that this 
 petition be not received. While Mr. Adams, who sin 
 cerely believed that reference as well as reception was 
 a necessary consequence of the right of petition, had ac 
 commodated himself to the decision which the House 
 had made a fortnight before, these Southern gentle 
 men were now proposing to drive the House from 
 
260 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 the solid middle ground, then occupied, toward a posi 
 tion which the majority considered to be an encroach 
 ment 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 rejection of one of these anti-slavery peti 
 tions 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. 
 Mr. Adams now made one more effort to preserve the 
 Southerners against the consequences of their own folly. 
 Mr. Adams s He undertook to arrest the debate bv calling 
 tf pVe vTft for the application of the forty-fifth rule of 
 tion er in a con- the House, which required that no petition 
 gress. 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 thou 
 sand 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 imme 
 diate compromise upon the subject might be, it was 
 evident to all farseeing minds then that a death-blow 
 had been struck at slavery. 
 
 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 resume of the debate. 
 
ABOLITION 261 
 
 The conflict was ended for the moment by the adop 
 tion, on May 25th (1836), of a series of resolutions re 
 ported by a committee appointed for the 
 purpose, of which Mr. Pinckney, of South n ey 
 
 Carolina, was the chairman. These resolu- fc 
 tions provided : " That Congress possesses no con 
 stitutional authority to interfere in any way with the 
 institution of slavery in any of the States of this Con 
 federacy; 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." 
 
 The solution thus reached by the House of the 
 question of the power of the House to control its pro 
 cedure, over against the right of a number 
 
 of individuals to excite interminable dis- rule of the 
 
 T , , , , ., House of Rep- 
 
 cussions and paralyze the business of the resentativee m 
 House by flooding it with petitions upon Aboiitionpetf- 
 one and the same subject, was the laying tlons 
 of all such petitions on the table as a rule of the House. 
 Of course this rule must be readopted at the begin 
 ning of each session, and a debate upon the readop- 
 tion 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 discus 
 sion was then not likely to be renewed during the 
 session. It was possible also for petitions to be pre- 
 
262 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 sented, at the beginning of the session, before the re- 
 adoption 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 Abo 
 litionists to cause the House to resolve itself into some 
 thing more like a bear-garden than an assembly of 
 Witan, as was evident from the scenes which were en 
 acted 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 mem 
 bers 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." 
 
 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 ref 
 erence 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. 
 
ABOLITION 263 
 
 The more the House did to discourage the petitions 
 the more they increased. In two years from the adop 
 tion of the Pinckney resolutions the num- The increase 
 ber of petitioners was tenfold greater than and thfdenun- 
 it was before their enactment. At the same pf ^"kVey 
 time the legislatures of the New England rule - 
 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 con 
 stitutional right, and also declaring that Congress pos 
 sessed the power to abolish slavery in the District of 
 Columbia. 
 
 To meet these demonstrations of increasing strength 
 and increasing determination on the part of the Aboli 
 tionists, the House not only repeated its rule, 
 but made it more stringent, until, at last, ni ai be of al the 
 irritated beyond measure at the persistence jj|[ fc ^ p ^ 
 of the petitioners, it took the fatal step, and, 
 on January 8th, 1840, enacted as a stand- 
 ing rule of the House : " That no petition, 
 memorial, resolution, or other paper, praying the aboli 
 tion 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, 
 sliall be received by this House, or entertained in any 
 way whatever." 
 
 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 
 
264 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 had only demonstrated that slavery was a matter of na 
 tional concern, since its interests required that limita 
 tions 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. 
 
 The proceedings in the Senate in regard to the Aboli 
 tion petitions must be even more concisely stated. The 
 The Aboii- course pursued and the result reached were 
 petitions similar to what has been described in the ac- 
 count of the experiences of the House. The 
 Senate first received and heard the petitions, and voted 
 immediately to deny their prayer. Then, when it be 
 came 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 re 
 ceive, 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 dis 
 pose 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 Sen 
 ate 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 
 
ABOLITION 265 
 
 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 receiv 
 ing, 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 to 
 ward 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 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 slave- Mr. Rives 
 holders. The slaveholders had, themselves, 
 as we have so often seen, acknowledged slav- 
 ery to be an evil, and had, therefore, de- slavery, 
 fended 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 as- 
 
266 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 saults 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 ab 
 stract, and said he had spoken of slavery only "as ex 
 isting 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 numeri 
 cally, 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 es 
 tablishment of a barbaric despotism over the civilized 
 race, if the barbaric race be aided by successful inter 
 ference 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. 
 
 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 ap 
 proximation. Mr. Rives was looking at the subject 
 
ABOLITION 267 
 
 from an abstract, transcendental point of view, while 
 Mr. Calhonn 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 be 
 hind the many intervening elevations, which must be 
 first attained and traversed in order to reach their posi 
 tion. 
 
 There was a possible moral ground upon which Mr. 
 Calhoun and the Abolitionists might have met. Could 
 the Abolitionists have conceived that the ex- 
 
 ,. . The moral 
 
 istence 01 certain conditions would nustifv ground upon 
 
 ^ ,. ! , .. i . T , , which Cal- 
 
 domestic. slavery as a relation which could houn and the 
 temporarily produce a better state of morals cmSd^^haVe 
 in a particularly constituted society than any r 
 other relation, that is, could they have taken the his 
 torical 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 sin 
 ner and a criminal because he held persons to service 
 and labor who had not freely agreed to the same, and he 
 
268 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 considered them to be greater sinners and criminals be 
 cause 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. 
 
 When Mr. Calhoun saw that he could not bring the 
 Senate to refuse formally to receive the Abolition peti- 
 Mr. cai- tions, he undertook to bring the Senate over 
 to his views o f the "States sovereignty" 
 character of the Union, of the obligation of 
 slavery. the general Government to protect slavery in 
 
 the slaveholding Commonwealths, of the ethical obli 
 gation of the people of the non-slaveholding Common 
 wealths 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 repu 
 diate 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 pre 
 texts, 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 Ter 
 ritories. 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 Com 
 monwealths, 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 con 
 ditions. 
 
ABOLITION 269 
 
 The immediate occasion of the presentation of these 
 resolutions of December 27th, 1837, by Mr. Calhoun, 
 was probably the other incident to which The anti _ 
 reference has been made, the introduction, slavery peti- 
 
 . . tion irom the 
 
 by Senator Swift, of Vermont, oi a petrtion Vermont leg- 
 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 vulner 
 able part. Here was, according to his own doctrine, a 
 "sovereign State " instructing its governmental agent 
 for general affairs. Could that agent refuse to re 
 ceive 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. 
 
 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 rein- 
 troduced the memorial on January 16th (1838). The 
 Southerners had been thrown into such confusion by the 
 coup de surprise 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, out 
 rageous, and degrading. Mr. King gave his " States 
 sovereignty " creed entirely away in saying: " We de- 
 
270 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 fend the legitimate rights of the States, but we do not 
 defend a sovereign State when she asserts calumny and 
 falsehood." 
 
 Mr. Calhoun was measured in his language,, but evi 
 dently 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. 
 
 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 Korth 
 Carolina, committed the folly of objecting to the recep 
 tion 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. 
 
 The Abolitionists were more successful in their at 
 tempt to use the United States mails for the distribu 
 tion of their literature throughout the South. During 
 the course of the year 1835, it became known that 
 
ABOLITION 271 
 
 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 fire- tion a o c u- 
 sides. They thought that they had the legal unfted^tates 
 right to prevent the delivery of such mail r 
 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 re 
 spectables 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 meet 
 ing of the citizens took place, at which a committee of 
 public safety was elected, which should, in understand 
 ing 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 Aboli 
 tion 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 Post 
 master-General. 
 
 The Postmaster-General, Mr. Amos Kendall, one of 
 the shrewdest of politicians, though no great constitu 
 tional lawyer, answered the appeal from the postmaster 
 at New York immediately. He instructed his subordi 
 nate that the executive power of the Government had 
 no legal authority to exclude mail matter, as defined by 
 
272 THE MIDDLE PEKIOD 
 
 Congress, from the mails on account of the character 
 of its contents, real or supposed. If Mr. Kendall had 
 The Post- stopped with this he would have been entirely 
 master-Gener- correct ; but he went on to say that he would 
 regard to the not direct the postmaster at New York to for- 
 
 Abolition doc- ,., A T "-I , T , i 
 
 umentsin the ward the Abolition documents or the post 
 master at Charleston to deliver them, com 
 mended their assumption of the responsibility of with 
 holding 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 perni 
 cious. 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 exe 
 cute, 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 at 
 tempt to prevent the execution of the laws, could ap 
 prove 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. 
 
 In his message of the following December, the Presi 
 dent denounced the methods of the Abolitionists in 
 Jackson on sending their incendiary literature into the 
 Sliis ee by f the South as calculated and intended to excite a 
 Abolitionists. ser viie war with all its horrors, and recom 
 mended Congress to pass a law prohibiting, "under se 
 vere penalties, the circulation in the Southern States, 
 
ABOLITION 273 
 
 through the mail, of incendiary publications intended 
 to instigate the slaves to insurrection/ 
 
 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 chair 
 man of the committee, and on February 4th, 1836, he 
 brought in a report and a bill. 
 
 In the report Mr. Calhoun took the ground that the 
 freedom of the mails was a necessary part of the free 
 dom of the press, and argued that, as Con- Mr. cai- 
 gress was prohibited by the first amendment aSd bm Sfthe 
 to the Constitution from passing any law 8Ub J ect 
 abridging the freedom of the press, so Congress pos 
 sessed no power to pass any law excluding mail matter 
 from the mails on account of the character of its con 
 tents 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 dis 
 trict 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/ Terri 
 tory, 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 Depart 
 ment should co-operate with the local officials in pre 
 venting the circulation of such papers and representa 
 tions 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 
 18 
 
274 THE MIDDLE PEKIOD 
 
 protected by the laws of the United States against the 
 jurisdiction of the local law and government. 
 
 Mr. Clay immediately pointed out the fatal weak 
 nesses of this proposition. He argued that it attributed 
 
 clay s criti- to Congress either the power to adopt the 
 hoTn 8pro C p a o: laws of the "States" upon subjects in re- 
 sition. g ar( j to w hi cn 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. 
 
 Encouraged by this victory, the friends of free mails 
 succeeded in having a provision incorporated into the 
 
 The act of Act of July 2nd, 1836, for changing the or- 
 te?ti e n s s p t r he ganization of the Post-Office Department, 
 ument8?n d the which ordains that any postmaster inten- 
 maiis. tionally detaining any mail matter from the 
 
 addressees shall be fined and imprisoned, and incapaci 
 tated to hold thereafter the office of a postmaster in the 
 United States. 
 
 It would not be extravagant to say that the whole 
 course of the internal history of the United 
 
 General re- J 
 
 suits of the States from 1836 to 1861 was more largely 
 
 struggle over . 
 
 the right of determined by the struggle in Congress over 
 
 petition and,! . , 7 . , . .... -in * n 
 
 thefreedomof the Abolition petitions and the use of the 
 mails for the distribution of the Abolition 
 literature than by anything else. 
 
ABOLITION 275 
 
 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 Aboli 
 tionists 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. 
 
 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 prose 
 cute 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-de 
 fence 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 hun 
 dred 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 Common 
 wealths was thus manifestly a necessity to its perma 
 nent security, and even continuance, in the Common 
 wealths where it already existed. The policy of the 
 slaveholders must be to allow no new non- slaveholding 
 Commonwealth to be formed without another slave- 
 holding Commonwealth to match it, and to secure the 
 
276 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 extension of the territory of the United States toward 
 the South. 
 
 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 t^ie purpose of preventing the access of the Abolition 
 doctrines to their minds, and of preventing communica 
 tion 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 aid 
 ing the master, which, however, did not alter the fact that 
 from being primarily for the most part a household af 
 fair, 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 inter 
 vention 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 be 
 tween 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 de 
 veloped during this period, with both their good and 
 their bad consequences. On the one side they produced 
 
ABOLITION 277 
 
 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 ad 
 venture 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. 
 
CHAPTEK XII. 
 
 THE BANK, THE SUB-TREASURY, AND PARTY DEVELOP 
 MENT BETWEEN 1832 AND 1842 
 
 Jackson and the Bank after the Election of 1832 The Power of 
 the Secretary of the Treasury over the Government Deposits 
 Removal of McLane and Duane Taney s Report to Congress 
 of December 3rd, 1835 Abuses of Power by Jackson and 
 Taney The Senate s Censure of the President and Secretary 
 of the Treasury National Republicans Take the Name of 
 Whigs The Cardinal Doctrine of the Whigs The Change of 
 the Deposits and the Specie Order of 1836 Van Buren s Elec 
 tion and the Panic of "37" The Sub-Treasury Idea The 
 Establishment of the Sub-Treasury System The Election of 
 1840 Whig Legislative Projects in Regard to the Bank and 
 the Tariff The Party Treason of Tyler and the Whig War 
 upon the President s Veto Power The Whigs Unable to En 
 counter the Questions of Territorial Extension and Slavery 
 Extension. 
 
 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, di 
 vided upon issues which partook more of the character 
 of economic policies than that of rights, or of govern 
 mental 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 
 
THE BANK AND THE SUB-TREASURY 279 
 
 of view of economic policy, and were supported or op 
 posed 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 Re 
 publicans took the title of Whigs, anti-prerogative men. 
 
 After the election of 1832 upon the Bank issue, Presi 
 dent Jackson, naturally for him, regarded himself as the 
 only representative of the present will of the jackeonaud 
 people in the Government. The Congress, [jje SecSonS 
 at the time of the election, was, as we know, 1832 - 
 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. 
 
 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 Secre- The power 
 tary of the Treasury should at any time other- 
 wise order and direct. The Secretary of the 
 Treasury was thus impliedly authorized by mentdeposits. 
 Congress to cease depositing these funds in the Bank 
 or its branches at his own discretion, and was made di 
 rectly 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 con 
 trol 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. 
 
280 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 President Jackson was within the letter of his pre 
 rogative 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. 
 
 The new Secretary, Mr. Taney, appointed to succeed 
 
 Mr. Duane, was also acting within the letter of his au- 
 
 Taney e re- * nor ^y when he ceased to make deposit 
 
 P ess % C Se~ ^ ^ e Government funds in the Bank and 
 
 cember 3rd, its branches, and reported his action to Con 
 
 gress at the commencement of the session 
 
 following the recess of Congress during which he made 
 
 this change. 
 
 On the other hand, it was very questionable whether 
 the President was not abusing his power of dismissal 
 Abuses of from office, in spirit, by requiring the obe- 
 Sackson an5 ^Q^Ge of the Secretary of the Treasury to 
 Taney. 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. 
 
 Secretary Taney, afterward Chief Justice, to whose 
 legal opinions, therefore, great respect must be paid, 
 
THE BANK AND THE SUB-TREASURY 281 
 
 contended that Congress itself could not have caused 
 the removal of the deposits without violating the con 
 tract with the Bank, as expressed in the Bank s char 
 ter,, 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 de 
 posit 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. 
 
 The Senate, however, took a different view of the sub 
 ject. It considered the act of the Secretary to have been 
 done under the order of the President, and The 
 in condemnatory resolutions held the Presi- censure of the 
 dent responsible therefor. These resolutions &$!$ a ?f 
 of censure connected the Secretary with the c 
 President, however, by declaring the reasons offered by 
 t!ie 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. 
 
 It was in the midst of this conflict, and in conse 
 quence of it, a conflict in principle between National Ke- 
 the legislative and executive departments t p h 
 of the Government, in regard to the ex- Whi s 8 - 
 tent of their respective powers, that Mr. James Watson 
 
282 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 Webb, the editor of the New York Courier and En 
 quirer, began, about February, 1834, to denominate, 
 in his newspaper articles, the opposition party to the 
 President, led by Mr. Clay, Whigs. This title signi 
 fied opposition to high executive prerogative, and ap 
 proval of strong Congressional control over the Presi 
 dent. The name was gradually substituted for that of 
 National Eepublicans, as the different members and fac 
 tions of the party came together upon the principle in 
 volved in the name. 
 
 It seemed, for the moment, as if the parties had re 
 turned to the condition of bands of retainers under the 
 
 The cardinal l ea( ^ ^ *^ a y an< ^ J ac ^son respectively, but 
 doctrine of the this was more apparent than real. There 
 
 Whigs. -I j v j.- 
 
 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 re 
 stored, 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 Con 
 gressional control over the Administration. 
 
 The original character of the Whig party explains 
 many important things in its composition and subse 
 quent 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 aristoc 
 racy of the land since it is the instinct of the aristoc 
 racy to control the executive through the legislature. 
 It explains further why the Whig party was unable to 
 
THE BANK AND THE SUB-TKEASURY 283 
 
 cope with the problem of slavery, since its fundamental 
 principle was not a doctrine of rights, but of govern 
 mental form. It explains, lastly, why, in the develop 
 ment 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 inde 
 pendence, power, and unity, without which victory 
 could hardly have been won. 
 
 The failure of the Whigs in the campaign of 1836, 
 and their momentary triumph in that of 1840, were ex 
 perienced under the true issue of the Whig The change 
 principle. The modification of the tariff by 9 f the de P u s - 
 
 J its, and the 
 
 the Act of 1833, and the change of the place specie order 
 of deposit of the funds of the Government, 
 after October 1st, 1833, from the United States Bank 
 and its branches to certain Commonwealth banks, de 
 signated by the Secretary of the Treasury, had brought 
 about much business embarrassment, since the one de 
 pressed 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 Govern 
 ment s deposits. This embarrassment was greatly in 
 creased by the issue of the executive order of July llth, 
 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. 
 
 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, 
 
284 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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. 
 
 Had the full force of the financial distress come in 
 1836, instead of a year later, it might have turned the 
 Van Buren s election against Jackson s heir, Mr. Van 
 the eti pJni n of Buren ; but as things were, the Van Buren 
 Administration was established, and had had 
 an opportunity to get a little foothold, when the finan 
 cial panic spread over the land. Mr. Van Buren and his 
 advisers decided very properly not to involve the Gov 
 ernment, 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. 
 
 The Administration, however, pursued the even tenor 
 of its way, and endeavored to draw the lesson of the ex 
 periences with banks as places of deposit for the funds 
 of the Government. In his message of September 4th, 
 The sub- 1837, President Van Buren recommended 
 
 Treasury idea. that the Government shon ] d cnt looge en _ 
 
 tirely from banks, and should keep its funds in the Unit- 
 
THE BANK AND THE SUB-TREASURY 285 
 
 ed 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. Gor 
 don, of Virginia, had suggested it in the House of Rep 
 resentatives, 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 regu 
 lating the deposits. Mr. Gordon s amendment was re 
 jected on February llth, 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. 
 
 Under these circumstances, it was a courageous thing 
 in Mr. Van Buren to take up the idea anew and recom 
 mend it to Congress. Not until the session Theestab- 
 of 1839-40, however, was Congress brought sSH? 
 to approve the plan and pass the law of July s y stem - 
 4th, 1840, establishing the Sub -Treasury system for 
 the keeping of the funds of the Government. Dur 
 ing 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 dema- 
 gogism, and it proved immediately and immensely at 
 tractive to the people. Before the summer of 1840 wore 
 
286 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 away it was entirely clear that the people had made np 
 their minds to try a Whig administration, and had ar 
 rived at this resolution under the issue of the financial 
 questions. 
 
 The Whig National Convention had met in December, 
 1839, and had adopted no platform of principles. It 
 The election had conciliated the factional differences in 
 of i84o. tn e whig ran ks by dropping Clay and nom 
 
 inating 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 popu 
 lar 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. 
 
 They had attributed the distress in the country chiefly 
 
 to the failure to re-charter the Bank and to the reduction 
 
 WM ie is ^ *^ e * ar ^- Consequently, they immedi- 
 
 lative projects ately passed a bill for the incorporation of a 
 
 in regard to,^, ,-I-T i <> 
 
 the Bank and bank, when, to their dismay and confusion, 
 Mr. Tyler, elected Vice-President, and, upon 
 the sudden death of Mr. Harrison, successor to the presi 
 dential 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 essen 
 tial principles, and contained only a few divergent de 
 tails, put in probably for the purpose of preserving a 
 show of legislative independence, but the President con 
 sidered 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 suc 
 cessively vetoed. 
 
 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 
 
THE BANK AND THE SUB-TREASURY 287 
 
 as the diplomatic negotiations with Great Britain, then 
 in progress, permitted. 
 
 The Whigs regarded Mr. Tyler as a traitor to the 
 party and began a war upon the veto power The ty 
 of the President. They had come back again treason of 
 
 Tyler and the 
 
 to their original principle of government whig war 
 . f. , . i , nponftePref- 
 
 the supremacy of the legislature over the ex- ident s veto 
 
 , . power. 
 
 ecutive. 
 
 From this account, it is clearly manifest that the 
 Whig party did not stand upon any fundamental prin 
 ciple 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. 
 
 It might be thought, at first view, that the Demo 
 cratic party of that day was no better prepared than the 
 Whig party to encounter these questions, The 
 since it, too, had reached its distinctive posi- counter 
 tion through its attitude in economic issues. 
 But the strength of the Democratic party 
 lay in the South, and the South had a strong 8iou - 
 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, noth 
 ing to take the place of their overthrown economic poli 
 cies, while, as to the Democratic party, there was terri 
 torial extension for the sake of slavery extension. When 
 
 x- 
 
288 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 per se. 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 de 
 stroyed by it and its attendant question of slavery ex 
 tension. 
 
CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 TEXAS 
 
 Arkansas and Michigan Florida and Iowa Texas The Austin 
 Grant Local Government in Texas The Attempts by the 
 United States to Purchase Texas The Texan Revolution 
 General Sam Houston San Jacinto and Independence The 
 Recognition of the Independence of Texas Calhoun s frank 
 Declaration in Regard to the Annexation of Texas The Mis 
 sion of Mr. Morfit to Texas, His Report and Advice Jackson s 
 Recommendation to Delay the Recognition of Texan Indepen 
 dence Jackson s Request of Congress for Authority to Issue 
 an Ultimatum to Mexico in the Claims Question Texan Inde 
 pendence Recognized by the United States The Question of 
 Annexation Texan Proposition for Annexation The Mexican 
 Claims Commission and its Work Tyler as an Advocate of 
 Annexation Mr. Webster in the Way of Annexation The 
 Adams Address on Annexation The Retirement of Webster 
 The Promotion of Upshur, and His Negotiations with the Tex- 
 ans The Threat of the Mexican Government to Consider the 
 Annexation of Texas a Cause of War The Administration 
 Proposes Annexation to the Texan Agent The Difficulty in 
 the Way of Acceptance of the Proposition The Demand of 
 the Texans for Protection in the Interim Mr. Calhoun in the 
 State Department The Treaty of Annexation Signed The 
 Treaty in the Senate and its Rejection Mr. Archer s Opposi 
 tion to the Treaty The New Plan for Annexation. 
 
 AFTER the admission of Missouri there remained as 
 territory, upon which, according to existing law, it was 
 19 
 
290 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 probable that slaveholding Commonwealths would be 
 established, only Arkansas and Florida. 
 
 In 1836, Arkansas was admitted as a slaveholding 
 Commonwealth, and Michigan as a non-slaveholding 
 
 Arkansas Commonwealth, thus keeping the exact 
 ?an - 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 Mis 
 sissippi. At the end of this period, one of their chiefs, 
 Osceola, repudiated the agreement, and with a large fol 
 lowing began hostilities. By a long and expensive war 
 the Indians were at last expelled ; and the white inhabi 
 tants immediately chose delegates to a convention, who 
 met, in December of 1838, formed a Commonwealth 
 constitution, one of the provisions of which legalized sla- 
 
 Fiorida and ver y> anc *- demanded of Congress admission 
 Iowa. i n t the Union. Congress kept Florida wait 
 
 ing, however, for six years, until Iowa was ready, and then 
 admitted the two at the same time and by the same Act. 
 Meanwhile the events in the Southwest had been so 
 shaping themselves as to open up prospects for the long 
 Texas 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 Eio 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. 
 
TEXAS 291 
 
 The successful rebellion of Mexico against Spain made 
 this territory a part of the new Mexican state, and be 
 fore 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 T he Austin 
 practices of border life, Moses Austin, went grant 
 to Mexico, and representing himself, it is said, as the 
 leader of a company of Roman Catholics, who had suf 
 fered persecution in the United States, for their relig 
 ion s sake, solicited a grant of land from the Catholic 
 government of Mexico, and permission to make a settle 
 ment 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, colo 
 nized the grant, and received a ratification of the same 
 from the Mexican Government, the following year. 
 
 At that moment, Texas and Coahuila formed a single 
 Mexican province, and, after the establishment of the 
 federal system of government in Mexico, the 
 
 i 4<iiM r^ Local gov- 
 
 provmce became, in 1827, a Commonwealth, em men t m 
 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 arbi 
 trary 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 M 
 at last the decree from the Mexican President, Busta- R 
 mente, prohibiting further immigration into Texas from 
 the United States. 
 
292 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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. 
 
 Both in 1827 and in 1829, the United States Gov 
 ernment attempted to purchase Texas, and in the latter 
 The attempts year the proposition was actually made to 
 sLXfto SS tne Mexican Government to sell to the Unit- 
 chase Texas. ed states the territory lying to the north 
 west of the watershed of the River Nu-eces. It was, 
 however, promptly rejected by that Government. 
 
 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. 
 
 The Texans were,, however, for the moment, left to 
 their own devices. They first tried to have Texas sepa 
 rated from Coahuila and made a separate Common 
 wealth of the Mexican Union, but the Mexican central 
 government refused to assent to this. This was in 
 Overthrow 1833. Two years later Santa Anna, the 
 " f y8% f m de in Mexican President, forcibly displaced the 
 Mexico. federal system of government established in 
 
 Mexico by the constitution of 1824, and instituted the 
 centralized system, virtually by a presidential edict. 
 
 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 Common 
 wealth, 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 
 
TEXAS 293 
 
 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 atti 
 tude, resolved to reduce them to obedience by military 
 power. 
 
 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 Texan 
 the same time, the Mexican General Cos ap- > 1 * Hon - 
 peared, with a force of some fifteen hundred soldiers, at 
 the Texan village of Gonzales. The resistance of the 
 inhabitants of the town to Cos s order to surrender their 
 arms precipitated the struggle. The Texans immedi 
 ately organized a temporary government, drove the Mex 
 icans out of the country before the close of the year, 
 and, on March 2nd, 1836, declared their independence 
 of Mexico. 
 
 While the Texan convention, which had declared inde 
 pendence and was framing the constitution for the State 
 of Texas, was still in session, the Mexican soldiery, un 
 der 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 ex 
 termination. 
 
 Happily for the Texans they had now found their 
 proper leader, General Sam Houston. Many of the de 
 scriptions of this hero are caricatures. Of General Sam 
 those which approach the truth, that given Houeton - 
 by Senator Benton is perhaps most nearly correct. Ben- 
 ton 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 
 
294 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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, patriot 
 ism, and friendship." He was a Virginian by birth, 
 but an early resident of Tennessee, and had been Gov 
 ernor 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 be 
 fore 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 sud 
 denly upon the Mexicans, and inflicted upon them the 
 crushing defeat known as the battle of San Jacinto, in 
 San Jacinto wn i n ^ ne Mexicans loss was double the num- 
 and indepen- ber of Houston s armv, some sixteen hundred 
 
 dence. ^ 
 
 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. 
 The battle of San Jacinto was fought on April 21st, 
 1836. The convention had finished the constitution 
 Texas as a more than a month before. In September 
 Re"ubiic iOTial ^ H w i n g> General Houston was elected Presi 
 dent of the new republic, and the constitution 
 was almost immediately put into operation. This con 
 stitution legalized the existence of slavery in Texas, as a 
 constitutional right of the masters, prohibited the resi 
 dence of free negroes within the State without special 
 official permission, and interdicted the importation of 
 negro slaves, except from the United States. 
 
TEXAS 295 
 
 A little more than a month after the battle of San Ja- 
 cinto, the legislature of Connecticut set the ball in mo 
 tion for the recognition of the independence T h e recog . 
 of Texas by the Government of the United ?^ en J eD ^ e e 
 States. On May 27th, 1836, the two Houses of Texas, 
 of that body passed a resolution instructing the Sena 
 tors, and requesting the Representatives, in Congress 
 from Connecticut " to use their best endeavors to pro 
 cure 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 antici 
 pate Virginia, the birthplace of Houston, in owning its 
 offspring. A careful perusal of the whole of this Con 
 necticut 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 revo 
 lution to have been provoked by Mexican misrule and 
 barbarism, and to have been fully justified in political 
 ethics as well as by practical success. 
 
 On June 13th, Senator Niles, of Connecticut, pre 
 sented the Connecticut memorial to the Senate, and it 
 was immediately referred to the committee on Foreign 
 Eelations. On the 18th, Mr. Clay, the chairman of the 
 committee, reported a resolution : "That the indepen 
 dence 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 obli 
 gations of an independent Power." The resolution was 
 adopted by the Senate, on July 1st, without a dissenting 
 voice. 
 
 During the course of the debate upon it, Mr. Calhoun 
 
296 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 frankly told the Senate that he regarded the great im 
 portance of the recognition of the independence of Texas 
 to consist in the fact that it prepared the 
 
 frank deciara- W ay f or the speedy admission of Texas into 
 
 tionm regard J . , 
 
 to the annexa- the Union, which would be a necessity to 
 
 tion of Texas. , , , T _ . J , 
 
 the proper balance of power in the Union be 
 tween the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding Com 
 monwealths, 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 inde 
 pendence, almost everybody would have favored the 
 annexation of Texas to the United States, out of race 
 sympathy with the Texans and desire for territorial ex 
 tension, 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 inter 
 nal questions involved in the movement, and caused the 
 North generally to reconsider its attitude upon the 
 question. 
 
 On July 4th, 1836, the House of Kepresentatives 
 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. 
 
 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 infor 
 mation of tfye state of affairs there. Mr. Morfit wrote to 
 the Secretary of State, Mr. Forsyth, that the constitu- 
 
1037 101 99 97 95 93 
 
 Longitude West from Greenwich 
 
 TEXAS, 
 
 25 
 
 10.", 
 
 101 THE M.-N. CO,99BlJFF 
 
BBITIRSITY 
 
TEXAS 297 
 
 tion 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 miggion 
 the United States ; that the desire for an- of Mr. Morfit 
 nexation to the United States was universal ; report and ad- 
 that the boundaries asserted by the new State 
 were the Rio Grande del Norte on the south and south 
 west, the longitude from the source of the Rio Grande to 
 the boundary of the United States on the west, the south 
 ern boundary of the United States on the north and north 
 east, and the Gulf of Mexico on the east ; that the popu 
 lation 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 ves 
 sels, 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 pri 
 vate 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 pro 
 vided ; 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. 
 
 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, 
 
298 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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. 
 
 President Jackson transmitted this information to 
 Congress, in his message of December 21st, 1836, and 
 Jackson s recommended delay in recognizing the inde- 
 toTo m d n e?a a 7 pendence of Texas. On January llth, 1837, 
 tion orTelan however, Senator Walker, of Mississippi, of- 
 independence. f e red 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 infor 
 mation 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. 
 
 Before the resolution offered by Mr. Walker was taken 
 
 up for discussion, a message from the President was 
 
 communicated to Congress recommending 
 
 The q u e s - . . . D . , . . . , ~ P 
 
 tion of Mexi- the passage of an act, authorizing the Posi 
 tions to* 1;he dent to make reprisals upon Mexico, in case 
 te8 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 dep 
 redating the commerce, seizing the seamen, and insult 
 ing the flag of the United States, and the demands for 
 the satisfaction of these claims had been almost uni 
 formly disregarded. The relations between the two 
 Governments were already greatly strained on this ac 
 count, 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 
 
TEXAS 299 
 
 War between Mexico and Texas, had been thrown into 
 a great state of excitement and unrest, the Mexican 
 Minister, Sefior Gorastiza, demanded his passports, 
 issued a sort of manifesto to the people of the United 
 States, and left Washington. 
 
 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 Charge d Affaires of the Government at the Mexi 
 can 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 Min 
 ister of Foreign Affairs replied, admitting Jack8011 , s 
 the justice of some of the claims, and requir- request of 
 
 J . , . Congress for 
 
 1112; more miormation about others, but oner- authority t o 
 
 . ,. ,, ,, . ,. ^ n issue an ulti- 
 
 mg no reparation at all for insults to the flag m a t u m to 
 
 and to the consular officers of the United 
 States. The President s patience was ex- tion 
 hausted, and he sent the message of February 6th, 
 to Congress, asking for authority to make a final de 
 mand from the decks of a war-ship. 
 
 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 satisfac 
 tory 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 
 
300 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 views of Congress in his message of the previous De 
 cember, 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 that virtue, 
 since he soon opened diplomatic intercourse with the 
 
 Texan hide- Texan agent at Washington. The resolu- 
 he tions of the two Houses of Congress and 
 states, 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 indepen 
 dence. 
 
 It was clear to all thinking minds that the next step 
 after independence would be annexation to the United 
 
 The ues States. There is little question that Texas 
 tion of annex- 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 
 
TEXAS 301 
 
 of opposition to annexation, while it greatly excited the 
 desires of the South in favor of it. 
 
 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 Webster on 
 opposed to annexation on the ground that annexation 
 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 The sudden and unexpected accession of Vice-Presi 
 dent Tyler to the presidency, in 1841, was the event 
 which opened the way for the commencement of nego 
 tiations for annexation. The new President was known 
 to be favorable to the project. 
 
 Meanwhile the diplomatic relations between the 
 United States and Mexico, so suddenly broken off in 
 the latter part of President Jackson s Admin- The 
 istration, had been renewed in the early part 
 of President Van Buren s Administration, and its work. 
 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 submit 
 ted to, and decided by, a commission, which should be 
 
302 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 conven 
 tion ; that the commission should terminate its duties 
 within eighteen months from the time of its first meet 
 ing ; 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 ratifi 
 cation 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. 
 
 As early as the winter of 1841-42, it was suspected 
 
 that President Tyler s Administration was preparing to 
 
 T ler as an moye ^ n ^ ne ma tter of annexation. In fact, 
 
 advocate of Mr. Wise, of Virginia, the President s bosom 
 
 annexation. . . 
 
 friend, and his organ in the House of Repre 
 sentatives, 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 sla 
 very 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. 
 
TEXAS 303 
 
 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. 
 
 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 defi- Mr Webster 
 nite plan for annexation, even if he enter- in the way of 
 
 annexation. 
 
 tained one. Nevertheless, thirteen anti- 
 slavery Whig members of Congress, led by Mr. John 
 Qirincy Adams, issued, on March 3rd, 1843, an address to 
 the people of the non-slaveholding Common- 
 
 i i -, T , n i /> -.L Tne Adams 
 
 wealths, declaring that there was a definite address on an- 
 plan of annexation already settled upon, and 
 about to be consummated, and denouncing the execu 
 tion of it as being tantamount to a dissolution of the 
 Union. 
 
 On May 8th, 1843, Mr. Webster resigned the secre 
 taryship of State. It was said by some that the Presi 
 dent drove him out, in order to appoint a 
 Secretary who would carry out his plans for ment of Web- 
 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 Soon after Mr. Webster s resignation the President 
 transferred Mr. Upshur from the secretaryship of the 
 
304 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 Navy to that of State. Mr. Upshur was the man whom 
 suspicion had already marked as the confidant of the 
 The promo- President in the annexation scheme. This 
 and ^s suspicion was speedily confirmed by his en- 
 -iS- Bering, almost immediately, upon negotia- 
 ans - tions with the Texan agent at Washington, 
 
 Mr. Van Zandt, for annexation. 
 
 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 ap 
 peared 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. 
 
 The Administration professed to credit this story, 
 and Mr. Upshur wrote to General Murphy, the diplo 
 matic 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 inter 
 ference in Texas, and of the abolition of slavery there. 
 This letter bears date of August 8th, 1843, and is con 
 sidered as marking the beginning of the actual nego 
 tiations for annexation. It was certainly intended to 
 prompt General Murphy to sound the Texan Govern 
 ment upon the question of annexation. 
 
 The Mexican Government evidently discovered the 
 
TEXAS 305 
 
 movement immediately, for, on August 23rd, the Mexi 
 can Secretary of State declared to Mr. Thompson, 
 the Minister of the United States to Mex- The threafc 
 ico, that the Mexican Government would 
 
 consider any act of the United States to an- to consider the 
 
 __. . ., iv/r annexation of 
 
 nex Texas as a declaration of war on Mexico. Texas a cause 
 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, sever 
 al marauding expeditions had crossed the Eio Grande, 
 raided around for a few days, and then returned to Mex 
 ico. 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, The Admin . 
 at the beginning of the session of 1843-44, istration pro- 
 the President indicated to Congress that the tion to the 
 
 ,. ,. ,. . Texan agent. 
 
 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. 
 
 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 T 
 the two countries, and before its ratification cuity in the 
 by the respective Senates, as required by IX^of ^Sfe 
 the respective Constitutions, the Mexicans propos 
 would collect all their forces and make one supreme 
 effort to reconquer Texas. The Texans wanted the pro- 
 20 
 
306 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 tection 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, un 
 dertaken in defence of one foreign Power against an 
 other, 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 ratifica 
 tion 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 ? 
 
 About the middle of January, 1844, Mr. Van Zandt 
 demanded of Mr. Upshur whether, in case the President 
 The demand of Texas should agree to the proposition of 
 ?OT p e roSon the President of the United States for an- 
 in the interim. nex ation, the President of the United States 
 would protect Texas, from the moment of this agree 
 ment between the two Presidents, against all foreign 
 attack. Mr. Upshur seems to have been greatly per 
 plexed by the question, for he made no reply. 
 
 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 consti 
 tutional and international law. He immediately re 
 turned an affirmative answer, whereupon President 
 Houston sent a special envoy to Washington, armed with 
 plenary power to conclude a treaty of annexation. 
 
 Whether Secretary Upshur, and, of course, the Presi 
 dent, 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 deter 
 mined. 
 
TEXAS 307 
 
 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 Hous 
 ton. 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 Presi 
 dent Tyler would ratify Murphy s promise. Mr. Nel 
 son would not risk his reputation as a constitutional law 
 yer 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. 
 
 About a fortnight after taking possession of his office, 
 Mr. Calhoun officially informed the Texan agents at 
 Washington that the President had ordered 
 
 . , , . Mr. Calhoun 
 
 the concentration of a strong squadron of in the state 
 war-vessels in the Gulf of Mexico, and had 
 commanded the movement of land forces to the south 
 western 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 pen 
 dency of the Treaty of annexation. On the 
 
 The Trcjitv 
 
 day following this communication, the Treaty of annexation 
 of annexation was signed by the President of 
 the United States and by the Texas plenipotentiary for 
 the President of Texas. 
 
 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 makes the treaties, that the Senate only ratifies 
 
308 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 he 
 ascribed to Mr. Calhoun it certainly marks a great de 
 parture 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 Osesarism combined. 
 
 The Treaty was before the Senate, in secret session, 
 from April 22nd until June 8th, when it was rejected 
 The Treaty by a vo ^ e ^ thirty-five to sixteen. It is not 
 and^ts S r?ec- necessarv to examine the reasons which 
 tion. ..Amoved the Northern Senators to vote against 
 
 it, but it is important to understand some of the grounds 
 upon which Senators from the slaveholding Common 
 wealths 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 Mex 
 ico. 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 
 
 Mr. Archer s . , , -T-I * . TT 
 
 opposition to Senate committee for Foreign Affairs. He 
 claimed that a foreign state could not be an 
 nexed 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 doc- 
 
TEXAS 309 
 
 trine. It was a pregnant idea to the President and Mr~ 
 Calhoun. It indicated that there was another way to 
 accomplish annexation. 
 
 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 Demo 
 cratic 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-an 
 nexation of Texas " the chief plank in the party plat 
 form. 
 
 Here now were all the elements of a new plan for an 
 nexation, which promised more success. They were, , 
 the doctrine unwittingly advanced by Mr. 
 
 vL- i j i The new 
 
 Archer, and as unwittingly approved by plan for an- 
 many of the Senators, that Texas could I 
 be connected with the United States only by means 
 of an act of Congress admitting her as a Common 
 wealth 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 ques 
 tion with that of annexation, in order to get votes in the 
 North for both projects at once. 
 
 On June llth, 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 justi 
 fied 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 co-oper- 
 
310 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 ate with. Congress in the use of any other means com 
 patible with the Constitution and likely to accomplish 
 the result. 
 
 Before, however, following the history of the annexa 
 tion of Texas further, we must present briefly the main 
 points in the development of the Oregon question. 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 OREGON 
 
 Extent of Oregon and Claims to it The Nootka Convention 
 Louisiana and Oregon Astoria The Joint Occupation Agree 
 ment of 1818 Spain s Claims on Oregon Ceded to the United 
 States Renewal of the Convention of 1818 The British 
 Policy in Reference to Oregon The Ignorance of Oregon in 
 the United States Dr. Marcus Whitman Dr. Whitman s 
 Mission to the United States Government Dr. Whitman s 
 Colony The Democratic Party on the Oregon Question. 
 
 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 de- Oregon^ and 
 grees and forty minutes, and reaching in 
 ward to the Rocky Mountains. At that time it was 
 claimed by Spain both by discovery and first settle 
 ment. 
 
 In the year 1790, Great Britain advanced claims upon 
 it. A diplomatic discussion arose between the two Pow 
 ers, which ended temporarily in an agreement called the 
 Nootka Convention, by which no territorial The Npotka 
 or sovereign rights or powers were recog- Convention - 
 nized by Spain to Great Britain, but only certain ease 
 ments, 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 
 
312 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 settlements as might be necessary for the reasonable en 
 joyment of these rights. 
 
 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 Ore 
 gon, was now relieved of the encumbrance of the British 
 rights. 
 
 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 
 
 Louisiana question whether Louisiana contained Ore- 
 
 and Oregon. g Qn Qr any part Q f fa j t j g p ro bable 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 agree- 
 ment 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 wa 
 ter 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 paral 
 lel of latitude the northern boundary, westward from the 
 Lake of the Woods. 
 
 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 Govern 
 ment of the United States thought it had a claim upon 
 Oregon as a part of Louisiana, since the undertaking 
 
^OT"T^-**^ 
 
 [UH7SRSITY] 
 
OREGON 313 
 
 proceeded upon an understanding between Mr. John 
 Jacob Astor and the Government. 
 
 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 T^e joint 
 Britain could do so. Having taken forcible agreemtfof 
 possession of Astoria in the War of 1812, it 1818 - 
 restored the place, at the close of the War, to the pos 
 session 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 oc 
 cupation, as it w r as 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. 
 
 An event happened the following year which made 
 the Washington Government doubt the wisdom of bas 
 ing its claims upon the Louisiana cession. 
 It was the Treaty with Spain ceding the claims on ore- 
 Floridas. As we have seen in one of the the 
 
 earlier chapters of this work, this Treaty con- 
 tained 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. 
 
314 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 In 1828, the agreement of 1818 was indefinitely con 
 tinued, but might be terminated by a twelvemonth s 
 continua- notice by either party, at any time. The 
 convention h of United States, was, however, in a better posi 
 tion than before, on. account of having now 
 the Spanish claims to all territory above the forty-second 
 parallel on the Pacific. 
 
 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. 
 
 For some fourteen years longer, now, this indefinite 
 status continued. In the negotiations between Mr. 
 The British Webster and Lord Ashburton, in 1841 and 
 mratoo^ 1842, Mr. Webster sounded Lord Ashburton 
 g n - 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 modus 
 vivendi, 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. 
 
 It was well for the United States that the Oregon 
 question did not enter into those negotiations, for down 
 The igno- to that moment the Government at Wash- 
 g a on in" the ington knew almost nothing about the char- 
 tJnited states. acter O f 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 Gov- 
 
OREGON 315 
 
 ernment at Washington credited these statements, and 
 it is quite possible that, in 1842, it would have com 
 promised 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. 
 
 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 ]>. Marcus 
 sent out by the American Board of Missions, Whitman - 
 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 begin 
 ning of the settlement of Northern Oregon. 
 
 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 ex- D r Whit _ 
 plored. He arrived in Washington in March man s mission 
 of 1843, and gave President Tyler such full states Govem- 
 and truthful information concerning the 
 great value of Oregon north of the Columbia as settled 
 the fate of that region. 
 
 Dr. Whitman had come also for another purpose. 
 He saw clearly that the way to get Oregon was to colo 
 nize it. President Tyler s Administration supported him 
 
316 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 in this view and purpose. The Administration caused 
 
 Dr. Whitman s descriptions of Oregon to be printed and 
 
 Dr. whit- distributed throughout the United States, 
 
 man s colony. and a j go hig off er to } ead ft co l ony to ta ^ e 
 
 possession of the country. The place of rendezvous ap 
 pointed by him was Westport, near the site of the pres 
 ent 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 The Democrats had struck a high note in the interna 
 tional questions, one which was bound to catch the ear of 
 The Demo- the younger men throughout the country. 
 the tl o?e r go ) n Moreover, the policy in both cases rested 
 question. upon sound national principles. Texas, 
 at least to the Nueces, and Oregon, at least to the 
 northern water shed of the Columbia, belonged geo- 
 
OREGON 317 
 
 graphically 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 Com 
 monwealths, 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 Com 
 monwealths 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 annexa 
 tion 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 posses 
 sion of Oregon would not. 
 
 But they would subserve, they have subserved, the in 
 terests 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 pre 
 cedence. The country, however, understood the strata 
 gem, and the question of annexation assumed the fore 
 most place in the great contest. 
 
GHAPTEE XV. 
 
 THE "RE- ANNEXATION OF TEXAS AND THE RE-OCCU 
 PATION OF OREGON" 
 
 The Popularity of the Democratic Position, and Mr. Clay s Letter 
 of August 16th The Abolitionists Declare against Mr. Clay 
 The Triumph of Polk Tyler s Recommendation to Annex 
 Texas by a Joint Resolution or an Act The Resolution for 
 Annexation in the House of Representatives Passage of an 
 Enabling Act for Texas by the House of Representatives The 
 Resolution in the Senate and Mr. Archer s Inconsistencies 
 The Senate s Amendment to the Resolution of the House The 
 Concurrence of the House in the Senate s Amendment, and 
 the Passage of the Act for Admission The British Proposition 
 in Regard to Oregon The American Proposition Polk s rec 
 ommendation in Regard to the Matter The Debate upon the 
 President s Recommendation The Conclusion Reached by 
 Congress The President s Retort upon Congress The Oregon 
 Treaty. 
 
 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, under either the Treaty of 1803, or under that of 
 1819, or by the right of the prior discovery of the Co 
 lumbia Eiver 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. 
 
RE-ANNEXATION OF TEXAS 319 
 
 In the beginning of June, the election of Mr. Clay 
 seemed a certainty. As the campaign wore on it be 
 came 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 pre 
 vailed in that section concerning his opposi- T h e 
 tion to annexation should be modified. With larit y of the 
 
 - ... , Democratic 
 
 this in view, and under the belief that the position and 
 
 Air Olftv fl Ipf- 
 
 state of feeling upon the subject at the North ter of August 
 had become less hostile, Mr. Clay caused to l 
 be published in an Alabama newspaper, on August 16th, 
 a letter defining again his attitude toward annexation. 
 
 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 dis 
 honor, 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. 
 
 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 The Aboli . 
 meant permanent slavery extension, and that 
 he opposed it upon that ground. They were Mr - 
 not satisfied by Mr. Clay s causing another letter to be 
 published, in the National Intelligencer, declaring that 
 
320 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 extrava 
 gant fanaticism as to represent to the people that Mr. 
 Clay s election would be more favorable to annexation 
 than that of Mr. Polk. 
 
 It is usually said that Mr. Clay s Alabama letter 
 turned a sufficient number of votes to the Abolitionist 
 The triumph 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 prob 
 ably 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/ 
 
 The result of the election was regarded as the plebis 
 cite upon the question of annexation, and also upon the 
 Tyler s rec- Oregon question, but more especially upon 
 ?o n S?$ tne former. In his message to Congress at 
 re8(Sutfon ioi oJ tne opening of the session of 1844-45, Presi- 
 anact. dent 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 
 
RE-ANNEXATION OF TEXAS 321 
 
 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 Con 
 gress. He also informed Congress that negotiations 
 had been opened with Great Britain relative to the re 
 spective rights of the two Powers in, and over, the Ore 
 gon territory. 
 
 That part of the message relating to the question of 
 annexation was referred, in the House of Representa 
 tives, to the committee on Foreign Affairs, The resoiu- 
 and, on December 12th, Mr. Ingersoll, of nexatkm Tn 
 Pennsylvania, reported from that committee R p^senta- 
 the draft of a joint resolution for the annexa- tives - 
 tion of Texas. It was simply the articles of the agree 
 ment 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. 
 
 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 op- 
 21 
 
322 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 ponents 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 Eepresentatives to the joint resolution, ex 
 pressed in the very words of the proposed Treaty, de 
 clared that the resolution provided for a cession of terri 
 tory by a foreign state to the United States, which ces 
 sion could be made and accepted only through the form 
 >f 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 incon 
 sistency, but sought to so amend the resolution as to 
 make it an act for the formation of a new Common 
 wealth, or, as it is usually phrased, an act for the ad 
 mission of a new " State " into this Union. 
 
 On January 25th, 1845, the House passed a substitute 
 for the committee s resolution, which substitute was a 
 
 Passage o f resolution for enabling the people of Texas 
 ad- fo?Texal * f rm a Commonwealth constitution and 
 o?Re e re?enta- government, preparatory to admission into 
 fives. this Union, and prescribing certain condi 
 
 tions for the assent of Congress to the same. 
 
 When this resolution reached the Senate, it was re 
 ferred to the committee of that body for Foreign Affairs, 
 
 The resoiu- and on February 4th, Mr. Archer, the chair- 
 man of the committee, presented a report 
 iJ from his committee, and a recommendation 
 cies - that the proposition from the House be re 
 
 jected. The ground for this recommendation, as con 
 tained 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 
 
RE-ANNEXATION OF TEXAS 323 
 
 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. 
 
 It was not to be expected that the Senate or the coun 
 try would put up with any such inconsistent trifling. 
 The Senators were, however, much concerned in preserv 
 ing the treaty-making power of the Senate, and hesitated 
 long, attempting to find the way out of the embarrass 
 ment, which they had prepared for themselves, by their 
 attitude, during the preceding session, toward the pro 
 posed 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 The Senate s 
 deem it more advisable to negotiate with SlSSoS 
 Texas for her admission into the Union than of the House. 
 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. 
 
 The House of Representatives concurred in the Sen 
 ate s amendment, and the President signed 
 
 " The concur- 
 
 the Act on March 1st, 1845. He immedi- 
 
 ately submitted the resolution to the Texan Senate s 
 authorities, and on December 29th, 1845, and the pas- 
 
 Texas was formally admitted as a " State g 
 into this Union. 8iou - 
 
 There is little question that the President and Mr. 
 Galhoun 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 
 
324 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 following the method insisted upon by Congress as the 
 constitutional form and prescript. 
 
 In his first annual message President Polk informed 
 Congress that when he came into office he found that 
 The British Great Britain had proposed to settle the 
 Fn ro ?eg 8 id io tS Oregon question by making the divisional 
 line between the possessions of the two 
 Powers, west of the Eocky Mountains, the forty-ninth 
 parallel of latitude to the northeasternmost branch of 
 the Columbia Eiver, and, from this point, the course of 
 the river to the Pacific ; that his predecessor had re 
 fused this ; that he himself had, upon invitation from 
 the British plenipotentiary to make a proposition, of 
 fered the forty-ninth parallel from the Eocky 
 can proposi- Mountains to the Pacific, although he be 
 lieved 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. 
 
 The President further declared that all attempts to 
 compromise with Great Britain had failed, and he rec- 
 Poik e rec- ommended that Congress should give the 
 SSTnregard n t ic e, required by the convention of joint 
 to the matter, occupancy, f or the termination of that agree 
 ment, 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. 
 
 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 
 
RE-ANNEXATION OF TEXAS 325 
 
 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. 
 
 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 upon the 
 
 T - ,*<>, m ,> President s 
 
 line of fifty-four forty was extravagant, recommend a- 
 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. 
 
 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 Eockies, and 
 that the United States had already proposed to Great 
 Britain the continuation of this line to the Pacific, pro 
 duced the general feeling that the United States should 
 be satisfied with the forty-ninth parallel as the north 
 ern boundary of Oregon, rather than risk war for the 
 more northern line. Still, the opponents of the Ad 
 ministration had been so quick to charge the Presi 
 dent 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. 
 
 Owing to the course taken by the Senate, Congress 
 did not, however, cgme to any conclusion upon the rec 
 ommendation of the President until April The conclu . 
 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 
 
326 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 Presi 
 dent the responsibility as to the time of giving the notice, 
 by placing that matter entirely within his discretion. 
 
 The President had already reopened negotiations with 
 Great Britain upon the subject, and, on June 10th, he 
 The Presi- laid before the Senate a proposal, from the 
 u e p o s n c ei on- British Envoy, of the forty-ninth parallel for 
 gress. the boundary, and asked the Senate to ad 
 
 vise 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. 
 
 The Senate was fairly caught in its own net, and had 
 the good sense to refrain from a resistance which would 
 The Oregon have been only an undignified floundering in 
 Treaty. meshes prepared by itself. On the 12th, the 
 
 Senate advised the President to accept the British over 
 ture. On the 15th, the President signed the treaty, and, 
 on the 18th, the Senate ratified it by a large majority. 
 
 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 any 
 body expected. 
 
CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 THE WAR WITH MEXICO 
 
 Slidell s Mission to Mexico The Failure of the Mission The Con 
 centration of the Mexican Forces at Matamoras The United 
 States Forces Ordered to the Rio Grande Hostilities Opened 
 
 The Battles of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma The At 
 titude of Congress toward the War Congressional Approval of 
 the War The Occupation of New Mexico and Upper Cali 
 fornia, and the Advance into Mexico California s Importance 
 
 The Battle of Buena Vista Vera Cruz and Cerro Gordo 
 Contreras, San Antonio, and Cherubusco The Plan for a 
 Cession of Territory from Mexico The Wilmot Proviso The 
 Fate of the Wilmot Proviso in the Senate The Proviso Again 
 Voted by the House of Representatives The Upham Amend 
 ment in the Senate The Amendment Defeated by the Efforts 
 of Mr. Cass The Wilmot Proviso Dropped in the House The 
 Mission of Mr. Trist Rejection of Mr Trist s Propositions by 
 the Mexicans Negotiations Broken off Molino del Rey, 
 Chapultepec, Mexico The Recall of Mr. Trist, and the Treaty 
 of Guadalupe Hidalgo Ratification of the Treaty. 
 
 As we have seen, the Mexican Government had an 
 nounced to the Government of the United States that 
 the annexation of Texas would be regarded by Mexico as 
 a casus belli. 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, Presi- siideii s mis- 
 dent Polk made overtures for the resump- siontoMexico. 
 tion 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. 
 
328 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 Mr. Slidell arrived at Vera Cruz on November 30th, 
 1845, and found that President Herrera s Administra 
 tion 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. 
 
 Before the end of the year, President Herrera gave way 
 
 to General Paredes, who assumed the presidency of the 
 
 The failure Republic, and, under direction from President 
 
 ofthemission. p olk ^ Mr g lidell announce d himself to the 
 
 new Administration. This was March 1st, 1846. On 
 the 12th, he received the refusal of the Paredes Govern 
 ment to give him audience, and immediately left Mexico. 
 During the summer of 1845, the Mexican Govern 
 ment had begun to collect troops and munitions of war 
 at Matamoras, on the south bank of the 
 
 The concen- _. . ~ . . 
 
 tration of the Rio Grande near its mouth. The purpose 
 forces at Mata 1 - of all this was without question an expedi 
 tion across the Rio Grande, and into the re 
 gion north of it. 
 
 By an act of the Texan Congress, of December 19th, 
 1836, the Rio Grande was designated as the southwest 
 ern boundary of Texas. The United States took Texas 
 with this boundary, reserving in the resolution of an 
 nexation 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 rebel 
 lion, her revolution, against Mexico, by an agreement 
 with Mexico, in so far as Texas was concerned. It fur 
 ther 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, 
 
THE WAK WITH MEXICO 329 
 
 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. 
 
 When now the Mexican Government refused to re 
 ceive Mr. Slidell, and continued to increase the forces 
 at Matamoras, President Polk felt it to be his The United 
 duty to defend the line of the Eio Grande, ordered S fS 
 On January 13th, he ordered General Tay- Wo Grande, 
 lor, then in command at Corpus Christi, to advance to 
 the northern bank of the Eio Grande. The General, 
 with his little army of about 2,000 men, arrived upon 
 the Kio Grande, at a point opposite Matamoras, on 
 March 28th, and began fortifying his position. 
 
 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. Tay 
 lor paid no attention to the demand, and, on Hostilities 
 the 24th, he received notice from General P ened - 
 Arista, the successor of Ampudia, that hostilities were 
 opened. 
 
 On the same day, a reconnoitring party of United 
 States dragoons encountered a large detachment of 
 Mexican soldiers, who had just crossed the river far 
 ther up, and were all killed or captured. General 
 Taylor moved out from Fort Brown, opposite Mata 
 moras, 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. 
 
330 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 
 
 The battles inflicted a crushing defeat upon the Mexi- 
 
 and^Re^ca Cans in this battle f Pal Alt > and stmck 
 
 deiaPaima. them again the next day at Resaca de la 
 Palma, routing them completely, and driving the rem 
 nants of this once apparently formidable force across 
 the Rio Grande. 
 
 As soon as the news of these events reached Washing 
 ton, 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. 
 
 From the reception of this message to the end of 
 the War, the Whigs in both Houses condemned the 
 The attitude War, but only a few of them voted against 
 > oward gr ?he furnishing the means for its prosecution. 
 War - 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 Avar. He was getting old and more 
 peaceable in disposition, and also had probably seen, with 
 Mr. Thompson, that any further slavery extension to 
 ward 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 ex 
 ceeded his constitutional powers in bringing it on, and 
 should be impeached for so doing. 
 
 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 
 
THE WAR WITH MEXICO 331 
 
 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 hy 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. 
 
 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 Presi 
 dent 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 Congres . 
 President to call for 50,000 volunteers, and sionaUpprov- 
 for appropriating $10,000,000 to defray the 
 expenses of the compaign, was passed by an overwhelm 
 ing majority, in both Houses, on May llth and 12th, 
 and approved by the President on the 13th. 
 
 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 occupa 
 tion of Matamoras did not occur until May 18th, six 
 days after Congress had recognized war. 
 
 The President now ordered General Kearny to occupy 
 New Mexico, Commodores Sloat and Stock- 
 ton to make sure of Upper California, and 
 General Taylor to prosecute the war upon 
 Mexican soil. Kearny, Sloat, and Stockton advance into 
 quickly accomplished the work assigned them, 
 and without much difficulty, and Taylor advanced, in 
 September, from Matamoras upon Monterey. After a 
 
332 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 three days siege,, lie captured the place,, on the 24th, 
 and established winter-quarters within its walls. 
 
 At the same time, General Kearny sent Colonel Doni- 
 phan with a detachment of his army to Monterey, by way 
 of Chihuahua, and marched himself with another de 
 tachment to San Diego in California. Doniphan s capt 
 ure of Chihuahua brought the entire southern valley of 
 the upper Eio Grande under the military control of the 
 United States, and Kearny s successful march into Cali 
 fornia secured that territory against all eventualities. 
 
 The occupation of California was the matter of most 
 vital importance to the United States. It is the way to 
 
 California s Asia. Its government by Mexico was a farce, 
 importance. j^ wou i(j } iav e 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, sup 
 ported by geographical, commercial, and political reasons. 
 
 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 re 
 solved on, and General Scott was directed to execute it. 
 
 Santa Anna, who had now arrived in Mexico again 
 from Cuba, and had again taken up the reins of govern 
 ment, thought that the army of General Scott would be 
 unable to capture Vera Cruz without a long and pain 
 ful 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. 
 
 On February 20th, 1847, General Taylor, whose ad 
 vance was now some hundred miles to the southwest of 
 
THE WAR WITH MEXICO 333 
 
 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 of Buena 
 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 un 
 conditional 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. 
 
 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 and r cerro 
 march for the city of Mexico. 
 
 The first great difficulty which he was compelled to en 
 counter 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. 
 
334 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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. 
 
 On the morning of the 19th, the struggle began, and 
 lasted through the 20th. Three distinct battles were 
 contreras, fought Coiitreras, San Antonio, and Cheru- 
 a n n d A ctSra- busc - Tn e Mexicans outnumbered Scott s 
 busco. 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 thou 
 sand 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 Mexi 
 cans 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. 
 
 On August 8th, 1846, President Polk had asked of Con 
 gress that two millions of dollars be placed at his disposal 
 The plan for for use in negotiating a treaty of peace with 
 territory "rom Mexico. It was quite evident from this that 
 the President was going to demand a large ces 
 sion 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 ces 
 sion from the vanquished. It was evident to all that 
 California and New Mexico, already in the possession of 
 
THE WAR WITH MEXICO 335 
 
 the United States, must constitute the sacrifice which 
 Mexico must make. 
 
 Mr. McKay, of North Carolina, immediately intro 
 duced into the House of Representatives a bill making 
 the appropriation asked by the President. Thewnmot 
 Discussion upon the bill was scarcely under proyiBO - 
 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 ac 
 quired 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 ex 
 tension, 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 dis 
 cussion when the hour for the adjournment The fate of 
 of the body sine die arrived. It was thought 
 by some competent judges that the Senate 
 would have passed the bill, if it had t then come to a 
 vote, and would have thus settled, at the outset, the 
 question of slavery extension ; but this is at least doubt 
 ful. 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. 
 
 At the beginning of the session of 1846-47, the Presi 
 dent again preferred his request for an ap- 
 
 ... Jf ,, The Proviso 
 
 propnation for the same purpose, and during again voted by 
 
 the month of January, 1847, bills were intro- ReVnt a- 
 duced into the two Houses, providing an tlves - 
 appropriation of three millions of dollars for the Presi 
 dent s use in his negotiations with Mexico. 
 
336 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 When the House took up its bill for consideration, 
 on February 1st, Mr. Wilmot immediately asked per 
 mission 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. 
 
 On March 1st, Senator Upham, of Vermont, intro 
 duced an amendment to the Senate bill, of the same 
 TheU ham ^ enor as the Wilmot proviso in the House, 
 amendment m and urged its adoption in a strong and con- 
 
 the Senate. . . & j. TJ. 11 * 
 
 vincmg argument. It really seemed as if 
 the victory for Free-soil in the new acquisitions, what 
 ever they might be, was about to be won, when, to the 
 surprise of at least a considerable number of the Sena 
 tors, 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. Up- 
 ham s motion. Mr. Cass declared the measure prema 
 ture, and contended that its only effect, if passed, at 
 
 The amend- the moment would be to weaken the Govern - 
 by e "he e effort8 ment ^J internal dissensions upon the slav- 
 ofMr. caes. erv q ues tion, and consequently encourage 
 the Mexicans to continue the War. He urged the Sen 
 ators to stand solidly together for the vigorous prose 
 cution of the War to its successful close, and then, af 
 ter the peace, take up the internal questions arising out 
 
 The wn- of the settlement. The Senate rejected Mr. 
 S-oppedTJthe Upham s amendment, passed the bill without 
 House - 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 
 
THE WAR WITH MEXICO 337 
 
 encourage the Mexicans to continue the War seems to 
 have convinced the House as well as the Senate. 
 
 The President had now the tacit consent of Congress 
 to the acquisition of California and New Mexico, and 
 the means to pay for them hand. And the greater 
 military successes of General Scott from Yera Cruz to 
 the Mexican capital prepared the way for the President 
 to make use of his power. 
 
 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. T^ mission 
 It designated the Rio Grande from the Gulf oMr - TriBt 
 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 de 
 mands 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. 
 
 After the armistice of August 24th, the Mexican 
 Government sent commissioners to meet Mr. Trist. 
 They promptly rejected Mr. Trist s proposi- 
 
 J * L J Rejection of 
 
 tions, and offered, as their ultimatum, the Mr. Trist > 
 Nueces boundary^ the cession of Upper Cali- Ey tL W MeS- 
 fornia 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 con 
 cerning the claims of the citizens of the United States 
 against Mexico. 
 
 The proposals were so far apart, and the Mexicans 
 22 
 
338 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 bore themselves with so much arrogance, that the nego 
 
 tiations were broken off, the armistice was terminated, 
 
 and General Scott resumed military opera- 
 
 Negotiations ,. r\ c* -i 0^1 i a- / i 
 
 broken off. tions. On September 8th, he inflicted a 
 key, 1 chai>ui- crushing defeat upon the Mexicans at Molino 
 
 tepee, Mexico. ^ Rey Qn the 13t ^ he stormed succes s. 
 
 fully the heights of Chapultepec and two gates of the 
 city. And on the 14th, he captured the city. 
 
 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 a outrance. The opposition to the Ad 
 ministration in Congress declared that the total dis 
 memberment 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. 
 
 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 
 
 The recall of . , r , . 
 
 Mr. Trist, and not even acquaint the Mexican Government 
 Guadaiupe 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 Guadaiupe 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 assump 
 tion by the United States of all the obligations of Mexico 
 to citizens of the United States incurred before the con 
 clusion of the Treaty. 
 
 Mr. Trist immediately took the proposed Treaty to 
 
THE WAR WITH MEXICO 339 
 
 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 Ratification 
 requisite two - thirds majority, on March c 
 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. 
 
CHAPTER XVII 
 
 THE ORGANIZATION OF OREGON TERRITORY AND THE 
 COMPROMISE OF 1850 
 
 Bills for Oregon Territory Thirty-six Degrees and Thirty Minutes 
 to the Pacific Mr. Rhett on the Rights of the South in the 
 Territories The Third Oregon Bill The Party Platforms of 
 1848 The President Urges the Organization of California and 
 New Mexico Mr. Clayton s Attempt at Compromise Passage 
 of the Oregon Bill by Congress The Free-soil Party in 1848 
 The President s Approval of the Oregon Bill Gold and Silver 
 in California The Election of Taylor, and the Disaffection of 
 the Northern Democrats Plans for the Organization of Cali 
 fornia and New Mexico The House Bill for the Territorial 
 Organization of Upper California Mr. Walker s Scheme in the 
 House Mr. Webster and Mr. Berrien 011 the Status of Slavery 
 in the Territory Acquired from Mexico Emigration to Califor 
 nia President Taylor s Scheme The Convention at Monterey 
 
 The Policy of the Administration The Policy of the 
 Slavery Extensiouists The Elements of the Slavery Question 
 in Congress Mr. Clay s Plan of Compromise Objections 
 to Mr. Clay s Plan California s Application for Admission 
 Mr. Calhoun s Last Speech Mr. Webster s March 7th Speech 
 
 Mr. Bell s Proposition The Death of Mr. Calhoun Mr. 
 Foote s Motion and the Committee of Thirteen The Report 
 and Recommendations of the Committee The Debate Upon 
 the Bills Proposed by the Committee, and the Failure to Pass 
 Them The Temper of the Country The Succession of Fill- 
 more and His Message of August 6th The Passage of Bills, 
 Separately, Covering All Questions Contained in Mr. Clay s 
 Compromise Measures. 
 
 Ox August 6th, 1846, Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, chair 
 man of the committee on Territories, asked the House 
 
THE ORGANIZATION OF OREGON TERRITORY 341 
 
 of Kepresentatives to consider a bill prepared by that 
 committee for the organization of Oregon as a Terri 
 tory. The House consented, and immedi- 
 
 , i -i- . -r i-n Ar First bill for 
 
 ately upon the second reading of the bill, Mr. Oregon Tem- 
 Thompson, of Pennsylvania, a Democrat and tory 
 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 con 
 victed." 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 ses 
 sion. 
 
 At the beginning of the next session, Mr. Douglas in 
 troduced a new bill for the same purpose. This bill 
 virtually contained the Thompson amend- The second 
 ment in the proviso that all the restrictions bm - 
 in the Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwest 
 Territory, should apply to Oregon. 
 
 On January 12th, 1847, Mr. Burt, of South Carolina, 
 moved to insert before this proviso the words, " inas 
 much as the whole of the said Territory lies Thirty-six 
 north of thirty-six degrees and thirty min- aS^innteB 
 utes north latitude, known as the line of to the Pacific, 
 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, how 
 ever, 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 ac- 
 
342 THE MIDLE PERIOD 
 
 quired from Mexico nov$tf)f thirty-six degrees and thir 
 ty minutes. 
 
 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, 
 
 Mr. Rhett . , . , ... . , . , ., ~ f, 
 
 on the rights in which the new view, which the South was 
 in the Terri- now beginning to take upon the rights of the 
 
 ies * two sections in the Territories, was first pro 
 
 nounced. That view was, briefly expressed, that the 
 " States " were joint owners of the Territories, and 
 " co-Sovereigns " in them; that the general Gov 
 ernment 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 settle 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Rhett qualified this conclusion by saying that it 
 did not mean that each " State " should set up govern 
 ment 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 Territo 
 ries and settle and occupy^ them with their property, 
 with whatever was recognized as property by their re 
 spective " States." Stated more clearly, it meant that 
 the general Government must execute the laws of each 
 " State," defining and protecting property, in each Terri 
 tory 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. 
 
THE ORGANIZATION OF OREGON TERRITORY 343 
 
 In plain, blunt Anglo-Saxon, it meant that the gener 
 al 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 The bill passed the House on January 16th, 1847, by a 
 vote of nearly four to one, and was immedi- The failure 
 ately sent to the Senate. The Senate re- g[ ^JjJ! 1 in 
 ferred it to its Judiciary committee. The 
 committee reported on it, and the bill was laid on the 
 table, the last day of the session. 
 
 During the next session, bills were introduced into 
 both Houses for organizing Oregon as a Territory. On 
 January 10th, 1848, Mr. Douglas, who had The third 
 been transferred from the House to the Sen- Oregon bin. 
 ate, 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 Territo 
 rial legislature should change them. These laws ex 
 cluded slavery. Here was the germ of " squatter-sover 
 eignty/ afterward developed by Mr. Douglas in his 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill. 
 
 The House bill, containing substantially the same pro 
 vision as the bill of the preceding session, was intro 
 duced 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. 
 
344 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 The bills were dragging along slowly in both Houses,, 
 when, on May 29th, the President sent a special mes- 
 
 The Presi- sage to Congress urging immediate action 
 action on g the on the subject. This gave some impetus to 
 blll- the proceedings in both Houses. 
 
 On May 21st, Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, moved to 
 amend the Senate bill by a provision excluding slavery, 
 
 Mr. Bale s an( l insisted upon the power and the duty 
 amendment. Q c on g ress to settle the question of slavery 
 in the Territories, and to settle it in the interest of free 
 dom. The debate in the Senate upon Mr. Hale s motion 
 was long and acrimonious, during which the Southern 
 ers 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 
 
 Mr. Davis s bill by the provision that nothing in the bill 
 amendment, g^ia ^ e 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 ex 
 tension of slavery. 
 
 It cannot be said, however, that it represented the 
 difference of attitude of the two great parties upon the 
 
 The arty su ^j ec ^- The National conventions of these 
 platforms o f parties for the nominations of candidates for 
 the presidency had just been held. The 
 convention of the Democratic party had refused to in 
 sert the declaration in its platform that Congress had no 
 
THE ORGANIZATION OF OREGON TERRITORY 345 
 
 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 in 
 tended for circulation in the South. The exact word ing 
 of Mr. Cass s 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. 
 
 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 re 
 cord at all, for its candidate, the old hero of Buena 
 Vista, General Taylor. 
 
 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 differ 
 ences between the sections. That this was to be the 
 outcome no far-seeing eye ought then to have failed to 
 perceive. 
 
 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 ThePresi- 
 the Oregon bill, when, on July 6th, 1848, the %%!* 
 President sent a special message to Congress andNew f Mex a 
 urging the immediate organization of Terri- ico - 
 torial governments for California and New Mexico, 
 
346 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 which were still under the military regime established 
 at the time of their occupation. 
 
 It appeared to some of the Senators that here was 
 now offered the opportunity for settling the whole 
 Mr. ciay- question of the extension of slavery to the 
 i^eomptSJ Territories, by compromise; and, on July 
 12th, Mr. Bright, of Indiana, moved to refer 
 the whole matter of the organization of Territorial gov 
 ernments 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 modi 
 fication of his motion, and the Senate immediately voted 
 the resolution, and appointed the committee, with Mr. 
 Clayton as chairman. 
 
 On the 18th, Mr. Clayton reported the bill from his 
 committee, which provided for the organization of Ore 
 gon, 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 con 
 stitutional question. That is, the proposition with 
 reference to slavery in California and New Mexico was, 
 that slaveholders might take their slaves into these Ter 
 ritories 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 ap 
 peal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which 
 final tribunal should determine the question as a matter 
 
THE ORGANIZATION OF OREGON TERRITORY 347 
 
 of constitutional law, and, therefore, upon its own in 
 dependent interpretation of the Constitution. 
 
 The Senate debated this bill for a week, during which 
 time the flimsy character of the makeshifts p a88 age of 
 became painfully apparent. The Senate 
 passed the bill, however, on the 26th, and 
 sent it to the House. the House - 
 
 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. 
 
 On the 10th, the Senate passed this bill, with an 
 amendment, proposed by Mr. Douglas, extending the 
 Missouri Compromise line of thirty-six de 
 grees and thirty minutes to the Pacific. biUinth?seS 
 The House immediately rejected the amend- f> e o uTfa J^ 
 ment, and the Senate was compelled to re- amen ^ ment - 
 cede, or let Oregon go without Territorial government. 
 It wisely voted, on the 12th, to recede from its amend 
 ment, and passed the bill, with the Congressional pro 
 hibition of slavery, and without compromise passage of 
 as to the settlement of the slavery question gg Vy 6 ^ 
 in California and New Mexico. Among the gress - 
 Senators who changed their votes upon the amendment 
 were Douglas from the North, and Benton and Houston 
 from the South. 
 
 The feeling aroused outside of Congress by the con 
 test 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 con- 8on h party fn 
 vention at Buffalo, New York, on August 1848> 
 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 
 
348 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 principle and the party of the future. Those who com 
 posed it held to the Union and the Government,, vindi 
 cated 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. 
 
 The President signed the Oregon bill, on August 14th, 
 for the reason, he said, among other reasons, that it 
 The Preei- preserved the principle of the Missouri Com- 
 promi of ? promise, making the territory north of thirty- 
 Oregon bin. 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 slave- 
 holding 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. 
 
 At the same time, the President gave official veri 
 fication to the rumors of the discovery of great quanti 
 ties of gold and silver in California, which 
 silver in & caii- quickened the emigration of the bold and 
 adventurous spirits from all parts of the 
 country to the new El Dorado. 
 
 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 
 
THE ORGANIZATION OF OREGON TERRITORY 349 
 
 Whigs from Northern Democrats, which had not been 
 before accorded. The elections of 1848 had greatly 
 surprised the Northern Democrats. The The eiec- 
 Whig candidate, General Taylor, carried a 
 majority of the Southern Commonwealths, 
 and was chosen President. The Demo- Democrats, 
 crats 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 Eepresentatives than 
 in the Senate. On December llth, 1848, Mr. Douglas 
 brought into the Senate a plan for avoiding the question 
 in respect to slavery in California and New p]ang f 
 Mexico, by immediately erecting the whole of the organiza- 
 
 . J _ / tion of Cali- 
 
 the territory acquired irom Mexico into a sin- fomia and 
 
 in ,,, -. . . , . New Mexico. 
 
 gle 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 com 
 mittee 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 re 
 striction of the Ordinance of 1787 in them. On Janu 
 ary 9th, 1849, Mr. Berrien, chairman of the Judiciary 
 committee, reported adversely upon Mr. Douglas s pro, 
 position, 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 or 
 ganization was necessary, and that Congress could never 
 
350 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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. 
 
 Mr. Douglas immediately modified his bill so as to 
 meet the latter objection ; and on January 24th, oifered 
 Mr. Doug- a substitute for his former proposition, which 
 las spian. provided for a Commonwealth of California 
 that would not quite cover the territory which the Mexi 
 cans included under the title of the Province of Upper 
 California. On Mr. Douglas s own motion, this proposi 
 tion 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 ac 
 quired 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 noth 
 ing for them during the current session. 
 
 On February 19th, Mr. Walker, of Wisconsin, came 
 forward in the Senate with an expedient. He moved 
 
 Mr. Walker s to attach to the Civil and Diplomatic Appro- 
 expedient, priation 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, 
 
THE ORGANIZATION OF OREGON TERRITORY 351 
 
 and sent the Appropriation Bill thus modified back to 
 the House for concurrence. 
 
 Meanwhile the bill in the House for the Territorial 
 organization of Upper California, with the slavery pro 
 hibition clause in it, was proceeding through The House 
 a most exciting debate, but with increasing Territorial or 6 
 
 prospect of final passage. On February 27th, 
 it was passed, by an almost sectional vote, and forilia - 
 sent to the Senate. The Senate referred it to its com 
 mittee on Territories, and there it slept as in " the 
 tomb of all the Capulets." 
 
 On March 1st, the House took up the Senate s amend 
 ment to the Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation Bill, and 
 referred it to the committee on Ways and 
 Means. This committee reported, on March er B scheme in 
 2nd, an amendment to the Senate s amend 
 ment, 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 pur 
 pose of this amendment was the continuance of the 
 Mexican law excluding slavery. The House did not, 
 however, adopt this proposition, but sent the Appropri 
 ation 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 Con 
 ference committee could come to no agreement. 
 
 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 concur- Mr. Web- 
 rence with the House in this proposition, and Berrien 1 on 
 
 said that it meant no more than the exist- ^averr*!!! 8 the 
 ing status, which would continue if nothing ^ed^f ro a m 
 were done. Mr. Berrien contended, on the Mexico. 
 contrary, that only the private law of the ceding country, 
 
352 THE MIDDLE PEEIOD 
 
 the law regulating the relations between individuals, re 
 mains 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 slave 
 holders to take their slaves into this territory, and hold 
 them in slavery ; but that if Congress, by a positive enact 
 ment, should adopt the Mexican laws, en bloc, 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 Cali 
 fornia and New Mexico, and without having advanced, 
 in the slightest measure, toward the solution of the fate 
 ful question of slavery extension in the vast empire 
 conquered from Mexico. 
 
 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 
 
THE ORGANIZATION OF OREGON TERRITORY 353 
 
 close of the spring of 1849, California had a popula 
 tion within her provincial limits numerous Emigration 
 enough, according to prevailing concep- to California, 
 tions, to make a Commonwealth. 
 
 The new President, Taylor, thought that all further 
 controversy about the Territorial organization of Cali 
 fornia might now be avoided, by skipping presidentTay- 
 the Territorial period and status altogether, lor 8 8Cheme 
 and organizing California immediately as a Common 
 wealth. He sent a commissioner to examine the situa 
 tion on the ground and make report. Whether the 
 commissioner imparted the President s scheme to Gen 
 eral Riley, the military Governor, or not, we are not 
 informed. AVe 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. 
 
 The people quickly responded by choosing delegates, 
 and the delegates met at Monterey on September 1st, 
 1849. By October 13th, their work was 
 
 ^ . -I -ii Tneconven- 
 
 completed, and the organic law which they tion at Mon- 
 d rafted was ratified by the people, on Novem 
 ber 13th. One of its provisions was the prohibition of 
 slavery. The rilling 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 advent 
 urers, untrammelled by families or stupid African re 
 tainers. 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. 
 
 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 
 
354 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 New Mexico would soon follow the example of the 
 Californians. The policy of the Administration in ref 
 erence to this question was thus clearly de- 
 
 Thepolicyof , , , ,_ ,,-, 
 
 the Adminis- fined,, and was, whether intentional or not, 
 a policy favorable to the prohibition of slav 
 ery in both California and New Mexico. The slave 
 holders, or rather the slavery extensionists, regarded 
 the President s position as treachery to his section. 
 
 The policy of the slavery extensionists was to organize 
 California and New Mexico as Territories, without the 
 
 The policy P r ohibition of slavery in them, giving thus 
 extOTBioiSte y ^ me an< ^ opportunity for slaveholders to 
 settle in them, with their slaves, and, when 
 the time should come for the formation of Common 
 wealth 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. 
 
 The slavery question in Congress had now come, 
 however, to include more than the matter of the gov- 
 
 The eie ernmen ^ organization of the territory ac- 
 ments of the quired from Mexico. There was, in the first 
 
 slavery ques- , . . . , m , 
 
 tion in Con- place, the question of the Texan boundary, 
 in that, by the Joint Kesolution annexing 
 Texas, the adjustment of that boundary, as regarded 
 foreign states, at least, was reserved to Congress. Texas, 
 as we know, claimed the Eio Grande from mouth to 
 source, and thence the mountain ridge to the forty-sec 
 ond 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 Kio Grande to the 
 
THE ORGANIZATION OF OREGON TERRITORY 355 
 
 limits of New Mexico, and ceding New Mexico, made the 
 question of the Texan boundary a purely internal ques 
 tion for the United States, if it was any longer a ques 
 tion. The Abolitionists and anti-slavery-extensionists 
 wanted to reduce Texas in area, since slavery was estab 
 lished by the law of the Commonwealth throughout its 
 entire extent. They therefore interpreted the Besolu- 
 tion 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 Eesolution of annexa 
 tion repudiated it since it was hypothecated upon rev 
 enue, 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 Abo 
 litionists, after 1835, as to make a more strenuous meas 
 ure necessary, unless the slaveholders would abandon 
 their constitutional rights to the rendition of their es 
 caped 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. 
 
 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. 
 
356 THE MIDDLE PEEIOD 
 
 This proposition provided, in the first place, for the 
 
 immediate admission of California as a Commonwealth, 
 
 with suitable boundaries, and without any 
 
 Mr. Clay s . . , j i 
 
 plan of com- restrictions as to slavery ; in the second place, 
 for the establishment of Territorial govern 
 ments 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 annexa 
 tion 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 pur 
 pose 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 ex 
 ist 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. 
 
 In spite of the fact that Mr. Clay asked the Senators 
 to consider his propositions carefully before committing 
 siavehoid- themselves, and suggested that they should 
 ffSPaSR la J over for a week > the Southern Senators 
 plan. immediately proceeded to attack the plan at 
 
 several points. They objected to California being al 
 lowed to jump the Territorial period of probation and 
 preparation for Commonwealth government. They de 
 clared Mr. Clay s dictum about the existing illegal 
 ity 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 Con- 
 
THE ORGANIZATION OF OREGON TERRITORY 357 
 
 gres s in 1836. And while some of them were not de 
 cidedly opposed to the abolition of the slave-trade in 
 the District of Columbia,, most of them deprecated med 
 dling 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 out 
 right that he wanted a positive recognition from Con 
 gress of the legality of slavery in the new territory south 
 of the parallel of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes. 
 
 On the other hand, the Abolitionists and the anti- 
 slavery-extensionists insisted upon the immediate ad 
 mission of California, with its anti-slavery Anti-slavery 
 constitution ; upon the insertion of the 
 principle of the Wilmot proviso in the Ter- plan - 
 ritorial 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. 
 
 The contradiction between these views appeared ir 
 reconcilable. We may say, however, that a start toward 
 an approach was caused by the transmission 
 of California s application to Congress for ad- application 
 
 . . ,., . , ,1 TT for admission. 
 
 mission, as a Commonwealth, into the Union. 
 
 This happened on February 13th. On the follow 
 ing day, Mr. Douglas moved to take up the President s 
 message accompanying the application, and thus to con 
 sider 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 
 
358 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 Southerners were made to feel that they must modify 
 their opposition to Mr. Clay s plan, if they desired to 
 avoid something like this. 
 
 On March 4th,, Mr. Calhoun made his last great speech 
 upon the whole political situation,, its threatening char 
 acter, and its possible rectification. He was 
 houn s ia a st too feeble to pronounce it himself,, and it 
 was read for him by Senator Mason. Mr. 
 Calhoun s propositions were, that the Union was en 
 dangered ; 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 be 
 tween the two sections of the country in the Government 
 was gone,, and the stronger section was endeavoring to 
 make the Government an unlimited centralized democ 
 racy, 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 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 pres 
 entation of the whole question, and it .made a great im 
 pression. 
 
THE ORGANIZATION OF OEEGON TERRITORY 359 
 
 On March 7th, Mr. Webster made his famous speech, 
 giving his great influence to pacification and compromise, 
 and to the preservation of the Constitution. 
 
 Mr W c b - 
 
 He told the Northerners that they were bound stems March 
 by the agreement with Texas to admit four 7 
 new Commonwealths from Texan territory, under the 
 usual conditions ; that they were bound by the Con 
 stitution 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 juris 
 diction 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 ex 
 tremists, 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. 
 
 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 Ten- Mr. Bell s 
 nessee, had offered some propositions, looking propos 
 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 
 
360 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 forma 
 tion of Territorial governments for New Mexico and 
 Utah. 
 
 On March 31st, Mr. Calhoun passed away. The 
 announcement of his death, the eulogies pronounced 
 The death U ^ OTL k is memorv > and the funeral rites, were 
 of Mr. cai- most solemn and impressive occasions. The 
 influence of the sad event seemed, for the 
 moment, to soften the hearts of those who had asso 
 ciated with him toward one another. It seemed as if 
 political foes would be willing to join hands across his 
 bier. 
 
 On April llth, Mr. Mangum, of North Carolina, 
 moved to refer the resolutions of Mr. Clay, along with 
 Mr. Foote s those of Mr. Bell, to the committee suggested 
 Secommittee ty Mr. Foote. Mr. Foote accepted Mr. 
 of Thirteen. 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. Dickin 
 son, Mr. Downs, Mr. King, Mr. Mason, Mr. Mangum, 
 Mr. Phelps, and Mr. Webster. Seven members, includ 
 ing the chairman, Mr. Clay, were from the South and 
 six from the North. 
 
 On May 8th, Mr. Clay made the report, and offered 
 the bills, from the grand committee, covering all the 
 
THE ORGANIZATION OF OREGON TERRITORY 361 
 
 subjects referred. The first bill provided for the admis 
 sion of California,, with the Commonwealth organiza 
 tion formed by her people the preceding autumn ; for 
 the Territorial organization of Utah and New The re ort 
 Mexico, without any slavery restriction, and and recom- 
 
 , i - -i - -,-,--, mendations of 
 
 with restrictions upon the Territorial legisla- the commit- 
 tures 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 
 Eiver 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. 
 
 The second bill provided that a fugitive from labor 
 must be delivered up on the order of any judge or com 
 missioner 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 pre 
 sentation to him, by the claimant of the fugitive, of a 
 copy of the record of a competent court in the Com 
 monwealth, Territory, or District from which the fugi 
 tive 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, 
 
362 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 Territory, or District from which he was said to have es 
 caped. 
 
 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 depot. 
 
 The debate began immediately upon the first bill, and 
 
 the opposition to it from both sections advanced about 
 
 The debate the same arguments as were employed against 
 
 proposed ^b 1 ? these same subjects when presented in the 
 
 form of Mr - Cla / s resolutions. The discus 
 to pass them. s j on 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 compro 
 mise was lost. 
 
 The whole country was amazed, disappointed, and 
 
 angry. The Senators were quickly and decidedly made 
 
 The temper to feel that they dare not separate without 
 
 of the country. doing southing to h ea \ the distractions of 
 
 the land. 
 
 The death of President Taylor, on July 9th, and 
 
 the accession of Mr. Fillmore, made the Administra- 
 
 The succes- ^ on more favorable to the measures includ- 
 
 sion of Fin- e d in the compromise plan. On August 
 
 more and his A . x 
 
 message of 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 ex 
 tending the jurisdiction of Texas over the disputed 
 territory on the eastern border of New Mexico, and 
 that the President, as military Governor, in highest in 
 stance, of New Mexico, felt obliged to resist the move 
 ment, 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 
 
THE ORGANIZATION OF OREGON TERRITORY 363 
 
 to the matter of the boundary between Texas and New 
 Mexico. 
 
 Under this pressure, the Senate took np the Texan 
 boundary bill, introduced by Mr. Pierce, of Maryland, 
 which provided that the northern boundary Thepageage 
 of Texas should be the parallel of thirty-six rfjjffls^Bepa- 
 degrees and thirty minutes from the one ing *ii ifrj 
 hundredth degree of longitude to the one contained in 
 hundred and third degree ; that the western compromise 
 and southwestern boundary should be the E 
 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 re 
 gard to the payment of her public debt. On August 
 9th, the bill passed the Senate. 
 
 On the 13th, the Senate took up the bill for the im 
 mediate admission of California, reported from the 
 committee on Territories, and passed it by a large ma 
 jority. 
 
 On August 15th, the Senate passed the bill from the 
 committee on Territories for the Territorial organiza 
 tion 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. 
 
 The Senate then took up the Fugitive Slave Bill re 
 ported in March from the Judiciary committee. Inas 
 much 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 assist 
 ance in the rendition of fugitive slaves, the Judiciary 
 
364 THE MIDDLE PEEIOD 
 
 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 some 
 what 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 at 
 tempting 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. 
 
 At last, on September 16th, the Senate passed the bill 
 recommended by Mr. Clay s committee, for the aboli 
 tion of the slave-trade in the District of Columbia. 
 
 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 Septem 
 ber 30th, 1850, the great work of pacification, as it was 
 hoped and believed to be, had been accomplished. 
 
CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 THE EXECUTION OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW, AND 
 THE ELECTION OF 1852 
 
 Change of Attitude of the Slaveholders by the Fugitive Slave Law 
 of 1850 The First Cases Under the New Law The Opposition 
 to the Execution of the Law Establishment of the "Under 
 ground " The Support of the Law by the Political Leaders 
 The President s Support of the Law Joshua R. Giddings 
 Petitions for the Repeal of the Law The Shadrach Case The 
 Investigation of the Case by Congress The Question of In 
 creasing the Power of the President to Execute the Law The 
 Sims Case Excitement in Boston Over the Rendition of Sims 
 The * Jerry Rescue " The President s Rebuke Mr. Foote s 
 Finality Resolutions The Failure of the Resolutions to Pass 
 the Senate, but Their Success in the House The National 
 Conventions of 1852 and the Finality of the Compromise 
 Measures The Deaths of Clay and of Webster, and the Ap 
 pearance of a Free-soil Candidate The Overwhelming Demo 
 cratic Victory of 1852 The True Policy of the Slaveholders, 
 and Their Failure to Discern It. 
 
 DOWN to the time of the enactment of the Fugitive 
 Slave Law of 1850, it may be said that the slaveholders 
 change of were acting, in a certain sense, on the de- 
 8iawhowe?8 fensive - Before 1787, slavery had been re- 
 %ve h siave g ar( *ed as a temporary relation, demanded 
 Law of 1850. by the moral and intellectual degradation of 
 the Africans, and by the necessities of the social struct 
 ure 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, 
 
THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 revolu 
 tionary spirit of the eighteenth century, were all un 
 favorable 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 prop 
 aganda ; 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 adjust 
 ment 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 jus 
 tification whatsoever for its existence can be found. 
 
 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 gen 
 eral 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 perpet 
 uation of slavery. The attempt to effect it was, there 
 fore, the assumption of an offensive attitude on the part 
 of the slaveholders, an attitude which was bound to pro- 
 
EXECUTION OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW 367 
 
 voke 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 Khett and 
 Davis had seen this danger, and they were not sup 
 porters 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. Possi 
 bly, protected as their " States " were by the border 
 slaveholding Commonwealths, they did not feel the ne 
 cessity of such a law. At any rate, it was the border 
 slaveholding Commonwealths which wanted the law. 
 
 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 The firgt 
 mistress, Mary Brown, of Baltimore, was the cases under 
 
 __ .f , ... , , ., , - IT the neW lftW - 
 
 victim. He had a wife and children in JNew 
 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 pop 
 ulation throughout the North, and great indignation on 
 the part of the white citizens in many quarters. 
 
 It was calculated that there were from fifteen to twenty 
 thousand escaped slaves living at that time in the non- 
 slaveholding Commonwealths who were lia- The opposi- 
 ble to apprehension under the law ; and every e^utionof the 
 person having any negro blood, whether es- law - 
 caped 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 peo 
 ple to move for the repeal of the law. 
 
368 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 In answer,, so to speak, to these appeals, mass-meetings 
 of white people were held in Lowell, Syracuse, and Bos 
 ton, at which the law was denounced, its repeal de 
 manded, 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 exe 
 cution. 
 
 In the midst of this excitement two Georgia slaves, 
 named William and Ellen Crafts, had succeeded in 
 Establish- reaching Boston, and were concealed by some 
 - uVde r 6 of the most high-toned people of that city, 
 ground." the Hillards, Lorings, and Parkers, from 
 their pursuers, and aided in a successful escape to Eng 
 land. The first branch of the " Underground," estab 
 lished after the passage of the law, ran through very re 
 spectable quarters. 
 
 The lawyers, politicians, and statesmen now felt that 
 it was high time for them to call the people back to the 
 The support proper comprehension and observance of their 
 ?he he poijTicai constitutional duties. Clay, Webster, Cass, 
 leaders. Douglas, Buclianan, 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 Decem 
 ber 2nd. 
 
 In his message to Congress President Fillmore pro 
 claimed his adherence to the Compromise Measures, as a 
 
EXECUTION OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW 369 
 
 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 
 
 i -. I li t f rcsi~ 
 
 he would veto any measure for the repeal of dent s support 
 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. 
 
 This bold and determined language on the part of the 
 President, who had been considered in the North as per 
 sonally 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 un 
 doubtedly 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 . 
 
 Mr. Joshua E. Giddings, of Ohio, moved the refer 
 ence of this part of the message to the Judiciary com 
 mittee in the House of Eepresentatives, and j os hua R. 
 made a speech in support of his motion, Giddin g 8 - 
 which was an anti-slavery harangue of the most radical 
 and violent character, and in the course of which he de 
 nounced the President and Mr. Webster in unmeasured 
 language as apostates from principle and suitors for 
 Southern favor. The reckless outburst of radical ex 
 travagance, although somewhat balanced by many points 
 of sound sense, disgusted the House, and it voted down 
 Mr. Giddings s motion by a large majority. 
 
 Petitions began now to flow into Congress for the re 
 peal of the law. Generally they were laid upon the 
 table, but more than once a fierce debate 
 
 , , . , ,, Petitions for 
 
 was opened, which threatened to precipitate the repeal of 
 another contest over the right of petition. It ^ 
 was about the time that the Senate was considering what 
 24 
 
370 THE MIDDLE PEKIOD 
 
 to do with one of these petitions,, offered by Mr. Ham- 
 lin, of Maine, in February of 1851, that the news of the 
 failure of the law in the Shadrach case reached Wash- 
 
 The shad- ington. Shadrach, claimed slave of John 
 rachcase. 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 Com 
 missioner,, Mr. George T. Curtis, and was spirited away 
 to Canada. The mob seems to have had no difficulty in 
 accomplishing its purpose. 
 
 The Senate, on motion of Mr. Clay, passed a resolu 
 tion, on February 18th, 1851, calling upon the Presi- 
 
 Theinvesti- dent for information concerning the failure 
 caee 01 by 0f con e - of the law in the Shadrach case, and the 
 means he had adopted to meet the occur 
 rence, and asking the President if, in his opinion, fur 
 ther means should be placed at his disposal by Con 
 gress for enabling him to execute the laws with more 
 success. 
 
 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 Massa 
 chusetts on the subject of confining United States 
 prisoners in the jails of the Commonwealth, which dem 
 onstrated 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 con 
 firm 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 
 
EXECUTION OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW 371 
 
 United States to summon an organized militia force as 
 a part of the posse comitatus. 
 
 Mr. Clay immediately moved the reference of the 
 communication to the Judiciary committee. This mo 
 tion called out a three days debate in the 
 Senate, during which it became manifest tion ot in- 
 that the extremists, from both the North and powe^of the 
 the South, had little faith in the power of SSSfShS 
 the Government to execute the law, and law 
 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 Con 
 stitution guaranteeing the rendition of fugitive slaves 
 did not require a Congressional act, even if it author 
 ized one. Mr. Davis said that he would see Massachu 
 setts 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. 
 
 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 success 
 fully 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 Con 
 stitution. 
 
 Mr. Clay s motion was finally unanimously voted, 
 and, on March 3rd, two reports were presented to the 
 
372 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 insurrec 
 tions and executing the laws, and held that the Presi 
 dent 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 proclama 
 tion should precede the actual employment of military 
 power in such cases. 
 
 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 execu 
 tion. The thoughts of men were turned again upon the 
 incidents of its execution. 
 
 During the spring of 1851, several cases of slave ap 
 prehension occurred, the most exciting of which was 
 The Sims that of Thomas Sims, claimed in Boston by 
 case. ]y[ r j ames Potter, of Georgia. He was ar 
 
 rested by the City Marshal on the charge of having com 
 mitted 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 su- 
 
EXECUTION OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW 373 
 
 preme 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. 
 
 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 Washing- Excitement 
 ton Hall, and on the Common, at which the Se^enditkS 
 eloquence of Phillips, Channing, Edmund ofsims - 
 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. 
 
 The summer months of 1851 now passed without any 
 notable instances of resistance to the law, and conserva 
 tive 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. 
 
 In the early autumn, however, violence again appeared. 
 The minor outbreaks were soon overshadowed by an event 
 which occurred at Syracuse, N. Y., in Octo- The Jerry 
 ber, 1851. A negro, named Jerry McHenry, rescue -" 
 who had lived for several years in Syracuse, was suddenly 
 
374 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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, re 
 captured and brought back. A little later, a party of 
 highly respectable men, led by Gerrit Smith and the Kev. 
 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 mani 
 fested so much active sympathy with them that the mat 
 ter was quietly dropped. 
 
 In his message to Congress, of December 2nd, 1851, 
 President Fillmore referred to these cases of resistance 
 
 The Presi- to the execution of the law; declared the 
 dent s rebnke. law to be re q u ired by the Constitution ; de 
 nounced the opposition to its execution as directed 
 against the Constitution and the Union itself ; repeat 
 ed his dictum that the Compromise Measures were a 
 final settlement of the subjects embraced in them ; 
 and congratulated the country upon the general acqui 
 escence in these Measures manifested throughout the 
 Union. 
 
 Two days later, Mr. Foote introduced into the Senate 
 a resolution declaring these Measures to be a definite 
 
 Mr. Foote s settlement of the questions embraced in them, 
 finality resoiu- an( j recommending acquiescence in them by 
 
 all good citizens. 
 
 The debate upon this proposition, which began De 
 cember 8th, and lasted, off and on, until February 28th, 
 was, in the main, a discussion between four Southern 
 members Mr. Foote, Mr. Butler, Mr. Ehett, 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 
 
EXECUTION OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW 375 
 
 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 Missis 
 sippi 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 danger 
 ously near to an attempt at something like practical seces 
 sion, and that the Southern leaders were now anxious to 
 underrate their significance. The Northern Senators 
 allowed these Southern brethren to proceed with crimina 
 tions and recriminations against each other, until they 
 themselves were convinced that they would The fai}ure 
 lose more by the continuance of the debate of the resoiu- 
 
 ,, ,, , , . , ., , tions to pass 
 
 than they could gam by the passage of the the senate, 
 resolution. After a fiery speech by Mr. cefs^in The 
 Clemens, on February 28th, 1852, the at- House 
 tempt to pass the resolution was abandoned in the 
 Senate. 
 
 The House of Representatives, on the other hand, in 
 cited 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. 
 
 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 hear 
 ing upon them, but the Senate voted to lay them all on 
 the table. 
 
 Such was the situation when the two great parties 
 assembled in their National conventions for the nomina- 
 
376 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 tion of their respective candidates for the presidency 
 and vice-presidency. It was indicated from the first 
 The Nation- ^ av ^ ^ ne Congressional session of 1851-52, 
 of c i852 n a n n d that tlie nnalit J of the Compromise Acts 
 the finality of would be a plank iii the platforms of both 
 
 the compro- . x 
 
 mise measures, parties, although it was soon revealed that 
 the Whig party leaders were divided upon the subject. 
 
 The Democratic convention met June 1st, at Balti 
 more, and, on account of the three-cornered fight be 
 tween 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. 
 
 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 execu 
 tion of the Fugitive Slave Law. The Southerners were 
 for Fillmore first, and then Webster, for the same rea 
 son. 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. 
 
 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 
 
EXECUTION OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW 377 
 
 the finality of the Compromise Measures than the Whig 
 platform and candidate did. 
 
 Clay died at the beginning of the campaign, and Web 
 ster at the end of it ; and, in the midst of it, Sumner 
 succeeded in getting in his ferocious attack The deaths 
 on the Fugitive Slave Law, in a four hours 
 speech before the Senate, and the Free-soil- 
 ers set up a candidate, Mr. Hale, for the suf- soil candidate, 
 frages of the Abolitionists and the anti-slavery-exten- 
 sionists. 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 de 
 sired than the Whig party. 
 
 The Democratic victory was overwhelming. Twenty- 
 seven Commonwealths gave their electoral vote for Gen 
 eral Pierce, and only four gave theirs for The (>ver _ 
 General Scott; while the popular vote cast whelming 
 
 ,,,-... , , i ij! i Democratic 
 
 lor Mr. Hale was only about one-half as large v ic i o r y of 
 as that cast for Mr. Van Buren in 1848. The 1 
 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. 
 
 Had the slaveholders made a wise use of this, to them, 
 most favorable turn in affairs, there is lit- The true 
 tie 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 
 
378 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 Common 
 wealths go ; and that they should, above all things, ab 
 stain 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 refer 
 ence 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. 
 
 It is an interesting, though by no means an inexplic 
 able, 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 recap 
 ture 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 re 
 quired in good morals his liberation, and made his further 
 retention in slavery both a wrong to himself and a dan 
 ger to the peace of the slaveholding community in which 
 he might be held in bondage. 
 
 We may fairly say that the slaveholders in the more 
 southern Commonwealths sustained the Fugitive Slave 
 
EXECUTION OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW 379 
 
 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 re 
 striction 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 dur 
 ing the Territorial period, to any chance of extending 
 slavery north of that line by the repeal of the prohibi 
 tions 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. 
 
CHAPTEE XIX. 
 
 THE REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 
 
 The Connection of California with the Mississippi Valley Nebraska 
 Mr. Douglas s Nebraska Bill and Report The Surprising As 
 sumptions in the Report Mr. Douglas s Purpose The Report 
 and Bill Together in Conflict with the Act of 1820 The New 
 Section Mr. Dixou s Proposed Amendment Mr. Blair s Let 
 ter in Reference to Mr. Seward s Connection with Dixon s 
 Proposition Douglas and Dixon Mr. Douglas s New Bill 
 The Free-soil Protest Against the Bill Mr. Douglas s Reply to 
 the Address Mr. Chase s First Amendment to the Bill The 
 Southern Whigs Aroused by Mr. Wade s Accusations Mr. 
 Chase s Amendment Lost Mr. Douglas s Last Change in the 
 Wording of the Clause Mr. Everett s Views Mr. Houston s 
 Opposition to the Bill Mr. Bell s Attitude Toward the Bill- 
 Mr. Douglas s Amendment Passed by the Senate Mr. Chase s 
 Amendments Mr. Bell s Argument Against the Bill Mr. 
 Douglas s Final Argument The Passage of the Kansas-Ne 
 braska Bill by the Senate Analysis of the Vote Upon the 
 Bill Development of Popular Opposition to the Bill The 
 Kansas -Nebraska Bill in the House The Relation of the Ad 
 ministration to the Bill President Pierce and Mr. Davis 
 The Bill Taken up in the Committee of the Whole of the 
 House of Representatives Mr. A. H. Stephens s Management 
 of the Bill The Bill Passed and Signed by the President- 
 Analysis of the Vote on the Bill in the House What the 
 Figures Taught The Kansas-Nebraska Act a Stupendous 
 Fallacy. 
 
 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 
 
REPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPROMISE 381 
 
 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 Con 
 gress could solve it at all. But never was there a more 
 deceptive peace. It was merely the dead calm before 
 the dread cyclone. 
 
 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 
 
 J The connec- 
 
 possessions must be connected, so soon as pos- tion of caii- 
 sible, with the line of Commonwealths on the Mississippi 
 west bank of the Mississippi by the Territor 
 ial 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 at 
 tention 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 settle 
 ment, 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. 
 
 In the Congressional session of 1852-53, a bill passed 
 the House of Representatives for organizing the region 
 lying between Missouri and the Rocky Moun- Nebragka 
 tains, 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. 
 
 During the consideration of the bill in the House, Mr. 
 Howe, of Pennsylvania, asked Mr. Giddings, of Ohio, 
 
382 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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. Where 
 upon 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." 
 
 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. 
 
 There is no explanation of the language used by these 
 three gentlemen, except that Mr. Howe h?d 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. 
 
 On December 14th, 1853, Mr. Dodge, of Iowa, in 
 troduced a bill into the Senate for the organization 
 of Nebraska Territory. It was referred to the com 
 mittee on Territories, of which Mr. Douglas was chair 
 man. 
 
 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 under 
 stood by the committee, or rather as Mr. Douglas under- 
 
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 383 
 
 stood them, were stated. The report was a more im 
 portant document than the bill, since the bill, drawn in 
 vague terms upon this subject, was to be in- Mr. Doug- 
 terpreted by the principles declared in the re- Jfni^and^re- 
 port. The first paragraph of the report read : P rt - 
 " 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 prin 
 ciples 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 ap 
 propriate 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 ap 
 peal 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." 
 
 These were most astonishing and confusing proposi 
 tions in a variety of respects. In the first place, the 
 claim that the Compromise Acts of 1850 con- Theenrpris- 
 tained any general principles of Territorial {iof 8 in 9 there- 
 organization in respect to slavery, which were port - 
 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 
 
384 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 up by compromise, and not derived from any general 
 principle. This claim was also, if admitted, highly con 
 fusing. 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 pol 
 icy ? 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 mem 
 ber of that party from the North. 
 
 What was, or what could have been, Mr. Douglas s 
 purpose ? It is held by most historians that it was sim- 
 Mr . Doug- ply a reckless and dishonest bid for Southern 
 las s purpose. SU pp 0r ^ j n hj s ambitious plans to gain the 
 presidency. Most of Mr. Douglas s 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 his 
 torians, with his subsequent career before them, might 
 
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 385 
 
 suspect, at least, that some conviction of the rightful- 
 ness 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 ac 
 complished 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 Govern 
 ment 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 prob 
 ability, really believed that the reference of the ques 
 tions in regard to slavery to the residents of each Terri 
 tory, 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, bloodshejl, 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 
 
386 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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. 
 
 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 
 
 trines of the the Act of 1820 by the principles of the Acts 
 
 report at first n -n ,1 i -n V, -i -i i ,1 
 
 not inserted in oi 18oO, in the bill. rossibly 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 Ameri 
 can 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 Ter 
 ritory, 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." 
 
 Taken apart from the report, the bill might be inter 
 preted 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 
 
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 387 
 
 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 re- The report 
 straints resting upon Congress in regard to J^^ 1 ^: 
 this matter were moral, not legal. If Con- ETwttfctte 
 gress 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 de 
 claring it unconstitutional. It was entirely natural that 
 the demand should be made for clearing the bill of its 
 ambiguities. 
 
 Before the demand came, however, the committee 
 itself did something in this direction. When the bill 
 was printed, on January 7th, it contained The new 
 twenty sections. On the 10th, a revised edi- eection - 
 tion of it appeared, which contained twenty-one sec 
 tions. 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 com 
 mittee explained that it had been left out of the first 
 draft by a clerical error. This change did not, how 
 ever, clear the bill of all ambiguity. The added pro 
 vision was declaratory only, and did not expressly repeal 
 the Act of 1820. 
 
 At length, on the 16th, Mr. Dixon, of Kentucky, 
 gave notice to the Senate that he should Mr Dixon , s 
 move, as an amendment to the bill, a pro- proposed 
 vision expressly repealing the Act of 1820 in 
 so far as it prohibited slavery in any of the Territories 
 of the United States. 
 
 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 
 
388 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 Missouri compromise, as an amendment to Douglas s first 
 Kansas [Nebraska ?] bill, and had himself forced the re- 
 
 Mr Blair s P ea ^ ^J ^ ia ^ movemen ^ an( ^ na( i thus brought 
 
 party. Dixon was to 
 
 - out-Herod Herod at the South, and he was to 
 
 nectiou with , TT -. TT , ,,, ., T ,, 
 
 Dixon s prop- out-Herod Herod at the JNorth. 
 
 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 an 
 other slavery agitation were very grave. Neither could 
 the ambiguity in Mr. Douglas s bill, and the necessity 
 for relieving it of this obscurity, palliate such an offense. 
 If he desired to make Mr. Douglas s bill entirely plain 
 he should have done this, not by holding out a tempta 
 tion to the South to enter upon a new course of slavery 
 extension, but by an amendment asserting the continu 
 ing 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. 
 
 It is said that Mr. Douglas was surprised and discon 
 certed by Mr. Dixon s notice, and endeavored to dis- 
 Dougias suade him from carrying out his expressed 
 and Dixon. 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 im 
 plied, in the bill. 
 
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 389 
 
 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 Mr . D( rag_ 
 part of the Act of 1820 prohibiting slavery las s new bi "- 
 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 s 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 thou 
 sand square miles in area into two Territories by the for 
 tieth parallel of latitude, the one to the north of it to 
 be called Nebraska, and the one to the south of it Kan 
 sas. Mr. Dixon immediately expressed himself as satis 
 fied 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. 
 
 On the same day that Mr. Douglas presented this sec 
 ond bill, there appeared in the National Era, the Abo 
 lition journal at Washington, and in several The Free- 
 New York City papers, the noted address, agaPnst the 
 signed by Messrs. Chase, Snmner, AVade, b " L 
 Smith, and De Witt, in which the Douglas bill was de 
 nounced 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 immi 
 grants from the Old World and free laborers from our 
 own States, and convert it into a dreary region of des 
 potism inhabited by masters and slaves." The contents 
 of this celebrated paper constituted, it may be said, the 
 
390 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 first draft of the creed of the party to be founded on the 
 doctrine of resistance to slavery extension, the Kepubli- 
 can party. The propositions contained in it drove Mr. 
 Mr DOU<* Douglas to a fierce diatribe against their 
 las s reply to 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 min 
 utes 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 establish 
 ment of a new principle in regard to slavery in the Ter 
 ritories 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 inopera 
 tive. 
 
 Such jurisprudence in respect to the effect upon each 
 other of statutes relating to different and distinct Terri 
 tories 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 con 
 venient claim that it had already been repealed. But 
 
KEPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 391 
 
 Mr. Chase was determined to make them take this re 
 sponsibility, and to expose their fallacies in their at 
 tempts to escape it. On February 3rd, Mr. Chase 
 moved to remove from the bill the words re 
 ferring to the Measures of 1850, and their amendment 
 effect upon the Act of 1820, and make the bill t 
 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 subter 
 fuge 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 The gouth . 
 by one of their own party, and they repudi- JJo^Yf 8 
 ated the accusation with great earnestness. Mr. wade s 
 Besides this, the Douglas idea of popular 
 sovereignty, or, as we now call it, home rule, in the Ter 
 ritories, 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 Ter- T^ Doug . 
 ritories. Mr. Chase s amendment was lost by ionvinSng 1 to 
 a vote of thirty to thirteen. The thirteen vot- man y- 
 ing 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 
 
392 THE MIDDLE PEEIOD 
 
 vote meant that the large majority of those voting held 
 that, in some way or other, the legislation of 1850 had 
 
 Mr chase s re P ea ^ e( ^ the slavery prohibition in the legis- 
 amendment lation of 1830. This was execrable juris 
 prudence, and even Mr. Cass, who was real 
 ly the father of the idea of home rule in the Territories, 
 dissented from it, and voted for Mr. Chase s amendment. 
 In spite of this support by the majority, Mr. Douglas 
 was apparently disquieted by the attitude of Mr. Cass, 
 
 Mr Doug- anc ^ by the arguments against the correctness 
 chang! in a the of llis Doctrine. He himself, now moved to 
 wording of strike out of the bill the words : " which was 
 
 the clause. . 
 
 superseded by the principles ol the legisla 
 tion of 1850, commonly called the Compromise Meas 
 ures, 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 Com 
 promise 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 insti 
 tutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitu 
 tion of the United States." 
 
 In a most able argument, remarkable both for its 
 strong logic and its admirable temper, Mr. Everett dem- 
 Mr. Ever- onstrated the weakness of Mr. Douglas s 
 ett s views. 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 refer 
 ence to different Territories, in which different condi 
 tions and relations obtained. He predicted that the 
 
Mr. Hous- 
 
 REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 393 
 
 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 mem 
 ber of the committee on Territories, from which the 
 bill had proceeded, and his views should, on this account, 
 have possessed an added weight. 
 
 Mr. Houston, of Texas, another member of the com 
 mittee, now declared himself against the bill, 
 
 j_i i. -A 
 
 on the ground, among other reasons, that it ton s 
 would reopen the slavery question by the de- fci 
 struction of one of the great measures upon which the 
 settlement of that question rested. 
 
 It was furthermore suspected that Mr. Bell, of Ten 
 nessee, another member of the committee, was opposed 
 to the bill. This suspicion turned out to be Mr BelPs 
 true. The bill can hardly be regarded there- 
 fore as having been reported by the com 
 mittee 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. 
 
 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 Mr. Doug - 
 from the North and eleven from the South. 8 e n 8 t a a e s n se d d 
 Of those voting against it, nine were from by the senate. 
 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. 
 
394 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 Mr. Chase now suspected that there might be some 
 catch concealed in the last words of the amendment 
 
 Mr. chase s 3 ust adopted. These words, it will be 
 second amend- 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 appro 
 priate 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 Terri 
 tories to the test, for if the people of a Territory could 
 not, under the Constitution of the United States, pro 
 hibit 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 
 
 Mr. Pratt s appeared one-sided, and Mr. Badger, of 
 M^H^e s North Carolina, the best constitutional law- 
 amendment. ver f rom 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 princi 
 ple 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 s 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 be 
 lieve 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 
 
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 395 
 
 against the entire amendment, and probably defeat it, 
 while, if the two propositions could be voted on sepa 
 rately, they would both probably pass, and the bill would 
 be cleared of all ambiguity. 
 
 Mr. Chase s attitude toward Mr. Pratt s motion com 
 pelled the Senate to vote upon his proposition Mr Chase , g 
 separately, and the amendment was lost by amendment 
 a vote of thirty-six to ten. 
 
 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 Mr Bad . 
 Act of 1820 prohibiting slavery would re- ges amend- 
 vive 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 ap 
 prehension 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 sla 
 very." After the vote upon Mr. Chase s motion, Mr. 
 Badger offered this amendment, and it was voted, with 
 out debate, by a very large majority. 
 
 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 Mr Chase , s 
 home rule was to be granted to the people third amend- 
 of the Territories only upon the subject of 
 slavery, but that they were to continue in all other re 
 spects subject to the control of the general Government, 
 and he now moved to strike out the veto power of Con- 
 
396 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 gress 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 Terri 
 torial legislatures to overcome it. These propositions 
 were voted without debate. AVhereupon 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. 
 
 Mr. Chase now moved that the whole country should 
 
 be organized as one Territory instead of two. He seemed 
 
 Mr chase s * an ticipate that if two should be established 
 
 fourth amend- a t the same time, the slaveholders would 
 
 meiit. 
 
 claim one. This proved to be a correct sus 
 picion. 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. 
 
 Down to this juncture, the bill had been considered in 
 
 the Senate as a committee of the Whole. It was now 
 
 Mr. Beirs reported to the Senate as amended by this 
 
 agf i U nS e the 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 propo 
 sitions, that popular sovereignty could not be estab- 
 
EEPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 397 
 
 lished 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 senti 
 ment at the North, and that no practical benefits what 
 soever 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. 
 
 Mr. Douglas is generally represented as having closed 
 the debate, although Mr. Houston spoke briefly after 
 him in opposition to the measure. Mr. Doug- 
 las s argument was masterful from every point las s final ar- 
 
 . , . ,, , . , TT . i / gument. 
 
 of view but the highest. His chief proposi 
 tion was, that, when his committee were charged with the 
 duty of framing the bill, they were forced to choose be 
 tween 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 ap 
 proved 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-interven 
 tion, his committee were morally obligated to make it 
 the principle of the bill presented by them for the or 
 ganization of the new Territories, and that whoever ar 
 raigned him and his committee for so doing virtually 
 arraigned the people of the United States. It was a 
 
398, THE MIDDLE PEKIOD 
 
 most excellent and refined bit of demagogy, and it fell 
 upon an audience whose mental niveau was not quite 
 high enough to distinguish between it and sound reason 
 ing. He enforced this argument by another piece of 
 catching demagogism, which, though not quite so re 
 fined, .was equally effective. It was the proud and boast 
 ful assertion that American citizens were capable of self- 
 government anywhere, whether in " States" or Terri 
 tories, 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 oppo 
 nents 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. 
 
 A few minutes before five o clock on the morning of 
 March 4th, after a continuous session of seventeen hours, 
 The passage the vote upon the bill was taken, resulting in 
 NebraekTwii thirty-seven voices in its favor and fourteen 
 by the senate. a g a i ns t 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 excep 
 tion of Mr. Wright. 
 
 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 
 
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 399 
 
 member from each, we may say that, in the Senate, New 
 Hampshire, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Califor 
 nia, Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, North Car- 
 
 olina, Arkansas, South Carolina, Georgia, the vote upon 
 Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and Louis 
 iana 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, Pennsyl 
 vania, Delaware, and Marj land 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 posi 
 tion 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 
 insincercr, 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 Tiad suifered since the restriction 
 placed upon slavery extension by the Act of 1820. 
 
 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 po 
 sitions taken by their respective Senators. Had this been 
 
400 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 done on March 1st, it is probable that this would not have 
 been the case in some of the Northern Commonwealths, 
 Develop- whose Senators voted for the measure. And 
 KppoSn had it been done on April 1st, it is practi- 
 to the MIL ca ]jy cer tain that it would not have been. 
 After February 1st, there was developed throughout the 
 North a very strong opposition to the bill among the peo 
 ple. 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 gen 
 erally arraigned it as immoral, inhuman, and irreligious. 
 The movements against it seem to have been sponta 
 neous and to have been connected with each other only 
 by the common sentiment against the extension of sla 
 very. 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 ex 
 citant. 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. 
 
 Already, on January 31st, Mr. Richardson, of Illinois, 
 Mr. Douglas s lieutenant in the House of Representa 
 tives, had reported from the House committee on Ter 
 ritories 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 loth. 
 
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 401 
 
 On March 7th, the Senate bill was sent into the 
 House for concurrence. It was taken up for considera 
 tion on the twenty-first, and, after some par- The Kansag . 
 liamentary passes, was referred to the House g 6 ^^ 1 
 committee on Territories. 
 
 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 The relation 
 advisers, Mr. Caleb Gushing and Mr. Jeffer- Lttitn To 
 son Davis. Mr. Davis relates his connec- thebllL 
 tion with the matter in his own book. He says that, on 
 Sunday morning, January 22nd, gentlemen from the 
 two Congressional committees 011 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 Kan 
 sas 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 specif 
 ically denies that the measure was inspired by Presi 
 dent 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 Union 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 de 
 clared that the Washington Union was not President 
 
402 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 Piercers organ in the Kansas-Nebraska matter, or in any 
 other matter ; that President Pierce had no organ. 
 
 The character of President Pierce was that of a punc 
 tilious gentleman. Mr. Davis resembled him much in 
 President ^ s general trait. In fact, it was said to have 
 pierce andMr. 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 coin 
 ciding 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 fac 
 tions of the Democratic party in New York in the mat 
 ter 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. 
 
 And, finally, the inconsistency which these historians 
 find between the President s message of December pre 
 ceding 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 ac- 
 
EEPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 403 
 
 quiescence of distinguished citizens in the Compromise 
 Measures of 1850 had given renewed vigor to our institu 
 tions, and restored a sense of repose and se- ^^ 
 curity to the public mind throughout the dent s consist- 
 Union, and that this repose should suffer no ency 
 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. 
 
 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 The bi]1 
 were undoubtedly working for it, and its taken up in 
 
 J to the committee 
 
 opponents against it. By the latter date of the whole 
 
 T ,, ,T -i MI i ji , of the House 
 
 the leaders in tavor 01 the bill knew that of Repreeen- 
 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 consid 
 eration. After much parliamentary fencing, this was 
 accomplished. Mr. Richardson then proposed to sub 
 stitute the Senate bill, shorn of the provision in it 
 confining suffrage and office-holding in these Territories 
 
404 THE MIDDLE PEKIOD 
 
 to American citizens, for the House bill. The oppo 
 nents of the bill now entered upon a course of obstruc 
 tion, 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 
 
 Mr. A. H. demoralized, and Mr. Alexander H. Stephens 
 management came forward and took the management of 
 of the bill. the bill into his own hands. He moved to 
 strike out the enacting clause of the House bill. Ac 
 cording to the rules of the House, this motion took the 
 precedence of all motions to amend, and the eifect 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 com 
 mittee of the Whole, upon the happening of which Mr. 
 Eichardson could then offer the Senate bill, as a substi 
 tute, 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 
 
 The bill hundred and thirteen to one hundred. The 
 SgS by the Senate concurred in the omission of the pro- 
 President, vision limiting suffrage and office-holding in 
 the Territories to American citizens ; and the President 
 signed the bill, on May 30th. 
 
 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 
 
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE 405 
 
 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 Demo- 
 
 , TTTI L i Analysis of 
 
 brats and twelve were Whigs, voted for the vote on 
 the bill ; while seven Whigs and two Demo- Sous" 1 iE 
 crats from the South voted against it. 
 
 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 Demo- what the 
 cratic measure. Taken together with the %* taught, 
 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 pro- 
 slavery-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. 
 
 From the point of view of the present, we are com 
 pelled to regard the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska 
 Act as probably the greatest error which 
 the Congress of the United States ever com- 
 mitted, and the arguments by which it was fallac y- 
 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 assump 
 tion, we may then consider this Act as providential, in 
 
406 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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. 
 
CHAPTER XX. 
 
 THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS 
 
 Eli Thayer and His Emigrant Aid Scheme Reports in Regard to 
 its Character and Purposes The Missouri Border Ruffian" 
 of 1854 Nebraska for the North and Kansas for the South 
 General Atchison Dr. Charles Robinson The First Party of 
 Emigrants The Platte County " Self -defensive Association " 
 The Founding of Lawrence First Invasion of the Missouri- 
 ails Governor A. H. Reeder The Second Invasion of the 
 Missourians and the Election of the Delegate to Congress The 
 Indignation of the North The Republican Party The Third 
 Invasion of the Missourians Governor Reeder and the Terri 
 torial Elections The Organization of the First Legislature of 
 Kansas Territory The Topeka Constitution The Removal of 
 Governor Reeder; and His Election as Congressional Delegate 
 Establishment of the " Free- state " Government The First 
 Violence The " Free-state " Government and the Administra 
 tion The New Governor, Shannon, and the " Law and Or 
 der " Party John Brown The President s Proclamation 
 ^The Congressional Committee to the Territory-application for 
 Admission The "Treason Indictments" The Sacking of 
 Lawrence The Attack on Senator Sumner The Pottawatto- 
 mie Massacres The Battle at Black Jack The Governor s 
 Proclamation, Enforced by United States Soldiers-^The Pas 
 sage of the Bill for the Admission of Kansas by the House 
 Dispersal of the " Free-state " Legislature by Colonel Sumner 
 The 4 Free-state " Directory The Treaty of August 17th 
 The New Invasion from Missouri General Smith s Attitude 
 Toward Invaders The failure of "Popular Sovereignty " in 
 the Territories The New Governor Establishes Peace by 
 Means of the Army of the United States The Judicial Contri 
 bution to Kansas History. 
 
 THE passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the pur 
 chase of nearly fifty thousand square miles of territory 
 
408 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 from Mexico on the Southern boundary of New Mexico, 
 and the issue of a manifesto from Ostend by the Min 
 isters of the United States to Great Britain, France, and 
 Spain, Messrs. Buchanan, Mason, and Soule, 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 suffi 
 cient evidence of a fixed plan among the slaveholders 
 for the extension of slavery and the increase of the num 
 ber 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. 
 % During the debate upon the Kansas-Nebraska bill in 
 Congress, it does not seem to have been generally ap- 
 Eii Thayer predated that it might, after all, turn out to 
 g^an 1 ? aTd ^ e a Free-soil measure, and that the question 
 scheme. 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 shrewd 
 ness, 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 so 
 ciety, with an immense capital, the purpose of which 
 should be to foster emigration from the Northern Com 
 monwealths 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 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS 409 
 
 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 bal 
 ance at the polls against the further existence of the in 
 stitution 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 Terri 
 tories, and especially to that of Kansas Territory, by an 
 ti-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 pro 
 posed 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 pro 
 posed to organize the emigrants into companies, pro 
 cure 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 popu 
 lation, in order to attract a good, law-abiding popula 
 tion by planting for them the advantages and conven 
 iences of civilization in the new country. It was a 
 
410 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 noble scheme, and none the less so because of the idea 
 of making it pay ultimately as a business venture. 
 
 It cannot be said that it was a movement entirely new 
 
 in American history, although this was charged by 
 
 Not an en- manv ^ the politicians, both of the North 
 
 tireiy new and of the South. A number of the Amer- 
 
 t n i n g i n 
 
 American his- ican colonies were originally planted under 
 the auspices of corporations in the mother 
 land,, 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 
 Denuncia- such means, and yet it was charged, even by 
 an n odious fc in- Northern men, with the responsibility for 
 novation. ^ ^ Q outrages perpetrated in Kansas dur 
 ing the stormy period of 1855-56. Even the President 
 of the United States denounced it with great severity. 
 
 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 sover 
 eignty 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. 
 
 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 con- 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS 411 
 
 ducted by three private gentlemen, Mr. Thayer, Mr. 
 Lawrence, and Mr. J. M. S. Williams. Moreover, the 
 establishments which they founded in Kansas T he organi . 
 were open to use by immigrants from any and Thayer s f com- 
 every part of the Union, or of the world, P an y- 
 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. 
 
 During the early summer of 1854, exaggerated and 
 false reports in regard to the character, purposes, and 
 means of the proposed Emigrant Aid Com- Reports in 
 pany were circulated through Missouri and character and 
 the entire South. It was said that an or- purposes, 
 ganization, chartered by the legislature of Massachu 
 setts, possessing an immense capital, was preparing to 
 abolitionize Kansas by means of military colonies, re 
 cruited 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 keep 
 ing out immigrants from the South. The notorious 
 B. F. Stringfellow, co-editor with one Kelly of the 
 Squatter Sovereign, 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. 
 
 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, 
 
412 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 vulgar, fearless, brutal, without respect for civilization 
 or reverence for God, usually inflamed with whiskey and 
 
 The Mis- stained with tobacco, gambling by day and jay- 
 rSif ian^f hawking by night, always ready for any adven 
 ture 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 
 
 Nebraska other sort of people. There were many gener- 
 an d he K?mas ous-hearted, fair-minded, upright men there, 
 for the south. amon g both the slaveholders and the non- 
 slaveholders, who w r ould no sooner have done wrong than 
 suffered wrong. Most of them felt, however, that Kan 
 sas 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 Terri 
 tory was a breach of faith, which ought to be resisted 
 by the South, and especially by Missouri. 
 
 General D. E. Atchison was such a man, and such was 
 his view of the case. He was, at the time, the leading 
 
 General At- man of western Missouri, had represented 
 chison. Missouri in the Senate of the United States, 
 
 and had been president pro tern, 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 Com 
 monwealth, his presence and counsel exerted a moderat 
 ing influence upon his fierce and reckless followers. He 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS 413 
 
 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. 
 
 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 Dr . Charles 
 the projects of the Emigrant Aid Company. Rt>inson. 
 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 em 
 bryonic Comjnonwealth, 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 conser 
 vatism in character admirably fitted to undertake the 
 great work of making Kansas a free Commonwealth. 
 
 The conference resulted in the sending of Dr. Robin 
 son to the front to inspect the Territory of Kansas and 
 make arrangements for settlements. Accom- Mr c> H 
 panied by Mr. C. II. Brariscomb, a young law- Branecoirib - 
 yer, 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 
 
414 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 immigrated into the Territory, had held a popular con 
 vention or assembly at Salt Creek Valley, at which thej 
 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. 
 
 From Kansas City Mr. Branscomb proceeded alone 
 up the Kansas River to Fort Riley, while Dr. Robinson 
 
 Dr. Robin- went up the Missouri to Fort Leaven worth, 
 Branifcomb M in ^e -^ oc ^ or fo un( l surveyors laying off a town 
 Kansas. near Fort Leavenworth, despite the fact thai 
 
 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 set 
 tlement, while he himself hurried to Boston. 
 
 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 
 party of emi- 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 Law 
 rence was afterward built. 
 
 A few days before this first party of emigrants had 
 arrived from the East, a meeting of residents of Platte 
 
 The Platte Countv in Missouri took place at AVeston, 
 
 deTnSve tf: aild ; lder the lead f B * F StringfelloW, all 
 
 sociation." organization was formed, which called itself 
 the " Platte County Self -defensive Association," with 
 the declared purpose of aiding in the removal of all per 
 sons from the soil of Kansas who might go there through 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS 415 
 
 the aid or protection or guidance of emigrant aid socie 
 ties 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 char 
 acters, 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. 
 
 In September, the little party of about thirty men, 
 who had pitched their tents upon the site of the present 
 
 citv of Lawrence, were "joined by Dr. Robin- 
 
 - J J The found- 
 
 son and S. C. Pomeroy, with the second party ing of Law- 
 
 fromthe 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. 
 
 When the first party arrived at the site they found 
 it occupied by a single settler, named Stearns. Mr. 
 Branscomb immediately purchased Stearns s claim and 
 improvements for the company. The Missourians had, 
 however, rushed into the Territory, at the earliest mo 
 ment 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. Robin 
 son proposed that each settler be left in possession until 
 some authorized tribunal could pass upon Yi ^ { ^ & 
 the claims, and declared that his party would sion of the 
 
 ,,, . ,., Till Missourians. 
 
 hold possession until removed by a legal act. 
 Baldwin and his party rejected the proposition, and sum 
 moned their Missouri friends to assist them. Some came, 
 
416 THE MIDDLE PEEIOD 
 
 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 Mis 
 sourians. 
 
 On the next day, the Governor of the Territory, the 
 President s representative, the Hon. A. H. Reeder, of 
 r Governor A. Pennsylvania, arrived at Fort Leaven worth, 
 H. Reeder. an( j b e g an hj s r gi me i n the Territory. From 
 
 this time forward the history of the Territory is the re 
 sultant of four elemental forces in contact with each 
 other the general Government, the pro-slavery in 
 habitants, the anti-slavery inhabitants, and the Mis 
 sourians. 
 
 Governor Reeder was a genial, intelligent, upright 
 man, a good lawyer and a fine orator. He was a TJnion- 
 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. 
 
 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 Con- 
 
 The second . & 
 
 in v a si on of oress without anv outside aid, but the pro- 
 
 the Missouri- fe , . "L r 
 
 ans and the slaverv men in Kansas and Missouri had 
 
 election of the , . . -. -, , -, . n 
 
 delegate to become excited by the rumors 01 the vast 
 schemes in the East for planting anti-slavery 
 military colonies in the Territories, and also in the slave- 
 holding 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 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOE KANSAS 417 
 
 Kansas at the outset. The Missourians consequently 
 committed the fatal and unnecessary blunder of going 
 over into Kansas, to the number of some seventeen hun 
 dred 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 trav 
 esty of the principle of home rule in the Territories, 
 this pollution of republican principles at the very foun 
 tain-head, roused the North to the highest pitch of in 
 dignation. 
 
 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 Repub- nation of the 
 lican 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 North 
 ern 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. 
 
 Of course the disintegration of the two old parties 
 would, under ordinary conditions, proceed slowly. The 
 members of neither were willing to enter the The Bepllb . 
 organization, or bear the name, of the other. Ucan wft- 
 As the Northern Whigs had unanimously opposed the re 
 peal of the restriction of 1820 upon slavery in the Terri 
 tories, 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 
 27 
 
418 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 Kepublican 
 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 ques 
 tion whether the country ought not to be preserved 
 against foreign Eoman Catholic immigration, the ques 
 tion 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 North 
 ern Whigs with the anti-slavery-extension elements of 
 the other parties into the Republican party. 
 
 The interference of the Missourians in the first elec 
 tion in Kansas, demonstrating the impracticability of 
 " popular sovereignty " in the Territories, was the very 
 thing necessary to hasten the development of the Re 
 publican party, but it came too late to influence the elec 
 tions of 1854, and the shock which it caused lost some 
 of the sharpness of its effect before the autumn of 1856. 
 
 The Congress to which Whitfield presented his cre 
 dentials 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. 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS 419 
 
 Of far more importance, however, than the election of 
 the delegate to Congress was the election of the mem 
 bers of the first Territorial legislature, since, The Terri- 
 according to the principle of " popular sov- fcwfei legisia- 
 ereignty" in the Territories, it would have 
 the power probably of determining primarily the legality 
 or illegality of slavery in Kansas. 
 
 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 thou 
 sand 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. 
 
 March 13th following was the day appointed for 
 the election. All through the month the Missourians 
 of the border counties were assembling in The third 
 their " Blue Lodges," arming, organizing 
 and drilling. On the day of the election ans. 
 some four or five thousand of them marched, fully 
 armed, to the voting places in the more eastern dis 
 tricts 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 resi 
 dents 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 
 
420 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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. 
 
 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 thir 
 teen persons returned as elected to the upper house, 
 and of not more than nine of the twenty-six persons re 
 turned as elected to the lower house, of the Territorial 
 legislature. 
 
 Dr. Eobinson and the anti-slavery men who had 
 
 gathered about the Governor as a sort of body-guard 
 
 Governor wan ted the Governor to declare the entire 
 
 ^Territorial election nu ^ and voicl > but tne Governor was a 
 elections. good lawyer, and he quickly determined that 
 he could not pronounce an election null and void in a 
 district from whicli no charges of fraud were presented, 
 011 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 regu 
 larity 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 re 
 turns. 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. 
 
 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 
 
se a f s 
 
 THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS 421 
 
 and every person. It would certainly have been an arbi 
 trary 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. 
 
 The 22nd day of the following month (May) was ap 
 pointed for holding the elections for the seats declared 
 unfilled by the Governor. The anti-slavery The new 
 candidates were elected to all of them. The 
 pro-slavery men ignored the election. This finf d 
 meant that those holding the Governor s cer- first elections. 
 tificate 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 legislat 
 ure assembled and organized itself in the first days of 
 July. 
 
 The legislature as thus organized contained only a 
 single anti-slavery man, a Mr. Houston, and he volun 
 tarily vacated his seat a few weeks later in The or ani . 
 
 eat disgust. From a technical point of zation of the 
 
 & first legislat- 
 
 view this legislature was a legitimate body, ure of Kansas 
 
 Territory 
 
 but from a moral and a political point of view 
 it did not represent the people of the Territory. It rep 
 resented simply the pro-slavery party, and used its powers 
 in utter disregard of justice and right reason. 
 
 The great problem for the anti-slavery men now was 
 to repudiate the jurisdiction of this legislat- The rob 
 ure without rebelling against the general lem . for the 
 
 & anti-slavery 
 
 Government and its agent in the Territory, men. Dr. Rob- 
 the Governor. Dr. Robinson had had the ex 
 perience in California of aiding to make a Commonwealth 
 in the Union, without the transitional period of Territor- 
 
422 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 ial organization. He now applied this experience to the 
 solution of the Kansas question. 
 
 The idea of Dr. Kobinson 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 pro 
 posed in the meantime to get on without any Territorial 
 government as best they could. 
 
 Their idea was, in the second place, to ignore the Terri 
 torial government altogether as bogus, but to yield obe 
 dience 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 func 
 tions 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. 
 
 Had the Governor remained true to the legislature 
 it is possible that this plan of rebellion against the Ter- 
 
 conflict be r itorial government might have been sup- 
 tweentheGov- pressed at the outset, but such was not to be 
 Territorial leg- the course of history. He called the legislat 
 ure 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 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS 423 
 
 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 legis 
 lature 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 legislat 
 ure passed the project over his veto, and removed to 
 Shawnee Mission ; after which the Governor broke oft 
 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 inde 
 pendence, and an outrage upon the people of Kansas, 
 and upon the principle of "popular sovereignty" in the 
 Territories. 
 
 The attitude now assumed by the Governor toward 
 the legislature at Shawnee Mission was a great encour 
 agement to the anti-slavery men. Dr. Rob- sharpe s ri- 
 inson had already sent to Mr. Thayer for fles - 
 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. 
 
 Dr. Robinson had, at the same time, overcome the at 
 tempts of James S. Lane to separate the anti-slavery 
 men into parties, by the organization of a Fact i nai 
 Democratic party in Kansas. In a powerful movements 
 
 x J A among the an- 
 
 speech at Lawrence, on July 4th, 1855, the ti-siavery men 
 Doctor convinced his hearers of the necessity 
 for all anti-slavery men standing together until Kansas 
 should be admitted into the Union as a non-slavehold- 
 
424 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 ing 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. 
 
 These bold utterances startled the North and the 
 South, the people of Kansas and, especially, the people 
 
 Excitement ^ ^i ssour] - This speech, together with the 
 in Missouri letter of M. F. Conway to Governor Reeder, 
 
 and through- . , , . 
 
 out the COUE- resioTLino; ins seat in the legislature and re 
 try over the -,*,-,-, , -, e< f 
 
 Free-state" pudiatmg that body "as derogatory to the 
 respectability of popular government and in 
 sulting to the virtue and intelligence of the age/ set the 
 " Free-state " scheme in motion. 
 
 The enactments of the Territorial legislature greatly 
 aided the movement by demonstrating to the people what 
 
 The enact- they had to expect from the dominance of that 
 Te^riufrVal body. They made the decoying, or aiding 
 legislature. 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 effect 
 ing 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 print 
 ing, a felony, punishable by imprisonment at hard labor 
 for not less than two years. 
 
 When the knowledge of this infamous legislation 
 
 The North spread throughout the North, it roused that 
 fMs^iegisia 7 - section of the country to new efforts for peo- 
 tion - pli n g Kansas with anti-slavery men, who 
 
 would rescue the Territory from the reign of such laws 
 and such law-makers. The necessary reinforcements 
 
. THE STRUGGLE FOK KANSAS 425 
 
 were being assembled in the North when the creation 
 of the " Free-state " government was begun. 
 
 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 Oc- T he Topeka 
 tober, 1855, consolidated the anti-slavery men cogitation, 
 in the Territory into the "Free-state" party, 1 con 
 structed a temporary election machinery, and produced, 
 finally, a proposed Commonwealth constitution, which, 
 in addition to the provisions for the structure of a Com 
 monwealth government for Kansas, contained a clause 
 prohibiting slavery in Kansas after July 4th, 1857, and ex 
 cluding negroes from residence in Kansas after that date. 
 
 In the meantime Governor Reeder had been removed 
 by the President from the governorship of the Territory, 
 and the Secretary of the Territory, one Dan- The removal 
 iel Woodson, a pro-slavery man, had become 
 acting Governor for the time being. Ex- 
 Governor Reeder now went over to the anti- delegate, 
 slavery men, and was chosen by them on October 9th, 
 at the same election at which the delegates to the To 
 peka convention were chosen, as delegate to Congress. 
 Over twenty-seven hundred votes were cast at this 
 election. 
 
 On December loth, the Topeka constitution was sub 
 mitted 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 tion he 3 tlfi 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 con- 
 stitution. On January 5th, 1856, the elec 
 tions for the legislative members and officials of the 
 government provided by this constitution were held, and 
 Dr. Robinson was chosen Governor. 
 
426 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 It was at tliis election that the conflict of arms between 
 the Free-state " government and the Territorial gov- 
 The first ernment began. A Territorial military com 
 pany, called the Kickapoo Rangers, threat 
 ened to interfere with the elections at the town of 
 Easton. A captain, R. P. Brown, organized a company 
 of "Free-state" men at Leaven worth, 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 prog 
 ress for trying him, when one of the ruffians put an end 
 to the matter by striking him on the head with a hatchet. 
 
 Two local governments of Kansas were now in exist 
 ence. One, the Territorial, had been recognized as 
 legitimate by the Washington Government, 
 state" gov- What, then, was the other ? Was it a body 
 the Adminis- of insurrectionists ? If so, must the general 
 Government suppress it ? And, if the gen 
 eral Government must suppress it, must it do so at once, 
 or should it wait until the insurrectionists should under 
 take to exercise some governmental power ? These 
 were knotty problems for the Administration at Wash 
 ington, 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. 
 
 The "Free-state" legislature met March 4th, 1856. 
 The acts of It prepared a memorial to Congress, praying 
 state F ]egis- ^ or the entrance of Kansas as a Common- 
 lature. wealth into the Union, under the Topeka 
 
 constitution. It elected Reeder and Lane United States 
 Senators. It appointed a committee to put the legisla- 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS 427 
 
 tive business into shape for the next session. And it 
 passed a few laws. 
 
 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 Ter 
 ritorial government, which government had been recog 
 nized as legitimate by the general Government, which was, 
 in fact, but the local agent of the general Government. 
 
 Governor Robinson understood the situation. In his 
 message to the legislature he recommended 
 
 , , T ... ,, Governor 
 
 "no course to be taken in opposition to the Robinson s 
 general Government, or to the Territorial 
 government, while it shall remain with the sanction of 
 Congress." 
 
 In the midst of these movements by the " Free-state" 
 men, the pro-slavery men organized themselves more 
 closely for aggressive action. The new Gov 
 ernor appointed by the President, Wilson Governor, 
 
 ~,, ~ p ~, . f Shannon, and 
 
 Shannon, ex-Governor ot Ohio, a man 01 the "law and 
 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 
 
428 THE MIDDLE PEEIOD 
 
 November ]4th, 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 de 
 clared 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. 
 
 Naturally a dispute about a land claim furnished the 
 occasion for trying the powers of the Territorial govern- 
 The attempt ment. In the course of this quarrel, which 
 T e e r n rH C o e r i a! t( > k place in the latter part of November, 
 ^FrVe^sLte 1 - 1855 > a pro-slavery man, named Coleman, 
 men - 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 ven 
 geance. Among them was one Jacob Branson, who ut 
 tered threats against one Buckley, as the instigator of 
 the murder of his friend. Buckley secured a peace war 
 rant against Branson, and put it in the hands of one 
 S. J. Jones, the sheriff, under the Territorial govern 
 ment, of Douglas County. The arrest of Branson un 
 der this warrant inaugurated the contest for imposing 
 the authority of the Territorial government upon the 
 "Free-state" men. 
 
 Sheriff Jones arrested Branson, and started for Le- 
 compton with him, by way of Lawrence. His purpose 
 The Bran- ^ n gi n g through the head-quarters of the 
 son rescue. Free-state " men was undoubtedly to tempt 
 them to the rescue of Branson. But Branson was res 
 cued several miles away from Lawrence by a company 
 of "Free-state" men, under the lead of a Captain Ab 
 bott. This party, however, immediately repaired to 
 Lawrence, while the sheriff went to Franklin, and from 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS 429 
 
 this place summoned his Missouri friends to his aid, and 
 then reported his trouble to the Governor, and asked 
 for his support. 
 
 The Governor immediately ordered the officers of the 
 Territorial militia to collect the forces, and march to 
 Lawrence. Although the sheriff asked for The advance 
 three thousand men, not one hundred resi- SSf^SSS- 
 dents of the Territory answered the call of reilce - 
 the militia officers ; but a great horde came from Mis 
 souri. 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 The committee of safety, which was directing matters 
 in Lawrence, sent commissioners to Governor Shannon 
 to enlighten him, from the point of view of Lawre nce 8 
 the " Free-state" men, in regard to the situa- demand of 
 
 protection 
 
 tion. They made their way to Shawnee from Gover- 
 
 ,,. . , TT-, -11 nor Shannon. 
 
 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 pro 
 tection against the invaders. 
 
430 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 The Governor was somewhat staggered by these state 
 ments, and decided to go to Lawrence himself, and exam- 
 shannon at i n e affairs on the spot. This was just what 
 h w a|?ee e mea? the " Free-state " men wanted. He arrived 
 ^Free- state" ^ n Lawrence on December 7th. Dr. Robin- 
 men - son 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 re 
 sist 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. 
 
 The Governor felt that he would have difficulty in 
 reconciling the Missourians to his agreement, and in 
 sisted that Dr. Robinson and Colonel Lane should ac 
 company 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 follow 
 ers plainly that Dr. Robinson s position was impregnable, 
 and that if they should persist in an attack upon Law 
 rence, 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 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS 431 
 
 party, and cause the election of an Abolitionist Presi 
 dent the next year. By these efforts and The retreat 
 representations on the part of the Governor, oftheMissou- 
 Dr. Robinson, and General Atchison, the Mis- 
 sourians were induced to break camp and turn their 
 faces homeward. 
 
 At the moment of this victory of the " Free-state" 
 men, won by moral forces and diplomatic address, ap^ 
 peared the Loki of Kansas "Free-state" 
 
 , _ , . John Brown. 
 
 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 mur 
 derous canting babble. 
 
 The Governor reported the affair to the President, ex 
 pressed to him his forebodings as to the future, and sug 
 gested that he be allowed to call upon the Shannon > 8 
 United States troops stationed at Fort Leav- report to the 
 
 . . -no President. 
 
 enworth at his discretion, as a call for the 
 militia would only end in a party struggle. This com 
 munication seems to have opened the eyes of the Presi 
 dent, for the first time, to the true situation. 
 
 The "Free-state" men now addressed the President 
 and demanded his protection against another invasion 
 from Missouri, which they claimed was in The 
 preparation. On January 23rd, 1856, the %$ 
 leaders at Lawrence telegraphed the Presi- the Presideilt - 
 dent 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 Govern 
 ors of certain Northern Commonwealths of the im 
 pending danger ; and they sent commissioners into the 
 Northern Commonwealths to inform the people of the 
 
432 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 North in regard to the situation in Kansas, and to ap 
 peal to them to emigrate thither in sufficient numbers 
 to save the Territory against the pro-slavery movement. 
 The agitation became now so general throughout the 
 country, that the President felt constrained to interfere. 
 . On February llth, he issued his proclama- 
 dentfs procia- tion, in which he warned all persons con 
 cerned 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. 
 
 The e< Free-state" men did not regard the proclama 
 tion as particularly friendly to them. While it forbade 
 The situa- invasion, it commanded obedience to the ex- 
 more eJnbar 6 - isting Territorial government within. They 
 
 -TrSstaVe 3 - Were afraid that the y W0uld not be allowed 
 
 men - 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 inter 
 ference on the part of the President or the Governor 
 against the movement, although the President had au 
 thorized 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, 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS 433 
 
 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. 
 
 The discussion of Kansas affairs in the House of Bep- 
 resentatives revolved about the question of the admission 
 of Whitfield or Reeder from the middle of The Con- 
 February to March 19th, 1856, when it was Kmdito^ti 
 voted to send a special committee of investi- the Territor y- 
 gation 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. 
 
 A week before this, the memorial from the " Free- 
 state " legislature praying for the admission of Kansas, 
 as a Commonwealth, under the Topeka con- Application 
 stitution, was presented in both Houses of for admission. 
 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 in 
 tended to put its discussion out of the halls of Congress 
 had thus, in less than two years, proved itself an utter 
 fiasco. 
 
 In the Territory the pro-slavery men pursued their 
 policy of bringing the " Free-state " men into conflict 
 with the general Government. The "Free- sheriff Jones 
 state" men sought just as diligently to avoid ?fn<S ; at and 
 it. Both sides recognized this as the crucial ^assassinate 
 test. By the middle of April, some of the him - 
 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 
 
434 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 Law 
 rence, 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 danger 
 ously. 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 morn- 
 The outrage ing following the event, held a meeting, at 
 repudia^by w } 1 | c } 1 t h e outrage was repudiated and de- 
 state" men. nounced, 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 as 
 sassin 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 par 
 ty to justice if he could be found. There was no mu 
 nicipal 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. 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOK KANSAS 435 
 
 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, Judge Le 
 the Territorial judiciary came to their assist- chare P to e the 
 ance. Chief Justice Lecompte charged the Grand Jury. 
 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 re 
 sistance 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 jurispru 
 dence. 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. 
 
 The Grand Jury found indictments against nine or ten 
 persons, among them Robinson, Reeder, and Lane, and 
 also against two newspapers published in Tfae (i ^ & 
 Lawrence, and the Emigrant Aid Company s son indict- 
 
 UlGlltS " 
 
 hotel there. The indictments were put in 
 the hands of the United States Marshal for the Terri 
 tory, J. B. Donaldson. On May llth, Donaldson issued 
 a proclamation, declaring that the service of these writs 
 by his deputy had been resisted in Lawrence, and call 
 ing " the law-abiding citizens of the Territory to appear 
 at Lecompton, as soon as possible, and in numbers suffi 
 cient for the proper execution of the law." As a matter 
 of fact, only Reeder had resisted service, and had suc 
 ceeded 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 com 
 mittee sent to the Territory, and was, therefore, legally 
 exempt from arrest at the time. 
 
436 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 The Marshal did not publish his proclamation in Law 
 rence, but a copy of it fell into the hands of a Lawrence 
 The Mar- citizen, who hastened to make known to 
 m a & u o P i C in ^ ie people the peril which was impending. 
 Lawrence. The citizens already knew of forces being or 
 ganized, 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. 
 
 The citizens of Lawrence now held a meeting and 
 passed formal resolutions, declaring that the charges con 
 tained in the Marshal s proclamation were 
 
 The action 
 
 of the citizens untrue, and that the citizens were not only 
 
 of Lawrence. , , , 
 
 ready to acquiesce in the service 01 any ju 
 dicial 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 Gov 
 ernor 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 law 
 less bands collecting about their town for the purpose of 
 its destruction. 
 
 The Marshal replied in a flippant and sarcastic man 
 ner, saying that his correspondents must be strangers in 
 The Mar- Lawrence if they were ignorant of the de- 
 ehai B reply. man d s against the citizens of the town, refer 
 ring in exaggerated language to the shooting of Jones, 
 and Eeeder 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. 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS 437 
 
 Three days later, on May 17th, the citizens communi 
 cated again with the Marshal, calling his attention to the 
 depredations committed by the bands around Ap p eal of 
 Lawrence, asking if he was responsible for ^ctfee^to 
 these bodies, and demanding protection from and the GOV- 
 him against them. At the same time, the 
 managers of the hotel appealed to the Governor to pro 
 tect 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. 
 
 The Marshal and the Governor thought favorably of 
 this proposition. They were willing to guarantee the 
 safety of the citizens and their individual 
 
 * The hotel 
 
 property, but they thought they must con- and the print- 
 suit with the captains of the squads compos 
 ing 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. 
 
 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 pres 
 ence : War then it is, by God ! " 
 
 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, 
 
438 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 the flag of the United States. The Deputy-marshal then 
 
 entered the town with a small posse, and called the man- 
 
 The sacking agers of the hotel and several of the citi- 
 
 of Lawrence. zeng ^ J ] n Jjjg p 0gse an( J ass i s t 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 com 
 munication from the committee of safety of Lawrence to 
 the Marshal, in which the pr6mise of obedience to his 
 processes was again made, and his protection claimed. 
 
 It was hoped that the crisis was now passed. The 
 Marshal dismissed his posse. But the Sheriff immedi 
 ately reorganized the bands as Ms posse. This was most 
 ominous of evil. The Sheriff was burning with passion 
 for personal revenge. In the middle of the afternoon 
 (May 2 1st), 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. 
 
 The atrocious and disgraceful deed of sacking Law 
 rence was denounced by many of the persons who had 
 Repudiation joined the Marshal s posse. General Atch- 
 Atchison^and ison tried to prevent the Sheriff from thus 
 others. 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. 
 
 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, 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS 439 
 
 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 Wash 
 ington ? 
 
 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 
 
 The stt&clt 
 
 ".Crime against Kansas." It was not only on senator 
 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 espe 
 cially coarse and brutal. Almost all the Senators felt 
 the attack to be more than a discourtesy. Senator But 
 ler was in ill health arid 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 satis 
 faction 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 a small, weak man physically, while Sumner was 
 a powerful athlete, 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 011 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 
 
440 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 cane upon the head 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 But just at this most critical juncture, when every 
 thing depended on calmness and moderation on the part 
 of the " Free-state" men to secure imme- 
 wattomiemas- diate 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 Kan 
 sas, that the Republican members of the Congressional 
 committee of investigation in the Territory refused to 
 make the event a part of their inquiry. The Demo 
 cratic member, Mr. Oliver, investigated it, and reported 
 it to Congress and to the public. 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS 441 
 
 No sane mind can find the slightest justification, ex 
 cuse, or palliation for this atrocious crime. It was mur 
 der, pure and simple. And when we consider the pur 
 pose 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 bor 
 der 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. 
 
 The inhabitants of the region were thrown into the 
 greatest consternation and excitement. The pro-slavery 
 and the anti-slavery men assembled together, The excite . 
 denounced the horrible deed as foulest mur- ment pro- 
 
 -, -i T T . , duced by them. 
 
 der, and resolved to act together as men of 
 
 reason and common sense for the maintenance of peace 
 
 and order and the suppression of crime. 
 
 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 The battle at 
 by a Captain Pate. Pate s force met Brown s Black Jack> 
 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 Whit field, 
 were rallying to the aid of their pro-slavery friends in 
 
442 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 
 The Govern- Governor had at last comprehended the seri- 
 n- ous character of the situation. He issued 
 States his proclamation warning invaders to retire, 
 and commanding armed and illegal organiza 
 tions to disperse. And he sent Colonel Sumner with a 
 company of regular cavalry to the scene of action. 
 
 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 Potta \vattomie murders. Sum 
 ner remained a fortnight or more in southern Kansas 
 until the excitement was somewhat spent, and then re 
 turned to Fort Leavenworth. Brown disappeared, and 
 a measure of peace was momentarily restored. 
 
 The Pottawattomie murders, and the robberies suc 
 ceeding them, had, however, greatly damaged the " Free- 
 Tne"Free- s ^ e " cause - The great advantage which 
 state" caase had accrued to it through the sacking of 
 
 greatly injured 
 
 By Brown s Lawrence and the outrage upon Senator 
 Sumner was now largely lost again. Still, 
 emigration from the Northern Commonwealths to Kan 
 sas continued in great activity, and the House of Repre 
 sentatives 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 Ter- 
 of tne P bm for ritory, in consequence of the excitement fol- 
 
 the admission , . . , -, . , -.^ . 
 
 of Kansas by lowing the murders on the Pottawattomie, 
 1Be and the two reports which its members made 
 of the situation in Kansas, exercised an unfavorable in 
 fluence on the movement. The House passed the bill, 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS 443 
 
 however, on July 3rd, by a majority of two votes, but 
 it would admit neither of the claimants to a seat in the 
 House. 
 
 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" Diepereal of 
 legislature which assembled at Topeka on J^,; ^ 1 ;^- 
 July 4th. The President and the Secretary ttm?by e eo:o- 
 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 pro 
 cedure 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 dis 
 patches leads to the conclusion that the Colonel did 
 exceed his powers. He was, doubtless, led to do so un 
 consciously by the violent deeds of men professing con 
 nection with the " Free-state " party. The misunder 
 standing led finally to the retirement of Colonel Sumner 
 from the command of the United States forces in Kan 
 sas, and the assignment of General P. F. Smith to that 
 duty. 
 
 After the dispersion of the " Free-state" legislature, 
 the " Free-state " men, who were gathered in Lawrence, 
 held a convention, and elected a committee, 
 
 Tn6 * P rcc~ 
 
 whose duty it should be to look after the in- state" Direc- 
 terests of the people. This committee se 
 lected 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. 
 
444 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 The Directory organized a strong military force under 
 the command of Colonel Walker. This force attacked 
 
 The organi- and broke up three pro-slavery bands during 
 " a Fre n e- s lte^ the month of August, the last one at Fort 
 military. Titus, near Lecompton, and commanded by 
 the noted Colonel Titus himself. Titus and his men 
 were captured. 
 
 The Governor now became alarmed for his own safety. 
 Accompanied by Major Sedgwick, he went to Lawrence, 
 
 The Treaty on August 17th, and concluded with the 
 of August Directory the noted agreement of that date, 
 the terms of which were, that the "Free- 
 state " men should keep the arms which they had capt 
 ured from the pro-slavery bands ; that the howitzer 
 taken from Lawrence- should be retured 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 un 
 harmed 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 non 
 residents to leave the Territory. The Directory engaged, 
 
 Resignation upon its side, to release Titus and his men. 
 of shannon. The Governor virtually surrendered to the 
 Directory. He then returned to Lecompton, resigned 
 his office, and made his way back to Ohio. 
 
 Secretary Woodson was now again in the Governor s 
 chair, and this, of itself, was notice to the Missourians to 
 
 Woodson s come on * They had already gathered on the 
 proclamation, border. On August 25th, Woodson pub- 
 
 cUitl tn6 H6W 
 
 invasion from lished a proclamation, in which he declared 
 the Territory to be " in a state of open in 
 surrection 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, 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS 445 
 
 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." 
 
 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 com 
 mand. On the 13th, a detachment of them attacked 
 and destroyed Ossawattomie. About a dozen men were 
 killed in the fight. 
 
 General Smith now issued instructions that the United 
 States troops should not " interfere with persons who 
 may have come from a distance to give pro- General 
 tection to their friends or others, and who SSe^oward 
 may be behaving themselves in a peaceable invaders - 
 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 nov, r pouring into the 
 Territory by way of Iowa and Nebraska, and Smith s 
 order worked ultimately to their advantage. Unques 
 tionably the General intended to be impartial. 
 
 The attack on Ossawattomie roused the " Free-state" 
 men to new exertions. Three hundred of 
 
 iVlii r c n i n ff 
 
 them, commanded by Lane, advanced upon and counter- 
 the camp at Bull Creek. The two forces 
 drew up in battle array, but, after a slight skirmish, 
 they both drew off. 
 
 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. 
 
 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 
 
446 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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. 
 
 The Missourians were now roused to serious and de 
 cided action. An army of some three thousand of them 
 had gathered on the border, and was on the 
 
 The failure . . . 
 
 of "Popular point of marching in for the purpose of de- 
 m the Terri- stroying 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 Govern 
 ment must assume control. 
 
 The President s eyes had at last been opened to the 
 fact, that if he allowed things to drift any farther in 
 Release o f Kansas, the Republicans would win the pres- 
 tne "treason idential election in November. He, there- 
 ana appoint- fore, resolved to put the government of the 
 
 ment of Geary. rr , .. ... 1-111 TT ^ -i 
 
 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 prom 
 ising the " Free-state " men protection against the Mis 
 sourians, returned to Lecompton. On the 14th, the force 
 The new advancing on Lawrence arrived in the neigh- 
 Governor es- borhood of the town. Word was immediate- 
 
 tablishes peace 
 
 by means of ly sent to the Governor. The Governor sum- 
 the united moned a detachment of United States sol 
 diers, and set out for the scene of action. 
 On the morning of the loth, he met the army of Missou 
 rians and interposed the United States army between 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS 447 
 
 them and Lawrence. The Governor informed the Mis 
 souri 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. 
 
 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 the AdmMs- 
 Fremont, President. After the danger was fe 
 over, the Administration became less hearty in its sup 
 port 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. 
 
 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 inau- The judicial 
 gural, whence it was to come, if not what it ^KanaashSE 
 was to be. He said : "A difference of opin- tor y- 
 ion 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 
 
448 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 Supreme Court, and decision upon which, it was under 
 stood, 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. 
 
 L 
 
CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 THE DRED SCOTT CASE 
 
 The Origin of tlie Dred Scott Case Two Dred Scott Cases The 
 Facts of the Cases The Case in the Missouri Courts The Case 
 in the United States Courts The Case a Genuine Proceeding 
 The Decision by the Supreme Court of the United States 
 The Dissenting Opinion of Mr. Justice Curtis Criticism of 
 the Court s Opinion The Obiter Dictum The Chief Justice 
 and the President Justice Curtis s Dissent Continued The 
 Printing and Distribution of the Decision and the Dissenting 
 Opinion The Doctrine of Popular Sovereignty in the Terri 
 tories Overthrown by the Opinion of the Court. 
 
 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. f T1 the 5f! 
 Louis, an account of the early history of the Scottcase - 
 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, Eoswell 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 Terri 
 tories, the purpose charged by many of the anti-slavery 
 29 
 
450 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 men of the North for which this case was created. Mr. 
 Crane most emphatically declares that Mr. Field was in 
 fluenced to undertake the case only by humanitarian 
 motives of the highest order. 
 
 There were, indeed, two Dred Scott cases, one in the 
 courts of Missouri, and one in the United States courts, 
 
 TWO Dred but they had no connection with each other. 
 Scott cases. The cage 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. 
 
 The facts in the two cases were, however, the same. 
 One Dr. Emerson, the owner of Dred Scott, had taken 
 
 The facts of Dred, as his slave, into Illinois, a Common 
 wealth 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 pur 
 chased 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. Sandf ord, 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. 
 
THE DEED SCOTT CASE 451 
 
 Emerson hired him out to different persons, and that he 
 became dissatisfied with this treatment, and resolved to 
 sue for his freedom. 
 
 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 su- 
 
 TllG C9.8G in 
 
 preme court of Missouri, and two of the the MiBsouri 
 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 de 
 cision of the lower court. 
 
 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 
 Eoswell M. Field for his powerful aid in bringing suit 
 against Sandford in the Courts of the United States. 
 
 The case in the Circuit Court of the United States 
 was begun before the case in the Missouri court was con 
 cluded. The defendant in the Circuit Court 
 of the United States first pleaded that Dred the United 
 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. 
 
 The evidence in the case consisted simply of a state 
 ment 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. 
 
 Mr. Field then carried the case to the Supreme Court 
 
452 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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. 
 
 There is certainly not the slightest evidence in this 
 history of the case that the case was anything but a 
 The case a g enuine proceeding from beginning to end, 
 genuine pro- conducted by anti-slavery men, for the pur 
 pose of securing the freedom of an intelli 
 gent and worthy African, who had been taken volun 
 tarily by his master upon free soil, and had thus been 
 made, by the principles of the common law, a free man. 
 
 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 
 
 Thedecision _ ,. J ,/} , T ,. J . , 
 
 by the Su- Justices, although Justice kelson did not 
 oPtSe United give his assent to any part of the opinion 
 states. except that which decided that, on the re 
 
 turn 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. 
 
THE DRED SCOTT CASE 453 
 
 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 tem 
 porary 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. 
 
 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. 
 
 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 opin 
 ion 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 defend 
 ant 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, 
 
454 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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, conse 
 quently, 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 Constitu 
 tion of 1787, but could not be made such, either by the 
 " States " or by Congress, subsequent to the adoption of 
 that Constitution. 
 
 In his powerful dissenting opinion, Mr. Justice Curtis 
 demolished this argument completely, by simply show- 
 The dissent- ^ n g from the statute books and the judicial 
 M?.fu n sucl Decisions of several of the " States " that, at 
 Curtis. the time of the formation of the Constitu 
 
 tion 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 defend 
 ant 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. 
 
 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 
 
THE DEED SCOTT CASE 455 
 
 this point. Nothing further was necessary in the deter 
 mination of the case. And it is certainly most difficult 
 to see what connection the Act of 1830. pro- 
 
 . . .. Criticism of 
 
 hibitmg slavery in the Louisiana territory, the court s 
 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. 
 
 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 re 
 turn 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. 
 
 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 Terri 
 tories would aid in bringing quiet to the country, and 
 that they had persuaded themselves that it was neces 
 sary 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. 
 
 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 The obiter 
 no clause in the Constitution which gave dictum - 
 Congress any power over territory acquired subsequent 
 ly to the adoption of the Constitution, interpreting the 
 provision which vests in Congress " the power to make 
 
456 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 govern 
 ment, Congress was limited by all those provisions of the 
 Constitution which protect private rights against gov 
 ernmental 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 Ter 
 ritories by their masters, against both the power of Con 
 gress and of the agents of Congress in the Territories, 
 the Territorial governments, to free them. The con 
 clusion 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 dis 
 position 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." 
 
 This was the point which the Kansas-Nebraska Act 
 had not covered, and which the President said, in his 
 The chief i nau g ura l address, would be decided in the 
 Justice and 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 Jus 
 tice imparted the opinion of the Court to the Presi 
 dent before it was pronounced. But this point, though 
 
THE DRED SCOTT CASE 457 
 
 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 require 
 ments and proprieties of the great stations which they , 
 occupied. It is almost certain that the charge was an 1 |s| 
 unfounded suspicion. The prevalence of the suspicion 
 was, however, an ominous sign of the danger impend 
 ing over the land. 
 
 Justice Curtis found no more difficulty in controvert 
 ing these propositions than those upon the first point 
 treated in the opinion of the Chief Justice. 
 He first referred to the undoubted facts that tie s dissent 
 not all the territory claimed by the several c 
 "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 Con 
 gress " the power to make all needful rules and regula 
 tions 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 for 
 eign 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 prop 
 erty, or by the failure of Congress or the Territorial 
 
458 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 legislature to enact laws for the security of such prop 
 erty. 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 Con 
 stitution to establish slavery in every Territory of the 
 Union, and consequently to make every new "State" a 
 slaveholding " State." 
 
 The slaveholders and the Douglas Democrats of the 
 North were in high glee over the decision, and hardly 
 
 The print- stopped to read the powerful dissenting opin- 
 ion which had shattered it to atoms. They 
 caused thousands upon thousands of copies 
 opinion. o f fas 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 de 
 cision, 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 ex 
 tension of slavery upon the nation, and the nation now 
 
 The doctrine ^ e g an to snow its resolution to meet its re- 
 of popular sponsibility by acquitting itself of any par- 
 sovereignty in r . . . f , . -i i 
 the Territories ticipation in this great wronp; in the onlv 
 
 overthrown by , ,, . ., ,, , . , ,. * 
 
 the opinion of 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 sover 
 eignty" in the Territories. The nation must now 
 
THE DRED SCOTT OASE 459 
 
 neither prohibit, nor allow the Territorial governments 
 to prohibit, slavery within the Territories, as the de 
 cision 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. 
 
CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS CONCLUDED 
 
 The Lecompton Convention Ordered Robert J. Walker and F. P. 
 Stanton Stanton and the " Free-state " Men Walker s Ad 
 dress The " Free-state" Legislature and Mass-meeting The 
 Plan to Capture the Territorial Legislature by the " Free- 
 state " Men The " Free-state " Men in Majority in the Terri 
 torial Legislature The Lecompton Convention The Lecomp 
 ton Constitution Only the Slavery Article to be Submitted 
 Fully to the People Protest of the " Free state " Men The 
 Extra Session of the New Territorial Legislature Stanton Re 
 moved Lecompton Constitution With Slavery Adopted The 
 "Free state" Men Capture the Lecompton Government and 
 Reject the Lecompton Constitution Denver Advises the Pres 
 ident Against the Admission of Kansas Under the Lecompton 
 Instrument The President s Message of February 2nd (1858) 
 The Passage of the Lecompton Bill by the Senate The Rejec 
 tion of the Bill by the House The English Bill The Rejec 
 tion of the Lecompton Constitution by the People of Kansas 
 A Fourth Government for Kansas The Struggle for Kansas 
 Closed Dr. Robinson The General Government Mr. Jeffer 
 son Davis The Beginning of Error and Wrong Brown s 
 Atrocities The Forerunners of War. 
 
 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 conven 
 tion, which should prepare the organic law for Kansas 
 as a Commonwealth of the Union. 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS CONCLUDED 461, 
 
 Already before the promulgation of the decision, the 
 Territorial legislature had provided for the holding of the 
 constitutional convention at Lecompton, and TheLecom . 
 for the election of the delegates thereto. This ton conv e n - 
 
 . . -,/,-r -.KIT i r> e- iv ti n ordered. 
 
 election was appointed for June loth, 1857. 
 
 It was certain that the " Free-State" men now out 
 numbered 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 consist 
 ently 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 leg 
 islature had made no provision for submitting the con 
 stitution which might be framed to the vote of the 
 people. 
 
 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, Walker, and 
 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. 
 
 Stanton went to Lawrence, on the 24th, and urged the 
 
462 THE MIDDLE PEKIOD 
 
 " Free-state " men to take part in the approaching elec 
 tion. He had, however, already apportioned the repre 
 sentation in the convention on the basis of the 
 
 Stanton and ... T ., ,1,1 
 
 the -Free- 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 apportion 
 ment, 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. 
 
 The new Governor now arrived, and bent all his ener 
 gies to induce the "Free-state" men to participate in 
 
 walker s ^ ne election. He issued an address, in which 
 address. ^e so i emn iy 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 re 
 jection. 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 ma 
 jority of the seats in the convention and make Kansas 
 a Democratic non-slaveholding Commonwealth. The 
 pro-slavery men discovered the plan at once, and ac 
 cused the Governor of leaning toward the "Free-state" 
 party. 
 
 The " Free-state " men were not yet, however, ready 
 to trust the Governor. They thought it wisest to main- 
 
 The Free- tain their own organization, and make the 
 ur^d^mafs Governor feel their power. On June 9th, the 
 meeting. Free-state " legislature assembled, to pro 
 vide for the election of successors to the existing mem 
 bers 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. 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS CONCLUDED 463 
 
 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 im 
 pressed by the apparent seriousness of the situation. 
 
 By this time, however, the "Free-state" men had 
 become considerably discouraged in regard to the admis 
 sion of Kansas into the Union under the The plan to 
 Topeka constitution. The Senate had given T^nufria? 
 the application the cold shoulder, and had, { e f e 6lat ^ r re b e y . 
 apparently, laid it aside permanently. The state "men. 
 prevarications of Lane were said to have produced this 
 result. As matters now stood, Kobinson 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 Oc 
 tober. 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 absten 
 tion of the " Free-state " men from the election of the del 
 egates, would be packed with pro-slavery representatives. 
 
 The matter of first importance was to obtain a true 
 census. Senator Wilson, of Massachusetts, was at the 
 moment in Lawrence, conferring with Eobinson 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 legislat 
 ure, 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. 
 
464 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 Robinson and his friends were now convinced that this 
 was the wise course, but they knew that it would be dif 
 ficult 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 assem 
 bled on July 15th to provide for its continuance. This 
 convention, after nominating candidates for the legisla 
 tive seats and for the offices, and resolving to adhere to 
 the " Free-state " government, recommended the peo 
 ple 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 legis 
 lature, 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. 
 
 Before the day appointed for the Grasshopper Falls 
 convention had arrived, the new census had been com 
 pleted under the direction of the " Free-state" govern 
 ment, 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-confi 
 dence in success. 
 
 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. 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS CONCLUDED 465 
 
 This election came off on October 5th. The Govern 
 or remained true to his pledge of protecting the ballot- 
 box. The presence of United States soldiers The , 4Free 
 discouraged any movements from Missouri, state" men in 
 and peace reigned at the polls. The returns SeTerritoriai 
 from the counties of McGee and Johnson leglsl 
 were, however, so manipulated by the pro-slavery elec 
 tion 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. 
 
 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 compton con- 
 was suddenly discovered by the conservative 
 " Free-state " men that Lane was working up a con 
 spiracy 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 con 
 servative men at once set themselves against this move 
 ment, and after a serious struggle happily won the day. 
 They appointed a mass-meeting of the party at Lecomp 
 ton for the following week, as much to protect the mem 
 bers of the convention against any sudden attack by 
 30 
 
466 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 Lane and his reckless adherents as to watch their con 
 stitution-framing work. Before the meeting took place 
 the Governor had announced the rejection of the fraud 
 ulent 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. 
 
 The convention framed an instrument after the Mis 
 souri model, and incorporated in it an article guarantee- 
 L * n & ^ ie P ro P er tj in slaves already within the 
 compton con- Territory. The convention then framed an 
 
 etitution. ... ... , . 
 
 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 Lecomp- 
 Oni the * on cons titution with slavery as a permanent 
 Slavery arti- institution, or the Lecompton constitution 
 
 cle to be sub- . , . 
 
 mitted fully to 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 ap 
 proval 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 mem 
 bers and officers under the new constitution was Janu 
 ary 4th following. 
 
 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 sover- 
 the -Free- eignty," 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 consti 
 tution to the people at the polls should be redeemed. 
 Stanton bravely resolved to keep the Governor s word of 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS CONCLUDED 467 
 
 honor, although he believed it would cost him his posi 
 tion. 
 
 What the "Free-state" men asked of him was to con 
 vene at once the new Territorial legislature, in which the 
 "Free-state" men now had a majority of The extra 
 the seats, for the purpose of giving it the op- 8 w S&StoS 
 portunity to order the full submission of the ai legislature. 
 Lecompton constitution to the suffrages of the people. 
 Stanton yielded to their request, and called the legisla 
 ture to meet at Lecompton on December 7th. This 
 body at once resolved to submit the proposed constitu 
 tion 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. 
 
 Stanton was immediately removed from office by the 
 Administration, and General John W. Den- stanton re- 
 ver, of Virginia, at the moment Indian Com- moved - 
 missioner, was assigned to the duties of Acting Governor 
 in the Territory. 
 
 The " Free-state " men resolved to take no part in 
 voting upon the slavery article of the Lecompton con 
 stitution, 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 ad P ted - 
 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 with 
 out slavery as a permanent institution. None were 
 counted against it in toto. That is to say, out of a vot- 
 
468 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 ing population of about fifteen thousand, less than four 
 thousand were in favor of this constitution in either form. 
 
 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 Lecomp 
 ton 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 con 
 stitution, 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. 
 
 On January 4th, more than ten thousand votes were 
 cast against the Lecompton constitution en- 
 
 T lip * 4 "FVpp- 
 
 state" men tire, and only about one hundred and fifty 
 votes were cast in its favor. The " Free- 
 
 fnd e rej?ct e the state" men also elected their candidates for 
 constitution n ^ e on ^ ces an( ^ sea ^ s i n * ne government crea 
 
 ted by the Lecompton constitution. 
 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 un 
 doubted majority of the suffrages of the citizens of 
 Kansas. 
 
 As yet the Lecompton constitution had not been pre 
 sented by the President to Congress, and 
 Acting Governor Denver hastened to give 
 him a truthful statement of the condition of 
 der Ka t n h 8 e 8 i affairs in the Territory, and to urge him not 
 BrumeX in ~ ^ recommend to Congress the admission of 
 Kansas under this constitution, but to sug 
 gest to that body the passage simply of an enabling 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOB KANSAS CONCLUDED 469 
 
 act, under which the people of Kansas might begin 
 again the work of forming a Commonwealth constitu 
 tion. 
 
 But the President did not heed this wise warning. 
 On February 2nd, 1858, he sent the Lecompton con 
 stitution, with the provision making slavery T he Preei- 
 a permanent institution in Kansas, to Con- gageofSbru- 
 gress, and recommended the admission of the ar y 2nd (1858)> 
 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 Terri 
 torial 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 conven 
 tion, was irregular ; and he undertook to comfort 
 the Free-state " men with the suggestion that, Kan 
 sas once admitted, they could change its constitu 
 tion to suit themselves, if they were really in major- 
 ity. 
 
 The President s argument carried the Senate with 
 him despite the powerful opposition of Mr. Douglas, 
 who bravely antagonized the Administration, The passage 
 and held firmly that his great principle of ^ptnVm 
 ft popular sovereignty " required the unre- by the Senate< 
 served 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 constitu 
 tion before the Senate was tantamount to making a con- 
 
470 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 stitution for Kansas by Congressional act. The honest 
 and manly stand taken by Mr. Douglas upon this great 
 subject certainly presents him in the role of a patriotic 
 statesman, rather than in his usual character of the 
 shrewd politician. 
 
 The Senate passed the Lecompton bill on March 23rd, 
 1858, by a substantial majority, but the House prompt 
 ly rejected it. The House passed a meas- 
 
 Tfa.6 T&\ 6 C - 
 
 tionof the bill ure, 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. 
 
 The matter was then sent to a conference committee 
 of the two Houses, After long deliberation a measure 
 The English was matured by this committee which ap- 
 bm - peared 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 in toto at the 
 polls. The measure is known as the English bill from 
 its projector, Mr. TV. H. English, a member of the 
 conference committee from the House of Representa 
 tives. It provided for a reduction of the land grants 
 from twenty-three millions of acres, asked for by Kan 
 sas 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 in toto. 
 If, on the other hand, they rejected this change, they 
 would be considered as having rejected this constitution 
 in toto. 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS CONCLUDED 471 
 
 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 The rejec- 
 it the Lecompton constitution, by a vote of com^ton^con- 
 more than eleven thousand in a total vote the U pe o?ie b of 
 of about thirteen thousand. Kansas. 
 
 In the meantime, fearing that Congress might pass 
 the bill for admitting Kansas under the Lecompton con 
 stitution, 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 gov 
 ernments already, pocketed the measure. 
 
 J A f ourt h 
 
 The convention was, however, held, and a government 
 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 gov 
 ernments were now, however, in the hands of the con 
 servative men of the " Free-state " party. 
 
 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 Eepub- gte for KAMI 
 lican 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, mod 
 eration, tact, and bravery of Dr. Robinson Dr . R bin- 
 and his friends have rarely been excelled by B0n 
 the statesmen and diplomatists of the New World or 
 of the Old. They were placed in a most trying situation 
 
472 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 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 tri 
 umph 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. 
 
 The attitude of the general Government was also hon 
 orable and praiseworthy. It did its best to hold the 
 
 The general balance even and impartial between the con- 
 Government. ten( jing forces. It sent out intelligent, hon 
 est, 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 Secre 
 tary of War, Mr. Jefferson Davis, who was considered 
 
 Mr. Jeffer- the very high-priest of the slavery interest, 
 Bon Davis. gent a m iii tary commander, Colonel E. V. 
 Simmer, 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 legis 
 lature, 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 s 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 
 
THE STRUGGLE FOR KANSAS CONCLUDED 473 
 
 others concerning his duties and acts. Governor Rob 
 inson 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." 
 
 Error began, unquestionably, with the repeal of the 
 Act prohibiting slavery in the Louisiana territory above 
 thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north The 
 latitude, and wrong began, just as unques- |J 
 tionably, with the incursion of the Missouri- 
 ans, and their fraudulent voting at the Territorial elec 
 tion 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 enact 
 ments 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 Brown s 
 wild reign of murder and robbery which fol- atrocities - 
 lowed in their train. All this was common crime of the 
 blackest and most villainous sort, and the men who en 
 gaged in it were cutthroats and highwaymen, who took 
 advantage of the confusion in Kansas to prosecute their 
 nefarious work. 
 
 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 degenera 
 tion 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 
 
474 THE MIDDLE PERIOD 
 
 we attempt to justify them by the end which their au 
 thors 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 un 
 balanced moral sense. It is a source of congratulation 
 that the juristic sense of the last decades of the nine 
 teenth 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 ethi 
 cal sense of the twentieth century to sweep the hero- 
 worship too often accorded such characters out of the 
 world s literature. 
 
 But if the murders, and robberies, and arson com 
 mitted in Kansas were not war, they were the forerun 
 ners of war. The last expedient which the 
 
 runrfer ^of 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 miser 
 ably 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 sub 
 ject of the next and last volume of this series. 
 
APPENDIX I. 
 
 THE ELECTOEAL VOTE IN DETAIL, 
 
 1820-1856. 
 
 ELECTORAL VOTE IN 1820. 
 
 STATES. 
 
 PRESIDENT. 
 
 VICE-PRESIDENT. 
 
 James Monroe, of 
 Virginia. 
 
 John Quincy Adams, 
 of Massachusetts. 
 
 Daniel D. Tompkins, 
 of New York. 
 
 Richard Stockton, of 
 New Jersey. 
 
 Daniel Rodney, of 
 Delaware. 
 
 Richard Rush, of 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 Robert Q. Harper, of 
 Maryland 
 
 Alabama 
 
 3 
 9 
 4 
 8 
 3 
 3 
 12 
 3 
 9 
 11 
 15 
 2 
 3 
 7 
 8 
 29 
 15 
 8 
 24 
 4 
 11 
 7 
 8 
 25 
 
 l 
 
 3 
 9 
 
 "s 
 
 3 
 3 
 12 
 3 
 9 
 10 
 7 
 2 
 3 
 7 
 8 
 29 
 15 
 8 
 24 
 4 
 11 
 7 
 8 
 25 
 
 
 
 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 
 
 
 
 Delaware 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 Georgia. 
 
 Illinois 
 
 
 
 
 
 Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 
 
 
 
 Louisiana . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 Maine 
 
 
 
 
 
 Maryland 
 
 8 
 
 . t 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 
 Missouri * 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 New York 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 Ohio . . 
 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 
 
 Total .... 
 
 231 
 
 1 
 
 218 
 
 8 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 
 * Missouri wa not formally admitted as a state until August, 1821 
 
476 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 ELECTORAL VOTE IN 1824. 
 
 STATES. 
 
 PRESIDENT. 
 
 VICE-PBESIDENT. 
 
 Andrew Jackson, of 
 Tennessee. 
 
 ^i 
 
 p ^ 
 
 P 
 
 William II. Crawford, 
 of Georgia. 
 
 >, 
 
 S-2 
 
 H 
 
 John C. Calhoun, of 
 South Carolina. 
 
 Nathan Sanford, of 
 New York. 
 
 1 
 
 b 
 
 g 
 
 H 
 
 Andrew Jackson, of 
 Tennessee. 
 
 Martin Van Buren, of 
 New York. 
 
 Nathaniel Macon, of 
 North Carolina. 
 
 Vacancies. 
 
 Alabama 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Connecticut . . . 
 
 8 
 1 
 
 l 
 
 "2 
 9 
 
 ii 
 3 
 
 i 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 5 
 9 
 10 
 15 
 3 
 
 "l 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 *9 
 
 . . 
 
 . . 
 
 
 
 Georgia 
 
 2 
 5 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 3 
 15 
 
 8 
 26 
 
 i 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 .. 
 
 Maine 
 
 Maryland . . 
 
 7 
 3 
 
 8 
 1 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Massachusetts . 
 Mississippi .... 
 Missouri 
 New Hampshire 
 New Jersey.. . . 
 New York.... 
 North Carolina. 
 Ohio 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 ie 
 
 8 
 29 
 15 
 
 28 
 3 
 11 
 11 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Pennsylvania . . 
 Rhode Island . . 
 South Carolina. 
 Tennessee 
 Vermont 
 
 28 
 
 11 
 11 
 
 *4 
 
 "l 
 
 24 
 
 41 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 24 
 24 
 
 1 
 
 Total 
 
 99* 
 
 84 
 
 37 
 
 182 
 
 30 
 
 2 
 
 13 
 
 9 
 
 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 stand 
 ing Adams, 13 States ; Jackson, 7 States ; Crawford, 4 States. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 477 
 
 ELECTORAL VOTE IN 1828. 
 
 STATES. 
 
 PRESIDENT. 
 
 VICE-PRESIDENT. 
 
 Andrew Jackson, of 
 Tennessee. 
 
 !| 
 
 8 
 
 P\ 
 
 John C. Calhoun, of 
 South Carolina. 
 
 Richard Rush, of 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 William Smith, of 
 South Carolina. 
 
 
 5 
 
 & 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 *2 
 8 
 
 5 
 14 
 5 
 1 
 5 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 20 
 15 
 16 
 
 28 
 
 ii 
 11 
 
 24 
 
 a 
 
 3 
 
 s 
 
 6 
 15 
 
 i 
 
 8 
 16 
 
 i 
 "i 
 
 "l 
 
 
 
 
 9 
 3 
 5 
 14 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 5 
 
 8 
 6 
 15 
 
 a 
 
 8 
 16 
 
 i 
 "l 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 New York 
 
 20 
 15 
 16 
 
 28 
 
 
 Ohio 
 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 11 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 24 
 
 Total 
 
 178 
 
 83 
 
 171 
 
 83 
 
 7 
 
 
478 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 ELECTORAL VOTE IN 1832. 
 
 STATES. 
 
 PRESIDENT. 
 
 VICE-PRESIDENT. 
 
 Andrew Jackson, 
 of Tennessee. 
 
 Henry Clay, of 
 Kentucky. 
 
 John Floyd, of 
 Virginia. 
 
 William Wirt, of 
 Maryland. 
 
 > 
 
 Martin Van Buren, 
 -4 of New York 
 
 *S 
 
 it 
 H 
 
 02 a 
 sg 
 
 I s 
 
 William Wilkins, 
 of Pennsylvania. 
 
 Henr} " Lee, of 
 Massachusetts. 
 
 Amos Ellmaker, 
 of Pennsylvania. 
 
 Alabama.. . . 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Connecticut .... 
 Delaware. 
 
 8 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 5 
 9 
 
 *5 
 
 10 
 3 
 
 *4 
 
 8 
 3 
 
 is 
 5 
 
 14 
 
 .. 
 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 5 
 
 Illinois .. 
 
 Indiana 
 
 9 
 
 15 
 
 5 
 14 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 Kentucky . . 
 
 Louisiana . . 
 
 5 
 10 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 Maine .... 
 
 Maryland 
 Massachusetts . . . 
 Mississippi 
 
 Missouri .... 
 
 4 
 7 
 8 
 42 
 15 
 21 
 30 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 New Hampshire. 
 New Jersey 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 42 
 15 
 21 
 
 
 
 30 
 
 ii 
 
 *7 
 
 New York 
 North Carolina . . 
 Ohio. 
 
 Pennsylvania . . . 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 49 
 
 South Carolina. . 
 
 15 
 
 
 11 
 
 7 
 
 - 
 
 15 
 23 
 
 Vermont.. 
 
 Virginia 
 
 23 
 
 .. 
 
 
 Total 
 
 219 
 
 49 
 
 11 
 
 7 
 
 2 
 
 189 
 
 30 
 
 11 
 
 7 
 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 ELECTORAL VOTE IN 1836. 
 
 479 
 
 STATES. 
 
 PRESIDENT. 
 
 VICE-PRESIDENT. 
 
 Martin Van Buren, of 
 New York. 
 
 William Henry Harrison, 
 of Ohio. 
 
 o 
 .- 
 
 & 
 
 
 
 "S 
 
 II 
 I 1 
 
 Willie P. Mangum, of 
 North Carolina. 
 
 Richard M. Johnson, of 
 Kentucky. 
 
 s 
 &a 
 
 IB 
 
 jl 
 
 
 
 John Tyler, of Virginia. 
 
 William Smith, of 
 South Carolina. 
 
 
 7 
 3 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 3 
 
 8 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 4 
 
 3 
 9 
 
 15 
 
 ii 
 
 ii 
 
 io 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 ii 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 15 
 
 io 
 
 Indiana .. ... 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 5 
 
 10 
 
 Maine 
 
 Maryland 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 
 Michigan* 
 
 3 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 Mississippi 
 
 Missouri ... 
 
 New Hampshire.. 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 New Jersey . .... 
 
 8 
 2l 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 42 
 15 
 
 30 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 2i 
 
 
 
 
 
 New York 
 North Carolina 
 Ohio 
 
 42 
 15 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 Rhode Island. 
 
 30 
 4 
 
 South Carolina. . 
 
 
 
 
 
 11 
 
 
 "l 
 
 11 
 
 15 
 
 23 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 Vermont ... 
 
 
 7 
 
 Virginia 
 
 23 
 
 Total 
 
 
 
 
 
 167 
 
 73 
 
 26 
 
 14 
 
 11 
 
 144 
 
 77 
 
 47 
 
 23 
 
 
 * 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. 
 
480 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 ELECTORAL VOTE IN 1840. 
 
 STATES. 
 
 PRESIDENT. 
 
 VICE-PRESIDENT. 
 
 William Henry Harrison, 
 of Ohio. 
 
 Martin Van Buren, of 
 New York. 
 
 John Tyler, of Virginia. 
 
 Richard M. Johnson, of 
 Kentucky. 
 
 Littleton W. Tazewell, 
 of Virginia. 
 
 James K. Polk, of Ten 
 nessee. 
 
 
 
 7 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 8 
 3 
 11 
 
 9 
 15 
 5 
 10 
 10 
 14 
 3 
 4 
 
 *8 
 42 
 15 
 21 
 30 
 4 
 
 is 
 
 7 
 
 7 
 3 
 
 *5 
 
 4 
 
 7 
 
 22 
 
 ii 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 3 
 11 
 
 Delaware . 
 
 Georgia 
 
 
 
 9 
 15 
 5 
 10 
 10 
 14 
 3 
 4 
 
 Kentucky. 
 
 
 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Michigan 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 7 
 
 ii 
 
 23 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 42 
 15 
 21 
 30 
 4 
 
 New York 
 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 Rhode Island ... 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 7 
 
 Vermont 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 234 
 
 60 
 
 234 
 
 48 
 
 11 
 
 1 
 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 481 
 
 ELECTORAL VOTE IN 1844. 
 
 STATES. 
 
 PRESIDENT. 
 
 | VICE-PRESIDENT. 
 
 James K. Polk, of 
 Tennessee. 
 
 Henry Clay, of 
 Kentucky. 
 
 P 
 
 o ** 
 
 *! 
 
 Theodore Freling- 
 huyeen, of New 
 Jersey. 
 
 
 9 
 3 
 
 *6 
 3 
 
 12 
 
 *8 
 
 12 
 
 *7 
 
 ii 
 
 23 
 
 4 
 is 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 3 
 
 io 
 
 9 
 12 
 
 *6 
 9 
 
 5 
 6 
 
 7 
 6 
 
 36 
 
 26 
 *9 
 
 17 
 
 e 
 
 3 
 12 
 
 s 
 
 12 
 7 
 
 ii 
 
 23 
 
 i 
 
 13 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 10 
 9 
 12 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 9 
 
 
 
 Massachusetts. . . 
 
 
 
 5 
 6 
 
 7 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 New York 
 
 36 
 
 
 Ohio 
 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 26 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 Virginia 
 
 17 
 
 Total 
 
 170 
 
 105 
 
 170 
 
 105 
 
 
482 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 ELECTORAL VOTE IN 1848. 
 
 STATES. 
 
 PRESIDENT. 
 
 VICE-PBESIDENT. 
 
 Zachary Taylor, of 
 Louisiana. 
 
 Lewis Cass, of 
 Michigan. 
 
 Millard Fillmore, of 
 New York. 
 
 William O. Butler, 
 of Kentucky. 
 
 
 
 9 
 3 
 
 9 
 12 
 4 
 
 *9 
 
 *5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 6 
 
 23 
 
 *9 
 i 
 
 17 
 
 4 
 
 6 
 3 
 3 
 10 
 
 12 
 6 
 
 *8 
 12 
 
 "l 
 36 
 11 
 
 26 
 4 
 
 13 
 *6 
 
 9 
 3 
 
 6 
 12 
 4 
 
 9 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 6 
 
 23 
 
 *9 
 *4 
 
 \1 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 3 
 3 
 10 
 
 Delaware ... 
 
 Florida 
 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 Kentucky* 
 
 12 
 6 
 
 Louisiana. ...... .... 
 
 
 
 8 
 12 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 New Hampshire 
 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 7 
 36 
 11 
 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Pennsylvania . . 
 
 26 
 4 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 
 Tennessee 
 
 13 
 
 Texas 
 
 Vermont 
 
 6 
 
 
 Wisconsin , 
 
 
 Total 
 
 
 163 
 
 127 
 
 163 
 
 127 
 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 - ELECTORAL VOTE m 1852. 
 
 483 
 
 STATES. 
 
 PRESIDENT. 
 
 VICE-PRESIDENT. 
 
 Franklin Pierce, of 
 New Hampshire. 
 
 Winfield Scott, of 
 Virginia. 
 
 William Rufus King, 
 of Alabama. 
 
 William A. Graham, 
 of North Carolina. 
 
 
 9 
 4 
 4 
 6 
 3 
 3 
 10 
 11 
 13 
 4 
 
 12 
 
 is 
 
 i2 
 5 
 
 9 
 4 
 4 
 6 
 3 
 3 
 10 
 11 
 13 
 4 
 
 "e 
 
 8 
 8 
 
 (3 
 7 
 9 
 5 
 7 
 35 
 10 
 23 
 27 
 4 
 8 
 
 i 
 
 is 
 
 5 
 
 i2 
 
 13 
 
 ii 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 8 
 
 
 Maryland 
 
 
 
 6 
 7 
 9 
 5 
 7 
 35 
 10 
 23 
 27 
 4 
 8 
 
 Mississippi .. 
 
 
 New Hampshire . . . . . 
 
 
 New York 
 
 Nortli Carolina 
 
 Ohio.. 
 
 
 Rhode Island . . . . 
 
 South Carolina 
 
 
 Texas 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 15 
 5 
 
 
 Total 
 
 254 
 
 42 
 
 254 
 
 42 
 
 
484 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 ELECTORAL VOTE IN 1856. 
 
 STATES. 
 
 PRESIDENT. 
 
 VICE-PRESIDENT. 
 
 James Buchanan, 
 of Pennsylvania. 
 
 John C. Fremont, 
 of California. 
 
 Millard Fillmore, 
 of New York. 
 
 J. C. Breckinridge, 
 of Kentucky. 
 
 William L. Dayton, 
 of New Jersey. 
 
 A. J. Donelson, of 
 Tennessee. 
 
 Alabama 
 
 9 
 4 
 4 
 
 
 
 9 
 4 
 4 
 
 *3 
 3 
 
 10 
 11 
 13 
 
 12 
 6 
 
 "l 
 9 
 
 7 
 
 io 
 
 27 
 
 *8 
 
 12 
 4 
 
 is 
 
 *6 
 
 *4 
 *8 
 
 is 
 
 6 
 
 5 
 35 
 23 
 i 
 
 S 
 *5 
 
 % 
 
 
 California 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 *8 
 
 & 
 
 
 3 
 3 
 10 
 11 
 13 
 
 Florida 
 
 Georgia . 
 
 Illinois 
 
 Indiana 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Kentucky 
 
 12 
 6 
 
 Louisiana 
 
 
 
 
 Massachusetts 
 Michigan 
 
 
 
 13 
 6 
 
 s 
 35 
 23 
 *4 
 
 5 
 *5 
 
 
 7 
 9 
 
 *7 
 
 
 New Hampshire 
 New Jersey 
 
 New York 
 
 North Carolina 
 
 10 
 
 Ohio .. . 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 27 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 South Carolina 
 Tennessee 
 
 8 
 12 
 4 
 
 Texas 
 
 Vermont 
 
 Virginia 
 
 15 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 Total 
 
 
 174 
 
 114 
 
 8 
 
 174 
 
 114 
 
 8 
 
 
APPENDIX II. 
 
 THE CABINETS OF MONROE, ADAMS, JACK 
 SON, VAN BUREN, HARRISON, TYLER, 
 POLK, TAYLOR, FILLMORE, AND 
 
 PIERCE 1817-1857. 
 
 THE SECRETARIES OF STATE. 
 Department created by Act of Congress, September 15, 1789. 
 
 NAME. . 
 
 STATE. 
 
 FROM 
 
 John Quincy Adams 
 
 Mass 
 
 March 5, 1817 
 
 Henry Clay. 
 James A. Hamilton. . . . 
 Martin Van Buren 
 Edward Livingston 
 Louis McLane 
 John Forsy th 
 J. L. Martin 
 Daniel Webster 
 
 Ky 
 N. Y ... 
 N. Y ... 
 La 
 Del 
 Ga 
 N. C . . . 
 Mass 
 
 March 7, 1825. 
 March 4, 1829, ad int. 
 Marcli 6, 1829. 
 May 24, 1831. 
 May 29, 1833. 
 June 27, 1834. 
 March 3, 1841, ad int. 
 March 5, 1841. 
 
 Hugh S. Legare 
 Abel P. Upshur . . . 
 
 S. C.... 
 Va 
 
 May 9, 1843, ad int. 
 June 24, 1843, ad int. 
 
 Abel P. Upshur 
 John Nelson 
 
 Va 
 Md. ... 
 
 July 24, 1843. 
 February 29, 1844, ad int. 
 
 John C. Calhoun 
 
 S. C ... 
 
 March 6, 1844. 
 
 James Buchanan 
 
 Penna . . 
 
 March 6, 1845. 
 
 John M. Clayton 
 Daniel Webster: . 
 
 Del 
 
 Mass . . 
 
 March 7, 1849. 
 July 22, 1850. 
 
 Charles M. Conrad. . . . 
 
 Edward Everett 
 
 La ..... 
 Mass 
 
 September 2, 1852, ad int. 
 Novembers, 1852. 
 
 William Hunter 
 
 R. I ... 
 
 March 3, 1853, ad int 
 
 William L. Marcy. 
 
 N Y 
 
 March 7, 1853 
 
 Lewis Cass 
 
 Mich . . 
 
 March 6, 1857. 
 
 
 
 
486 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 THE SECRETARIES OF THE TREASURY. 
 Department created by Act of Congress, September 2, 1789. 
 
 NAME. 
 
 STATE. 
 
 FROM 
 
 William H. Crawford 
 Samuel L. Southard. . . 
 Richard Rush 
 
 Ga... 
 N. J.... 
 Penna 
 
 October 22, 1816. 
 March 7, 1825, ad int. 
 March 7, 1825 
 
 Samuel D. Ingham 
 
 Penna . . 
 
 March 6, 1829. 
 
 Asbury Dickins 
 Louis McLane 
 
 N. C.... 
 Del. 
 
 June 21, 1831, ad int. 
 August 8, 1831 
 
 William J. Duane 
 
 Penna 
 
 May 29, 1833 
 
 Roger B Taney ... . . 
 
 Md 
 
 September 23, 1833 
 
 McClintock Young. . . 
 Levi Woodbury 
 
 Md 
 N. H.... 
 
 June 25, 1834, ad int. 
 June 27, 1834. 
 
 McClintock Young. . . . 
 Thomas Ewing 
 McClintock Young . . . 
 Walter Forward 
 
 Md 
 
 Ohio. . . . 
 Md 
 Penna . . 
 
 March 3, 1841, ad int. 
 March 5, 1841. 
 September 13, 1841, ad int. 
 September 13, 1841 
 
 McClintock Young. . . . 
 John C. Spencer 
 McClintock Young 
 George M. Bibb 
 Robert J. Walker 
 McClintock Young. . . . 
 William M. Meredith 
 
 Md 
 N. Y.... 
 Md 
 Ky 
 
 Miss. . . . 
 Md 
 Penna . . 
 
 March 1, 1843, ad int. 
 March 3, 1843. 
 May 2, J844, ad int. 
 June 15, 1844. 
 March 6, 1845. 
 March 6, 1849, ad int. 
 March 8, 1849. 
 
 Thomas Corwin 
 
 Ohio 
 
 July 23, 1850. 
 
 James Guthrie 
 Howell Cobb 
 
 Ky 
 Ga 
 
 March 7, 1853. 
 March 6, 1857. 
 
 THE SECRETARIES OF WAR. 
 Department created by Act of Congress, August 7, 1789. 
 
 NAME. 
 
 STATE. 
 
 FROM 
 
 Isaac Shelby 
 George Graham 
 
 Ky 
 Va 
 
 March 5, 1817. 
 April 7, 1817, ad int. 
 
 John C. Calhoun 
 James Barbour . 
 
 S.C.... 
 Va .. 
 
 October 8, 1817. 
 March 7, 1825. 
 
 Samuel L. Southard . . . 
 Peter B. Porter 
 John H. Eaton 
 
 N. J. . . . 
 N. Y.... 
 Tenn 
 
 May 26, 1828, ad int. 
 May 26, 1828. 
 March 9, 1829 
 
 Philip G. Randolph 
 Roger B. Taney 
 
 Va 
 
 Md 
 
 June 18, 1831, ad int. 
 July 21, 1831, ad int. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 THE SECRETARIES OF WAR. Continued. 
 
 487 
 
 NAME. 
 
 STATE. 
 
 FROM 
 
 
 Ohio 
 
 August 1, 1831. 
 
 Benjamin F. Butler. . . 
 Joel R Poinsett 
 
 N. Y.. . . 
 S. C.... 
 
 October 25, 1836, ad int. 
 March 7, 1837. 
 
 John Bell 
 
 Tenn. . . 
 
 March 5, 1841. 
 
 John McLean 
 
 Ohio. . . . 
 
 September 13, 1841. 
 
 
 N. Y... 
 
 October 12, 1841. 
 
 James M Porter 
 
 Penna . . 
 
 March 8, 1843. 
 
 William Wilkins 
 
 Penna . . 
 
 February 15, 1844. 
 
 William L. Marcy 
 George W. Crawford 
 Winfield Scott 
 
 N. Y.. . 
 Ga 
 Va 
 
 March 5, 1845. 
 March 8, 1849. 
 July 23, 1850, ad int. 
 
 Charles M. Conrad 
 Jefferson Davis 
 Samuel Cooper 
 John B Floyd 
 
 La 
 
 Miss. . . . 
 N. Y... 
 Va 
 
 August 15, 1850. 
 March 7, 1853. 
 March 3, 1857, ad int. 
 March 6, 1857. 
 
 
 
 
 THE SECRETARIES OF THE NAVY. 
 Department created by Act of Congress, April 30, 1798. 
 
 NAME. 
 
 STATE. 
 
 FROM 
 
 Benjamin W. Crowninshield 
 Smith Thompson 
 
 Mass . . . 
 N. Y... . 
 
 December 19, 1814. 
 November 9, 1818. 
 
 John liod^ers . . 
 
 Md 
 
 September 1, 1823, ad int. 
 
 Samuel L. Southard 
 John Branch . 
 
 N. J. ... 
 
 N. C. . . . 
 
 September 16, 1823. 
 March 9, 1829. 
 
 
 N. H 
 
 May 23, 1831. 
 
 Mahlon Dickerson 
 
 N. J. 
 
 June 30, 1834. 
 
 James K. Paulding 
 George E Badger 
 
 N. Y. . . . 
 N. C . 
 
 June 25, 1838. 
 March 5, 1841 
 
 Abel P Upshur 
 
 Va 
 
 September 13, 1841. 
 
 
 Mass.. . . 
 
 July 24, 1843. 
 
 Thomas W Gilmer 
 
 Va 
 
 February 15, 1844. 
 
 John Y Mason .... 
 
 Va 
 
 March 14, 1844. 
 
 George Bancroft 
 John Y Mason 
 
 Mass 
 Va ... 
 
 March 10, 1845. 
 September 9, 1846. 
 
 William B. Preston 
 William A. Graham 
 John P Kennedy 
 
 Va 
 N. C.... 
 Md ... 
 
 March 8, 1849. 
 July 22, 1850. 
 July 22, 1852. 
 
 
 N. C. . . . 
 
 March 7, 1853. 
 
 
 Conn . . 
 
 March 6, 1857. 
 
 
 
 
488 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 THE SECRETARIES OF THE INTERIOR. 
 Department created by Act of Congress, March 3, 1849. 
 
 NAME. 
 
 STATE. 
 
 FROM 
 
 Thomas Ewing . 
 
 Ohio 
 
 March 8, 1849 
 
 Thomas M. T. McKennan. . 
 Alexander H. H. Stuart... . 
 Kobert McClelland 
 
 Penna . . 
 Va 
 Mich . . 
 
 August 15, 1850. 
 September 12, 1850.] 
 March 7, 1853. 
 
 Jacob Thompson 
 
 Miss. . . . 
 
 March 6, 1857. 
 
 THE ATTORNEYS-GENERAL. 
 
 Duties prescribed by the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789. 
 Department reorganized in 1870. 
 
 NAME. 
 
 STATE. 
 
 FROM 
 
 Richard Rush 
 
 Penna... 
 
 February 10, 1814. 
 
 William Wirt 
 
 Va 
 
 November 3, 1817. 
 
 John M. Berrien 
 
 Ga.... 
 
 March 9, 1829. 
 
 Roger B. Taney 
 
 Md 
 
 July 20, 1831. 
 
 
 N. Y.. 
 
 November 15, 1833. 
 
 Felix Grundy 
 
 Tenn 
 
 July 5, 1838 
 
 Henry D Gilpin 
 
 Penna 
 
 July 11 1840. 
 
 John J. Crittenden 
 Hugh S. Legare 
 John Nelson 
 
 Ky 
 S. C.... 
 Md. 
 
 March 5, 1841. 
 September 13, 1841. 
 July 1, 1843. 
 
 John Y. Mason . ... 
 
 Va . . 
 
 March 6, 1845. 
 
 Nathan Clifford 
 Isaac Toucey . 
 
 Me 
 
 Conn 
 
 October 17, 1846. 
 June 21, 1848. 
 
 Reverdy Johnson 
 John J. Crittenden 
 Caleb Gushing 
 
 Md 
 Ky 
 Mass. 
 
 March 8, 1849. 
 July 22, 1850. 
 March 7, 1853. 
 
 Jeremiah S Black. 
 
 Penna 
 
 March 6, 1857 
 
 
 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 489 
 
 THE POSTMASTERS-GENERAL. 
 
 A Bureau of the Treasury until 1829. Made a Cabinet office in 
 that year. 
 
 NAMB. 
 
 STATE. 
 
 FROM 
 
 Return J. Meigs, Jr 
 John McLean 
 William T. Barry 
 Amos Kendall 
 
 Ohio.... 
 Ohio 
 Ky 
 Ky 
 
 Conn . . . 
 
 March 17, 1814. 
 June 26, 1823. 
 March 9, 1829. 
 March 1, 1835. 
 May 19, 1840. 
 
 Francis Granger 
 Charles A. Wickliffe 
 Cave Johnson 
 
 N. Y.... 
 Ky 
 
 Tenn . . . 
 
 March 6, 1841. 
 September 13, 1841. 
 March 6, 1845. 
 
 Jacob Collainer . 
 
 vt 
 
 March 8, 1849. 
 
 Nathan K Hall 
 
 N. Y . . . 
 
 July 23, 1850. 
 
 Samuel D Hubbard 
 
 Conn 
 
 August 31, 1852. 
 
 James Campbell ... ... 
 
 Penna 
 
 March 7, 1853. 
 
 
 Tenn. .. 
 
 March 6, 1857. 
 
 
 
 
CHRONOLOGY 
 
 Territory of Missouri erected June 4, 1812 
 
 Treaty of Fort Jackson August 10, 1814 
 
 Treaty of Ghent signed December 24, 1814 
 
 Commonwealth of Indiana admitted December 11, 1816 
 
 Madison s veto of internal improvements bill March 3, 1817 
 
 Attack on Fowltown November 21, 1817 
 
 Commonwealth of Mississippi admitted December 10, 1817 
 
 Jackson s " Rhea " letter to Monroe January 6, 1818 
 
 Execution of Ambrister and Arbuthnot April 29, 1818 
 
 Convention with Great Britain as to Oregon October 20, 1818 
 
 Commonwealth of Illinois admitted December 3, 1813 
 
 Tallmadge amendment offered February 13, 1819 
 
 Treaty with Spain as to Florida February 22, 1819 
 
 Decision in McCulloch vs. Maryland 1819 
 
 Commonwealth of Alabama admitted December 14, 1819 
 
 Thomas amendment offered February 3, 1820 
 
 Maine bill approved March 3, 1820 
 
 First Missouri bill approved March 6, 1820 
 
 Commonwealth of Maine admitted March 15, 1820 
 
 Report of Clay s Committee of Thirteen February 10, 1821 
 
 Second Missouri bill approved March 2, 1821 
 
 Jackson, as Governor, takes command in Florida. . .July 17, 1821 
 
 Commonwealth of Missouri admitted August 10, 1821 
 
 Congress of Verona October-December, 1822 
 
 Monroe s veto of internal improvements bill May 4, 1822 
 
 Clay nominated for presidency by the Kentucky legislature. 
 
 November 18, 1822 
 
 " Monroe Doctrine " announced December 2, 1823 
 
 Congressional caucus nominates Crawford February 14, 1824 
 
 Harrisburg convention March 4, 1824 
 
 Jackson s " Coleman Letter " April 26, 1824 
 
 Presidential election in House of Representatives Feb. 9, 1825 
 
492 CHRONOLOGY 
 
 Indian Springs convention February 12, 1825 
 
 Mexico-Columbia treaty September 25, 1825 
 
 The Creek treaty January, 1826 
 
 Abduction of Morgan September 11, 12, 1826 
 
 Protectionist convention at Harrisburg July 30, 1827 
 
 Treaty with Great Britain August 6, 1 827 
 
 Tariff bill approved May 19, 1828 
 
 The " South Carolina Exposition " published 1828 
 
 Hayne s speech on Foote s resolution January 19, 1830 
 
 Webster s reply to Hayne January 26, 1830 
 
 Jackson s speech on the Union April 13, 1830 
 
 Veto of the Maysville Road bill May 27, 1830 
 
 Publication of the " Liberator " begun January 1, 1831 
 
 " Address to the People of South Carolina" published 
 
 July 26, 1831 
 
 The Southampton massacre August, 1831 
 
 Anti-Masonic convention at Baltimore September 26, 1831 
 
 National Republican convention at Baltimore.. December 12, 1831 
 
 New England Anti-Slavery Society formed January 6, 1832 
 
 Bank of fhe United States asks re-charter January 9, 1832 
 
 National Democratic convention at Baltimore May 21, 1832 
 
 Calhoun s letter to Governor Hamilton August 28, 1832 
 
 South Carolina convention meets at Columbia. .November 19, 1832 
 
 Ordinance of nullification November 24, 1832 
 
 President Jackson s nullification proclamation.. December 10, 1832 
 
 Clay proposes compromise tariff February 12, 1833 
 
 The " Force Bill " approved March 2, 1833 
 
 Compromise tariff bill approved March 2, 1833 
 
 Re-assembling of the South Carolina convention. .March 11, 1833 
 
 The " Paper read in the Cabinet " September 18, 1833 
 
 Removal of the deposits ordered September 26, 1833 
 
 American Anti-Slavery Society formed December, 1833 
 
 Van Buren nominated by Baltimore convention May 20, 1835 
 
 Charleston, S. C., post-office robbed July 29, 1835 
 
 Provisional declaration of Texan independence.. November 7, 1835 
 
 Meeting of Texas convention March 1, 1836 
 
 Declaration of Texan independence March 2, 1836 
 
 The Alamo massacre March 6, 1836 
 
 Battle of San Jaciuto April 21, 1836 
 
 House adopts the " gag" resolution May 26, 1836 
 
 Commonwealth of Arkansas admitted June 15, 1836 
 
CHRONOLOGY 493 
 
 The " Specie Circular " July 11, 1836 
 
 Senate passes the " expunging resolution " January 16, 1837 
 
 Commonwealth of Michigan admitted January 26, 1837 
 
 Financial panic begins April, 1837 
 
 Murder of Lovejoy November 7, 1837 
 
 Harrisburg " harmony " convention September 4, 1839 
 
 Whig convention at Harrisburg December 4, 1839 
 
 Democratic-Republican convention at Baltimore May 5, 1840 
 
 Independent Treasury bill approved July 4, 1840 
 
 Death of President Harrison April 4, 1841 
 
 The Ashburton treaty August 9, 1842 
 
 Veto of National Bank bill August 16, 1842 
 
 Second bank bill vetoed September 9, 1842 
 
 Abolition convention at Buffalo August 30, 1843 
 
 Whitman s party reaches the Columbia September 5, 1843 
 
 Whig convention at Baltimore May 1, 1844 
 
 Democratic convention at Baltimore May 27, 1844 
 
 Commonwealth of Florida admitted March 3, 1845 
 
 Folk s message on Oregon December 2, 1845 
 
 Commonwealth of Texas admitted December 29, 1845 
 
 Mexicans cross the Nueces April 23, 1846 
 
 Arista notifies Taylor of beginning of hostilities April 24, 1846 
 
 Battle of Palo Alto May 8, 1846 
 
 Congress declares war begun by Mexico May 12, 13, 1846 
 
 Treaty with Great Britain as to Oregon June 15, 1846 
 
 Kearny takes Santa Fe August 18, 1846 
 
 Battle of Monterey September 21-23, 1846 
 
 Commonwealth of Iowa admitted December 28, 1846 
 
 Battle of Buena Vista February 22, 23, 1847 
 
 Capture of Vera Cruz March 27-29, 1847 
 
 Battle of Cerro Gordo. April 18, 1847 
 
 Battle of Chapultepec September 12, 13, 1847 
 
 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo February 2, 1848 
 
 Democratic convention at Baltimore May 22, 1848 
 
 Special message on Oregon May 29, 1848 
 
 Commonwealth of Wisconsin admitted May 29, 1848 
 
 Abolition convention at Rochester June 2, 1848 
 
 Whig convention at Philadelphia June 7, 1848 
 
 Special message on California and New Mexico July 6, 1848 
 
 Free-soil convention at Buffalo August 9, 1858 
 
 Territory of Oregon organized August 14, 1848 
 
494 CHRONOLOGY 
 
 California convention at Monterey September 1, 1849 
 
 Clay proposes bis compromise January 29, 1850 
 
 Calhoun s last speecb Marcb 4, 1850 
 
 Webster s speech on the Constitution March 7, 1850 
 
 Death of Calhoun March 31, 1850 
 
 Clayton-Bulwer treaty April 19, 1850 
 
 Clay reports on the compromise May 8, 1850 
 
 Death of President Taylor July 9, 1850 
 
 Commonwealth of California admitted September 9, 1850 
 
 President s message on the fugitive slave law . .February 21, 1851 
 
 The "Jerry rescue" October, 1851 
 
 Democratic convention at Baltimore June 1, 1852 
 
 Whig convention at Baltimore June 16, 1852 
 
 Death of Clay June 29, 1852 
 
 Free-soil Democratic convention at Pittsburg August 11, 1852 
 
 Death of Webster October 23, 1852 
 
 The Gadsden treaty December 30, 1853 
 
 Douglas reports on Nebraska January 4, 1854 
 
 * Kansas-Nebraska bill approved May 30, 1854 
 
 Salt Creek Valley convention June 10, 1854 
 
 The Ostend manifesto October 18, 1854 
 
 ^Congressional election in Kansas November 29, 1854 
 
 " Territorial election in Kansas March 30, 1855 
 
 v Kansas legislature meets at Pawnee July 2, 1855 
 
 - Robinson s speech at Lawrence July 4, 1855 
 
 ^ Convention at Lawrence, Kansas August 14, 1855 
 
 v Convention at Big Springs, Kansas September 5, 1855 
 
 v Convention at Topeka, Kansas September 19, 1855 
 
 x Convention at Topeka, Kansas October 23, 1855 
 
 v Popular vote on the Topeka constitution December 15, 1855 
 
 Robinson elected governor of Kansas January 5, 1856 
 
 President s proclamation on Kansas February 11, 1856 
 
 - Kansas Free-state legislature meets March 4, 1856 
 
 Philadelphia convention of the " American party ". Feb. 22, 1856 
 
 Congressional committee begins sessions at Kansas City 
 
 April 14, 1856 
 Summer s speech on the " Crime against Kansas ".May 19, 20, 1856 
 
 The sack of Lawrence May 21, 1856 
 
 Brooks s attack on Sumner May 22, 1856 
 
 Massacre at Dutch Henry s Crossing May 24, 1856 
 
 Affair at Black Jaok . . June 2, 1856 
 
CHRONOLOGY 495 
 
 A.D. 
 
 Democratic national convention at Cincinnati June 2, 1856 
 
 Republican national convention at Philadelphia June 17, 1856 
 
 - Assault on Sheriff Jones June 23, 1856 
 
 House Committee reports on Kansas July 1, 1856 
 
 Dispersal of Free-state legislature at Topeka July 4, 1856 
 
 Oliver makes minority report on Kansas July 11, 1856 
 
 ^Treaty at Lawrence August 17, 1856 
 
 Woodson s proclamation in Kansas August 25, 1856 
 
 Destruction of Ossawattomie August 29, 1856 
 
 Whig convention at Baltimore September 17, 1856 
 
 Free-state legislature dispersed at Topeka January 6, 1857 
 
 Territorial legislature meets at Lecompton January 12, 1857 
 
 Dred Scott decision March 6, 1857 
 
 - Election of Lecompton constitutional convention. . .June 15, 1857 
 
 - Meeting of Free-state convention at Topeka July 15, 1857 
 
 ~ Convention at Lecompton, Kansas September 7, 1857 
 
 - Free-state election in Kansas October 5, 1857 
 
 - Convention at Lecompton, Kansas October 19, 1857 
 
 - Mass-meeting at Lawrence, Kansas December 2, 1857 
 
 *~ Kansas legislature meets at Lecompton December 7, 1857 
 
 - Pro-slavery vote on the Lecompton constitution . December 21, 1857 
 
 - Free-state vote on the Lecompton constitution. . .January 4, 1858 
 
 Buchanan s message on Kansas February 2, 1858 
 
 Commonwealth of Minnesota admitted May 11, 1858 
 
 Vote in Kansas on the English bill propositions. . .August 2, 1858 
 Commonwealth of Oregon admitted February 14, 1859 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 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 in 
 dicated in the preface, the author has endeavored, in 
 all cases, to go back to original matter, which is usually 
 disconnected and fragmentary, and practically inacces 
 sible to the general reader. 
 
 LIST OF TITLES 
 
 The alpliabetical arrangement is, in most instances, based upon the 
 names of autkws or editors. 
 
 Adams, C. F. : Railroads ; their origin and problems. New York, 
 
 1878. 
 
 Adams, H.: Life of Albert Gallatin. Philadelphia, 1879. 
 Adams, H. : History of the United States. 9 vols. New York, 
 
 1889-91. 
 
 Adams, H.: John Randolph. Boston, 1882. 
 Adams, J. Q.: Memoirs; Comprising Parts of His Diary from 
 
 1795 to 1848. 12 vols. Philadelphia, 1874-77. 
 Alfriend, F. H.: Life of Jefferson Davis. Cincinnati, 1868. 
 Baker, G. E. [Ed.] : Works of William H. Seward. 5 vols. New 
 
 York, 1853-54. 
 Bancroft, H. H.: Arizona and New Mexico, 1530-1888. San 
 
 Francisco, 1889. 
 
498 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Bancroft, EL H. : History of California. 7 vols. San Francisco, 
 
 1884-90. 
 Bancroft, H. H.: North Mexican States and Texas, 1531-1889. 
 
 2 vols. San Francisco, 1884. 
 Bancroft, H. H.: Oregon, 1834-1888. 2 vols. San Francisco, 
 
 1886-88. 
 Barrows, W.: Oregon: The Struggle for Possession. Boston, 
 
 1883. 
 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. 
 
 Birney, W. : James G. Birney and His Times. New York, 1890. 
 Blaine, J. G.: Twenty Years of Congress (1860-80). 2 vols. 
 
 Norwich, 1884-86. 
 Bolles, A. S. : The Financial History of the United States. 3 vols. 
 
 New York, 1879-86. 
 Bolles, A. S. : Industrial History of the United States. Norwich, 
 
 1878. 
 Bourne, E. G. : History of the Surplus Revenue of 1837. New 
 
 York, 1885. 
 
 Bruce, H. : Life of General Houston. New York, 1891. 
 Bryce, J. : The American Commonwealth. 2 vols. New York, 
 
 1895. 
 
 Cairnes, J. E. : Slave Power : Its Character, Career, and Prob 
 able Designs. New York, 1862. 
 
 Calhonn, J. C.: Works. 6 vols. New York, 1853-55. 
 Carr, L.: Missouri, a Bone of Contention. Boston, 1888. 
 Channing, E.: The United States of America, 1765-1865. New 
 
 York, 1896. 
 Clioate, R.: Works, with a Memoir by S. G. Brown. 2 vols. 
 
 Boston, 1862. 
 Chase, L. B. : History of the Polk Administration. New York, 
 
 1850. 
 Cobb, T. R. R.: Historical Sketch of Slavery. Philadelphia, 
 
 1858. 
 Cobb, T. R. R. : Enquiry into the Law of Negro Slavery in the 
 
 United States. Philadelphia, 1858. 
 
 Colton, C. [Ed.]: Works of Henry Clay. 6 vols. New York, 1857. 
 Colton, C. : Life and Times of Henry Clay. 2 vols. New York, 
 
 1846. 
 Colton, C. [Ed.]: Private Correspondence of Henry Clay. New 
 
 York, 1855. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 499 
 
 Colton, C.: The Last Seven Years of the Life of Henry Clay. 
 
 New York, 1856. 
 Cooper, T.: Lectures on the Elements of Political Economy. 
 
 Columbia, 1826. 
 Curtis, G. T.: Constitutional History of the United States. 2 
 
 vols. New York, 1889, 1896. 
 Curtis, G. T.: Life of James Buchanan. 2 vols. New York, 
 
 1883. 
 
 Curtis, G. T. : Life of Daniel Webster. 2 vols. New York, 1870. 
 Davis, J.: The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. 
 
 2 vols. New York, 1881. 
 Davis, V. H. : Jefferson Davis, ex-President of the Confederate 
 
 States. 2 vols. New York, 1890. 
 Douglass, F. : Life and Times. Written by himself. Hartford, 
 
 1881. 
 Draper, J.W.: History of the American Civil War. 3 vols. New 
 
 York, 1867-70. 
 Dunbar, C. F. : Laws of the United States relating to currency, 
 
 finance and banking from 1789 to 1891. Boston, 1893. 
 Fremont, J. C. : Memoirs of My Life. Chicago, 1887. 
 Frothingham, O. B. : Gerrit Smith ; A Biography. New York, 
 
 1879. 
 Frothingham, O. B. : Theodore Parker ; A Biography. Boston, 
 
 1874. 
 Gannett, H.: Boundaries of the United States, and of the several 
 
 States and Territories. Washington, 1885. 
 Giddings, J. R.: Speeches in Congress. Boston, 1853. 
 Gillet, R. H.: Democracy in the United States. New York, 1868. 
 Gilman, D. C.: James Monroe in his Relation to the Public Ser 
 vice. Boston, 1883. 
 
 Greeley, H.: The American Conflict. 2 vols. Hartford, 1864-67. 
 Greeley, H. : Recollections of a Busy Life. New York, 1868. 
 Greeley, H.: History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension or 
 
 Restriction in the United States. New York, 1856. 
 Hall, B. F. : The Republican Party, 1796-1832. New York, 1856. 
 Hammond, J. D.: The History of Political Parties in the State 
 
 of New York. 4th edit. 2 vols. Cooperstown, 1846. 
 Hay, J.: see Nicolay, J. G. 
 Helper, H. R.: Impending Crisis of the South, and how to meet 
 
 it. New York, 1857. 
 
 Hildreth, R.: The History of the United States. 6 vols. New 
 York, 1851-56. 
 
500 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Hoist, H. E. von : The Constitutional History of the United 
 States. 8 vols. Chicago, 1876-92. 
 
 Hoist, H. E. von : John Brown. Boston, 1888. 
 
 Hoist, H. E. von : John C. Calhoun. Boston, 1882. 
 
 Hurd, J. C.: Law of Freedom and Bondage in the United States. 
 2 vols. Boston, 1858-62. 
 
 Jay, W. : Miscellaneous writings on slavery. Boston, 1853. 
 
 Jay, W. : Review of the Causes and Consequences of the Mex 
 ican War. Boston, 1849. 
 
 Jenkins, J. S. : History of Political Parties in the State of New 
 York. Auburn, 1846. 
 
 Jenkins, J. S. : Life of James K. Polk. Auburn, 1850. 
 
 Johnson, O. : William Lloyd Garrison and his Times. Boston, 
 1880. 
 
 Johnston, A.: History of American Politics. New York, 1880. 
 
 Johnston, A. [Ed.]: Representative American Orations. 3 vols. 
 New York, 1884. 
 
 Julian, G. W. : Life of Joshua R. Giddings. Chicago, 1892. 
 
 Kapp, F. : Die Sklaverei in den Vereiuigten Staaten. Hamburg, 
 1861. 
 
 Kinley, D. : History, Organization, and Influence of the Inde 
 pendent Treasury of the United States. New York, 1893. 
 
 Knox, J. J.: United States Notes. New York, 1888. 
 
 Lalor, J. J. : Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, 
 and of the Political History of the United States. 3 vols. 
 Chicago, 1881-84. 
 
 Lodge, H. C.: Daniel Webster. Boston, 1883. 
 
 Lyman, T. : Diplomacy of the United States. Boston, 1826. 
 
 Mackenzie, W. L. : Life and Times of M. Van Buren. Boston, 
 1846. 
 
 McLaughlin, A. C.: Lewis Cass. Boston, 1891. 
 
 McCulloch, H.: Men and Measures of Half a Century. New 
 York, 1888. 
 
 Mallory, D. : Life and Speeches of Henry Clay. 2 vols. New 
 York, 1843. 
 
 May, S. J. : Memoirs : Consisting of Autobiography and Selec 
 tions from his Diary and Correspondence. Boston, 1873. 
 
 May, S. J. : Some Recollections of our Anti-Slavery Conflict. 
 Boston, 1869. 
 
 Morse, J. T., Jr.: Abraham Lincoln. 2 vols. Boston, 1893. 
 
 Morse, J. T., Jr.: John Quiucy Adams. Boston, 1882. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 501 
 
 Nicolay, J. G. and Hay, J. : Abraham Lincoln: A History. 10 
 vols. New York, 1890. 
 
 Nicolay, J. G. and Hay, J. [Eds.] : Complete Works of Abra 
 ham Lincoln. 2 vols. New York, 1894. 
 
 Nixon, O. W.: How Marcus Whitman Saved Oregon. Chicago, 
 1895. 
 
 Ormsby, R. McK.: History of the Whig Party. Boston, 1860. 
 
 Parker, J.: Personal Liberty Laws. Boston, 1861. 
 
 Parton, J.: General Jackson. New York, 1893. 
 
 Parton, J.: Life of Andrew Jackson. 3 vols. Boston, 1883. ^ 
 
 Phillips, W.: Conquest of Kansas. Boston, 1856. 
 
 Phillips, W.: Speeches, Lectures, and Letters. Boston, 1863. 
 
 Pierce, E. L. : Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner. 4 vols. 
 Boston, 1893. 
 
 Pike, J. S.: First Blows of the Civil War. New York, 1879. 
 
 Pollard, E. A. : The Lost Cause. New York, 1868. 
 
 Quincy, E.: Life of Josiah Quincy. Boston, 1867. 
 
 Quincy, J. : Memoirs of the Life of John Quincy Adams. Bos 
 ton, 1858. 
 
 Redpath, J. : Public Life of Capt. John Brown. Boston, 1860. 
 
 Rhodes, J. F.: History of the United States from the Compromise 
 of 1850. 3 vols. New York, 1893-95. 
 
 Robinson, C.: The Kansas Conflict. New York, 1892. 
 
 Robinson, S. T. L.: Kansas, Its Interior and its Exterior Life. 
 Boston, 1856. 
 
 Roosevelt, T.: Thomas Hart Benton. Boston, 1887. 
 
 Royce, J.: California from the Conquest in 1846 to the Second 
 Vigilance Committee in San Francisco. Boston, 1886. 
 
 Schouler, J.: History of the United States Under the Constitution. 
 5 vols. New York, 1893. 
 
 Schurz, C. : Life of Henry Clay. 2 vols. Boston, 1887. 
 
 Schuyler, E.: American Diplomacy. New York, 1886. 
 
 Seward, W. H.: Autobiography, from 1801 to 1834, with a Me 
 moir of His Life. New York, 1877. 
 
 Seward, W. H. : Life and Public Services of John Quincy Adams. 
 Auburn, 1849. 
 
 Shepard, E. M.: Martin Van Buren. Boston, 1888. 
 
 Smith, W. L. G. : Fifty Years of Public Life ; the Life and Times 
 of Lewis Cass. New York, 1856. 
 
 Spring, L. W. : Kansas ; the Prelude to the War for the Union. 
 Boston, 1885. 
 
502 BIBLIOGRAPHY 
 
 Stanwood, E.: A History of Presidential Elections. Boston, 
 
 1892. 
 Stephens, A. H.: A Constitutional View of the Late War between 
 
 the States. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1868-70. 
 Stickney, W. [Ed.] : Autobiography of Amos Kendall. Boston, 
 
 1872. 
 Story, W. W.: Life and Letters of Joseph Story. 2 vols. Boston, 
 
 1851. 
 Story, W. W. [Ed.J : Miscellaneous Writings of Joseph Story. 
 
 Boston, 1835. 
 
 Strohm, I. [Ed.] : Speeches of Thomas Corwin. Dayton, 1859. 
 Sumner, C.: Works. 15 vols. Boston, 1870-83. 
 Sumner, W. G. : Andrew Jackson as a Public Man. Boston, 1882. 
 Sumner, W. G.: History of American Currency. New York, 
 
 1884. 
 
 Taussig, F. W. : State Papers and Speeches on the Tariff. Cam 
 bridge, 1893. 
 Taussig, F. W.: Tariff History of the United States, 1789-1888. 
 
 New York, 1888. 
 
 Tha3 r er, E. : History of the Kansas Crusade. New York, 1889. 
 Tyler, L. G.: Letters and. Times of the Tylers. 2 vols. Rich 
 mond, 1884. 
 
 Tyler, S.: Memoir of R. B. Taney. Baltimore, 1872. 
 Van Buren, M. : Inquiry into the Origin and Growth of Political 
 
 Parties in the United States. New York, 1867. 
 Webster, D.: Works. 6 vols. Boston, 1851. 
 Webster, F. [Ed.]: Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster. 
 
 2 vols. Boston, 1857. 
 Williams, A. M.: Sam Houston and the War of Independence in 
 
 Texas. Boston, 1893. 
 Williams, E.: The Statesman s Manual. 4 vols. New York, 
 
 1849. 
 Wilson, H.: History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in 
 
 America. 3 vols. Boston, 1872-77. 
 
 Wilson, W. : Division and Reunion, 1829-1889. New York, 1893. 
 Wise, H. A.: Seven Decades of the Union. Philadelphia, 1876. 
 Woodbury, L.: Writings, Political, Judicial, and Literary. 3 
 
 vols. Boston, 1852. 
 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. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Material in the Appendices is not included in this Index 
 
 ABBOTT, J. B.. leader of "Free- 
 state" Company, 428 
 
 Abolition, 242 et seq. ; relation to 
 Revolution of 1830, 244, 245; its 
 philosophy, 245 ; the opposite the 
 ory, 245 ; the true philosophy of 
 history, 245, 246 ; the beginning of 
 abolition, 246 (see Garrison, Will 
 iam Lloyd) ; possible ways of at 
 tacking slavery, 248 ; charges as to 
 Southampton massacre, 249 ; de 
 nials by abolitionist historians, 
 249; abolitionist methods, 249, 
 250; killing of Lovejoy, 250; sig 
 nificance of abolition movement, 
 
 250, 251 ; its growth, 251 ; the 
 moderates, 251 ; petitions for ab 
 olition in District of Columbia, 
 
 251, 252 ; position of Adams, 252, 
 253 ; Quaker petition, 253 ; position 
 of Mason and Adams, 253 ; more 
 petitions, 253 (see Petition, right 
 of) ; Dickson presents petitions, 
 254 ; his controversy with Chinn, 
 254; the Fairfield petitions, 254; 
 excitement begun by Slade s mo 
 tion, 254 ; Folk s ruling, 255 ; ac 
 tion on Jackson s petitions, 255 
 et scq. ; assumption as to ethical 
 position, 265 ; attitude of Calhoun 
 and Rives, 267, 268 ; the Vermont 
 petition, 269 ; the Calhoun resolu 
 tions, 269; use of mails, 270 ct seq. 
 (,see Mail, United States) ; signifi 
 cance of the contests over petitions 
 and the mails, 274-27? ; result of 
 struggle over petitions, 296 ; de 
 mands of Clay, 319 ; criticism of 
 Clay as to annexation, 320 ; can 
 didacy of Birney, 320 ; position on 
 Folk s first message, 324, 325 ; as to 
 war with Mexico, 330, 331 ; atti 
 tude on Texan boundary, 355 ; atti 
 
 tude to fugitive slave law of 1793, 
 355 ; attitude to Clay s proposals, 
 357 ; Webster s Seventh of March 
 speech, 359 ; effect of propaganda, 
 366 ; nomination of Hale for presi 
 dency, 377; the National Era ad 
 dress, 389 ; effect of the address, 
 400 ; as to leaders of Emigrant Aid 
 Company, 413; relation of Kan 
 sas affairs to presidential nominee, 
 431; point of view of the " Crime 
 against Kansas," 439 
 Abolitionists, see Abolition 
 Adams, John Quincy, relation to 
 Jackson, 34-36 ; opinion of treaty 
 with Spain, 36 ; negotiations with 
 Spain, 37, 38; effect of Semi- 
 nole War, 38 ; declaration to Tuyl, 
 124, 125; qualification as presi 
 dential candidate in 1824, 132-136 ; 
 electoral vote of 1824, 136, 137; 
 supported in House by Clay, 141 ; 
 the Kremer charge, 141 ; elected 
 president, 142; offers State De 
 partment to Clay, 142, 143 ; threats 
 of opposition, 142, 143 ; no proof 
 of bargain with Clay, 143; oppo 
 sition to Administration organized, 
 144-146 ; relation to Panama Con 
 gress, 148, 149; nominates com 
 missioners to the Congress, 149; 
 nomination confirmed, 150 ; rela 
 tion to Spain s colonies, 152, 153; 
 as to internal improvements, 155, 
 156 ; message of December, 1826, 
 157; appropriations approved for 
 internal improvements, 169 ; chair 
 man of committee, 184; reports 
 tariff bill, 1 85 ; bill passed, 186 ; 
 report on Bank, 191 ; relation to 
 Bank history, 192; representations 
 from Creek chiefs, 212 ; order s 
 Gaines to Georgia, 213 ; contro_ 
 
504 
 
 INDEX 
 
 versy with Troup, 213, 214 ; steps 
 to carry out agreement of 1826, 
 214; defiance of Georgia, 214; 
 submits matter to Congress, 215 ; 
 refers Cherokee affair to Jackson, 
 215, 216; view of Indian titles, 
 217 ; principles of administration 
 reviewed by Supreme Court, 219 ; 
 relation to Cabinet intrigue against 
 Jackson, 220 ; as to authorship of 
 Jacksonian principles, 240; pre 
 sents abolition petitions, 252 ; his 
 position on abolition, 252, 253; 
 prevents debate on abolition peti 
 tions, 253 ; compared with Slade, 
 254 ; opinion as to procedure on 
 petitions, 256 ; appeal for right of 
 petition, 257 ; presents petition on 
 abolition, 258, 259 ; his belief as to 
 the right involved, 259 ; effort at 
 settlement, 260 ; affair of February 
 6, 1837, 262 ; address on annexa 
 tion, 303 
 
 " Address on the Relations of the 
 States and Federal Government," 
 179 
 
 "Address to the People of South 
 Carolina," 179 
 
 Admiralty jurisdiction, proposal to 
 decrease that of federal courts, 109 
 
 Africa, 41 
 
 Alabama, Commonwealth of, in proc 
 ess of creation, 62 ; slavery al 
 lowed, 63 ; Indian problem in 
 Jackson s message of 1829, 216, 
 217; Alabama letter of Clay, 319, 
 320 ; vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, 
 399; Buford s men in Kansas. 
 438 
 
 Alamo atrocities, 293, 294 
 
 Albany Regency, The, 133 ; in elec 
 tion of 1824, i37 
 
 Alien and Sedition Laws, 173 
 
 Alleghanies, The, 116, 129, 139, 163, 
 193 
 
 Ambrister, Robert C., 32, 36 
 
 Amelia Island, 30, 31 
 
 America for Americans, principle of, 
 418 
 
 American Anti-Slavery Society, 
 formed, 251 
 
 American Board of Missions, sends 
 out Whitman, 315 
 
 American Society for Emancipation, 
 
 " American System," The, 178, 189 
 (see Clay, H. ) 
 
 Ampudia, Pedro de, demands Tay 
 lor s withdrawal, 329 
 
 Anderson, Richard Clough, Jr., 
 nominated commissioner to Pana 
 ma Congress, 149; nomination 
 confirmed, 150 
 
 Appalachicola River, The, 21, 22, 
 25, 26, 31 
 
 Arbuthnot, Alexander, 32, 36 
 
 Archer, William S., opposition to 
 Texas treaty, 308, 309 ; his doc 
 trine adopted by Tyler, 309 ; re 
 port on Texas resolution, 322, 323 
 
 Arista, Mariana, notifies Taylor of 
 beginning of hostilities, 329 
 
 Arkansas, Commonwealth of, ad 
 mitted, 290; vote on Kansas-Ne 
 braska bill, 399 
 
 Arkansas, Territory of, 88 
 ! Arkansas River, the, 33 
 I Army of the United States, legisla 
 tion upon, 13, 14 ; troops in Flori 
 da, 24 ct seq. (see Mexico, and 
 Kansas, Territory of); as to South 
 Carolina, 230 
 
 Ashburton, Alexander Baring, first 
 Baron, negotiations with Webster, 
 314 
 
 Ashburton Treaty, 303 
 
 Asia, California the road to, 332 
 
 Astor, John Jacob, understanding 
 
 with the Government, 313 
 | Astoria, founded, 312, 313 
 
 Atchison, Missouri, place of publica 
 tion of Squatter Sovereign, 411 
 
 Atchison, David R., criticism of or 
 ganization of Nebraska Territory, 
 382; his record and influence, 412, 
 413; on the Wakarusa, 429; 
 agrees with Robinson, 430 ; causes 
 Missourians to withdraw, 431 ; re 
 pudiates the sacking of Lawrenee, 
 438; in command at Bull Creek, 
 445 
 
 Austin, Moses, secures Texan grant 
 from Mexico, 291 
 
 Austin, Stephen Fuller, colonizes 
 grant in Texas, 291 
 
 Austria, in Holy Alliance, 123 
 
 BADGER, GEORGE EDMUND, con 
 tention as to Chase s amendment, 
 394 ; offers amendment, 395 
 
 Baldwin, John, claims site of Law 
 rence, 415 
 
 Baltimore, Maryland, petition for 
 
INDEX 
 
 505 
 
 abolition, 252 ; Hamlet case, 367 ; 
 conventions of 1852, 376 
 
 Baltimore & Ohio railroad, system 
 bfgun, 169 
 
 Bank of the United States, bill for its 
 creation, 3; Calhoun s argument, 
 4, 5, 6 ; Clay s early view, 4 ; Web 
 ster s objections, 6 ; Clay s sup 
 port, 6, 7 ; modified bill passed by 
 House, 7, 8 ; attitude of Barbour, 
 Bibb, Taylor, Wells, 8 ; passed by 
 Senate, 8 ; bill of 181(5 a Southern 
 and national measure, 8, 14 ; bank 
 bill under comparison, 15, 16 ; | 
 Jackson s message of 1829, 190 ; i 
 later interpretations of Jackson s j 
 attack, 191, 192 ; the troubles in ! 
 New Hampshire, 191 ; the opposi- | 
 tion of principle, 192, 193 ; origin | 
 of opposition to money power," j 
 193, 194; origin of "State s! 
 rights " opposition to Bank, 194 ; 
 tax on branches in Ohio and Mary 
 land, 194 ; the results, 195 ; rela 
 tion to u relief party " in Ken 
 tucky, 195, 196 ; Be i) ton s attack, 
 196; his resolution defeated, 196 ; 
 attitude of Benton, 197 ; and of 
 Jackson, 197, 198; Bank support 
 ed by committees, 198 ; Jackson s 
 message of December, 1830, 198, 
 199 ; relation of question to sla 
 very, 198 ; relation to politics, 198 ; 
 Jackson s second attack, 198, 199 ; 
 Benton s resolution of 1831, 199, 
 200 ; Jackson s message of 1831, 
 200 ; the Bank question before the 
 people, 200, 201 ; advice of Clay 
 and Webster, 201 ; petition for re- 
 charter, 201 ; relation of Bank 
 question to question of Jackson s 
 election, 201 ; action by the Sen 
 ate, 201, 202 ; Clayton committee 
 report in House, 202; McDuffie s 
 report on Bank, 202 ; House passes 
 the Senate bill, 202 ; veto by Jack 
 son, 202 ; analysis of his message, 
 202-206; interpretation of the 
 message, 206-209; the principles 
 of Jackson ratified by the people, 
 209 ; effect on Jackson s views of 
 election on Bank issue, 279 ; con 
 trol of deposits, 279 ; removal of 
 McLane and Duane, 280 ; deposits 
 suspended by Taney, 280 ; Taney s 
 contention, 280, 281 ; Senate s reso 
 lutions of censure, 281 ; attitude of 
 
 Benton, 281 ; Jackson successful 
 in all points, 282 ; result of re 
 moval of deposits, 283 ; enforce 
 ment and effect of Act of June 23, 
 283, 284; Bank bills vetoed by 
 Tyler, 286 
 
 Barbour, James, supports bank bill, 
 8; proposes union of Maine and 
 Missouri bills, 82 ; position on 
 Maine-Missouri bill, 83 ; on con 
 ference committee, 88 ; letter to 
 Troup, 212, 213 ; controversy with 
 Troup, 213 
 
 Barbour. Philip Pendleton, in Mis 
 souri bill debate, 70; opposes tariff 
 bill of 1824, 113, 114 
 
 Beaufort, South Carolina, instruc 
 tions to collector, 230 
 
 Beecher, Henry Ward, opposes fugi 
 tive slave law, 368 
 
 Behring s Strait, 123 
 
 Belgium, recognizes Texan indepen 
 dence, 304 
 
 Bell, John, report on President s 
 powers, 235 ; proposition as to Cal 
 ifornia and New Mexico, 359 ; its 
 reference, 359, 360 ; on Committee 
 of Thirteen, 360 ; attitude to Kan 
 sas-Nebraska bill and to Douglas s 
 amendment, 393 ; speech against 
 the bill, 396, 397 ; vote on the bill, 
 399 
 
 Bell, P. H., extends jurisdiction of 
 Texas, 362, 363 
 
 Benton, Thomas Hart, attacks the 
 Bank, 196 ; resolution defeated, 
 196 ; becomes Jackson s lieutenant, 
 197 ; resolution against the Bank, 
 199 ; his resolution not accepted, 
 
 200 ; attack on practices of Bank, 
 
 201 ; opinion on use of Government 
 deposits by the Bank, 205 ; defends 
 Jackson against censure of Senate, 
 281 ; criticism of Texas treaty, 
 308 ; changes vote, 347 ; opposi 
 tion to Foote s motion, 360 ; offers 
 to cudgel Foote, 360 
 
 Berrien, John McPherfcon, opinion 
 of Indian agreement of 1826, 214 ; 
 report on Calhoun s proposition, 
 349, 350 ; views on slavery in Mexi 
 can acquisition, 351, 352; on Com 
 mittee of Thirteen, 360 
 
 Bibb, William Wyatt, supports bank 
 bill, 8 
 
 Biddle, Nicholas, beginning of bank 
 
506 
 
 INDEX 
 
 trouble, 191 ; management of 
 bank, 195 
 
 Birney, James G., effect of Clay s 
 Alabama letter, 820 
 
 Bishop of London, 44 
 
 Black Jack, Brown captures Pate 
 at, 441 
 
 Blair, Montgomery, letter to Welles 
 on Seward, 387, 388 
 
 Blood, James, at Kansas City, and 
 at site of Lawrence, 414 ; in " Free- 
 State " directory, 443 
 
 Bloomfield, Joseph, voting, 73 
 
 Blow, Taylor, connection with Dred 
 Scott case, 453 
 
 41 Blue Lodges," in Missouri, 419 
 
 Body of Liberties, Massachusetts, 41 
 
 Bonaparte, Napoleon, relation to 
 slavery in Louisiana, 54, 55 ; com 
 mercial system, 123 ; relation to 
 Holy Alliance, 123 
 
 Boon, Ratliff, in House proceedings, 
 254 
 
 Boston, Massachusetts, beginning of 
 Abolition, 246 ; meetings on fugi 
 tive slave law, 367 ; the Crafts 
 case, 368 ; the Shadrach case, 370 ; 
 the Sims case, 372, 373 ; Kansas 
 emigrants departing, 414 
 
 Boston and Albany railroad, survey 
 begun, 169 
 
 Branscomb, Charles H., goes to 
 Kansas, 413, 414; at the site of 
 Lawrence, 414 ; buys claim of 
 Stearns, 415 
 
 Branson, Jacob, threatens Buckley, 
 428 ; arrested by Sheriff Jones, 428; 
 rescued by Free State" men, 
 428, 429 ; charges as to the rescue, 
 429; effort to arrest participants 
 in rescue, 433 
 
 Bright, Jesse D., motion as to Ter 
 ritorial governments, 346; on Com 
 mittee of Thirteen, 360 
 
 Brooks, Preston Smith, assault upon 
 Snmner, 439, 440 ; effect of assault 
 modified by Pottawattomie mas 
 sacre, 44 
 
 Brown vs. Maryland [12 Wheaton, 
 419], 195, 198 
 
 Brown, John, appears at Lawrence, 
 431 ; the Pottawattomie massacre, 
 440 ; the massacre characterized, 
 441 ; captures Pate at Black Jack, 
 441 ; dispersal of the gang and 
 disappearance of Brown, 442; effect 
 
 of massacre, 442 ; his work charac 
 terized, 473, 474 
 
 Brown, Mary, arrest of Hamlet, 367 
 
 Brown, R. P., organizes company of 
 u Free-state " men, 426 ; captured 
 and murdered, 426 
 
 Buchanan, James, position upon 
 tariff bill of 1827, 158, 159 ; atti 
 tude to fugitive slave law, 368 ; 
 candidate for presidential nomina 
 tion, 876 ; the Ostend manifesto, 
 408 ; relation of his election to 
 events in Kansas, 447 ; inaugural 
 address quoted, 447 ; charge as to 
 improper official conduct, 458 ; ap 
 points Walker and Stanton to 
 office in Kansas, 461 ; special mes 
 sage of February 2, 1858, 469 
 
 Buckley, , secures peace warrant 
 
 against Branson, 428 
 
 Buenos Ayres, 30 
 
 Buffalo, New York, Free-soil con 
 vention, 347 
 
 Buford, Jefferson, repudiates sack 
 ing of Lawrence, 438 
 
 Bull Creek, Kansas, Misspurians en 
 camped on, 445 ; skirmish at, 445 
 
 BurriJl, James, Jr., position on 
 Maine- Missouri bill, 83 
 
 Burt, Armistead, moves amendment 
 to Douglas s bill, 341 
 
 Bushnell, Horace, member of Emi 
 grant Aid Society, 409 
 
 Bustamente, Anastasio, decree on 
 immigration, 291 
 
 Butler, Andrew Pickens, contention 
 as to fugitive slave law, 371; minor 
 ity report on president s powers, 
 372 ; in debate on Foote s resolu 
 tions, 374 ; attacked by Sumner, 
 439 
 
 CABOT, SAMUEL, member of Emi 
 grant Aid Society, 409 
 
 Calhoun, John Caldwell, 2 ; commit 
 tee service, 3 ; argument for the 
 bank, 4-6 ; chief author of bank 
 bill, 8; speech on tariff bill, 10- 
 12; on internal improvements, 14- 
 16; views rejected by Madison, 
 17 ; relation to Jackson, 34, 35 ; 
 effect of Seminole War, 38 ; as to 
 relation between protection and 
 slavery, 109 ; bill for internal im 
 provements vetoed, 1817, 116, 117 ; 
 qualifications as presidential can 
 didate in 1824, 133, 134 ; as to vice- 
 
INDEX 
 
 507 
 
 presidency, 138 ; elected vice-presi 
 dent, 142, 143 ; relation to admin 
 istration, 143 ; relation to Adams s 
 administration, 144, 146; elected 
 vice-president, 163, 164; political 
 scientist of slavery, 173 ; publishes ! 
 "South Carolina Exposition,"! 
 u Address on Relation of States j 
 and Federal Government," and i 
 "Address to the People of South j 
 Carolina," 179 ; his argument, 180, j 
 181; his doctrine of nullification, | 
 189 ; relation to Jackson and Semi- | 
 nole War, 220 ; the Forsyth letter, 
 220 ; hostility of Jackson and Cal- 
 houn, 220, 221 ; his letter to Gov 
 ernor Hamilton, 221 ; his theory of 
 nullification reproduced, 223 ; re 
 signs vice-presidency and becomes 
 Senator, 224 ; opinion on the posi 
 tion of South Carolina, 226, 227 ; 
 statement in Senate as to South j 
 Carolina s acts. 232, 233 ; opinion I 
 of the " Force Bill," 234 ; attitude j 
 to Clay s compromise tariff, 236 ; ! 
 attitude to the Wilkins "Force ; 
 Bill," 236 ; argument answered by j 
 Webster, 237 ; attitude to Clay s i 
 bill, 237 ; motive in course on j 
 nullification, 238 ; restatement of | 
 Jefferson s principles, 239 ; opinion I 
 of slavery cited, 253; antedated j 
 by Hammond, 255 ; contention as i 
 to petitions, 264 ; view of slavery, i 
 265-268 ; resolutions of December j 
 27, 1837. 269; fallacy of his posi- ! 
 tion, 270; makes committee re-; 
 port, with bills, on use of mails, [ 
 273, 274 ; his plan defeated, 274 ; 
 views on recognition of Texas, 295, 
 296 view on annexation of Texas, 
 
 301 his views expressed by Wise, j 
 
 302 again Secretary of S bate, 307 ; I 
 notifies Texas of proposal to move 
 forces, 307 ; view of constitutional 
 position of Texas, 308 ; adopts 
 idea of Archer as to annexation, 
 309 ; views as to method of an 
 nexation, 321 ; characterization of 
 his views on annexation, 323, 324 ; 
 attitude to Mexican War, 330 ; 
 views as to slavery in Territories, 
 344, 345 ; his last speech, 358 ; his 
 death, 360 ; views on fugitive slave 
 laws, 367 
 
 California, as to Congress of Ve 
 rona, 124 ; occupied by Kearny, 
 
 332 ; importance of its occupation, 
 332 ; importance of Buena, Vista, 
 
 333 ; about to be transferred, 334 ; 
 acquisition in view, 337 ; in nego 
 tiations, 337 (see Upper California); 
 Folk s message of July 6, 1848, 
 
 345, 346 ; motions of Bright and 
 Clayton, 346; the Clayton bill, 
 
 346, 347 ; Folk s message of De 
 cember, 1848, 348 ; gold and silver 
 discoveries, 348 ; Douglas s bill, 
 349; Smith s bill, 349; Berrien s 
 report, 349, 350 ; new bill by Doug- V 
 las, 350 ; motion by Walker, 350, 
 351 ; proceedings in Congress, 351 ; 
 views of Berrien and Webster, 
 351, 352; failure of Congress to 
 act, 352 ; effect of discoveries, 352, 
 353 ; plan of Taylor, 353 ; the Mon 
 terey Convention, 353; Taylor s 
 message of December 4, 1849", 353, 
 354 ; Foote s bill, 354 ; Clay s plan, 
 355, 356; objections of Southern 
 ers, 356 ; attitude of abolitionists, 
 357 ; application for admission, 
 357 ; consideration begun, 357, 358 ; 
 Calhoun s last speech, 358 ; Web 
 ster s Seventh of March speech, 
 359 ; Bell s proposition, 359 ; re 
 port of Committee on Territories, 
 360 ; Committee of Thirteen, 360 ; 
 Clay s report, 360-362 ; passage of 
 bill for admission, 363, 364 ; vote 
 on Kansas-Nebraska bill, 399; 
 Robinson in, 413; Sutter land 
 troubles, 413 ; Robinson s expe 
 rience in, applied to Kansas, 421, 
 422 
 
 Cambreleng, Churchill C., opposes 
 tariff bill of 1824, 113 
 
 Canada, 21, 370, 374 
 
 Canning, George, proposal to Rush, 
 125 ; declaration to Polignac, 125 
 
 Cape Breton, 21 
 
 Capulets, tomb of the, 351 
 
 Cass, Lewis, opposes Upham s 
 amendment, 336 ; viev^s on rela 
 tion of slavery and Mexican War, 
 338 ; Presidential nominee, 345 ; 
 letter to Nicholson, 345 ; on Com 
 mittee of Thirteen, 360 ; attitude 
 to fugitive slave law, 368; can 
 didate for Presidential nomination, 
 376 ; attitude to Chase and Doug 
 las, 392 
 
 Castle Pinckney, becomes seat of 
 custom-house for Charleston dis- 
 
508 
 
 INDEX 
 
 trict, 230; Congress notified of 
 change, 232 
 
 Catron, John, opinion on Dred Scott 
 case, 453 
 
 Cerro Gordo, battle of, 333 
 
 Channing, William Ellery, opposi 
 tion to fugitive slave law, 373 
 
 Chapultepec, battle of, 338 
 
 Charleston, South Carolina, Govern 
 ment in control of anti-nullifiers, 
 181 ; nullifiers elect mayor, 182 ; 
 test of tariff law, 182; Scott or 
 dered to, 330 ; instructions to col 
 lectors, 230 ; removal of custom 
 house, 230 ; Congress notified, 
 232 ; post-office robbed, 271 ; com 
 mittee of public safety elected, 
 271 ; postmaster communicates 
 with New 1 ork postmaster, 271 ; 
 the position of Postmaster- General 
 Kendall, 271, 272 
 
 Chase, Salmon Portland, contention 
 as to fugitive slave law, 371 ; signs 
 National Era address, 38 .) ; moves 
 amendment to Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill, 391; speech in Senate, 391 
 proposes further amendment, 394 
 contention with Pratt, 3.)4, 395 
 proposes third amendment, 395, 
 . 96 ; proposes fourth amendment, 
 396 ; vote on Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill, 399; effect of National Era 
 address, 400 
 
 Chattahoochee River, the, 211, 214 
 
 Cheever, George Burrell, opposes fu 
 gitive slave law, 368 
 
 Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia [5 Pe 
 ters, 1], 218 
 
 Cherokees, brought under criminal 
 jurisdiction of Georgia, 215; ap 
 peal to President, 215, 216 ; Jack 
 son s reply, 216 ; Cherokees refuse 
 offers for cession of claims, 216 ; 
 the question in Jackson s message 
 of 1829, 216, 217; different views 
 of Indian land titles, 217, 218; 
 Cherokee lands incorporated by 
 Commonwealth of Georgia, 218 ; 
 the Cherokee nation case, 218; the 
 case of Worcester against Georgia, 
 218, 219 
 
 Cherubusco, battle of, 334 
 
 Cheves, Langdon, management of 
 bank, 195 
 
 Chihuahua, captured by Doniphan, 
 
 Chili, treaty of 1S23 with Columbia, 
 
 Chillicothe, 0., bank trouble, 195 
 
 Chinn, Joseph YV., resents Dickson s 
 attack, 254 
 
 Choate, Rufus, attitude to fugitive 
 slave law, 368 
 
 Christian baptism, relation to sla 
 very, 44 
 
 Clavk, George Rogers, sent out by 
 Jefferson, 312 
 
 Clay, Henry, views on the bank in 
 1812, 4 ; Speaker of House, 6 ; 
 support of bank bill, 6, 7 ; on 
 tariff bill, 10 ; relation to Jackson, 
 31, 35 ; opinion of treaty with 
 Spain, 36, 38 ; suggests union of 
 Maine and Missouri bills, 77 ; plan 
 of Clay, 100 ; report of Committee 
 of Thirteen, 100, 101 ; first plan 
 defeated, 101 ; conference com- 
 niiitee and its report on Missouri, 
 101, 102; plan accepted, 102, 103; 
 supports tariff bill of 1824, 112, 
 113 ; opposed by Barbour, Cam- 
 breleng and Webster, 113, 114 ; ef 
 forts with reference to "Monroe 
 Doctrine," 128 ; qualifications as 
 presidential candidate in 1824, 
 134-136; electoral vote of 1824, 
 137; in control of situation, 140, 
 141 ; supports Adams, 141 ; the 
 Kremer charge, 141 ; offer of 
 secretaryship of state, 142, 143 ; 
 opposition threatened, 142, 143; 
 Clay accepts office, 143 ; no proof 
 of corruption, 143 ; opposition in 
 Senate to his appointment, 144 ; 
 approached by ministers of Mexico 
 and Columbia, 147 ; negotiations, 
 148, 149; negotiations with Czar 
 of Russia and with Spanish- 
 American colonies, 1 52, 153 ; his 
 " American System " anticipated 
 by Jackson, 172; resolution on 
 tariff, 186 ; speech on the " Ameri 
 can System," 187 ; bill reported 
 and tabled, 188; his ideas used, 188; 
 nominated for presidency in 1831, 
 201 ; advice to Bank party, 201 ; 
 
 passed by both Houses, 237, 238 ; 
 signed by President, 238 ; motive 
 in course on nullification, 238 ; 
 opinion of Jacksonian principles, 
 
INDEX 
 
 509 
 
 240 ; criticises Calhoun s bill as to 
 use of mails, 274 ; his followers 
 called Whigs, 282; dropped by 
 Whigs, 286; reports resolution on 
 Texas, 295 ; nominated for presi 
 dency, 309 ; letter of April, 310 ; 
 election an apparent certainty, 319; 
 demands of abolitionists, 319; the 
 National Intelligencer letter, 319, 
 320 ; effect of the Alabama letter, 
 320; presidential election of 1844, 
 320 ; the Alabama letter, 329 ; plan 
 as to California, New Mexico and 
 Texas, 355, 356 ; objections of 
 Southerners, 356, 357 ; agrees to 
 Douglas s motion, 357 ; relations 
 with Foote, 357, 358 ; debate on 
 Clay s resolutions, 358, 359 ; their 
 reference, 360 ; chairman of Com 
 mittee of Thirteen, 360 ; Clay s re 
 port, 360-362 ; results of debates, 
 362 ; passage of bills separately, 
 363, 364; attitude to fugitive slave 
 law, 368 ; motion on Shadrach { 
 case, 370 ; motion on .President s 
 message, 371 ; death, 377 
 
 Clayton, John Middleton, secures 
 appointment of committee on 
 Bank, 202 ; makes committee re 
 port against Bank, 202 ; motion as 
 to Territorial government, 346 ; 
 reports bill, 346, 347; not voting on 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill, 398, 399 
 
 Clemens, Jeremiah, in debate on 
 Foote s resolutions, 374, 375 
 
 Clinton, De Witt, qualifications as 
 presidential candidate in 1824, 132 
 
 Coahuila-Texas, a province and Com 
 mon wealth of Mexico, 291 ; local 
 government, 291 ; resistance to 
 Santa Anna, 292; Texans in con 
 trol, 292, 293 ; war begun by Mex 
 icans, 293 ; declaration of inde 
 pendence, 293. 8ee Texas 
 
 Cobb, Thomas A., relation to Jack 
 son, 34, 35 
 
 Coleman, L. H., letter from Jackson, 
 138 
 
 Coleman, P. N., murders Dow, 428 
 
 Columbia, treaties with Chili, Mex 
 ico, Peru, and Central America, 
 147 
 
 Colorado River, 291 
 
 Columbia, South Carolina, conven 
 tion of 1827, 159, 160 
 
 Columbia River, 123 ; sources dis- ! 
 covered, 312, 314, 316, 318, 324, 325 I 
 
 Committee on Commerce of the 
 House of Representatives, 185 
 
 Committee on District of Columbia 
 of House of Representatives, 252, 
 253, 254, 257 
 
 Committee on the District of Colum 
 bia of the Senate, 253 
 
 Committee on Finance of the Seriate, 
 198, 199 
 
 Committee on Foreign Affairs of the 
 House of Representatives, 321 
 
 Committee on Foreign Relations of 
 the Senate, 150, 295, 308, 322 
 
 Committee on the Judiciary of the 
 House of Representatives, 232, 235, 
 369 
 
 Committee on the Judiciary of the 
 Senate, 82, 83, 84, 87, 232, 233, 341, 
 343, 349, 363, 371, 372 
 
 Committee on Manufactures of the 
 House of Representatives, 110, 112, 
 158, 160, 172, 174, 175. 184, 185 
 
 Committee on Manufactures of the 
 Senate, 188 
 
 Committee on Territories of the 
 House of Representatives, 340, 382, 
 400, 401 
 
 Committee on Territories of the Sen 
 ate, 349, 363, 382, 401 
 
 Committee on Ways and Means of 
 the House of Representatives, 9, 
 10, 110, 172, 174, 1S5, 198, 231, 351 
 
 Compromise Measures of 1850, in 
 Fillmore s message, 368, 369 ; in 
 Fillmore s message of December 2, 
 1851, 374; memorials on finality, 
 
 375 ; Democratic platform of 1852, 
 
 376 ; Whig platform of 1852, 376 ; 
 unity of Whig party imperilled, 
 376, 377 ; effect of election of 1852, 
 
 377 ; situation in December, 1852, 
 381 ; the Howe-Giddings colloquy, 
 381 , 382 ; interpretation of the com 
 promise, 38^ ; the Douglas report 
 on Nebraska, 383-387 ; dictum of 
 the committee, 387 ; claim of Dix- 
 on, 388; as to Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill, 389 ; dictum of Douglas, 390 ; 
 the amendment of Chase, 391 ; the 
 amendment of Douglas, 392 ; views 
 of Everett, 392, o9: J , (see Kansas, 
 Territory of, and Nebraska, Ter 
 ritory of) ; effect of acquiescence, 
 403 
 
 Concord, New Hampshire, 191 
 Confederation of Spanish- American 
 States, plan initiated, 147; pro- 
 
510 
 
 INDEX 
 
 posed congress and relations of 
 United States, 147 et seq. 
 
 Congress of the Confederation, lack 
 of power over slavery, 48 ; passed 
 Ordinance of 1787, 48 ; power in 
 the case, 49 
 
 Congress, Continental, forbids im 
 portation of slaves, 48 
 
 Congress of the United States, Acts 
 of the Fourteenth, 1, 2 ; Congress 
 of 1801 and 1815, 3; power over 
 Bank, 4, 5 ; early action on tariff, 8 ; 
 meeting in December, 1815, 9; vote 
 as to tariff, 9 ; acts of the Four 
 teenth, 13-14 ; discussion of its 
 powers by Calhoun, 13, 14 ; powers j 
 discussed by Monroe, 15 ; pay of [ 
 members, 16 ; passage of internal j 
 improvements bill, 10 ; acts as to j 
 Florida, 34, 25 ; acts of 1811 as to | 
 Florida, 30 ; limitation as to sla 
 very, 50 ; abolition of slave trade, 
 51 ; division of Louisiana territory, 
 55, 56 ; power over Territories, 63 ; 
 power to erect Commonwealths, 
 64 ; attitude to slavery, 65 ; debate 
 on powers of Congress, 67 et seq. ; 
 annals of, 74 ; powers discussed by 
 Taylor, 79, 80, and by Holmes, 80, 
 81, and by McLane, 81, 83 ; Pinck- 
 ney s argument on powers of, 84- 
 87 ; conference committee on Mis 
 souri, 88, 89 ; interpretation of Act I 
 of Congress, 89 ; significance of the 
 Compromise, 90-95 ; powers con 
 sidered by Lowndes, 96 ; Sergeant 
 on power of creating Common 
 wealths, 96, 97 ; course of Congress 
 considered, 97, 9S ; oath of 
 members, 98; second conference 
 committee on Missouri, 101-103; 
 significance of the compromise, | 
 104 ; doctrine of its control of I 
 commerce, 1 10 ; conference com 
 mittee on tariff, 114, 115; early 
 practice as to internal improve 
 ments, 116, 117; vote on internal 
 improvements bill of 1833, 118; 
 Monroe on the powers of, 130, 131 ; 
 power over expenditures, 131 ; act 
 of April 30, 1821, 133; inaction 
 upon "Monroe Doctrine," 138; 
 Calhoun a member of, 1 33 ; joint 
 session for count of electoral votes, 
 141, 143 ; as to power over roads, 
 155 ; Act of April 30, 1834, 155, 
 156 ; memorials to, 158 ; attitude 
 
 of South Carolina to, 159 et seq.; 
 passes Maysville Road bill, 167; 
 appropriations for internal im 
 provements, 169 ; as to powers of, 
 170 ; attitude to tariff, 178 ; Cal- 
 houn s attitude to. 179; control of 
 courts by, 180 ; President s mes 
 sage before, 184; conference com 
 mittee on tariff, 188; attitude to 
 the planters, 189; decision on Bank 
 Act of, 195; relation to President 
 as to legislation, 306, 207 ; as a 
 nominating body, 208 ; failure to 
 override Jackson s veto, 209; in 
 action as to Indian problem, 215 ; 
 Jackson s message to, 216 ; ten 
 years struggle of South in, 221 , its 
 acts nullified, 232 ; Jackson s mes 
 sages on South Carolina, 231, 232 ; 
 abolition petitions to, 251, 252 ; 
 abolition petitions before, 253 ; 
 recommendations of Jackson, 273, 
 273; argument as to power over 
 mails, 273 et seq.; conflict with 
 President over Bank, 279 et seq.; 
 passage of Independent Treasury 
 bill, 2S5, 286; erection of new 
 Commonwealths, 390 ; President s 
 message on Texas, 398 ; action of 
 Congress, 298-300; effect of its 
 action, 300 ; address of certain 
 Whig members, 303 ; message of 
 Tyler to, 305 ; affairs of Texas, 
 306 et seq. ; Tyler s message of De 
 cember, 1844, 330, 321; compe 
 tency as to matters of treaty, 323 ; 
 Polk s message on Oregon, 324 ; 
 action as to Oregon, 325, 336 ; 
 power over Texan boundary, 328 ; 
 Act as to Corpus Christi, 329-331 ; 
 Polk s message on Mexican War, 
 330 ; action on war, 331 ; Polk s 
 message to, August 8, 1846, 334; 
 consent to acquisition of California 
 and New Mexico, 337 ; Polk s mes 
 sage on Trist, 338 ; as to attitude to 
 Missouri Compromise, 341 ; special 
 message on Oregon, 344 ; discus 
 sion of powers of, 344 ; Cass on 
 policy of, 345 ; special message of 
 July 6, 1848, to, 345, 346; as to 
 power in Territories, 347 ; attitude 
 to slavery, 348 ; Taylor s message 
 of December 4, 1849, 353, 354 ; ac 
 tion on new Territories, 353 et seq.; 
 Fillmore s message of August 6, 
 1850, 363 ; completion of compro- 
 
INDEX 
 
 511 
 
 mise measure, 363, 364 ; Fillmore s 
 message of December, 1850, 868 ; 
 petitions on fugitive slave law, 369 ; 
 Fillmore s message of December 2, 
 1851, 374 ; Fillmore s message of 
 December 6, 1852,380; action on 
 organization of Kansas and Ne 
 braska, 381 et seq.; Kansas elec 
 tion for delegate to, 416, 417 ; 
 Whitfield in, 418 ; as to powers in 
 Kansas. 422 ; memorial from Kan 
 sas, 426 ; [Kansas question before, 
 432 ; slavery question before, 433 ; 
 laws of, in Kansas, 464 ; Presi 
 dent s message of February 2, ]858, 
 469 
 
 Connecticut, Commonwealth of, 13 ; 
 legislation on slavery, 48 ; in elec 
 tion of 1824, 142 ; resolution on 
 independence of Texas, 290 ; vote 
 on Kansas-Nebraska bill, 399 
 
 Constitution of the Confederation, 
 48 ; relation to Ordinance of 1787, 
 48, 49 
 
 Constitution of the United States of 
 America, the, as to Bank, 5 ; as I 
 cited by Calhoun, 13 ; as inter- j 
 preted by Monroe, 17 ; relative to ; 
 parties, 17, 18; slavery in, 49, 50; j 
 interpreted with reference to Dft-J 
 tional character of slavery, 59 ; j 
 the control of slavery, 62, 65 ; : 
 powers of Congress, 63, 64 ; test of 
 the Tallmadge amendment, 66 et 
 seq.; Taylor as to powers of Con- j 
 gress, 79 ; Holmes speech, 80, 81 ; 
 McLane s argument, 81, 82 ; lim 
 itations on new Commonwealths, 
 85 ; as to restriction on Common- , 
 wealths, 89 ; significance of the 
 first Missouri Compromise, 90-95 ; 
 as cited by Lowndes, 97 ; cited by 
 Sergeant, 97 ; extent of its protec 
 tion, 98, 99 ; second Missouri com 
 promise, 102, 103 ; significance of 
 the compromise, 104, 106; as to 
 fourteenth amendment, 105; Tay 
 lor s interpretation of, 119; Mon 
 roe s interpretation of, 120, 121; 
 development of the particularistic 
 interpretation, 122; as construed 
 by Adams, and Clay, 1 46 ; as to in 
 ternational status of slavery, 151 ; 
 amendment proposed, 155; reac 
 tion as to interpretation of, 156 ; 
 as interpreted by Buchanan, 159; 
 amendment suggested by Jackson, 
 
 167, 168; as interpreted by Taylor, 
 
 168, 169; as interpreted by 
 McDuffie, 173, 174; as interpreted 
 by Calhoun, 178-181 ; regard for 
 processes of, 181 ; as interpreted by 
 Calhoun, 183 ; as to origin of rev 
 enue bill, 188 ; political science 
 of, 192, 193 ; decision as to con 
 stitutionality of Bank Act, 195; 
 as construed by Jackson, 199; 
 Jackson on operation of, 205, 206 ; 
 effect of his Bank veto, 207-209 ; 
 as cited* by Jackson, 216, 217; the 
 Cherokee nation case, 218 ; case of 
 Worcester vs. Georgia, 218, 219; 
 powers conferred on President by, 
 220 ; as interpreted in the Nullifi 
 cation Ordinance, 222 ; as construed 
 by the nullifiers, 227; as inter 
 preted in Jackson s proclamation, 
 229 ; as expounded by Calhoun, 
 236 ; as explained by Webster, 237 ; 
 effect of events of 1832 and 1833 
 on, 238-241 ; as to control of civil 
 status, 247, 248 ; attitude of Garri 
 son to, 248 ; guarantees as to right 
 of petition, 255, 256 ; in Calhoun s 
 argument. 273 ; provision as to 
 treaties, 305; nature of war ac 
 cording to, 306 ; as to treaty- 
 making powers, 307, 308 ; as to 
 annexation of Texas, 321 ; as to 
 procedure on treaties, 324; as in 
 terpreted by Rhett, 342; as to 
 Oregon bill, 343 ; compromises of, " 
 348 ; as to extension of its effect, 
 350 ; amendment suggested by 
 Calhoun, 358 ; Webster on the, 
 359; effect of formation of, 366; 
 
 t as to fugitive slaves, 366, 367; as" 
 interpreted by Fillmore, 370 ; as 
 interpreted by Butler, 372 ; as 
 cited by Fillmore, 374 ; in Doug 
 las s report, 383, 392 ; as viewed by" 
 Everett, 393 ; in Chase s amend 
 ment, 394 ; treason, as defined by, 
 427 ; the Dred Scott case, 449 ~et 
 seq. 
 
 Continental Congress. See Congress, 
 Continental 
 
 Contreras, battle of, 334 
 
 Convention, Federal Constitutional, 
 of 1787, attitude to slavery, 49, 50 
 
 Convention. See Treaty 
 
 Con way, M. F., letter to Governor 
 Reeder. 424 
 
 Cooke, P. St. George, ordered to at- 
 
512 
 
 INDEX 
 
 tack Topeka, 445 ; refuses to obey, 
 445 
 
 Cooper, James, on committee of 
 Thirteen, 360 ; not voting on Kan 
 sas-Nebraska bill, 398 
 
 Cooper, Thomas, speech at Colum 
 bia, 159; his life and views, 173; 
 his relation to slavery and to Mc- 
 Duffie, 173 
 
 Corpus Christi, made port of deliv 
 ery, 339 ; advance of Taylor, 329 
 
 Cos, Martin Perfectos de, attacks 
 Gonzales, 293 ; driven from Texas, 
 294 
 
 Cotton, relation to slavery, 52, 53; 
 exportation reduced, 54 
 
 Crafts, Ellen, escape, 368 
 
 Crafts, William, escape, 368 
 
 Cramer, John, motion in House, 
 254 
 
 Crane, A. C., statement as to Dred 
 Scott case, 449, 450 
 
 Crawford, William Harris, relation 
 to Jackson, 34, 35 ; opinion of 
 treaty with Spain, 36 ; effect of 
 Semiriole War, 38 ; qualifications 
 as presidential candidate in 1824, 
 132, 133, 136, 141 ; electoral vote 
 of 1824, 137 ; relation to Adams 
 administration, 144-146 ; relation 
 to Jackson and the Seminole War, 
 220 
 
 Creeks, the, 26, 29 ; Council of 1824, 
 212 ; Indian Springs convention, 
 212; its repudiation, 212; resist 
 ance to Georgia, 212; protest to 
 general government, 212, 213 ; con 
 troversy as to Creek lands, 213, 
 214 ; new agreement of 1826 as to 
 lands, 214; agreement repudiated 
 by Georgia, 214 
 
 " Crime against Kansas," the, deliv 
 ered, 439 
 
 Cuba, in the Spanish-American 
 troubles, 152-154 ; the Osteud man 
 ifesto, 408 
 
 Cumberland Road, built, 116 ; bill of 
 1822, 118; analysis of vote, 118, 
 119; attitude of East and West, 
 119, 120 
 
 Curtis, Benjamin Bobbins, opinion 
 on Dred Scott case, 454, 457, 458 
 
 Curtis, George Ticknor, attitude to 
 fugitive slave law, 368 ; in Shad- 
 rach case, 370 ; Q^uection with 
 Sims case, 373 
 
 Gushing, Caleb, relation to Kansas- 
 Nebraska bill, 401 
 Customs Act, of 1789, 8 ; of 1812, 9 
 
 DAGGETT, DAVID, voting, 74 
 
 Dallas, Alexander James, presents 
 Bank memorial, 201 ; on Senate 
 committee, 201 ; reports Bank bill, 
 201 
 
 Davis, Jefferson, views as to slavery 
 in Territories, 344, 345 ; moves 
 amendment to Oregon bill, 344; 
 effect of his action, 345 ; attitude 
 to Clay s proposal, 357 ; views on 
 fugitive slave law, 367 ; contention 
 as to fugitive slave law, 371 ; rela 
 tion to Kansas-Nebraska bill, 401, 
 402 ; disapproves Col. Sumner s 
 course, 443 ; attitude to Kansas 
 affairs, 472, 473 
 
 De Bree, John, owner of Shadrach, 
 370 
 
 Declaration of Independence, the. 
 70, 92, 94, 193, 229, 245 
 
 Delaware, Commonwealth of, 8 ; leg 
 islation on slavery, 48 ; in election 
 of 1828, 163 ; vote on Kansas-Ne 
 braska bill, 399 
 
 Democratic party, appearance, 38, 
 104 ; principles, 104 ; circum 
 stances of its appearance, 1 46 ; 
 party nomenclature, 162, 163 ; de 
 mands of 1828, 163 ; the making 
 of its creed, 165; divisions of the 
 party and policies of each, 1 65 ; 
 origin and influence, 193, 191; 
 radical development in Kentucky, 
 195, 196 ; attack of western ele 
 ment upon privilege, 196; Jackson 
 becomes leader, 196, 197 ; opposes 
 Gordon s proposal as to independ 
 ent treasury, 285 ; supports Inde 
 pendent Treasury Bill of 1840, 
 285 ; relation to the questions of 
 slavery and territorial extension, 
 287, 288 ; nominates Polk for pres 
 idency, 309; the platform, 309, 
 316 ; views of the union of Texas 
 and Oregon in platform, 317 ; 
 Thompson s opinion, 317 ; charac 
 terization the work of the Demo 
 crats, 317; platform of 1844, 318; 
 attitude to Wilmot proviso, 338; 
 platform of 1848 as to slavery in 
 Territories, 344, 345 ; the Clayton 
 committee, 346; election of 1848, 
 348, 349 ; convention of 1852, 376 ; 
 
INDEX 
 
 513 
 
 election of 1852, 377 ; controversy 
 on Kansas-Nebraska bill, 391 ; vote 
 on Kansas-Nebraska bill, 399; at 
 titude of Pierce to New York fac 
 tions, 403 ; vote in House on 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill, 404, 405; 
 meaning of the vote, 405, 406 ; as 
 to leaders of Emigrant Aid Com 
 pany, 413 ; effect of Kansas strug 
 gle, 417 ; relation to rise of Re 
 publican party, 418 ; Lane s effort 
 at organization in Kansas, 423 ; 
 relation of Kansas affairs to na 
 tional party organization, 430, 
 431 ; effect on party prospects of 
 sacking of Lawrence, 438; as to 
 effect of events in Kansas, 447 ; 
 effect of Dred Scott decision, 458 ; 
 plan as to Democracy in Kansas, 
 462 
 
 Denver, John W., appointed Acting- 
 Governor of Kansas Territory, 
 467 ; his report to the President, 
 468, 469 ; pockets bill for consti 
 tutional convention, 471 
 
 Deseret, Foote s bill, 354 
 
 Des Moines River, the, Falls of, 66 
 
 De Witt, Alexander, signs National 
 Era address, 389 
 
 Dickerson, Mahlon, reports tariff bill 
 in Senate. 188 
 
 Dickinson, Daniel Stevens, on Com 
 mittee of Thirteen, 360 
 
 Dickson, John, presents abolition 
 petitions, 254; controversy with 
 Chinn, 254 
 
 District of Columbia, adoption of 
 Maryland laws, 51 ; exclusive gov 
 ernment vested in central Govern 
 ment, 247, 248 ; petitions for abo 
 lition of slavery in, 251, 252; re 
 port on slavery in District, 253 ; 
 disposal of Quaker petitions, 253 ; 
 more petitions in House, 254 ; con 
 test begins, 254; petitions presented 
 by Dickson and Fairh eld, 254 ; the 
 Dickson-Chinn controversy, 254; 
 Blade s motion, 254; Granger s in 
 timation, 257 ; the demand of Wise, 
 257, 258 (see. Petition, Right of) ; 
 Pinckney resolutions quoted, 261 ; 
 re-enacted, 2(52 ; Vermont petition, 
 265, 269 ; efforb of Calhoun as to 
 slavery in the District, 2(58 ; recur 
 rence of the slavery question, 355 ; 
 Clay s plan, 356 ; attitude of South 
 erners, 357 ; attitude of abolition 
 
 ists, 357 ; Clay s report, 362 ; bill 
 passed, 364. See Washington, 
 D. C. 
 
 Dixon, Archibald, proposes amend 
 ment to Nebraska bill, 387 ; Blair s 
 letter on Dixon, 387, 388 ; attitude 
 of Douglas, 3S8 
 
 Dodge, Augustus Caesar, introduces 
 bill on Nebraska, 382 
 
 Donaldson, J. B., proclamation as to 
 resistance to service of writs, 4^5 ; 
 dealings with citizens of Lawrence, 
 436, 437 ; appears with force before 
 Lawrence, 437 ; dismisses posse, 
 438 ; the sacking of Lawrence, 438 
 
 Doniphan, Alexander William, capt 
 ures Chihuahua, 332 
 
 Douglas, Stephen Arnold, attitude 
 to Wilmot proviso, 338 ; presents 
 bill on Oregon in House, 340, 341 ; 
 presents bill in Senate on Oregon, 
 343 ; moves amendment, 347 ; 
 changes vote, 347; reports bill, 
 
 349 ; Berrien s adverse report, 349, 
 
 350 ; new bill on Territories, 850 ; 
 motion as to California, 357 ; atti 
 tude to fugitive slave law, 3(58 ; 
 candidate for presidential nomi 
 nation, 376 ; early plans for or 
 ganization of territory west of the 
 Mississippi, 381 ; presents bill and 
 report on Nebraska, 382, 383 ; 
 consideration of report and its 
 author, 383-387 ; attitude to Dix 
 on, 388 ; presents new bill on Ne 
 braska and Kansas, 389 ; National 
 Era address, 3t9, 390 ; Douglas s 
 reply, 390 ; charged with conspir 
 acy, 391 ; his principle as to slavery 
 in Territories, 391 ; amendment 
 to bill, 392 ; vote on his amend 
 ment, 393 ; debate on further 
 amendments, 394-397 ; proposes 
 amendment, 395, 39(i ; final argu 
 ment on Kansas-Nebraska bill. 397, 
 398 ; substance of bill reported in 
 House bill, 400 ; Douglas s bill in 
 House, 401, 403; effect of Dred 
 Scott decision on Douglas Demo 
 crats, 458 ; opposition to Buchan 
 an, 469, 470 
 
 Douglas county, Kansas, Sheriff 
 Jones of, 428 ; charge of Chief 
 Justice Lecompte, 435 ; indict 
 ment by Grand Jury, 435 
 
 Dow, C. M., murdered by Coleman, 
 
514 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Downs, Solomon W., on committee 
 of Thirteen, 360 
 
 Drayton, William, relation to nul 
 lification, 181 
 
 Dred Scott vs. Sandford [19 Howard, 
 293], 447,449 et seq. 
 
 Duane, William John, removed from 
 head of Treasury Department, 280 
 
 Dutch Traders, at Jamestown, 40 
 
 Dutch Henry s Crossing, massacre 
 at, 440; the massacre character 
 ized, 441 ; and denounced by set 
 tlers. 441 ; effect of massacre, 443 ; 
 the work characterized, 473, 474 
 
 EAST FLORIDA, 21 
 
 Eaton, John Henry, as to Bank trou 
 ble, 192 
 
 Easton, Kansas, election trouble at, 
 426 
 
 Election, presidential, of 1820, 129 ; 
 of 1824, 130-137 ; in House of Rep 
 resentatives, 140-142 ; of 1828, 163, 
 164 ; of 1832, 189, 190 et seq. ; of 
 1836, 283; of 1840, 286; of 1844, 
 320 ; of 1848, 349 ; of 1852, 377 ; of 
 1856, relation to election of Whit- 
 field in Kansas, 417 ; indications as 
 to election of 1856, 440; of 1856, as 
 related to affairs in Kansas, 446, 447 
 
 Electoral Colleges, 50 
 
 Ellis, Powhatan, ordered to make 
 final demand on Mexican Govern 
 ment, 299 
 
 El Paso, 361 
 
 Emancipation, early schemes for, 
 243, 245 
 
 Embargo, of 1807, 5t 
 
 Emerson, Dr., owner of Dred Scott, 
 450 ; his will, 450 
 
 Emerson, Irene, owner of Dred 
 Scott, 450 ; sells him to Sandford, 
 451 
 
 Emigrant Aid Company, misrepre 
 sentations as to, 411 ; conference 
 with Robinson, 413 ; excitement 
 occasioned in Missouri, 413 ; claims 
 as to its purpose, 419 ; indictment 
 against hotel in Lawrence, 435 
 
 England, 21, 45, 368 
 
 English, William Hayden, bill on 
 Kansas, 470, 471 
 
 Erie Canal, 132 
 
 Eustis, William, efforts for admission 
 of Missouri, 100 
 
 Everett, Edward, reply to McDuffie, 
 176; speech on Kansas-Nebraska 
 
 t 
 
 bill, 892, 393 ; not voting on Kan 
 sas-Nebraska bill, 398 
 Ewing, Thomas, on Bank Committee 
 of Senate, 201 
 
 FAIRFIELD, JOHN, presents abolition 
 petition, 254 
 
 Federal Party, 12, 104; extinction, 
 129 ; its errors, 129 ; effects of VVar 
 of 1812, 130; principles on which 
 it lost power, 239 
 
 Field, Roswell M., connection with 
 DreJ Scott case, 449, 452 
 
 Fillmore, Millard, becomes Presi 
 dent, 363 ; message on Texas, 360 ; 
 message of December, 1850, 368, 
 369 ; opposition of Giddings, 369 ; 
 message on Shadrach case, 370, 
 371 ; report on President s powers, 
 372 ; message of December 2, 1851, 
 374 ; contest in Whig Convention 
 of 185:3, 376 ; message of December 
 6, 1852, 380, 381 
 
 Fitchburg, Massachusetts, home of 
 Charles Robinson, 413 
 
 Flint River, 22 
 
 Florida, its acquisition, 19-38 ; treaty 
 of Florida Seminoles, 290 ; consti 
 tution formed, 290; admitted as 
 Commonwealth, 290 ; vote on Kan 
 sas-Nebraska bill, 390 
 
 Floyd, John, message on Southamp 
 ton massacre, 249 
 
 Foote, Henry Stuart, bill for Terri 
 tories, 354 ; criticises Clay, 357, 
 358 ; motion on Bell s resolutions, 
 359; accepts amendment, 360; 
 draws pistol on Benton, 360 ; in 
 troduces finality resolutions, 374 ; 
 passed by House and rejected by 
 Senate, 375 
 
 "Force Bill," the. See Wilkins, 
 William 
 
 Foreign affairs, relation to party de 
 velopment, 122 ; the Holy Alliance, 
 123-125; the u Monroe Doctrine," 
 125-128; significance of the diplo 
 matic questions, 129; success of 
 Van Buren, 164. See Committee 
 on Foreign Relations 
 
 Forsyth, John, letter as to intrigue 
 against Jackson, 220 ; letter from 
 Morfit, 296, 297 
 
 Fort Brown, attempt at relief, 329 
 
 Fort Jackson, treaty of, 26, 29 
 
 Fort Leavenworth, Robinson at, 414 ; 
 
IXDEX 
 
 515 
 
 arrival of Governor Reeder, 416 ; 
 Governor authorized to call troops 
 from, 432 ; Sumner returns to, 
 443 
 
 Fort Monroe, transfer of artillery, 
 230 
 
 Fort Moultrie, transfer of artillery, 
 230 
 
 Fort Riley, Branscomb at, 414 
 
 Fort Scott, 81 
 
 Fort Titus, Kansas conflict at, 444 
 
 Fowltown, destroyed, 28, 29 
 
 France, 21, 22, 23, 24 ; abolition of 
 slavery, 54 ; gets Louisiana terri 
 tory, 54, 65 ; in Holy Alliance, 123 ; 
 relation to Congress of Verona, 
 124 ; boundary dispute with Spain, 
 290 ; recognizes Texan independ 
 ence, 304 ; cedes Louisiana to 
 United States, 312, 318, 395. tiee 
 Treaty 
 
 Francis, Indian priest, 26 
 
 Franklin, Kansas, Jones goes to, 
 428 ; Lane and Robinson accom 
 pany Shannon to, 430, 431 ; as to 
 treaty of August 17, 444 
 
 Free- Soil party, Buffalo convention 
 of 1848, 347 ; nomination and plat 
 form, 347, 348 ; nomination of 
 Hale, 377 ; the National Era ad 
 dress, 389 ; its effect, 400 ; vote in 
 House on Kansas-Nebraska bill, 
 
 404, 405 ; meaning of the vote, 
 
 405, 406 ; appearance of Eli Thayer, 
 408, 409 ; as to leaders of Emigrant 
 Aid Company, 413 ; effect of Kan 
 sas struggle, 417; relation of Free- 
 soil party to rise of Republican 
 party, 418; effect of Dred Scott 
 decision, 458 
 
 Fremont, John Charles, effect of 
 events in Kansas on his candidacy 
 in 1856, 447 
 
 French Republic, the, 23 
 
 Fugitive slave law, passed by Con 
 gress, 51 ; law of 1850, 363, 364 
 (see also Slavery) ; law of 1850 
 makes slavery a national matter, 
 366 ; its further effect, 386, 367 ; 
 views of Calhoun, Davis, and 
 Rhett, 367 ; the Hamlet case, 367; 
 efforts at repeal of law, 367, 368 ; 
 the Crafts case, 368 ; the " Under 
 ground " established, 368 ; attitude 
 of the lawyers, 368 ; Fillmore s 
 message of December, 1850, 368, 
 369 ; Fillmore s message, 369 ; mo 
 
 tion of Giddings, 369 ; petitions 
 for repeal, 369, 370 ; the Shadrach 
 case, 370 ; Filimore s message, 370, 
 371 ; debate on Clay s motion, 371 ; 
 report on powers of President, 371, 
 372 ; the Sims case, 372, 373 ; Bos 
 ton meetings, 373 ; leaders of 
 opinion, 373; the " Jerry rescue," 
 373, 374; Fillmore s message of 
 December 2, 1851,374; debate on 
 Foote s finality resolutions, 374, 
 375 ; the result, 375 ; petitions for 
 repeal, 375 ; Whig convention of 
 1652, 376 ; attack by Sumner, 377 ; 
 effect of election of 1852, 377 ; va 
 rious policies as to slavery, 377- 
 379 
 
 Fuller, Timothy, in Missouri bill de 
 bate, 68 
 
 "Fundamentals," Massachusetts, 41 
 Furness, William Henry, opposes 
 fugitive slave law, 368 
 
 GAINES, EDMUND PENDLETON, in 
 Florida, 28, 30, 31 ; ordered to 
 Georgia, 213; authorized to ad 
 vance into Texas, 298 
 
 Garland, James, reply to Slade, 258 
 
 Garrison, William Lloyd, beginning 
 of abolition, 246 ; estimate, 246 ; 
 the constitutional situation, 246- 
 248; attack on the Constitution, 
 248 ; publishes the Liberator, 
 251 ; compared with moderates, 
 251 ; opposition to fugitive slave 
 law, 373 
 
 Geary, John AVhite, appointed gov 
 ernor of Kansas with authority 
 over troops, 446 ; at Lecompton 
 and Lawrence, 446; enforces 
 withdrawal of Missourians, 446, 
 447 ; his resignation, 447 
 
 Geography, relation to political de 
 velopment, 20 
 
 Georgetown, South Carolina, in 
 structions to collector, 230 
 
 Georgia, Commonwealth of, 8, 26, 
 27, 28, 38 ; slavery prohibited, 
 43 ; conditional cession of west 
 ern lands, 50, 56 ; attitude to in 
 ternal improvements bill of 1817, 
 118 ; attitude to internal improve 
 ments bill of 1S22, 119; stock 
 held in United States Bank, 203 ; 
 nullification in Georgia, 210 ; con 
 ditional cession of lands of 1802, 
 211 ; the attempt to erect an In- 
 
516 
 
 INDEX 
 
 dian State, 211 ; problem of land 
 titles in Georgia, 211, 212; legislat 
 ure memorializes for quieting of 
 Indian claims, 212 ; the Indian 
 Springs convention, 212 ; its repu 
 diation, 212; the attempt to sur 
 vey the lands, 212; Barbour s let 
 ter to Troup, 212, 218 ; quieting of 
 Indian titles by agreement of 1826, 
 214 ; Georgia repudiates the agree 
 ment, 214 ; defiance of central Gov 
 ernment, 214, 215 ; President re 
 fers matter to Congress, 215; Con 
 gress fails to act, 21 5 ; legislature 
 extends criminal jurisdiction over 
 Cherokees, 215; Jackson s opinion 
 of Georgia s position, 216 ; obsti 
 nacy of the Cherokees, 216; the 
 question in Jackson s message of 
 1829, 216, 217 ; opinions of Indian 
 titles, 217 ; the solution in Geor 
 gia, 217, 218 ; legislature incorpo 
 rates Cherokee lands in the Com 
 monwealth, 218 ; the Cherokee Na 
 tion case, 218; the case of Wor 
 cester against Georgia, 218, 219; 
 failure to execute decision, 219, 
 220 ; convention in, 375 ; vote in 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill, 399; Jack 
 son s Georgians in Kansas, 438 
 
 Ghent, treaty of, 9, 26 
 
 Gid< lings, Joshua Reed, denounces 
 Fillmore and Webster, 309 ; collo 
 quy with Howe, 381, 382 
 
 Glascock, Thomas, attitude on pro 
 cedure as to petitions, 259 
 
 Goliad, atrocities, 293 
 
 Gonzales, attacked, 293 
 
 Gordon, William F., proposal as to 
 independent treasury, 285 ; rela 
 tion of parties to its rejection, 285 
 
 Gorham, Benjamin, attitude to tariff 
 bill of 1823, 111 ; reply to McDuf- 
 fie, 176 
 
 Gorostiza, Manuel Eduardo de, leaves 
 Washington, 299 
 
 Granger, Francis, claim as to District 
 of Columbia, 257 
 
 Grasshopper Falls, Kansas, con 
 vention at, 464 
 
 Great Britain, treaty of 1763, 21, 23: 
 treaty of 1 783, 22 ; war of United 
 States with, 24; treaty of 1814, 
 26 ; Nicholls s proposition to, 27 ; 
 Indian allies of, 20 ; relations with 
 United States as to slaves, 58, 59 ; 
 claims in North Pacific, 123 ; re 
 
 lation to Holy Alliance, 123, 124; 
 proposal as to Holy Alliance, 125 ; 
 Canning s declaration, 125; diplo 
 matic relations, 287 ; Ashburton 
 Treaty, 303 ; recognizes Texan in 
 dependence, 304 ; as mediator be 
 tween Mexico and Texas, 304 ; the 
 London letter of British plans, 
 304 ; claims to Oregon, 31 1 ; Nootka 
 Convention, 311, 312 ; effect of war 
 with Spain, 312; Treaty of 
 Utrecht, 312; claim of United 
 States. 312, 313; treaty of 1818 
 with United States, 313 ; effect of 
 treaty of 1819 between United 
 States and Spain, 313; agreement 
 of 1828 with United States, 314 ; in 
 Ashburton -Webster negotiations, 
 314 ; ignorance as to Oregon, 314, 
 315; the work of Whitman, 315, 
 316 ; Democratic platform of 1844, 
 316; negotiations as to Oregon, 
 321 ; statement of negotiations in 
 Polk s first message, 324 ; his rec 
 ommendations, 324 ; action of Con 
 gress, April, 1846, 325, 326 ; treaty 
 of June, 1846, 326 ; possibility of 
 holding California, 332 ; result of 
 treaty with, 339; United States 
 minister to, 408 
 
 Great lakes, 325 
 
 Greeley, Horace, views on election 
 of 1844, 3:20 
 
 Grimke, Thomas Smith, relation to 
 nullification, 181 
 
 Gdnnell, Moses H., member of Emi 
 grant Aid Society, 409 
 
 Guadalupe Hidalgo, treaty of, terms, 
 336 ; ratified by Senate, 339 
 
 HALE, EDWARD EVERETT, member 
 of Emigrant Aid Society, 409 
 
 Hale, John Parker, moves amend 
 ment to Oregon Bill, 344 ; effect of 
 his action, 345 ; contention as to 
 fugitive slave law, 371 ; presents pe 
 titions for repeal of fugitive slave 
 law, 375 ; nominated for presiden 
 cy, 377 ; popular vote compared 
 with Van Buren s in 1848, 377 
 
 Hamilton, James, the Calhoun let 
 ter, 221 ; calls special meeting of 
 legislature, 221 ; chairman of nulli 
 fication convention, -21 ; sends 
 ordinance of nullification to legis 
 lature, 224 
 
 Hamlet, James, arrest, 367 
 
INDEX 
 
 Hainlin, Hannibal, presents petition 
 
 in Senate, 370 
 Hammond, James Hamilton, motion 
 
 not to receive abolition petitions, 
 
 255 ; wrangle over his two motions, 
 256 
 
 Harrisburg, Penn., convention of 
 
 1824, 139 
 Harrison, William Henry, voting, 
 
 73 ; nominated for presidency, 
 
 256 ; succeeded, on his death, by 
 Tyler, 286 
 
 Harvey, James Madison, commands 
 column of "Free-state" force, 
 445 
 
 Hayne, Robert Young, theory on 
 tariff, 114 ; view of slave labor, 
 161 ; view repeated by McDuffie, 
 177; Cal .oun and the Webster 
 debate, 179; criticism of Clay s 
 resolution on tariff, 187, and 
 amendment of it, 188 ; on Bank 
 committee of Senate, 201 ; his in 
 augural as governor of South Car 
 olina, 224 
 
 Hayti, its affairs mentioned by Sal- 
 azar, 151 ; consideration of its ex 
 ample in the United States, 152; 
 isolated, 154 
 
 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 
 cited on human purpose, 243, 244 
 
 Heister, William, presents abolition 
 petition, 253 
 
 Herrera, Jose Joaqtun de, refuses to 
 receive Slid ell, 328 ; gives way to 
 Paredes, 328 
 
 Hill, Isaac, in Bank trouble, 191 
 
 Hillards, the, in Crafts case, 308 
 
 Hillis Hajo, 32 
 
 Himallemico, 32 
 
 Holmes, John, voting, 73 ; presents 
 Maine petition for admission, 77; 
 reports bill, 77; speech on Mis 
 souri, 80, 81 ; on conference com 
 mittee, 88 
 
 Holy Alliance, formation, 123; re 
 lation to England, 1 24 ; Congress 
 of Verona, 124 ; Canning s declara 
 tion to Polignac, 125; the "Mon 
 roe Doctrine," 125-128; relation 
 to Spain s colonies, 153, 154 
 
 Hoist, Hermann Edouard von, opin 
 ions reviewed, 27 ; opinion of Jack 
 son s veto message considered, 206, 
 207 
 
 Holyoke, Massachusetts, residence of 
 Branscomb, 413 
 
 Home Government [of England], as 
 to baptism of slaves, 44 
 
 Hopkinson, Joseph, committee ser 
 vice, 3 
 
 House of Representatives, of the 
 United States, action on Madison s 
 message, 3 ; Clay, Speaker of, 6 ; 
 passage of Bank bill, 7, 8 ; refer 
 ence of tariff matters, 9 ; debate on 
 tariff, 10-12 ; passage of tariff bill, 
 12 ; debate on internal improve 
 ments, 13, 14 ; pay of members, 16 ; 
 passage of internal improvements 
 bill, 18 ; second passage of internal 
 improvements bill, 18; vote on 
 censure of Jackson, 35, 36 ; rep 
 resentation in, 63 ; petitions from 
 Missouri, 66 ; debate on the Tall- 
 madge amendment, 66 et stq.; pas 
 sage of Tallmadge amendment and 
 Missouri bill, 73 ; disagreement 
 with Senate, 74 ; petition from 
 Maine referred, 75 ; Maine bill 
 passed by House, 75 , Missouri bill 
 and Taylor s amendment, *<8-80 ; 
 Holmes s speech, 80, 81 ; McLane s 
 speech, 81, 82; Pinkney s speech 
 on powers of Congress, 84-S7 ; 
 disagreement with Senate, 88 ; 
 conference committee, 88-89 ; sig 
 nificance of the compromise/.KMtf) ; 
 Missouri constitution considered, 
 95, 96; report of Lowndes, 96; 
 speech of Sergeant, 96, 97 ; con 
 sideration of the question, 97, 98 ; 
 defeat of the Lowndes bill, 99; 
 tables Senate bill, 99 ; Clay s pro 
 posals, 100; report of committee 
 of thirteen, 100, 101 ; defeat of the 
 bill and amendment, 101 ; second 
 conference committee, 101, 103; 
 plan to limit membership, 109; 
 reference of Monroe s recommen 
 dations, 110 ; tariff bill of 1823, 110, 
 111 ; tariff bill of 1824, 112; Clay s 
 argument, 112, 113 ; replies to Clay, 
 113, 114 ; conclusion in conference 
 committee, 114, 115; early votes 
 on internal improvements, 117, 
 117; vote on internal improve 
 ments bill of 1822, 118, 119, 120; 
 Monroe s letter on internal im 
 provements, 120, 121 ; vote on ve 
 toed bill, 121; Clay, Speaker of, 
 134; election of President in, 140- 
 142 ; memorials on tariff, 158 ; tar 
 iff bill passed, 159 ; tariff bill re- 
 
518 
 
 INDEX 
 
 ported, 160 ; vote on tariff bill, 
 163 ; vote on vetoed Maysville 
 road bill, 168 ; question as to ref 
 erence of President s message, 172- 
 174; tariff bill before House, 174, 
 175 ; McDuffie s argument, 175,176, 
 177 ; refe^nce of President s mes 
 sage, 184, 185 ; tariff bill before, 185, 
 186 ; tariff bill passed, 180 ; refusal 
 to concur with Senate, 188 ; confer 
 ence committee, 188 ; report on the 
 Bank, 198 ; relation of members of 
 constituencies, 200 ; reports on 
 Bank, 202 ; bill for re-charter 
 passed, 202 ; Jackson on duty of 
 members, 206 ; early control of 
 presidential elections, 208 ; action j 
 on President s message, 231, 232; I 
 bill reported on President s powers, | 
 235 ; claim as to origin of tariff j 
 bills, 236 ; passage of tariff bill and j 
 u Force Bill," 237; abolition peti 
 tions in, 253 ; report on petitions, 
 253 ; more petitions referred, 253 ; 
 action on Dickson s motion, 254 ; 
 conflict over right of petition, 254 j 
 et seq. ; adoption of the Pinckney j 
 resolutions, 261 ; further work of \ 
 Adams and Slade, 26:3 ; rule of j 
 January 8, 1840, 263 ; Gordon s j 
 amendment in, 385 ; resolutions as I 
 to recognition of Texan independ 
 ence, 296 ; contingent action as to 
 Texan independence, 299, 300 ; 
 effect of action, 300 ; Wise s j 
 speech in, 302 ; Tyler s message on 
 Texan treaty, 309 ; action on an 
 nexation of Texas, 331, 322 ; action 
 on admission of Texas, 322; con 
 currence with Senate s action on 
 Texas, 323 ; McKay s bill, 335 ; the 
 Wilmot proviso, 335, 336 ; Oregon [ 
 bill in, 341 ; action on Oregon bills, j 
 313; rejects Clayton bill, 347; 
 final agreement with Senate, 347 ; 
 action on erection of California , 
 and New Mexico, 349 et seq. ; com- i 
 pletion of compromise measures, , 
 363, 364 ; action on President s \ 
 message, 369 ; passage of finality . 
 resolutions, 375 ; action on organ- ! 
 ization of Kansas and Nebraska, : 
 381 et seq. ; contest for seat in, 432 ; < 
 appointment of committee of in 
 vestigation for Kansas affairs, 433 ; 
 memorials from Kansas, 433 ; bill j 
 for admission of Kansas, 443, 443 ; . 
 
 action on Kansas, 470. See Con 
 gress of the United States 
 
 Houston, Samuel, leader of Texans, 
 293 ; Ben ton s description, 293, 
 294 ; his early record, 294 ; San 
 Jacinto and the presidency of 
 Texas, 294; sends special envoy 
 to Washington, 306 ; promise of 
 Murphy disavowed, 307 ; changes 
 vote, 347 ; speech on Kansas-Ne 
 braska bill, 393 ; vote on Douglas s 
 amendment, 393 ; speech on the 
 bill, 397 ; vote on Kansas - Ne 
 braska bill, 399 
 
 Houston, S. D., withdraws from 
 Kansas Territorial legislature, 421 
 
 Howard, William A., on committee 
 for Kansas investigation, 433 
 
 Howe, John W., discussion with 
 Giddings, 381, 383 
 
 Hudson Bay Company, agents in 
 Oregon, 314 ; relation to policy of 
 Great Britain, 314 ; representa 
 tions as to Oregon, 314, 315 
 
 Hr.nt, M jmucan, proposes Texan an 
 nexation to Van Buren, 301 
 
 Hutchinson, William, in " Free- 
 state" directory of Kansas, 443 
 
 IBERVILLE RIVER, the, 21, 22 
 
 Illinois, Commonwealth of, slavery 
 forbidden, 62, 63 ; condition on 
 erection, 68, 69, 71 ; vote on Kan 
 sas-Nebraska bill, 399 ; as to Dred 
 Scott case, 450 
 
 Independent treasury, Van Buren s 
 message of September 4, 1837, 284, 
 285 ; Gordon s proposal, 285 ; at 
 titude of the parties, 285 ; Act of 
 July 4, 1840, 285; party contest 
 over the bill, 285, 286 
 
 Indian Springs, Convention at, 212 
 
 Indiana, Commonwealth of, slavery 
 forbidden, 62, 63 ; condition on 
 erection, 68, 69, 71 ; vote on Kan 
 sas-Nebraska bill, 399 
 
 Indiana, Territory of, relation to 
 slavery, 51 ; jurisdiction over part 
 of Louisiana Territory, 55 
 
 Ingersoll, Joseph R., claim as to 
 District of Columbia, 257 ; re 
 ports joint resolution on Texas, 
 321 
 
 Ingham, Samuel D., in debate, 10; 
 position upon tariff bill of 1827, 
 158 ; as to Bank trouble, 191 
 
 Internal improvements, bill present- 
 
INDEX 
 
 519 
 
 ed, 14 ; Calhoun s speech, 15, 16 ; 
 bill passed, 16; President s veto, 
 17 ; Madison s earlier recommen 
 dations, 17; failure to overcome 
 veto, 18 ; development in theory, 
 116-119; the Act of 1806, 116; 
 Calhoun s bill of 1817 vetoed by 
 Madison, 116, 117 ; analysis of vote, 
 117, 118; Cumberland road bill of 
 1823, 118; analysis of vote, 118, 
 119; Taylor s position, 119; atti 
 tude of East and West, 119, 120 ; 
 Monroe s veto, 120, and message, 
 120, 121 ; vote on vetoed bill, 121 ; 
 Act of April, 1824, 122 ; relation to 
 foreign affairs, 122 \ significance of 
 the questions, 129 ; Adams s first 
 message, 155 ; Van Buren s opposi 
 tion, 155; relation to political di 
 visions, 156 ; practical difficulties, 
 156, 157 ; Jackson s views in Ib29, 
 167 ; passage of Maysville road bill, 
 167; the veto, 167, 168; vote on 
 vetoed bill, 168 ; analysis of vote, 
 168; significance of veto, 169; ap 
 propriations approved by Adams 
 and Jackson, 169 ; relation to 
 private enterprise, 169, 170; rela 
 tion to slavery, 170 ; Jackson s 
 message of December, 1830, 178; 
 Jackson s message of December, 
 1831, 184 
 
 Iowa, Commonwealth of, admitted, 
 290; memorial of legislature on 
 finality resolutions, 315; vote on 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill, 399 
 
 Jackson, Andrew, in Florida, 24, 25, 
 28, 30, 31, 32, 33 ; attempt at cen 
 sure, 34, 35, 36 ; vindicated, 3(5 ; 
 Territorial governor of Florida, 38; 
 effect of Serninole War, 38 ; quali 
 fications as presidential candidate 
 in 1824, 135, 136, 139, 141 ; elec 
 toral vote of 1824, 136,137; the 
 Coleman letter, 138 ; opposition to 
 Adams threatened, 142, 143, and 
 begun, 144, 146 ; elected President, 
 163, 164 ; makes Van Buren secre 
 tary of state, 164; vigorous foreign 
 policy, 164 ; first annual message, 
 16(5, 167; vetoes Maysville road 
 bill, 167, 168; significance of the 
 veto, 169; appropriations approved 
 by Adams and Jackson, 169 ; mes 
 sage of December, 1 829, as to tariff, 
 171, 172; its reference, 172; mes 
 sage of December, 1830, 178 ; mes 
 
 sage of December, 1831, 184 ; mes 
 sage of December, 1829, 190; later 
 interpretations cf his attack on 
 Bank, 191, 11)2; relation to "relief 
 party "in Kentucky, 196; leader 
 of Democratic party, 196, 197 ; at 
 titude to Bank, H)7, 198 ; his views 
 opposed by committees, 1 98 ; mes 
 sage of December, 1830, 198, 199 ; 
 his message of December, 1831, 
 200 ; puts the Bank question before 
 the people, 200 ; relation of Bank 
 question to question of Jackson s 
 election, 201 ; effect of his veto of 
 Bank bill, 202; analysis of his 
 message, 202-206; opinion of von 
 Hoist on the veto message con 
 sidered, 206, 207, the message inter 
 preted, 206-209 ; relation of Con 
 gress to bis election as President, 
 207 ; the people accept the princi 
 ples of Jacksonian democracy 209 ; 
 opinion of Georgia s claims, 216 ; 
 reply to Cherokees, 216; message 
 of December, 1829, 216, 217 ; dif 
 ferent opinions of Indian titles, 
 217 ; failure to execute decision of 
 Supreme Court, 219, 220 ; view on 
 South Carolina s opinion of tariff, 
 220; supposition as to Cabinet 
 intrigue of 1819, 220 ; theForsyth 
 letter, 220; hostility of Jackson 
 and Calhoun, 220, 221 ; message of 
 December, 1882, 228 ; proclama 
 tion of December 10, 1832, 228- 
 230 ; active military preparations, 
 230, 231 ; instructions to collec 
 tors, 230 ; instructions to Scott, 
 230, 231 ; popular approval of 
 Jackson s course, 231 ; attitude of 
 Congress, 231 ; Hayne s proclama 
 tion, 232 ; Jackson s message of 
 January, 1833, 232 ; Bell s report 
 on President s powers, 235 ; signs 
 Compromise Tariff, and u Force 
 Bill," 238; motive in course on 
 nullification, 238 ; significance of 
 his doctrines, 239, 240 ; as to re 
 sponsibility for Jacksonian princi 
 ples, 240 ; message of 1 835 as to 
 use of mails, 272, 273 ; decides to 
 destroy the Bank, 279 ; power of 
 removal, 279 ; removal of McLane 
 and Duane, 280; the work of 
 Tancy, 280 ; consideration of the 
 proper exercise of power, 280 ; 
 censured by Senate, 281 ; Benton 
 
520 
 
 INDEX 
 
 begins effort at removal of censure, 
 281 ; his contest successful, 282 ; 
 tendency of government to his day, 
 282 ; bis successor, 284 ; sends 
 Mornt to Texas, 296 ; message of 
 December 21, 1836, on Texas, :,98 ; 
 special message as to reprisals, 21)8 ; 
 authorizes Gaines to advance into 
 Texas, 298 ; orders Ellis to make 
 demands on Mexico, 299 ; satisfac 
 tion not given, 299 ; special mes 
 sage of February 6, 1887, 299 ; re 
 quest for unusual powers not 
 granted by Congress, 299 ; recog 
 nizes Texas and her agent, 300 ; 
 ends diplomatic relations with 
 Mexico, 301 
 
 Jackson, William, presents abolition 
 petition, 255 
 
 Jackson, Zadock, repudiates sacking 
 of Lawrence, 4-J8 
 
 Jalapa, captured by Scott, 333 
 
 Jamostown, slaves introduced at, 40 
 
 Janus, gates open, 260 
 
 Jefferson, Thomas, 2, 3 ; relation to 
 French philosophy, 129 ; share of 
 Congress in his election as Pres 
 ident, 207 ; principles restated by 
 Calhoun, 239 ; tendency of govern 
 ment from his day, 282 ; sends out 
 Lewis and Clark, 312 ; view as to 
 extent of Louisiana, 312 
 
 Johnson, Robert Ward, position on 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill, 393 
 
 Johnson, William, relation to nulli 
 fication, 181 
 
 Johnson County, Kansas, contested 
 election, 465 
 
 Johnston, Josiah S., on bank com 
 mittee of Senate, 201 
 
 Jones, George Wallace, position on 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill, 393 
 
 Jones, John W., reply to Adams on 
 right of petition, 257 
 
 Jones, Samuel J., as sheriff, arrests 
 Branson, 428; rescue of Branson, 
 42S ; goes to Franklin and calls 
 help from Missouri, 428, 429 ; his 
 error recognized, 430 ; serves writ 
 on Wood, 433 ; tries to arrest 
 Tappan, 434; attempt to assassi 
 nate, 434 ; Donaldson s reference 
 to the shooting, 436 ; the sacking 
 of Lawrence, 438 
 
 KANSAS CITY, Mo., 316 ; Branscomb 
 and Robinson at, 413, 414 
 
 Kansas, Territory of, bill for organi 
 zation of, 389 ; the abolition pro 
 test, 389, 390; reply of Douglas, 
 390; amendment of Chase, 391, 392 ; 
 position of Wade, 391 ; amendment 
 of Douglas, 392 ; views of Everett, 
 392, 393 ; speech of Houston, 393 ; 
 position of Bell and the committee, 
 393 ; vote on the amendment, 393 ; 
 Chase s amendment, 394, 395 ; 
 Pratt s amendment, 394 ; Walker s 
 declaration and Badger s amend 
 ment, 395 ; Chase s third amend 
 ment, 395, 39(5; Douglas s amend 
 ment, 395, 396; Chase s fourth 
 amendment, 396 ; speech of Bell 
 against bill, 396, 39? ; speech of 
 Houston, 397 ; final argument of 
 Douglas, 397, 398; vote on bill in 
 Senate, 398 ; analysis of vote, 398, 
 399 ; rise of popular opposition, 
 399, 400 ; the Richardson bill, 400 ; 
 the Senate bill in the House, 401 
 position of Gushing, Davis, and 
 Pierce, 401-403 ; action in House, 
 
 403 ; management of bill by Steph 
 ens, 404 ; bill signed by President, 
 
 404 ; analysis of vote, 404, 405 ; 
 meaning of the vote, 405, 406 ; re 
 lation of Act to slavery, 407, 408 ; 
 the struggle for Kansas, 407 et seq.; 
 the plan of Thayer and his associ 
 ates, 409 ; organization of the so 
 ciety, 409, 410 ; opposition, 410 ; in 
 corporation of the society, 410, 411; 
 misrepresentations as to Emigrant 
 Aid Company, 411 ; considered as 
 of the South, 412; influence of 
 Atchison, 412, 413 ; expedition of 
 Robinson and Branscomb, 413, 414; 
 "Platte County Self -defensive As 
 sociation," 414, 415; the founding 
 of Lawrence, 415 ; trouble over 
 contesting claimants, 415, 416 ; ar 
 rival of Governor Reeder, 416; 
 election of Whitfield, 417; effect 
 on Republican party of interfer 
 ence of Missourians in Kansas, 
 
 418 ; significance of the seating of 
 Whitfield, 418 ; census of Kansas, 
 
 419 ; interference of Missourians in 
 election of first Territorial legislat 
 ure, 419, 420 ; action on contested 
 election cases, 420 ; supplementary 
 elections, 421 ; first Teiritorial leg 
 islature, 421 ; Robinson s plan for 
 anti-slavery party, 421, 422 ; legis- 
 
INDEX 
 
 521 
 
 lature meets at Pawnee, 432 ; pro- 
 slavery members seated, 423, 423 ; 
 trouble over adjournment to Shaw- 
 nee Mission, 438 ; arrival of 
 Sharpens rifles, 433 ; Lane s faction 
 checked by Robinson s Lawrence ! 
 speech, 428, 434 ; Robinson s decla 
 ration as to slavery, -424 ; Conway s 
 letter to Reeder, 424; beginning 
 of the "Free-state" movement, 
 434 ; legislation upon slavery, 434 ; 
 its effect on the North, 424, 435; 
 the Lawrence and Topeka conven 
 tions, 435 ; the adoption of the 
 Topeka constitution, 435 ; removal 
 of Governor Reeder, 425 ; Wood- 
 son Acting-Governor, 425; elec 
 tion of Reeder as Congressional 
 delegate, 435 ; election of Robinson 
 as Governor, 435 ; conflicts between 
 " Free-state " and Territorial Gov 
 ernments, 43(5 ; petition for admis 
 sion and election of Senators by 
 11 Free-state " party, 426, 427 ; 
 characterization of "Free-state" 
 acts, 437 ; Robinson s message to 
 legislature, 437 ; arrival of Govern 
 or Shannon, 427 ; the Leavenworth 
 convention, 428; conflict between 
 the two governments, 428 ; the 
 Branson rescue, 438, 429 ; invasion 
 of Missourians, 42 ( .); Lawrence com 
 mittee meet Governor Shannon, 
 439 ; Shannon goes to Lawrence, 
 430 ; agreement of Shannon with 
 citizens of Lawrence, 430; Lane, 
 Robinson, and Shannon at Frank 
 lin, 430 ; Atchison and the with 
 drawal of the Missourians, 430, 431 ; 
 appearance of John Brown, 481 ; 
 Shannon s report to President, 
 431 ; appeal of leaders at Lawrence, 
 431 ; the President s proclamation, 
 433 ; attitude of "Free-state" party 
 to proclamation, 432 ; difficulty of 
 the situation, 432, 433 ; organiza 
 tion under Topeka constitution, 
 432; contest for seat in House of 
 Representatives, 432, 433 ; House 
 appoints committee of investiga 
 tion, 433 ; application for admission 
 under Topeka constitution, 433 ; 
 work of Jones and attempt to as 
 sassinate him, 483, 434 ; the assault 
 repudiated by the "Free-state" 
 party, 484 ; letters of Robinson and 
 Sumner, 434 ; Lecompte s charge 
 
 to grand jury, 435; the "treason 
 indictments," 435; Donaldson s 
 proclamation, 435, 436 ; dealings of 
 citizens of Lawrence with Shannon 
 and Donaldson, 436, 437 ; the 
 sacking of Lawrence, 488 ; repu 
 diation by Atchison and others, 
 438 ; the " Crime against Kan 
 sas," 439; the attack on Sumner, 
 439, 440; the Pottawattomie massa 
 cres, 440 ; attitude of the Congres 
 sional committee, 440 ; character 
 ization of the massacre, 441 ; de 
 nunciation by settlers, 441 ; Brown 
 and Pate at Black Jack, 441; 
 Shannon s proclamation and the 
 work of the troops, 442 ; effect of 
 massacre on "Free-state" cause, 
 442, 448 ; committee report and bill 
 in House, 442, 448 ; dispersal of 
 legislature at Topeka, 443 ; Smith 
 succeeds Sumner, 443 ; the Law 
 rence convention and the direc 
 tory, 443; "Free-state" military 
 force organized and in conflict, 
 444 ; capture of Titus, 444 ; treaty 
 of August 17, at Lawrence, 444; 
 resignation of Shannon, 444 ; 
 Woodson again Acting-Governor, 
 
 444 ; proclamation of August 25, 
 444 ; Missourians under Atchison 
 in camp on Bull Creek, 445 ; de 
 struction of Ossawattomie, 445 ; 
 Smith s orders as to invaders, 445 ; 
 Lane leads in skirmish at Bull 
 Creek, 445 ; Woodson s order and 
 Cooke s refusal to attack Topeka, 
 
 445 ; failure of plan to attack Le- 
 compton, 445, 446 ; active steps by 
 President, 446; actions of Geary, 
 
 446 ; retirement of the Missourians, 
 446, 447 ; resignation of Geary, 446 ; 
 effect of events on presidential elec 
 tion, 447; Buchanan s inaugural 
 address, 447, 448 ; plan for conven 
 tion at Lecompton, 461 ; Walker 
 and Stanton in charge, 461 ; nego 
 tiations of Stanton with "Free- 
 state" men, 461, 462; address by 
 Walker, 462 ; the party situation, 
 462 ; the " Free-state " legislature, 
 
 462 ; the " Free-state " mass-meet 
 ing, 463 ; chances of the Topeka 
 constitution, 463 ; Robinson s plan 
 to capture Territorial government, 
 
 463 ; Wilson s advice, 463 ; the To 
 peka mass-meeting, 464 ; the Grass- 
 
522 
 
 INDEX 
 
 hopper Falls convention, 464 ; cen 
 sus completed, 404 ; Lecompton 
 convention assembles, 464 ; the 
 election of October 5, 465 ; contests i 
 in McGee and Johnson counties, j 
 465 ; Lane s conspiracy and its ! 
 failure, 465, 466 ; mass-meeting ! 
 and convention at Lecompton, 4(55, 
 466 ; the Lecompton constitution, 
 4ii6 ; "Free-state" demands on ; 
 Stanton, 486, 467 ; constitution to j 
 be submitted in full, 467 ; Stanton 
 removed, 467 ; Denver appointed 
 Acting-Governor, 467 ; Lejompton 
 Constitution accepted in election 
 of December 21, 467; Lecompton 
 Constitution rejected in election of 
 January 4, 1858, 468 ; "Free-state " 
 men in control of three Govern 
 ments in Kansas, 468; Denver s 
 report to the President, 468, 469 ; 
 President submits Lecompton con- | 
 stitution to Congress, 469; atti 
 tude of Douglas, 469, 470 ; Le 
 compton bill passed by Senate and 
 rejected by House, 470 ; the House 
 proposal rejected, 470 ; the English 
 bill, 470, 471 ; the proposals re- j 
 jected in Kansas, 471 ; a fourth \ 
 government erected, 471 ; close of I 
 the struggle, 471 ; characterization I 
 of the leaders, 471 , 472 ; attitude of j 
 the general government, of Da,vis, : 
 and of Sumner, 473, 473 ; Act of 
 1854 the beginning of error, Mis- ; 
 sourians the beginners of wrong, I 
 473; characterization of John 
 Brown s work, 473, 474 ; relation of 
 events in Kansas to Civil War, 473, 
 474. /See Nebraska, Territory of 
 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill, 343, 456 (see 
 Kansas, Territory of: ; and Nebras 
 ka, Territory of) ; effect of the 
 Dred Scott dictum, 460 
 
 Kansas river, 66, 414 
 
 Kearny, Philip, ordered to occupy 
 New Mexico, 331 ; orders to Doni- 
 phan, 333 ; occuuies California, ; 
 333 
 
 Kelly, , Editor of tiqtiatter Sov- j 
 
 ereign, 411 
 
 Kendall, Amos, instructions to New 
 York postmaster, 271, 272 
 
 Kentucky, created Commonwealth , 
 with slavery, 50, 62, 63 ; attitude 
 to tariff of 1824, 115; attitude to 
 internal improvements bill of 1817, , 
 
 118 ; attitude to internal improve 
 ments bill of 1822, 119 ; legislature 
 nominates Clay for presidency, 136; 
 attitude toward tariff bill of 1827, 
 15S ; relation to tariff of 1832, 188 ; 
 relief measures for debtors, 195, 
 196; electoral vote in 1814, 320; 
 views as to slave policy, 378 ; vote 
 on Kansas-Nebraska bill. 399 
 
 Kickapoo Rangers, organized, 426 ; 
 capture Captain Brown, 426 
 
 King, Rufus, voting, 74 
 
 King, William Rufus, states his 
 creed on State sovereignty, 269, 
 270 ; on committee of Thirteen, 
 360 
 
 Kinsey, Charles, on conference com 
 mittee, 88 
 
 Know Nothing party, 418 
 
 Kremer, Geor:-je, charge against 
 Adams and Clay, 141 
 
 LACOCK, ABNER, voting, 74 
 Lake of the Woods, 312, 313 
 Lane, James S., effort to organize 
 Democratic party in Kansas, 423; 
 elected Senator by "Free-state" 
 party, 4:26 ; negotiations with 
 Shannon, 430; at Franklin, 430; 
 indictment against, 435 ; as to 
 service of indictment, 435; in 
 command of "Free-state" force, 
 435; failure to arrive at Lecomp 
 ton for attack, 445, 446 ; result of 
 his prevarications, 463 ; conspiracy 
 against Lecompton convention, 
 465 ; thwarted, 465, 466 
 Lawrence, Arnos Adams, member of 
 Emigrant Aid Society, 409 ; his 
 work, 411 ; conference with Robin 
 son, 413 ; town named in honor of, 
 415 
 
 Lawrence, Kansas, site occupied, 
 411; town founded, 415; quarr- Is 
 as to claims, 415, 416; Robinson s 
 speech of July 4, 1 855, 423 ; con 
 vention at, 425 ; the Branson res 
 cue, 4 28 ; Missourians approach, 
 429 ; committee sent to Shan 
 non, 429 ; Shannon goes to, 4:10 ; 
 agreement of citizens with Gov 
 ernor Shannon, 430 ; appearance 
 of John Brown, 431 ; appeal of 
 citizens to President, 431 ; Jones 
 serves writ on Wood, 433 ; trouble 
 with Tappan, 434 ; attempt to as 
 sassinate Jones, 434 ; communica- 
 
INDEX 
 
 523 
 
 tinns of Robinson and Sumner as 
 to assault on Jones, 484 ; indict 
 ment again-st hotel and news 
 papers in, 485 ; Donaldson s proc 
 lamation, 485, 436 ; dealings of 
 citizens with Shannon and Donald 
 son, 486, 487; Donaldson s force 
 approaches the town, 487 ; sacking 
 
 of the town, 488 ; repudiation of 
 the deed, 488 ; effect of the sack 
 ing and of assault on Sumner, 
 440 ; effect of sacking modified by 
 Pottawattomie massacre, 442 ; 
 " Free-state " convention at, 443 ; 
 treaty of August 17, 444 ; Geary 
 at, 446 ; Stanton at, 461 ; Wilson 
 meets Robinson at, 4(53 ; " Free- 
 state " forces ordered to meet at, 
 405 
 
 Leavenworth, Kansas, "Free-state" 
 company organized at, 426 ; con 
 vention at, 428 
 
 Lecompte, S. D., charge to grand jury 
 of Douglas County, 435 
 
 Lecompton, Kansas, the Branson 
 rescue, 428 ; citizens summoned to, 
 by Donaldson, 435 ; conflict at 
 Fort Titus, 444 ; failure of plan to 
 attack Lecompton, 445, 440 ; 
 Geary at, 446 ; plan for conven 
 tion at, 461 ; as to work of con 
 vention, 403 ; convention assembles 
 at, 464 ; Lane s conspiracy against 
 convention at, 465; "Free-state" 
 mass-meeting at, 465, 466; con 
 stitution formed at, 466 ; legislat 
 ure meets at, 467. tice Kansas 
 
 Lewis, Meriwether, sent out by Jef 
 ferson, 312; on r.he Columbia, 312 
 
 Lewis, William B., 38 ; the Coleman 
 letter, 138 
 
 Lexington, Kentucky, 167 
 
 Liberator, The, publication begun, 
 251 
 
 Liberties, Body of, 41 
 
 Lincoln, Abraham, intimation as to 
 official conduct of Taney, 456 
 
 Loki, the, of Kansas, appears, 431 
 
 London, 26, 33 
 
 London, Bishop of, as to baptism of 
 slaves, 44 
 
 Loring, Charles Greeley, in Sims 
 case, 872 
 
 Lorings, the, in Crafts case, 368 
 
 Louisiana, Commonwealth of, erect 
 ed, 56 ; slavery in, 56, 62, 63, (55 ; 
 condition on erection, 09, 71 ; re 
 
 lation to tariff of 1832, 188 ; vote 
 on Kansas-Nebraska bill, 899 
 Louisiana territory, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 
 37 ; added to public domain, 51 ; 
 slavery in, 54, 55, 56, 57 ; owned 
 by France and Spain, 54 ; ceded to 
 United States, 55 ; divided, 55 ; 
 early ownership and division, 65 ; 
 condition on cession to United 
 States, 72 ; motion of Thomas as to 
 slavery, 84 ; motion renewed, 87; 
 carried, 88 ; conference report, 88 ; 
 relation to Missouri bill, 92, 93 ; 
 ceded to France, and to United 
 States, 312 ; as to inclusion of Ore 
 gon, 312 ; cession of 1803, 318 ; ef 
 fect of acquisition, 306; act of 
 1820, 382; as to the Douglas re 
 port on Nebraska, 384 ; as to re 
 peal of Acts of 1820, 391 ; as to 
 Dred Scott case, 450, 452 
 
 j Louisiana, Territory of, organized, 
 56 ; name changed, 56. /See Mis 
 souri, Territory of 
 Love joy, Owen, killed. 250 
 Lowell, John, member of Emigrant 
 
 Aid Society, 409 
 
 Lowell. Massachusetts, meetings on 
 fugitive slave law, 308 
 
 I Lower California, 337 
 
 | Lowndes, William, committee ser 
 vice, 9 ; on conference committee, 
 88 ; reports bill on Missouri, 95, 
 96 ; bill defeated, 1:9 ; relation of 
 family to nullification, 181 
 
 I Lundy, Benjamin, instigates aboli 
 tion petition, 252 
 
 j McCuLLOCH vs. Maryland [4 Wh eat- 
 on, 316], 205 
 
 j McDuffie, George, opinion on slave 
 labor, 1(51 ; chairman ways and 
 means committee, 172 ; relation to 
 Dr. Cooper, 173 ; contention as to 
 origin of tariff bills, 173, 174; re 
 ports a tariff bill. 174 ; its terms 
 and disposal, 174 ; forms economic 
 basis of nullification, 175, 17(5, 177 ; 
 opposition to tariff, 177; amend 
 ment lost, 177 ; as to bill of 1832, 
 185; tariff bills in House, 186; 
 attitude to the Bank, 198 ; makes 
 minority report in support of 
 Bank, 202 
 McGee County, Kansas, contested 
 
 election, 465 
 McGregor, Gregor, 30 
 
524 
 
 INDEX 
 
 McHenry, Jerry, rescue of, 373, 374 
 McKay, James J., introduces bill. 
 835 
 
 McLane, Louis, speech on Missouri, 
 81, 8:3; removed from head of 
 Treasury Department, 280 
 
 McLean, John, voting, 73 
 
 Macon, Nathaniel, committee ser 
 vice, 3 ; position on Maine- Missouri 
 bill, 83 
 
 Madison, James, his message of 1815, 
 2, 3 ; vetoes internal improvements 
 bill, 17; earlier recommendations, 
 17 ; relation to Republican party, 
 17 ; relation to War of 1812, 17 ; as 
 to relation between slavery and 
 protection, 109; vetoes bill, 1817, 
 for internal improvements, 116, 
 117 ; his views, 117 
 
 Mail, United States, effect of pres 
 ence of abolition literature, 251 ; 
 use by abolitionists, 270 et seq. ; 
 Charleston, South Carolina, post- 
 office robbed, 271 ; request of i 
 Charleston postmaster to New 
 York postmaster, 271 ; refusal to 
 receive abolitionist documents in 
 New York post-office, 271 ; Ken- j 
 dall s instructions to the postmas 
 ters, 271, 272; the question in 
 Jackson s message, 272, 273 ; Cal- 
 houn s report and bill, 273, 274 ; 
 criticism by Clay, 274 ; defeat of 
 the bill, 274; Act of July 2, 1836, | 
 274; significance of the contest, 
 274-277 
 
 Maine, Commonwealth of, constitu 
 tion formed, 76 ; petition for ad 
 mission, 77; bill introduced and 
 passed by House, 77 ; bill in Sen 
 ate, 82 ; connection with Missouri 
 bill, 82, 80, 87 ; amended bill 
 passed in Senate, 88 ; House dis 
 agrees, 88 ; conference committee 
 report, 88, 89; bill approved by 
 president, 89; significance of the 
 controversy, 88, 90 etseq. ; attitude 
 to tariff of 1824, 114; attitude 
 toward tariff of 1824, 115 ; attitude | 
 toward tariff bill of 1827, 158; in i 
 election of 1828, 164 ; vote on / 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill, 399 
 
 Mallary, Daniel, reports tariff bill of 
 1827, 158 ; opposes bill of 1828 as 
 reported, 16<>, 161 
 
 Mangum, Willie Person, motion as 
 to Clay s and Bell s resolutions, 
 
 360; on Committee of Thirteen, 
 360 
 
 Mann, Abijah, Jr., motion in House, 
 258 
 
 Mann, Horace, opposition to fugi 
 tive slave law, 373 
 
 Martin, Luther, letter to Maryland 
 legislature, 49, 50 
 
 Maryland, Commonwealth of, 9 ; leg 
 islation on slavery, 48; Martin s 
 letter to legislature, 49, 50 ; laws 
 of, in District of Columbia, 51 ; do 
 mestic slave trade, 57, 58 ; relation 
 to Cumberland road, 116; attitude 
 to internal improvements bill of 
 1817, 118 ; attitude to internal im 
 provements bill of 1822, 119, 120; 
 in election of 18:28, 163, 164 ; tax on 
 Bank of the United States, 194 ; de 
 cision on the tax, 195 ; relation to 
 slavery in District of Columbia, 
 253 ; vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, 
 399 
 
 Mason, James Murray, reads Cal- 
 houn s speech, 358 ; on Committee 
 of Thirteen, 360 
 
 Mason, Jeremiah, in Bank trouble, 
 191 
 
 Mason, John Young, calls yeas and 
 nays, 253 ; yields to Adams, 253 ; 
 the Ostend manifesto, 408 
 
 Mason, Jonathan, voting, 73 
 
 Mason and Dixon s Line, 163 
 
 Massachusetts, Commonwealth of, 
 13; slavery recognized, 41 ; slave 
 laws, 46 ; substantial abolition of 
 slavery, 48 ; separation of Maine, 
 76 et seq. ; as a type, 86; as to 
 citizenship law, 99 ; attitude to 
 tariff bill of 1823, 111 ; and to that 
 of 1824, 114 ; attitude toward tariff 
 of 1 824, 115; attitude toward tariff 
 bill of 1827, 158 ; abolition petition 
 in House, 255 ; laws on jails, 370 ; 
 vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, 
 399 ; legislature grants charter to 
 Thayer s society, 409 
 
 Matamoras, concentration of Mexi 
 can troops at, 328 ; approach of 
 Taylor, 329 ; occupied by Taylor, 
 331 
 
 Maurepas, Lake, 21, 23 
 
 May, Samuel Joseph, the "Jerry 
 rescue," 374 
 
 Maysville road bill passed, 167; ve 
 toed, 167, 168; vote on vetoed bill, 
 168 ; analysis of vote, 168 
 
INDEX 
 
 525 
 
 Mellen, Prentiss, position on Maine- 
 Missouri bill, 83 
 
 Mexico, as to Congress of Verona, 
 124 ; treaty of 1825 with Colombia, 
 ]47 ; revolts from Spain, 291 ; the 
 Austin grant, 291 ; establishment 
 of federal government, 291 ; Busta- 
 mente s decree on immigration, 
 291 ; refuses to sell any Texan ter 
 ritory, 292 ; overthrow of federal 
 government, 292 ; possibility of 
 complications with, 296 ; minister 
 leaves Washington, 298, 299; de 
 mand by Ellis, 299; full satisfac 
 tion refused, 299 ; impossibility of 
 regaining Texas, 800 ; diplomatic 
 relations with United States re 
 sumed, 301 ; the claims commis 
 sion, 301, 302; Great Britain as 
 mediator between Mexico and 
 Texas, 304 ; threatens war on 
 United States, 305; claims Texans 
 are still rebels, 305 ; Benton s criti 
 cism of the Texas treaty, 308 ; re 
 lation of war to election of Polk, 
 320 ; threatens war, 320 ; Tyler s 
 message of 1844, 320, 321 ; makes 
 annexation of Mexico a casus belli, 
 327 ; envoy leaves Washington, 
 327; Slidell s mission, 327, 328; 
 governments of Herrera and Pa- 
 redes, 328 ; gathering of forces at 
 Matamoras, 328 ; position of Mex 
 ico with reference to Texan boun 
 dary, 328 ; war with United States, 
 329-334 ; title between Nueces and 
 Rio Grande, 330, 331 ; persistence 
 of the Government, 332; Santa 
 Anna again in control, 332 ; Polk s 
 message of August 6, 1846, 334, 
 335 ; McKay s bill and the Wihnot 
 proviso, 335-337 ; Polk s message 
 of December, 1846, 335 ; the First 
 embassy, 3o7 ; rejection of pro 
 posals, 337; the Mexican offer, 
 337 ; war resumed, 337, 338 ; treaty 
 of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 338 ; result 
 of treaty with, 339 ; proposal as to 
 Mexican acquisitions, 341, 342, 349, 
 350 ; views of Berrien and Webster 
 as to slavery in Mexican acquisi 
 tions, 351, 352; Foote s bill, 354; 
 problem of Texan boundary, 354, 
 355 ; Clay s plan, 350 ; opposition , 
 of Southerners, 356 ; attitude of 
 abolitionists, 357 ; relation of 
 Mexican acquisition to slavery,408 I 
 
 Mexico, City of, captured, 338 
 
 Mexico, Gulf of, 20, 21, 297, 307, 337, 
 363 
 
 Michigan, Commonwealth of, 290 ; 
 electoral vote in 1844, 320 ; vote on 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill, 399 ; early 
 Repu blican party in, 41 8 
 
 Mississippi, Commonwealth of, cre 
 ated with slavery, (>2, 63 ; legislat 
 ure calls Nashville convention, 
 375 ; convention in, 375 ; vote on 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill, 399 
 
 Mississippi River, the, 21, 22, 38, 66, 
 78, 290, 381 
 
 Missouri, Commonwealth of, 33 ; cre 
 ation, 61-107; significance of the 
 circumstance, 65 ; petition for 
 erection, 66 ; memorial for erec 
 tion, 66 ; the Tallmadge amend 
 ment, 66-73 ; bill for erection 
 passed by House, 73 ; bill passes 
 Senate without Tallmadge amend 
 ment, 74 ; disagreement, 74 ; ques 
 tion again presented, 74, 75 ; Tay 
 lor s plan, 75, 76, 78 ; Storrs s plan, 
 78 ; Taylor s motion and argument 
 on it, 78 ct seq. ; Holmes s speech, 
 80, 81 ; McLane s speech, 81, 82; 
 memorial for admission referred, 
 82 ; connection with Maine bill, 
 82, 83, 87 ; argument of Pinkney, 
 84-86 ; motion of Thomas, 84, 87, 
 88 ; amended bill carried in Son- 
 ate, 88 ; House disagrees, 88 ; 
 agreement of conference commit 
 tee, 88, 89 ; report accepted, 89 ; 
 bill signed by President, 89 ; con 
 sideration of the results, 90-95 ; 
 proposed constitution before Con 
 gress, 95; the Lowndes bill, 95, 
 96 ; opposition of Sergeant, 96, 97 ; 
 consideration of the situation, 97, 
 98, 99; defeat of Lowndes bill, 
 99 ; Smith bill passes Senate, 99 ; 
 tabled by House, 99; efforts of 
 Eustis, 100 ; Clay s plan, 100 ; re 
 port of Committee of Thirteen, 
 
 100, 101 ; plan defeated, 101 ; oppo 
 sition of Tomlinson, 10] ; confer 
 ence committee and its report, 
 
 101, 102; report attached, 102; 
 resolution passed, 102, 103 ; effects 
 of the compromise, 103-107; de 
 cision brings slavery into national 
 politics, 108 ; attitude toward tar 
 iff of 1824, 115; attitude toward 
 tariff bill of 1837, 158; relation to 
 
526 
 
 INDEX 
 
 tariff of 1833, 188 ; admitted as 
 Commonwealth, 289 ; line of com 
 promise in Burt s amendment, 341, 
 and in Douglas s amendment, 347 ; 
 the compromise in connection 
 with the Oregon bill, 348 ; views 
 as to slavery policy, 378 ; bill to 
 organize territory west of, 381 ; 
 Atchison s objection to such or 
 ganization, 382 ; Dixon and the 
 repeal of the Compromise, 387, 
 388 ; vote on Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill, 399 ; misrepresentations as to 
 Emigrant Aid Company, 411 ; the 
 u border ruffians," 411, 412; atti 
 tude to slavery in Kansas, 412; 
 influence of Atchison, 412, 4.13; 
 "Platte County Self - defensive 
 Association," 414, 415; claimants 
 to site of Lawrence, Kansas, 415, 
 416; interference in election oil 
 Whitfield in Kansas, 416, 417 ;j 
 relation of Missouri Compromise j 
 and Republican party, 417, 418; 1 
 effect on Republican party of Mis- ; 
 Bourian interference in Kansas, 
 418 ; organization in "Blue 
 Lodges," 419; interference in 
 Kansas Territorial election, 419, 
 420 ; Kansas legislature at Shaw- ! 
 nee Mission, 423 ; Robinson s dec- j 
 laration as to slavery in, 424 ; i 
 Missourians summoned by Sheriff 
 Jones, 429 ; Missourians on the 
 Wakarusa, 429 ; attitude of Shan- I 
 non toward Missourians, 430 ; in- j 
 fluenced by Atchison to withdraw, j 
 430, 431 ; claims of intended in- | 
 vasion, 431, 432 ; preparation for 
 further invasion, 435, 436 ; volun 
 teers under Pate, 4-41 ; dispersal 
 of volunteers under WhitSeld in 
 Kansas, 441 , 442 ; import of Wood- 
 son s accession to power, 444 ; 
 Missourians on Bull Creek and at 
 Ossawattomie, 445 : new invasion 
 of Kansas, 446 ; forced to retire 
 by United States troops, 446, 447 ; 
 as to D.red Scott case, 450-452; 
 decision of Supreme Court of Mis- j 
 souri, 451 ; the Missnuriaiis the 
 beginners of wrong, 473 
 
 Missouri, Territory of, organized, 56 ; 
 slavery in, 56, 65 
 
 Missouri River, the, 66, 414 
 
 Mitchell, David B., 28, 29 
 
 Mobile, cession of river and por+ of, 21 
 
 Mohawk and Hudson railroad, begun, 
 169 
 
 Molino del Rey, battle of, 338 
 
 Monroe, James, relation to Jackson, 
 31, 34, 35 ; as to relation between 
 protection and slavery, 110; mes 
 sages of 1821 and 1822, 110 ; mes 
 sage of 1823, 111; veto of 1823, 
 120 ; message on internal improve 
 ments, 120, 121, 156 ; message of 
 December, 1823, 125-128; electoral 
 vote of 1820, 129; interpretation 
 of message of 1823 by Spanish- 
 Americans, 146, 147, 149; cabinet 
 intrigue against Jackson, 220 
 
 "Monroe Doctrine," the, 125-128, 
 146 
 
 Monterey, captured by Taylor, 331, 
 332 ; Doniphan sent to, 332 
 
 Monterey, California, convention at, 
 343 
 
 Moors, 45 
 
 Moriit, Henry M., agent to Texas, 
 296 ; report to Forsyth, 296, 297 
 
 Murphy, W. S., letter from Upshur, 
 304 ; assurance to Texas of pro 
 tection, 306 ; promise to Houston 
 disavowed, 307 
 
 NAPOLEON. See Bonaparte 
 
 Napoleonic decrees, 54 
 
 Nashville convention, 375 
 
 National Assembly of France, 54 
 
 National Era, the, protest against 
 Kansas- Nebraska bill, 389; effect 
 of the address, 400 
 
 National Intelligencer, letter of Clay, 
 319, 320 
 
 National Republican party, the 
 origin, 104 ; circumstance of ap 
 pearance, 146; party nomenclature, 
 162, 163 ; insists on taking the 
 Bank as a campaign issue, 200, 
 201 ; nominates Clay for presidency, 
 201 ; feeling toward Jackson, 202; 
 its defeat in 1832, 202; basis of 
 party action, 278, 279 ; known as 
 Whig party, 281, 282. See Whig 
 Party 
 
 Navy of the United States, legisla 
 tion upon, 13, 14 
 
 Nebraska, Territory of, bill for or 
 ganization passed by House, 381 ; 
 the Howe-Giddings colloquy, 381, 
 382 ; speech of Atchison, 382 ; bill 
 introduced by Dodge, 382; bill 
 and report by Douglas, 382, 383 ; 
 
INDEX 
 
 527 
 
 consideration of the report and its 
 author, 383-387 ; dictum of the 
 committee, 387 ; Dixon s proposal, 
 387 ; Seward and Dixon, 387, 388 ; 
 new bill presented by Douglas, 
 389 ; abolition protest in National 
 JEVa, 389; reply of Douglas, 390; 
 amendment of Chase, 391 ; posi 
 tion of Wade, 391 ; amendment of 
 Douglas, 392 ; views of Everett, 
 392. 393 ; Houston s speech, 393 ; 
 position of Bell and committee, 
 393; vote on amendment, 393 ; 
 Chase s amendment, 394, 395 ; 
 contention of Badger and Pratt, 
 394 ; declaration of Walker and 
 Badger s amendment, 395; Chase s 
 third amendment, 395, 396 ; Doug 
 las s amendment, 395, 39b ; Chase s 
 fourth amendment, 396 ; speech of 
 Bell against bill, 396, 397 ; speech 
 of Houston, 397 ; final argument 
 of Douglas, 397, 398 ; vote in Sen 
 ate on bill, 398 ; analysis of vote, 
 398, 399 ; rise of popular opposi 
 tion, 399, 400; the Richardson 
 bill, 400 ; Senate bill in House, 
 400 ; position of Cushing, Davis, 
 and Pierce, 401-403 ; actions in 
 House, 403 ; management of bill 
 by Stephens, 404 ; bill signed by 
 President, 404 ; analysis of vote, 
 404, 405 ; meaning of the vote, 405. 
 406 ; relation of Act to slavery, 
 407, 408 ; considered as of North, 
 412 ; immigrants to Kansas 
 through, 445 ; the Act of 1854 the 
 beginning of error, 473 
 
 Negro Fort, 28, 29 
 
 Negro labor, adapted to the South, 42 
 
 Negro slavery. See Slavery 
 
 Nelson, Samuel, position on Dred 
 Scott case, 452 
 
 Nelson, John, Secretary of State, 
 disavows Murphy s promise to 
 Houston, 307 ; relation to Texas j 
 question, 307 
 
 New England, 7, 59 ; opposed to in- J 
 ternal improvements bill of 1817, j 
 117 ; attitude to improvements ! 
 bill of 1822, 119 ; attitude upon 
 Maysville road bill, 168 ; votes as 
 to Pinckney resolution, 263 
 
 New England Anti-Slavery Society, 
 formed, 251 
 
 New Hampshire, Commonwealth of, 
 legislation on slavery, 48 ; attitude 
 
 toward tariff of 1824, 115 ; in elec 
 tion of 1 824, 142 ; vote on Kansas- 
 Nebraska bill, 399 
 
 New Jersey, Commonwealth of, legis 
 lation on slavery, 48 ; attitude on 
 Maysville road bill, 168 ; legisla 
 tive memorial on finality resolu 
 tions, 375 ; vote on Kansas-Nebras 
 ka bill, 399 
 
 New Mexico, Kearny ordered to oc 
 cupy, 331 ; importance of Buena 
 Vista, 333 ; about to be trans 
 ferred, 334 ; acquisition in view, 
 337 ; in negotiations, 337 ; treaty 
 of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 338; Folk s 
 message of July 6, 1848, 345, 346 ; 
 motions of Bright and Clayton, 
 346; the Clayton bill, 346, 347; 
 Folk s message of December, 1848, 
 348 ; Douglas s bill, 349 ; Smith s 
 bill, 349; Berrien s report, 349, 
 350; new bill by Douglas, 350; 
 motion of Walker, 350, 351 ; failure 
 of Congress to act, 352 ; Taylor s 
 message of December 4, 1849, 354 ; 
 Foote s bill, 354, as to question of 
 Texan frontier, 355, Clay s plan, 
 355, 356; Webster s Seventh of 
 March Speech, 359 ; Bell s proposi 
 tions, 359, 360 ; report from com 
 mittee on Territories, 360 ; Com 
 mittee of Thirteen, 360 ; Clay s re 
 port, 360, 361 ; encroachments of 
 Bell. 362. 363 ; passage of bill for 
 territorial organization, 363, 364 ; 
 as to the Douglas report on Ne 
 braska, 384 ; Chase on Act of 1850, 
 391 
 
 New York, Commonwealth of, legis 
 lation on slavery, 48; attitude to 
 internal improvements bill of 1817, 
 118; attitude to internal improve 
 ments bill of 1822, 119 ; in election 
 of 1824, 137; in election of 1828, 
 164 ; attitude on Maysville road 
 bill, 168; electoral vote in 1844, 
 320 ; vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, 
 399 
 
 New York Central Railroad, system 
 begun, 169 
 
 New York City, attitude to tariff 
 bill of 1823, 111 ; and to that of 
 1824, 114; attitude to tariff of 
 1824, 115 ; attitude toward tariff- 
 bill of 1827, 158; postmaster re 
 fuses to receive abolitionist docu 
 ments, 271 ; the instructions from 
 
528 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Kendall, 271, 273; arrest of Ham 
 let, 367 ; meetings on fugitive slave 
 law, 367 ; publication of protest 
 against Kansas-Nebraska Act, 389 
 
 New York Courier and Enquirer, 
 applies name to Whig Party, 282 
 
 Nicholls, Edward, 25, 26, 27. 28 
 
 Nicholls Fort, 27, 28 
 
 Nicholson, A. O. P., letter from 
 Cass, 345 
 
 Niles, John Milton, presents memo 
 rial on Texas, 2<J5 
 
 Nootka Convention, 311 
 
 North Carolina, Commonwealth of, 
 conditional cession of western 
 lands, 50, 56 ; attitude to in- j 
 ternal improvements bill of 1817, j 
 117, 118 ; attitude to internal 
 improvements bill of 1822, 119; 
 stock held in United States Bank, 
 203; electoral vote in 1844, 320; 
 vacancy in Senate delegation, 398 ; 
 vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, 399 
 
 Northwest, the, attitude to internal 
 improvements bill of ]817, 118; 
 attitude to internal improvements 
 bill of 1822, 119 
 
 Nueces, River, 300, 316, 329, 330, 337, 
 361 
 
 Nullification, origin, 169; economic 
 basis, 175, 176, 177; attitude of 
 South Carolina, 176; threatened 
 by McDuffie, 177 ; Calhoun s pub 
 lications, 179, and argument, 180, 
 181 ; parties in South Carolina, 
 181, 182; nullification or rebellion, 
 183, 184; Calhoun s theory, 189; 
 in Georgia and South Carolina, 
 210; the South Carolina conven 
 tion, 221 ; the Ordinance of Nulli 
 fication, 222, 223 ; Ordinance sent 
 to the legislature, 224; Hayne s 
 attitude, 224 ; acts for enforcement 
 of Ordinance, 224-226 ; views on 
 the position of South Carolina, 
 226-228 ; South Carolina in Jack- 
 eon s message of 1832, 228 ; Jack 
 son s proclamation of December 10, 
 1832,228-230; Jackson s message 
 of January, 1833, 232; execution 
 of Ordinance postponed, 23. ; char 
 acter of nullification defined by 
 Webster, 237 ; Ordinance of Nulli 
 fication withdrawn, 238 ; motive of 
 leaders in affairs of nullification, 
 23S ; nullification as represented 
 by Amos Kendall, 272 
 
 | OBREGON, PABLO, negotiations as to 
 
 Panama Congress, 147, 148, 149 
 I Ohio, Commonwealth of, slavery for 
 bidden. 62. 63 ; condition on erec 
 tion, 68, 69, 71 ; appropriation of 
 enabling act, 116; tax on Bank of 
 United States, 194; the result, 
 195 ; memorial on Texas, 296 ; vote 
 on Kansas-Nebraska bill, 399 
 Ohio River, the, 48, (52, 63, 167 
 Oliver, Mordecai, on committee for 
 Kansas investigation, 433 ; inves 
 tigates Pottawattomie massacre, 
 440 
 
 Onis, Luis de, 37, 38 
 Orders in Council, British, 54 
 Ordinance of 1787, passed, 48 ; au 
 thority of the Congress, 49 ; restric 
 tion on slavery, 69 ; in Douglas s 
 bill, 341 ; in the Smith bills, 349 
 Oregon, its "re-occupation" in the 
 Democratic platform, 309; points 
 in the question, 310 ; Oregon of 
 the last century, 311 ; Spanish and 
 English claims. 311; the JSootka 
 Convention, 311, 312; effect of 
 war between Spain and Great 
 Britain, 312 ; ceded to France and 
 to United States, 312; work of 
 Lewis and Clark, 312 ; treaty of 
 Utrecht, 312 ; Astoria founded, 
 312, 313 ; joint occupation agree 
 ment, 313 ; agreement of 1S:J8, 
 314; effect of Whitman s work, 
 316 ; in platform of 1844, 318 ; ef 
 fect of election of 1844, 320 ; Ty 
 ler s message of 1844, 321 ; Folk s 
 first message, 324 ; his recommen 
 dations, 324 ; the question before 
 Congress, 324 ; the action of Con 
 gress, 324, 325; treaty of June, 
 1846,326; bill reported by, 340, 
 341 ; Thompson s amendment, 
 341 ; the Douglas bill, 341 ; defeat 
 of Burt s amendment, 341 ; Wick s 
 proposal, 341, 342; speech by 
 Rhett, 342, 343 ; end of the second 
 bill, 343 ; new bill by Douglas, 
 343 ; special message of Polk, 344; 
 Hall s amendment, 344 ; views of 
 Calhoun and Davis, 344 ; Davis 
 moves amendment, 344 ; effect of 
 Davis and Hale on action of 
 Senate, 345 ; motions of Bright 
 and Clayton, 346 ; the Clayton 
 bill, 346, 347 ; the final settlement, 
 347 ; bill approved, 348 
 
INDEX 
 
 529 
 
 Orleans, Territory of, organized, 55 ; 
 slavery in, 55 ; erected into Com 
 monwealth, 56 
 
 Osceola, begins hostilities, 290 ; de 
 feated, 290 
 
 Ossawattomie, Kansas, destroyed by 
 Missourians, 445 ; effect of the at 
 tack, 445 
 
 Ostend, the manifesto from, 408 
 
 Otis, Harrison Gray, voting, 74 ; po 
 sition on Maine-Missouri bill, 88 
 
 Oxford University, Professor Senior 
 of, 186 
 
 PACIFIC OCEAN, claims in the north 
 of various nations, 123. 311, 324, 
 325, 326, 341, 358, 375, 379, 381 
 
 Palo Alto, battle of, 330 
 
 Panama Congress, early negotia 
 tions, 147, 148, 149; commission 
 ers of United States named, 149, 
 150 ; popular views of the move 
 ment, 150; analysis of vote in Sen 
 ate, 150, 151 ; relation of vote to 
 slavery, 151 ; nature of opposition, 
 153 ; adjournment of the congress, 
 
 153, 154 ; discussion of the results, 
 
 154, 155 ; effect of question on Re 
 publican party, 155 
 
 Paredes y Arrillago, Mariano, leader 
 of military party, 328 ; overthrows 
 Herrera, 328; refuses to receive 
 Slidell, 328 
 
 Paris, treaty of. See Treaty 
 
 Parker, Severn E., on Conference 
 Committee, 88 
 
 Parker, William, opposition to fugi 
 tive slave law, 373 
 
 Parkers, the, in Crafts case, 368 
 
 Parma, Duke of, 23 
 
 Parrot, John T., voting, 73 
 
 Partus sequitur ventrem, 43, 44, 45 
 
 Pate, H. C., captured at Black Jack 
 by Brown, 441 ; rescued by Sum- 
 ner, 442 
 
 Patton, John M., speaks in House, 
 259 ; conclusion from his position, 
 259 
 
 Pawnee, Kansas, legislature meets at, 
 422 
 
 Pearce, James Alfred, introduces 
 bill on Texan boundary, 363 ; not 
 voting on Kansas-Nebraska bill, 
 398, 399 
 
 Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of, 3 ; 
 provision for gradual emancipa 
 tion, 48 ; 62, 63 ; attitude to tariff 
 
 bill of 1823, 111 ; relation to Cum 
 berland Road, 116 ; attitude to in 
 ternal improvements bill of 1817, 
 118 ; attitude to internal improve 
 ments bill of 1822, 119; conven 
 tions nominate Jackson for presi 
 dency, 136 ; in election of 1824, 137, 
 138, 139; attitude to ward tariff bill 
 of 1827, 158 ; in election of 1828, 
 162, 164; attitude on Maysville 
 road bill, 168; petitions for aboli 
 tion, 252, 253 ; memorial on Texas, 
 296 ; vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, 
 399 
 
 Pennsylvania railroad, system be 
 gun, 169 
 
 Pensacola, 24, 25, 32 
 Perdido River, the, 21, 22, 23, 25 
 Perote, captured by Scott, 333 
 Peru, treaty of 1823 with Columbia, 
 
 147 
 
 Petition, Right of, early action on 
 abolition petitions, 253 ; the 
 Chinn-Dickson controversy, 254 ; 
 Slade s motion, 254 ; Polk s rul 
 ing, 255 ; Jackson s petition and 
 Hammond s motion, 255 ; relation 
 of the Constitution to the right of 
 petition, 255, 256 ; customary pro 
 cedure before 1834, 256; wrangle 
 over Hammond s two motions, 
 256 ; the final arrangement, 256 ; 
 Adams s appeal for right of peti 
 tion, 257 ; reply by Jones, 257 ; 
 Granger s and Ingersoll s claim as 
 to District of Columbia, 257 ; de 
 mand of Wise, 257, 258 ; Slade s 
 declaration of war on slavery, 258 ; 
 Garland s argument, 258 ; disposal 
 of the question, 258 ; revived by 
 Adams, 258, 259 ; ruling of Speak 
 er, 259 ; Southern members take 
 advanced ground, 259, 260 ; effort 
 of Adams at peace, 260 ; deci 
 sion on the fifty-fourth rule, 260 ; 
 the contest precipitated, 260; 
 Pinckney resolutions quoted, 261 ; 
 the new rule of procedure, 261, 
 262; affair of February 6, 1837, 
 262 ; rule as to petition by slaves, 
 quoted, 262 ; further attempt at 
 agitation by Slade, 262 ; increase 
 of petitions, 263 ; the standing rule 
 of 1840, quoted, 263 ; effect of this 
 step, 263, 264; disposal of the 
 question by the Senate, 264, 265 ; 
 the Vermont petition, 265-269; 
 
530 
 
 INDEX 
 
 position of Calhoun, 279 ; disposal 
 by Swift s motion, 270 ; signifi 
 cance of the contest, 274-277 ; re 
 sult of the struggle, 296 
 
 Pettigru, James L., relation to nul 
 lification, 181 
 
 Phelps, Samuel Shethar, on Com 
 mittee of Thirteen, 360 
 
 Philadelphia, Pa. , constitutional 
 convention at, 49 
 
 Phillips, Wendell, opposes fugitive 
 slave law, 373 
 
 Philosophy of the eighteenth cen 
 tury, 47 
 
 Philosophy of 1776, 52 
 
 Pickering, Timothy, committee ser 
 vice, 3 
 
 Pierce, Franklin, nominated for pres 
 idency, 376 ; elected, 377 ; relation 
 to Kansas-Nebraska bill, 401, 403 ; 
 views of historians stated and con 
 sidered, 401, 402 ; signs Kansas- 
 Nebraska bill, 404 ; views on emi 
 gration to Territories, 410; appoints 
 Shannon Governor of Kansas Ter 
 ritory, 427; Shannon s report to, 
 431; appeal from "Free-state" 
 party in Kansas, 431 ; proclama 
 tion as to Kansas, 432 ; disap 
 proves Col. Sumner s course, 443 ; 
 takes active steps as to Kansas, 
 446 
 
 Pinckney, Henry Laurens, reports 
 resolution on control of slavery, 
 261 ; resolution re-enacted, 262 
 
 Pinkney, William, argument on 
 powers of Congress, 84-86 ; argu 
 ment restated, 86, 87 ; effect of 
 his argument, 87 ; on conference 
 committee, 88 
 
 " Platte County Self -defensive Asso 
 ciation," formed, 414, 415 
 
 Pleasants, James, committee service, 
 3 
 
 Poinsett, Joel Roberts, effort with 
 reference to "Monroe Doctrine," 
 128 
 
 Point Isabel, base of supplies, 329 
 
 Polignac, Jules Aiiguste Armand 
 Marie de, declaration of Canning, 
 
 Political philosophy, French, 129, 
 139, 193 
 
 Polk, James Knox, ruling as Speaker, 
 255 ; quoted, 256 ; confused rul 
 ings, 256 ; further ruling on pro 
 cedure as to petitions, 259 ; con 
 
 clusion from his position, 259; 
 decision on fifty -fourth rule, 260 ; 
 nominated for presidency, 309 ; 
 attitude of abolitionists, 320; 
 elected President, 320 ; first annual 
 message, 324 ; his recommen 
 dations, 324 ; the question before 
 Congress, 825; the action of Con 
 gress, 325, 326; Polk s dealings 
 with the Senate, 326; treaty of 
 June, 1846, 326; overtures to 
 Mexico, 327; the Slidell mission, 
 327, 328 ; duty as to Texan boun 
 dary, 329 ; orders to General Tay 
 lor, 329 ; message on Mexican War, 
 330 ; authorized to call for volun 
 teers, 33 L ; orders to Kearny, 
 Sloat, Stockton, and Taylor, 331 ; 
 message of August 6, 1846, 334 ; 
 McKay s bill, 335; Wil mot s amend 
 ment, 335 ; Polk s message of De 
 cember, 1846, 335; empowered tac 
 itly to secure California and New 
 Mexico, 337 ; the treaty offered 
 through Trist, 337; rejected by 
 Mexico, 337; recalls Trist, 338; 
 message to Congress, 338 ; treaty 
 of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 338 ; sends 
 treaty to Senate, 339 ; special mes 
 sage on Oregon, 344 ; message on 
 California and New Mexico, 345, 
 346 ; approves Oregon bill, 348 ; 
 message on California and New 
 Mexico, 348 ; effect of message on 
 California, 352, 353 
 Pomeroy, S. C., at Lawrence, 415 
 Pontchartrain, Lake, 21, 23 
 Porto Rico, in Spanish-American 
 
 troubles, 152, 153, 154 
 Portsmouth, New Hampshire, 191 
 Portugal, Clay s attitude to its col 
 onies, 135 
 
 Pottawattomie Creek, massacre on, 
 440 ; the massacre characterized, 
 441 ; and denounced by the set 
 tlers, 441 ; effect of massacre, 442 ; 
 end of fighting occasioned by mas 
 sacre, 447 
 
 Potter, James, owner of Sims, 372 
 Pratt, Thomas George, contention 
 as to amendment of Chase s 
 amendment, 394, 3U5 
 Prigg vs. Pennsylvania [16 Peters, 
 
 539], 363 
 
 Protection, as regarded between 1815 
 and 1820, 109; as voiced by the 
 House in 1822, 110; Monroe s 
 
INDEX 
 
 531 
 
 messages of 1821 and 1823, 110 ; 
 bill of 1823, 111 ; Monroe s mes 
 sage of 1823, 111; bill of 1824, 
 112. Sec Tariff 
 Prussia, King of, as arbiter for 
 
 claims commission, 302 
 Prussia, in Holy Alliance, 123 
 Puebla, captured by Scott, 333 
 
 QUAKERS, petitions for abolition of 
 slavery, 252, 253 
 
 Quincy, Edmund, opposition to fu 
 gitive slave law, 373 
 
 RAILROADS, begun in the United 
 States, 169; relation to national 
 improvements, 169, 170 
 
 Randolph, John, 11 ; opposition to 
 tar iff of 1810, 12 
 
 Rantoul, Robert, Jr., in Sims case, 
 372 
 
 Red River, the, 33 
 
 Reeder, Andrew H., arrives at Fort 
 Leaven worth, 416 ; character and 
 work, 416; action upon contested 
 election cases, 420; criticism by 
 Robinson, 420, 421 ; disregard of 
 his certificates of election, 421, 
 422; attitude of anti-slavery 
 party, 421 ; difficulties in treat 
 ment proposed by Robinson, 422 ; 
 calls legislature to meet at Paw 
 nee, 422 ; breaks with legislature 
 over question of adjournment to 
 Shawnee Mission, 423 ; letter 
 from Coirway, 424; removed from 
 governorship of Kansas Territory, 
 425 ; elected Congressional dele 
 gate, 425 ; elected Senator by 
 Free-state party, 426 ; contest 
 for seat in House of Representa 
 tives, 432, 433 ; indictment against, 
 435 ; avoids arrest, 435 ; Donald 
 son s reference to his resistance, 
 436 
 
 Representatives, House of. See 
 House of Representatives 
 
 [Jeffersonian] Republican Party, its 
 nationalization, 1-18; 2; its prin 
 ciples in 1801 and 1816, 3 ; position 
 on national bank, 4, 5 ; early prin 
 ciples, 17; division, 38, 103, 104, 
 115 ; absorption of Federal party, 
 129; effect of War of 1812, 130; 
 nature of the struggle of 1824, 130 ; 
 division of the party, 145 et scq. ; 
 effect of Panama Congress, 155 ; ef 
 
 fect of tariff on division of party, 
 157; power of Congress in its re 
 gime, 207 ; principles on which it 
 gained power, 239 ; effect of War of 
 1812, 239 
 
 Republican Party, brought to life, 
 388 ; creed in the National Era 
 address, 390 ; effect of troubles in 
 Kansas, 417 ; the union of the 
 various elements, 417, 418 ; effect 
 of interference of Missourians 
 in Kansas, 418; as to possible ef 
 fect of events in Kansas, 446 ; 
 Kansas assured to the party, 471 
 I Resaca de la Palma, battle of, 330 
 ; Revenue. See Tariff 
 
 Revolution of 1830, relation to aboli 
 tion, 244 
 
 Revolution, the American, slave 
 laws before, 46 ; effect upon sla 
 very, 47, 80 
 
 Revolution, the French, 47 
 
 Rhea, John, 31 
 
 Rhett, Robert Barnwell, speech on 
 control of Territories, 342, 343, 
 345 ; views adopted by Calhoun 
 and Davis, 344 ; views on fugitive 
 slave law, 367 ; contention as to fu- 
 
 fitive slave law, 371 ; in debate on 
 "cote s resolutions, 374 
 Rhode Island, Commonwealth of, 
 13 ; legislation on slavery, 48 ; 
 vote on Kansas-Nebraska bill, 399 
 I Richardson, William A., reports bill 
 on Kansas and Nebraska, 400 ; mo 
 tion in House, 403 ; yields man 
 agement of Kansas-Nebraska bill 
 to Stephens, 4U4 
 
 Riley, Bennett, calls California con 
 vention, 353 
 Rio del Norte River, 36 
 Rio Grande River, 297, 300, 305- 
 Mexican troops on, 328 ; claimed 
 by Texas a boundary, 328 ; scene 
 of conflict, 329, 330, 331, 332 ; up 
 per valley occupied by Doniphan, 
 332, 337, 338, 354, 361, 363 
 Rio Grande del Norte River, 290, 297 
 Rives, William Cabell, view of sla 
 very, 265-267 
 
 Roberts, Jonathan, motion on Maine- 
 Missouri bill. 82 ; position as to 
 the bill, 83 ; moves to amend, 83 
 I Robertson, George, committee ser 
 vice, 3 
 
 j Robinson, Charles, conference with 
 i leaders of Emigrant Aid Company, 
 
532 
 
 INDEX 
 
 413 ; expedition to Missouri and 
 Kansas, 413, 414 ; the founding of 
 Lawrence, 415 ; criticism of Reed- 
 er s action on contested election 
 cases, 420, 421 ; plan of procedure 
 for anti-slavery party in Kansas, 
 421, 422 ; sends for Sharpe s rifles, 
 423 ; checks factions by the Law 
 rence speech, 423, 424 ; elected 
 Governor of Kansas, 425 ; message 
 to legislature, 427 ; negotiations j 
 with Shannon, 430 ; at Franklin, 
 430 ; communication with Sumner 
 as to assault on Jones, 434 ; indict 
 ment against, 435 ; opinion as to 
 purpose of Pottawattomie massa 
 cre, 441 ; his release ordered, 446 ; 
 plan to capture Territorial govern 
 ment, 463 ; conference with Wil 
 son, 463 ; difficulty of the situa 
 tion, 464 ; his work characterized, 
 471, 472 ; his work quoted, 473 
 
 Rocky Mountains, 312, 313, 321, 325, 
 326, 381 
 
 Rush, Benjamin, proposal of Can 
 ning, 125 
 
 Russia, in the North Pacific, 123; 
 edict as to northwest lands, 123 ; 
 in Holy Alliance, 123, 124; 
 Adams s statement to Tuyl, 124, 
 125 ; the Czar in negotiation with 
 Clay, 152, 153 
 
 Russian American Company claims 
 in North Pacific, 123 
 
 SABINE RIVER, the, 33, 36, 290 
 
 St. Augustine, 25 
 
 St. Ildefonso, treaty of, 23, 23, 24, 
 54, 312 
 
 St. Louis, 65 ; Branscomb and Rob 
 inson at, 413, 414 
 
 St. Mark s, 25, 32 
 
 St. Mary s River, the, 22, 30 
 
 Salazar, Jose Maria, negotiations as 
 to Panama Congress, 147, 148, 149 ; 
 cites Haytian affairs, 151 
 
 Salt Creek Valley, pro-slavery con 
 vention, 414 
 
 San Antonio, battle of, 334 
 
 Sandf ord, John F. A. , owner of Dred 
 Scott, 451 ; defendant in federal 
 courts, 451 et seq. 
 
 San Diego. Cal. , occupied by Kear- 
 ny, 332 
 
 San Jacinto, battle of, 294, 295 
 
 San Jacinto River, 294 
 
 Santa Anna, Antonio Lopez de, es 
 
 tablishes presidential government 
 in Mexico, 292 ; opposition in 
 Coahuila-Texas, 292 ; war of Texan 
 independence, 293, 294 ; a prison 
 er, 297 ; in power again, .;32 ; his 
 plan of action, 3o2 ; battle of 
 Buena Vista, 332, 333; battle of 
 Cerro Gordo, 333 ; battles of Con- 
 treras, San Antonio and Cheru- 
 busco, 334 
 
 Savannah, Ga., 373 
 
 Scott, Dred, his case as referred to 
 in Buchanan s inaugural address, 
 447, 448 ; origin of the case, 419, 
 450 ; facts oE the case, 450, 451 ; 
 decision of Missouri Supreme 
 Court, 451 ; sold to Sandf ord, 451 ; 
 judgment in Circuit Court, 451 ; 
 case before Supreme Court, 451 ; 
 opinion of Justice Nelson, 452 ; 
 opinion of Justice Catron, 453 ; 
 opinion of Chief Justice Taney, 
 453, 454 ; opinion of Justice Curtis, 
 454 ; criticism of the decision, 455 ; 
 criticism of Taney s argument, 455, 
 456 ; relation of inaugural and de 
 cision, 456, 457; opinion of Jus 
 tice Curtis, 457, 458 ; distribution 
 of the opinions, 458 ; effect of the 
 decision, 458, 459 ; eifect of the 
 dictum, 460 
 
 Scott, John, secures reference of 
 Missouri memorials, 74 
 
 Scott, Martin, in Florida, 31 
 
 Scott, Winfield, ordered to Charles 
 ton, 330 ; his instructions, 330, 
 3ol ; ordered against Vera Cruz, 
 332 ; captures Vera Cruz, 333 ; bat 
 tle of Cerro Gordo, 333 ; captures 
 Jalapa, Perote, Puebla, 333 ; effect 
 of his successes, 337 ; Trist at his 
 head-quarters, 337 ; battles of Mo- 
 lino del Rey and Chapultepec, 338 ; 
 takes Mexico, 338 ; nominated for 
 presidency, 376 ; defeated, 377 
 
 Sedgwick, Major, accompanies Shan 
 non to Lawrence, 444 
 
 Seminole War, 28, 29, 33; results, 
 38 ; cabinet intrigue on conduct of 
 war, 220 
 
 Seminoles, 32 ; treaty of 1832, 290 ; 
 repudiate treaty and are expelled, 
 290 
 
 Senate of the United States, passage 
 of Bank bill, 8; passage of tariff 
 bill, 12; pay of members, 16; 
 passage of internal improvements 
 
IXDEX 
 
 533 
 
 bill, 16 ; action on censure of Jack 
 son, 06 ; ratifies treaty oi 1819, 30, 
 38 ; effect of method of represen 
 tation in. 03; Missouri bill referred, 
 73 ; vote on Tallmadgc amend 
 ment, 74 ; disagreement with 
 House, 74 ; Clay s suggestion of 
 effect, 75 ; Maine and Missouri 
 bills in, 82, 83; the Thomas amend 
 ment, 84 ; Pinkney s speecn, 84- 
 87 ; Missouri - Maine bill, and 
 Thomas amendment, 87, 88 ; the 
 conference committee, b8, 89 ; sig 
 nificance of the compromise, 90-95 ; 
 Missouri constitution considered, 
 95, 90 ; passage of Smith bill on 
 Missouri, 99; bill defeated in 
 House, 101 ; work of second con 
 ference committee, 101-103 ; plan 
 to alter judicial system and limit 
 number of Representatives, 109; 
 conference committee on tariff, 
 114, 115; recommendation of Cum 
 berland road, 1 16 ; vote on inter 
 nal improvements bill of 1822, 118, 
 119; Clinton a member of, 132; 
 Crawford a member of, 133; Clay 
 a member of, 134 ; Jackson a mem 
 ber of, 13G ; opposition to Clay s 
 appointment, 144; action on Pan 
 ama mission, 149, 150; Van Buren s 
 statement on action of, 153; Van 
 Buren leader of opposition in, 155 ; 
 action on tariff bill, 159, 100; pas 
 sage of tariff bill, 162 ; South Car 
 olina memorial in, 171 ; Clay s 
 proposal as to tariff, 180 ; speeches 
 of Clay and Hayne, 187 ; vote on 
 House tariff bill, 188; conference 
 committee, 188; Ben tori s attack 
 on Bank, 196 ; report on the Bank, 
 198 ; Ben ton s resolution on the 
 Bank, 199, 200; relation of mem 
 bers to constituencies, 200 ; me 
 morial for recharter of Bank, 201 ; 
 Benton s attack on Bank, 201 ; bill 
 for rccharter passed, 201, 202 ; 
 Jackson on duty of members, 200 ; 
 ratifies Indian Springs convention, 
 212 ; Calhoun takes Hayne s seat 
 in, 224 ; Calhoun s statement in, 
 232,233; "Force Bill" reported, 
 233, 234 ; Clay s proposition in, 
 235, 230 ; support of Oalhoun, 230 ; 
 passage of "Force Bill" and of 
 tariff bill, 237 ; abolition petitions 
 ref erred v 253 ; contest on right of 
 
 petition, 264, 265; Calhoun s 
 efforts as to policy of, 268 ; inci 
 dent of the Vermont memorial, 269, 
 270 ; reference of President s mes 
 sage, 273 ; Connecticut memorial 
 on Texas, 295; Clay resolutions 
 adopted, 295; Calhouu s state 
 ment, 295, 290 ; the Walker reso 
 lution on Texas. 298, 299 ; action 
 on President s message as to re 
 fusals, 298, 299 ; effect of action, 
 300 ; as to power over treaties, 307, 
 308 ; treaty with Texas, 308, 309 ; 
 action as to Texas, 322, 323; 
 action as to Oregon, 325, 320 ; bills 
 on Mexico, and the Wilmot pro 
 viso, 335, 336 ; ratifies treaties 
 with Mexico, 339 ; Oregon bill in, 
 341 ; action on Oregon bills, 343 ; 
 debate on Oregon bill, 344 ; lack of 
 result, 345; Bright and Clayton 
 on Oregon, 340 ; passes Clayton 
 bill, 347 ; final agreement with 
 House, 347 ; action on erection of 
 California and New Mexico, 349 
 et xeq. ; Calhoun s last speech, 358; 
 Webster s Seventh of March 
 speech, 359; action on Texan 
 boundary, 303, 304 ; completion of 
 compromise measures, 363, 364 ; 
 action on Shadrach case, 370 ; 
 action on President s powers, 371, 
 372 ; Foote s finality resolutions, 
 374, 375 ; petitions to, 375 ; action 
 on organization of Kansas and Ne 
 braska, 381 et seq. ; Atchisou, 
 President pro tern., 412; memo 
 rials from Kansas, 433 ; speech on 
 the "Crime against Kansas, "439 ; 
 Brooks assault, 439, 440 ; action 
 on Kansas, 409, 470. See Congress 
 of the United States 
 ] Senior, Nassau William, cited, 186 
 I Sergeant, John, opposition to 
 Lowndes s bill, 96, 97; nominated 
 commissioner to Panama Congress, 
 149; nomination confirmed, 150 
 Sewall, Samuel E., in Sims case, 372 
 Seward, William Henry, presents 
 petitions for repeal of fugitive 
 slftve law, 375 ; contest in conven 
 tion of 1852, 376 ; relation to Dixon 
 and Nebraska bill, 387, 388 ; charge 
 as to official conduct of Taney, 456 
 Shadrach, escape to Canada, 37U ; 
 Clay s motion and Fillmore s mes 
 sage, 370, 371 
 
534 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Shannon, Wilson, becomes Governor 
 of Kansas Territory, 427 ; presides 
 over Leavenworth convention, 428; 
 orders to Territorial militia, 429 ; 
 meets Lawrence committee at 
 Shawnee Mission, 429 ; goes to 
 Lawrence, 430 ; agreement with 
 citizens of Lawrence, 430 ; treats 
 with Missourians at Franklin, 430, 
 431 ; report to President, 431 ; 
 gives troops to Sheriff Jones, 434; 
 dealings with citizens of Lawrence, 
 436, 437 ; orders troops to the 
 Pottawattomie, 441 ; his procla 
 mation, 442; orders troops out 
 under Sumner, 442 ; goes to Law 
 rence, 444 ; treaty of August 17, 
 444 ; resigns office, 444 
 
 Shaw, Henry, voting, 73 
 
 Shawnee Mission, Kansas, removal 
 of legislature to, 423 ; arrival of 
 Governor Shannon, 427 ; Lawrence 
 committee at, 429 
 
 Sherman, John, on committee for 
 Kansas investigation, 433 
 
 Shields, James, attitude to fugitive 
 slave law, 368 
 
 Sierra Nevada Mountains, 349 
 
 Silliman, Benjamin, member of Emi 
 grant Aid Society, 409 
 
 Silsbee, Nathaniel, attitude to tariff 
 of 1828, 162 
 
 Sims, Thomas, arrest, 372 ; trial and 
 rendition, 372, 373 
 
 Slade, William, motion to print 
 abolition petitions, 254 ; compared 
 with Adams, 254 ; Polk s ruling 
 on his attempt to debate, 255 ; his 
 motion tabled, 255 ; declares war 
 on slavery, 258; his object, 259; 
 further attempt at agitation, 262 
 
 Slave Code, Virginia code of 1705, 
 45 
 
 Slavery, beginnings in United States, 
 40 ; early view of system, 40 ; le 
 gal recognition, 41 ; prohibited in 
 Georgia, 43 ; legislation in Vir 
 ginia, 43 ; Virginia statute of 1662, 
 44, 45 ; relation to Christian bap 
 tism, 44 ; Virginia code of 1705, 
 45 ; legislation on public relations 
 of slavery, 46 ; law of slavery be 
 fore the Revolution, 46 ; substan 
 tially abolished in Massachusetts, 
 48; legislation in Rhode Island, 
 Connecticut, New Hampshire, 
 Pennsylvania, New York, New 
 
 Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and 
 Virginia, 48 ; letter of Luther 
 Martin, 49, 50 ; in Constitution of 
 1787, 50 ; status in Georgia and 
 North Carolina cessions and in 
 Kentucky, 50, 51, 56; passage of 
 fugitive slave law, 51 ; abolition 
 of slave trade by Congress, 51 ; re 
 lation to cotton culture, 52, 53 ; in 
 Louisiana territory, 54, 55, 57, 65, 
 72, 88 ; in Orleans Territory, 55 ; 
 in Louisiana Territory, 55, 56 ; in 
 Missouri Territory and Common 
 wealth of Missouri, 56, 65 ; effect 
 of abolition of foreign slave-trade, 
 
 57 ; domestic slave-trade, 57, 58 ; 
 relation of slavery to diplomacy, 
 
 58 ; international status, 59 ; rela 
 tion of slavery to public policy, 
 60 ; status in various States, 62, 
 63 ; division of Congress on terri 
 torial basis as to slavery, 63; in 
 the Territories, 63 ; in Northwest 
 Territory, 69 ; in the Tallmadge 
 amendment, 73 ; slavery in Terri 
 tories, 75 ; Taylor s plan as to Mis 
 souri, 75, 76, 78; Storrs s plan as 
 to Missouri, 78; Taylor s motion, 
 78 et *eq. ; motion of Thomas, 84, 
 87, 88 ; relation of slavery to Mis 
 souri struggle, 92, 93, 106, 107; 
 status of slavery in 1776, 1787, 
 1820, 93 ; slavery in national poli 
 tics after 1820, 108; relation of 
 slavery to protection, 109, 110; re 
 lation of slavery to Panama Con 
 gress, 151 ; relation to tariff, 157 ; 
 relation to Maysville road bill, 
 168 ; relation to internal improve 
 ments, to Missouri struggle, and 
 to tariff of 1828, 170; view of 
 Hayne and McDuffie, 177 ; rela 
 tion to the Bank question, 198; 
 effect of race domination, 244; as 
 regarded before 1830, 244 ; human- 
 itarianism of 1830, 244 ; the phi 
 losophy of abolition and of its op 
 ponents, 245 ; the true philosophy, 
 245, 246 ; slavery in the Constitu 
 tion, 2M-248 ; possible ways of at 
 tacking slavery, 248 ; Southamp 
 ton insurrection, 248, 249; Floyd s 
 message, 249 (see Petition, Right 
 of) ; declaration of war by Slade, 
 258 ; the contest precipitated, 
 260 ; the Pinckney resolutions 
 evoked, 261 ; relation to denial of 
 
INDEX 
 
 535 
 
 right of petition, 263, 264; views 
 of Rives, 265-207 ; views of Cal- 
 houn, 2(35-268 ; significance of the 
 contest over petitions and the 
 mails, 274-277; relation of Whig 
 principles to slavery, 283 ; relation 
 of Whig and Democratic parties to 
 slavery extension, 287, 288 ; slav 
 ery in Florida constitution of 1838, 
 290 ; slavery in the Texas constitu 
 tion of 1836, 294 ; relation of sla 
 very to recognition of Texas, 296 ; 
 relation of slavery to question of 
 Texan annexation, 300, 301, 302; 
 Clay s views of relation of slavery 
 and annexation, 319 ; relation of 
 slavery to Mexican War, 330, 331 ; 
 the Wilmot proviso, 335, 336 ; 
 Cass s view of relation of Mexican 
 war and slavery, 338 ; Thompson s 
 amendment, 341 ; Burt s motion 
 as to the Wilmot proviso, 341, 342 ; 
 meaning of Rhett s views, 343 ; 
 views of Calhoun and Davis as to 
 slavery in territories, 344; Demo 
 cratic platform of 1848, 344, 345 ; 
 Cass s letter to Nicholson, 345 ; 
 Whig platform of 1848, 345 ; the 
 Clayton bill, 346, 347; Free-soil 
 platform of 1848, 347, 348; as 
 to signature of Oregon bill, 348 ; 
 Douglas s and Smith s bills, 349 ; 
 Berrien s report, 349, 350 ; views 
 of Berrien and YVebster on slavery 
 in Mexican acquisitions, 351, 352; 
 Taylor s message of December 4, 
 1849, 354 ; indication of policy in 
 the Foote bill, 354 ; relation of 
 slavery to question of Texan 
 boundary, 354, 355 ; question of 
 slavery in District of Columbia, 
 355; Clay s plan of compromise, 
 355, 356 ; opposition of Southern 
 ers, 356, 357 ; attitude of Davis, 
 and of abolitionists, 357 ; Cal- 
 houn s last speech, 358 ; Webster s 
 Seventh of March speech, 359 ; 
 Clay s report, 361, 362; the bills 
 as adopted, 363, 364 ; slavery be 
 fore and after 1850, 305-307 ; rela 
 tion of parties to slavery question, 
 877 ; various policies as to slavery, 
 377-3^9 ; situation in December, 
 1852, 380, 381 ; Douglas s report on 
 Nebraska, 382-387 ; dictum of the 
 committee, 387 ; Dixon s motion, 
 387 ; dictum of Douglas as to act 
 
 of 1820, 390; controversy on the 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill, 390 et seg. ; 
 speech of Houston, 393 ; the Na 
 tional Era address, 399, 400 ; the 
 struggle for Kansas, 407 et seq. ; 
 indications of plan for extension, 
 408 ; the question in Kansas, 412 ; 
 Robinson s declaration as to slavery 
 in Kansas and Missouri, 424 ; 
 Kansas legislation on slavery, 424 ; 
 its effect on the North, 424, 425 ; 
 the Topeka constitution, 425 ; the 
 Dred Scott case, 449-459 ; effect of 
 the Dred Scott dictum, 460; 
 further struggle in Kansas, 460- 
 474 ; the Lecompton constitution, 
 467, 468. See Kansas, Territory 
 of 
 
 Slaves, introduced at Jamestown, 
 40. See Slavery 
 
 Slidell, John, sent to Mexico, 327 ; 
 refused audience, and leaves Mex 
 ico, 328 ; effect of his rejection, 
 329 
 
 Sloat, John Drake, ordered to Upper 
 California, 331 
 
 Smith, Caleb B., reports bills on 
 New Mexico and Upper California, 
 349 
 
 Smith, Gerrit, the "Jerry rescue," 
 374 ; signs National Era address, 
 389 
 
 Smith, Persifer Frazer, assigned to 
 command in Kansas, 443 ; orders 
 as to invaders of Kansas, 445 ; 
 sustains Cooke in disobeying 
 Wood son, 445 
 
 Smith, George W., candidate for 
 Governor of Kansas, 468 
 
 Smith, William, reports Maine-Mis 
 souri bill, 82 ; position on the bill, 
 83 ; presents bill to Senate on Mis 
 souri, 99 ; bill passed by Senate 
 and tabled by House, 99 ; presents 
 protest as to tariff, 170 
 
 "Softs," the, attitude of Pierce, 
 402 
 
 Soule, Pierre, the Ostend manifesto, 
 408 
 
 South Carolina, 8, 9 ; slave laws, 46 ; 
 repeals law against slave importa 
 tion, 51 ; as to citizen ship law, 99; 
 protest against tariff of 1824, 115, 
 116 ; attitude to internal improve 
 ments bill of 1817, 118; attitude 
 to internal improvements bill of 
 1822, 119 ; in election of 1824, 137, 
 
536 
 
 INDEX 
 
 138 ; opposition to tariff bill of 
 1827, 159, 160 ; legislature protests 
 against tariff of 1828, 170, 171, 174; j 
 attitude to Jackson s views, 172; 
 relation to McDuffie bill of 1830, 
 174; attitude to McDufhVs argu 
 ment, 176 ; attitude to Congress in 
 1830-31, 178 ; the tariff and Cal 
 houn s work, 179, 181, 183 ; nullifi 
 cation or rebellion, 183 ; relation 
 to Jackson s message of 1831, 184 ; 
 stock held in United States Bank, 
 203 ; nullification earlier in Geor 
 gia, 210; relation to the Indian 
 troubles in Georgia, 220 ; special 
 meeting of legislature, 221 ; the 
 nullification convention and its 
 work, 221 ; the ordinance of nul 
 lification, 222 ; committee to the 
 legislature, 223 ; addresses of the 
 convention, 223, 224 ; Hamilton s 
 message, 224 ; Hayne s inaugural, 
 224 ; the Replevin Act, 224-22(5 ; 
 change of representation in Sen 
 ate, 224 ; acts to enforce ordi 
 nance of nullification, 226 ; opin- j 
 ion of Ualhoun and others as to 
 position of South Carolina, 226- 
 228 ; South Carolina in Jackson s 
 message of 1832, 228 ; Jackson s 
 proclamation of December 10, 1832, 
 228-230 ; active steps taken by 
 Jackson, 230, 231 ; feeling of the 
 other States, 231 ; Hayne s procla 
 mation and the action of South 
 Carolina, 232 ; Jackson s message 
 of January, 1833, 232; Calhoun s 
 statement in the Senate, 232, 233 ; 
 the "Force Bill" reported, 233, 
 234 ; answers Replevin Act, 234 ; 
 attitude of Calhoun, 234 ; post 
 ponement of execution of nullifica 
 tion ordinance, 235 ; Bell s report 
 on President s powers, 235 ; Clay s 
 proposals, 235, 236 ; attitude of 
 Calhoun, 236, 237; attitude to 
 Clay s bill, 237, 238 ; ordinance of 
 nullification withdrawn, 238; mo 
 tive of leaders in affairs of nullifi 
 cation, 238 ; effect of nullification 
 considered, 238-241 ; opinion of 
 Jacksonian principles, 240 ; con 
 vention in, 375 ; vote on Kansas- 
 Nebraska bill, 399 ; demands of 
 South Carolinians in Kansas, 437; 
 the assault upon Sumner, 439 
 South Carolina College, 173 
 
 "South Carolina Exposition, The," 
 179 
 
 South Sea, the, 33 
 
 Southampton County, Virginia, slave 
 insurrection, 248, 249; Floyd s 
 message, 249 ; passed over, 250 ; 
 effect on consideration of abolition 
 petitions, 252 
 
 "Southern Address." the, 374 
 
 Spain, as to American possessions, 
 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 32, 33, 
 35, 36 ; cedes Louisiana territory, 
 54, 65 ; claims in North Pacific, 
 123 ; relation to colonies and to 
 Congress of Verona, 1 24 ; attitude 
 of Great Britain and United States 
 as to her colonies, 125 ; the " Mon 
 roe Doctrine," 125-128 ; Clay s at 
 titude to Spain s colonies, 135, 152, 
 153 ; trouble in the colonies, 147, 
 151-153 ; boundary disputes with 
 France and United States, 290; 
 treaty of 1819, 290; revolt of 
 Mexico, 291; claim to Oregon, 311 ; 
 the Nootka Convention, 311, 312 ; 
 effect of war with Great Britain, 
 312; ceiies Louisiana to France, 
 312 ; cedes Florida, 313 ; treaty of 
 1819, 318 
 
 Spalding, Henry Harmon, mission 
 ary to Oregon, 315 
 
 Spanish Government, 37 
 
 Spear, Samuel T., opposes fugitive 
 slave law, 368 
 
 " Specie Circular," its results, 283 
 
 Squatter Sovereign, the, misrepre 
 sentations as to Emigrant Aid 
 Company, 411 
 
 Stan ton, F. P., appointed secretary 
 of Kansas Territory, 461 ; as Acting 
 Governor, negotiates with u Free- 
 state " men, 461, 462 ; action on 
 fraudulent elections, 465; de 
 mands of "Free-state men, 466, 
 467 ; calls legislature at Lecomp- 
 ton, 467 ; removed, 467 
 
 "States rights" founder of party, 
 2 ; position of Webster, 6 ; early 
 condition of party, 122 ; nucleus of 
 party, 146; Calhoun s doctrine, 
 179 et seq.; as to the Bank, 194, 
 195; Benton s speech, 199; Troup s 
 attitude, 213; Calhoun s position, 
 234, 236, 268, 269, 270; King s 
 views, 269, 270 ; and see 3, 49, 109, 
 130, 136, 137, 159, 192, 215, 217, 
 274 
 
INDEX 
 
 537 
 
 Stearns, , sells rights to site of 
 
 Lawrence, 415 
 
 Stephens, Alexander Hamilton, man 
 agement of the Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill, 404 
 
 Stockton, Robert Field, ordered to 
 Upper California, 331 
 
 Storrs, Henry R., voting, 73; on 
 Missouri affair, 78 
 
 Storrs, Richard Salter, opposes fugi 
 tive slave law, 368 
 
 Strange, Robert, motion in Senate, 
 270 
 
 Stringfellow, B. F., coeditor of 
 Sq tatter Sovereign, 411 ; forma- ! 
 tion of " Platte County Self-de- | 
 fensive Association," 414 
 
 Sullivan, G., interview with Adams, i 
 142, 143 
 
 Sumner, Edwin Vose, communica 
 tion with Robinson as to assault on j 
 Jones, 434 ; conditional offer of j 
 Lawrence citizens to surrender i 
 arms to, 437 ; rescues Pate, 442 ; 
 returns to Fort Leavenworth, 442 ; 
 disperses legislature at Topeka, 
 443 ; his act disapproved, 443 ; re 
 tirement, 443 ; attitude to Kansas 
 affairs, 472 
 
 Sumner, Charles, presents petitions 
 for repeal of fugitive slave law, 
 375 ; speech on fugitive slave 
 law, 377 ; effort to improve Ne 
 braska bill, 388 ; signs National 
 Era address, 389 ; vote on Kansas- 
 Nebraska bill, 399 ; speech on the j 
 Crime against Kansas," 439; 
 assaulted by Brooks, 439, 440 ; ef 
 fect of assault modified by Potta- 
 wattomie massacres, 442 
 
 Supreme Court of the United States, 
 decisions by : Brown vs. Maryland, 
 195, 198 ; McCulloch vs. Maryland, 
 205; Cherokee Nation case, 218; 
 Worcester vs. Georgia, 218, 219; 
 see also 109, 207, 222, 229, 34(5, 
 318, 366, 383, 427, 447, 460 ; Prigg 
 vs. Pennsylvania, 363 ; Dred Scott 
 vs. Sandford, 447, 449, et seq. 
 
 Sutter land claims, war against, 413 
 
 Swift, Benjamin, presents abolition 
 petition, 269; motion to lay on 
 table, 270 
 
 Syracuse, New York, meetings on 
 fugitive slave law, 068 ; the u Jerry 
 rescue," 373, 374 
 
 TACUBAYA, 153 
 
 Tait, Charles, report, 74 
 
 Tallmadge, James, 34 ; amendment 
 to Missouri bill, 66-74 ; leader of 
 restrictionists, 68 
 
 Taney, Roger Brooke, appointed 
 secretary of the treasury, 280 ; 
 ceases deposits in United States 
 Bank, 280; the contention as to 
 propriety and legality, 280, 281 ; 
 criticism by the Senate, 281 ; 
 opinion on Dred Scott case, 453, 
 454 ; criticism of his argument, 
 455, 456 ; charge as to divulging 
 court secrets, 456, 457 
 
 Tappan, S. F., resists Sheriff Jones, 
 434 
 
 Tariff, bill of 1816, 3, 8, 9, 10 ; views 
 of Clay, 10 ; speech of Calhoun, 
 10, 11, 12; passed by House and 
 Senate, 12 ; attitude of Randolph 
 and Telfair, and the New England- 
 ers, 12 ; act under comparison, 15, 
 16; Monroe s messages of Ib21 and 
 1822, 110; bill of 1823, 110, 111; 
 failure of the bill, 111 ; Monroe s 
 message of 1823, 111; bill of 1824, 
 112; support of Tod, 112, and of 
 Ciay, 112, 113; opposition of 
 Webster, Cambreleng and Bar- 
 bour, 113, 114; Hayne s theory, 
 114 ; modified bill passed by 
 House, 114; House rejects Senate 
 amendments, 114; conference com 
 mittee, 114, 115 ; characterization 
 of tariff of 1827, 115 ; attitude of 
 various States toward tariff of 
 1824, 115 ; protest of South Caro 
 lina, 115, 116; significance of the 
 question, 129 ; relation to slavery, 
 157; act of 1824 a failure, 157; 
 memorials, 158; Mallary bill of 
 
 1827, 158; provisions, 158; atti 
 tude of the various sections, 158, 
 159; bill passed by House, 159; 
 opposition of South Carolina, 
 159, 160 ; bill abandoned in Sen 
 ate, 160; bill of 1828 reported, 
 160; its provisions, 160; opposed 
 and modified, 160, 161; analysis 
 of vote in House, 162 ; passed by 
 Senate and approved, 162; rela 
 tion to party lines, 162, 163 ; South 
 Carolina protests against bill of 
 
 1828, 170, 171, 174; Jackson s mes 
 sage of December, 1829, 171, 112 ; 
 its reception in South Carolina, 
 
538 
 
 INDEX 
 
 173 ; its reference, 1 72 ; question 
 of origin of tariff bills, 173, 174 ; 
 bill reported by McDuffie, 174 ; its 
 terms and disposal, 174 ; manufact 
 ures committee bill, 175 ; argu 
 ment of McDuffie, 175, 176, 177 ; 
 passage of bills of 1830, 177, 178 ; 
 Jackson s message of December, 
 1830, 178; the work of Calhoun, 
 179-181, 183; the law in court, 
 182, 183; Jackson s message of 
 December, 1831, 184 ; two bills of 
 1832, 185 ; disposal in House, 186 ; 
 Clay s resolution in Senate, 186, 
 
 187, 188; House bill in Senate, 
 188; amended and passed, 188; 
 distribution of vote in Senate, 188 ; 
 conference and bill becomes law, 
 188; its effect on the situation, 
 
 188, 189; proposal in address of 
 South Carolina convention, 2,24 ; 
 Jackson s message of December, 
 
 1832, 228; bill reported by Ver- 
 planck, 231 , 232 ; discussion of 
 Verplanck bill, 235; Clay pro 
 poses compromise tariff, 235 ; his 
 purposes, 235, 236; attitude of 
 Calhoun, 236 ; controversy over 
 the bill, 236 ; Clay s bill amended 
 and substituted for Verplanck s 
 bill, 237 ; attitude of South Car 
 olina, 238 ; President s approval, 
 23S ; result of modified bill of 
 
 1833, 283; tariff bills vetoed by 
 Tyler, 286 
 
 Tassells, Cherokee Indian, executed, 
 218 
 
 Taylor, John, supports Bank bill, 8 ; 
 presides over Columbia conven 
 tion, 159 
 
 Taylor, John W., in Missouri bill de 
 bate, 68 ; plan as to Missouri, 75, 
 76, 78 ; new motion and argument, 
 78 et seq. ; on conference committee, 
 88 ; attitude toward internal im 
 provements bill of 1822, 119; vote 
 upon Maysville road bill, 168 
 
 Taylor, Zachary, ordered to advance 
 from Corpus Christi, 329 ; demand 
 of Ampudia, 3:29 ; hostilities be 
 gun, 329 ; battles of Palo Alto and 
 Resaca de la Palma, 329, 330 ; oc 
 cupies Matamoras, 331 ; takes 
 Monterey, 331, 332; battle of 
 Buena Vista, 332, 333 ; battles of 
 Contreras, San Antonio, and Che- 
 rubusco, 334 ; armistice, 334 ; 
 
 presidential nominee, 345 ; elected 
 President, 349 ; plan as to Cali 
 fornia, 353 ; message of December 
 4, 1849, 353, 354 ; special message 
 under consideration, 357, 358 ; 
 death, 362 
 
 Tehuantepec, Isthmus of, 337 
 
 Telfair, Thomas, opposition to tariff 
 of 1816, 12 
 
 Tennessee, 31, 32, 35 ; created a Com 
 monwealth, 51 ; with slavery, 62, 
 63 ; attitude to internal improve 
 ments bill of 1817, 118 ; attitude 
 to internal improvements bill of 
 1822, 119 ; legislature nominates 
 Jackson for the presidency, 136 ; 
 electoral vote in 1844, 320 ; vote on 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill, 399 
 
 Territorial extension, position of 
 Whig and Democratic parties, 287, 
 288 
 
 Texas, early boundary dispute, 290; 
 Austin grant, 291 ; efforts of 
 United States to buy Texas, 292 ; 
 declares independence, 293 ; the 
 Mexicans defeated, 294 ; consti 
 tution formed and Houston elected 
 President, 294 ; the Connecticut 
 resolution, 295 ; the Senate s reso 
 lution, 295 ; Calhoun s position, 
 295, 296 ; House passes resolution, 
 296; Morfit s mission, 296-298; 
 Jackson s message of December 
 21, 1836, 298; Walker s resolution, 
 298 ; Jackson s special message as 
 to reprisals, 298; Walker resolu 
 tion adopted, "291) ; Texas in diplo 
 matic appropriation bill, 299 ; 
 Jackson deals with agent of Texas, 
 300; Texan independence recog 
 nized, 300; the question of an 
 nexation, 300, 301 ; Wise s doc 
 trine as to annexation, 302 ; Whig 
 address on annexation, 303 ; ne 
 gotiations of Upshur and Van 
 Zandt, 304 ; independence recog 
 nized by Powers, 304 ; possibility 
 of British interference, 304; rela 
 tions to Mexico, 305, 306 ; pro 
 posal of annexation, 305; legal 
 position, 306 ; Murphy s assurance 
 to President of Texas, 306 ; Hous 
 ton sends special envoy to Wash 
 ington, 306 ; Murphy s assurance 
 disavowed, 307 : President s pro 
 posal to move forces, 307 ; Texas 
 treaty sent to Senate, 307, 308; 
 
IKDEX 
 
 539 
 
 President s view of constitutional 
 position of Texas, 308 ; treaty re 
 jected by Senate, 308; Benton s 
 claim, 308; opposition of Archer, 
 308, 309; " reannexation " in the 
 Democratic platform, 309 ; docu 
 ments sent to House, 309, 310 ; in 
 Democratic platform of 1844, 316, 
 317, 318 ; the Clay letters, 319 ; de 
 mands of abolitionists, 319; the 
 National Intelligencer letter, 319, 
 320 ; relation to annexation of 
 election of Polk, 320; Greeley s 
 views as to triumph of annexation, 
 320; Tyler s message of 1844, 320, 
 321 ; Ingersoll reports joint resolu 
 tion, 321 ; various views as to meth 
 od of annexation, 321, 322; House ! 
 passes enabling act, 322 ; the ! 
 Archer report in the Senate, 822, 1 
 323 ; the Walker amendment, 323 ; ; 
 measure signed by President, 323 ; { 
 Texas admitted, 323 ; annexation ; 
 a casus belli for Mexico, 327 ; 
 Texas congress of December 
 183(5, 323; the Rio Grande as 
 boundary, 328 ; President s duty as 
 to Texan boundary, 329 ; Con 
 gressional acts as to Corpus Christi, i 
 329; importance of Buena Vista, j 
 333 ; problem of Texan boundary, ! 
 354, 355; Clay s plan, 355, 35(5 ; j 
 opposition of Southerners, 356, | 
 357 ; attitude of abolitionists, 357 ; \ 
 Webster s Seventh of March 
 speech, 359 ; Clay s report, 361 ; 
 extension of jurisdiction by Bell, 
 362, 363; passage of bill as to 
 Texan boundary, 363, 364 ; dictum 
 of Douglas as to annexation of 
 Texas, 390; vote on Kansas- Ne 
 braska bill, 399. See also Coahuila- 
 Texas 
 
 Thayer, Eli, beginning of his work, 
 408, 409 ; his reasoning, 409 ; or 
 ganization effected, 409, 410 ; in 
 corporation, 410, 41 1 ; conference 
 with Robinson, 413; reward of 
 fered for his head, 413; sending of 
 Sharpe s rifles, 423 
 Thomas, Jesse B., motion as to I 
 slavery, 84, 87, 88 ; on conference 
 committee, 88 
 
 Thompson, James, moves amend 
 ment to Oregon bill, 341 ; amend 
 ment in Douglas bill, 341 
 Thompson, Waddy, as minister to 
 
 Mexico receives threat of war, 305 ; 
 opinion on slavery extension, 330 
 
 Titus, Colonel, in troubles at Law 
 rence, 437 ; captured, 444 ; his 
 release promised, 444 
 
 Tod, John, reports tariff bill, 110; 
 bill fails, 111 ; reports tariff bill of 
 1824, 112; supports the bill, 112 
 
 Tomlinson, Gideon, opposes report 
 of Committee of Thirteen, 101 
 
 Topeka, Kansas, convention at, 
 
 10" / 
 
 425 (see Kansas, Territory of) ; 
 legislature at, dispersed, 443 ; 
 Cooke refuses to obey Woodson s 
 order to attack Topeka, 445 ; mass- 
 meeting at, 464 
 
 Topliff, C. W., dealings with Donald 
 son for Lawrence citizens, 438 
 
 Treaty of April 11, 1713 (Utrecht), 
 
 Treaty of 17fi2, between France and 
 
 Spain, 21, 22, 23 
 Treaty of Paris, February 10, 1763, 
 
 between France, Great Britain, and 
 
 Spain, 20, 21, 22, 23 
 Treaty of Paris, September 3, 1783, 
 
 Treaty of 1790 (Nootka Conven 
 tion), between Great Britain and 
 Russia, 311 
 
 Treaty of 1800 (St. Ildefonso), be 
 tween France and Spain, 22, 23, 24, 
 54, 312 
 
 Treaty of April 30, 1803, between 
 France and the United States, 23, 
 24, 55, 57, 72. 312, 318 
 
 Treaty of Fort Jackson. 1814, 26, 29 
 
 Treaty of December 24, 1814, be 
 tween Great Britain and the 
 United States, 9, 26 
 
 [Convention] of October 20, 1818, 
 between Great Britain and the 
 United States, 313, 314 
 
 Treaty of February 22, 1819, between 
 Spain and the United States, 33, 
 36, 37, 38, 290, 313, 318 
 
 Treaty of July 12, 1823, between 
 Colombia and Peru, 147 
 
 Treaty of July 12, 1823, between 
 Colombia and Chili, 147 
 
 Treaty of February 12, 1825, between 
 United States and Creek Indians, 
 212, 214 
 
 Treaty of April 12, 1825, between 
 Colombia and United Provinces of 
 Central America, 147 
 
540 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Treaty of September 20, 1825, be 
 tween Colombia and Mexico, 147 
 
 Treaty of January, 182(5, between 
 United States and Creek Indians, 
 
 [Convention] of August 6, 1827, be 
 tween Great Britain and the 
 United States, 314, 324 
 
 Treaty of 1832, between United 
 States and Seminole Indians, 290 
 
 [Treaty] of April 11, 1839, between 
 Mexico and the United States, 301 
 
 Treaty of August 9, 1S42, between 
 Great Britain and the United 
 States, 303 
 
 Treaty of April 12, 1844, between 
 Texas and the United States, 307, 
 308, 309 
 
 Treaty of June 15, 1846, between 
 Great Britain and the United 
 States, 32(5, 330 
 
 Treaty of February 2, 1848, between 
 Mexico and the United States, 338, 
 339, 354, 355 
 
 Tremont Temple, fugitive slave law 
 meetings, 373 
 
 Trist, Nicholas P., offers treaty to 
 Mexico, 337 ; proposals rejected, 
 337 ; signs treaty of Guadalupe 
 Hidalgo, 338 ; returns to Wash 
 ington, 338, 339 
 
 Troup, George Mclntosh, attempts 
 survey of Creek land, 212 ; letter 
 from" Barbour, 212, 213; contro 
 versy with Barbour and Adams, 
 213, 214 ; repudiates agreement of 
 1826, 214; controversy with Ad 
 ministration as to surveys, 214, 
 215 ; his message to the legislat- 
 iu-e, 215 
 
 Tucker, George, committee service, 
 3 
 
 Turks, 45 
 
 Turner, Nat, leads slave insurrec 
 tion, 249 
 
 Tuyl, Baron, declaration from 
 Adams, 124, 125 
 
 Tyler, John, succeeds Harrison, 286 ; 
 vetoes bank bills and tariff bills, 
 286; Cabinet resignations, 286, 
 287 ; friction with Whigs, 287 ; ac 
 cession to presidency, 301 ; opens 
 negotiations with Texas, 301 ; rela 
 tion to annexation, 30 3 ; resigna 
 tion of Webster, 303 ; makes Up- 
 shur secretary of state, 303, 304 ; 
 the London story of interference 
 
 in Texas, 304 ; attitude to Mexican 
 threat of war, 305 ; relation to 
 Texan negotiation, 307 ; as to de 
 fence of Texas, 307 ; sends treaty 
 to Senate, 307, 308 ; view of con 
 stitutional position of Texas, 308 ; 
 significance of Archer s criticism 
 of annexation treaty, 309 ; sends 
 Texas documents to House, 309, 
 310 ; relations with Whitman, 315, 
 316 ; message of 1844, 320. 321 ; 
 views as to method of annexation, 
 321 ; signs measure for annexation 
 of Texas, 323 ; characterization of 
 his acts, 323, 324 
 
 " UNCLE TOM S CABIN," 106 
 
 " Underground," the, established, 
 368. tiee Fugitive Slave Law 
 
 United Provinces of Central Amer 
 ica, treaty of 1825, with Colombia, 
 147 
 
 United States Bank. See Bank of 
 the United States 
 
 United States of America, the, effect 
 of military statutes, 13 ; national 
 spirit in, 19; territorial extension 
 of, 20 ; independence recognized, 
 22 ; purchase of Louisiana, 23 ; 
 claims on Florida, 23, 24 ; occupa 
 tion of Florida, 24, 25; effect of 
 treaty of Ghent, 2(5 ; affair at 
 Nicholls Fort, 27, 28 ; character of 
 Seminole War, 39, 30 ; relations 
 with Spain as to occupation of 
 Florida, 32, 33 ; treaty with Spain, 
 33, 36, 37, 38 ; transfer of Florida, 
 38; slavery in, 40, 50, 52, 5:J ; 
 treaty of 1803, 55 ; obligations to 
 Georgia and North Carolina, 5(5, 
 and to France, 57 ; attitude to 
 slavery, 58, 59, 60, 62-65 ; debate 
 on powers of general Government, 
 66 et scq. ; Taylor s discussion of 
 powers, 79, 80 ; federal system oE 
 1820, 87 ; nature of the Union, 07 ; 
 effect of second Missouri compro 
 mise, 103 ; significance of the com 
 promise, 104-106; commercial posi 
 tion, 112, 113 ; foreign relations of, 
 in 1822, 122; claims in the North 
 Pacific, 123; relation to Spain s 
 American possessions, 124 ft scq. ; 
 attitude to Holy Alliance, 124 et 
 seq. ; relations with Spanish-Am 
 erican states, 146 et seq. ; consti 
 tutional interpretation in the his- 
 
INDEX 
 
 541 
 
 tory cf, 156 ; relations with Great 
 Britain, 164; railroads in, 169; 
 tariff the necessary policy of, 171 ; 
 statistics from foreign trade of, 
 175, 176; meaning of the term, 
 180; regard for laws of, 181; 
 danger of bank to, 202 ; Jackson s 
 view considered, 203 ; as to veto 
 power, 207 ; effect of Jackson s 
 bank veto, 207-209 ; cession by 
 Georgia to, 211 ; treaty with Creek 
 Indians, 212 ; dispute as to title, 
 213 ; treaty with Creek Indians, 
 214 ; trouble with Georgia, 214 
 et seq. ; the issue as offered by 
 South Carolina, 226 ; principle 
 of the governmental system of, 
 227 ; the time for a revenue tariff, 
 228 ; Jackson on the character of 
 the Union, 2:39 ; officers of, in 
 South Carolina, 230 ; resistance to 
 laws checked, 234 ; effect of events 
 of 1832 and 1833, 238-241 ; devel 
 opment of national purposes, 243, 
 244 ; abolition and opinion of sla 
 very in, 244 ; contest over use of 
 mails of, 270 et seq. ; disputes as 
 to deposits of, 280 et seq. ; treaty 
 with Seminoles, 290 ; recognition 
 of Spanish rights, 290 ; immigra 
 tion into Texas from, forbidden, 
 291 ; attempts to purchase Texas, 
 292; importation of slaves into 
 Texas from, allowed, 294; as to 
 recognition of Texan indepen 
 dence by, 295, 296 ; Morfits report 
 on Texas, 297 ; question of natural 
 boundaries, 300, 301 ; annexation 
 of Texas proposed, 301 ; diplomat 
 ic relations with Mexico, 3Ul, 302 ; 
 recognition of Texan independence 
 by, 304 ; relations with Mexico and 
 Texas, 305 et seq. ; as to admission 
 of Texas, 310; purchase of Loui 
 siana, 312; claims in Oregon, 312, 
 313 ; conventions with Great Brit 
 ain, 313, 314 ; Oregon and Great 
 Britain, 314 et seq. ; as to claim on 
 Texas and Oregon, 818; Clay s 
 views as to policy of, 31 9, 320 ; re 
 lations with Mexico, 320, 321 ; as 
 to annexation of Texas, 321 ; as to 
 method of annexation to, 323, 324 ; 
 claims to Oregon, 324 et seq. ; ne 
 gotiations with Great Britain, 3 36 ; 
 suspension of diplomatic relations 
 with Mexico, 327 ; mission to Mex 
 
 ico, 328 ; question of the Texan 
 frontier, 328, 329; relations with 
 Mexico, 329 et seq. ; military pow 
 er in California, 332; the Trist 
 mission, 337, 338 ; treaty with 
 Mexico, 338 ; Rhett on the nature 
 of the union, 342, 343 ; extension 
 of public law of, 352 ; relations to 
 Cuba, 408 ; relation to affairs in 
 Kansas, 445 et seq. 
 
 Upham, William, introduces amend 
 ment, 338 ; opposition of Cass 
 and rejection, 338 
 
 Upper California, to be occupied to 
 Sloat and Stockton, 331 ; treaty of 
 Guadalupe Hidalgo, 338 ; Smith s 
 bill, 349. See California 
 
 Upshur, Abel P.s made secretary of 
 state, c03, 304 ; negotiations with 
 Van Zandt, 304 ; letter to Murphy, 
 304 ; formally proposed annexa 
 tion, 305 ; demand from Van 
 Zandt, 306; relation to Murphy s 
 promise, 306 ; death, 306 
 
 Utah, Fopte s bill for territorial or 
 ganization, 254 ; report of com 
 mittee on territories, 360; Com 
 mittee of Thirteen, 300; Clay s 
 report, 360, 361 ; bill as to Utah 
 passed, 302 ; as to the Douglas re 
 port on Nebraska, 384; Chase on 
 Act of 1850, 391 
 
 Utrecht, treaty of, 312 
 
 VAN BCREN, MARTIN, relation to 
 Crawford, 133 ; attitude toward 
 civil service reform, 133 ; in elec 
 tion of 1824, 137; attitude upon 
 Panama Congress, 153 ; opposition 
 to Adams on internal improve 
 ments, 155 ; share in election of 
 1828, 164 ; made secretary of state, 
 164; hia success in diplomacy, 164 ; 
 relation of Administration to the 
 financial situation, 284 ; message of 
 September 4, 1837, 284, 285 ; origin 
 of independent treasury idea, 285 ; 
 Van Buren s recommendation and 
 the law of July 4, 1840, 285, 286 ; 
 declines proposition of Texan an 
 nexation, 301 ; resumed diplomatic 
 relations with Mexico, 301 ; treaty 
 proclaimed, 301, 302 ; put aside by 
 his party, 309; nominated for 
 presidency, 347 ; popular vote in 
 1848 compared with that for Hale 
 in 1852, 377 
 
542 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Vanderpoel, Aaron, motion in 
 House, 255 
 
 Van Zandt, Isaac, negotiations with 
 Upshur, 304 ; proposal of Upshur, 
 305 ; demand upon Upshur, 306 
 
 Venezuela, 30 
 
 Vera Cruz, campaign against, or 
 dered, 332 ; captured by Scott, 333 
 
 Vermont, slavery forbidden, 62, 63 ; 
 Rev. S. A. Worcester, of, 218; 
 abolition petition, 265, 269 ; posi 
 tion of Calhoun, 270 ; disposal of 
 Swift s motion, 270 ; vacancy in 
 Senate delegation, 398; vote on 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill, 399 
 
 Verona, Congress of, 12 i 
 
 Verplanck, (Julian Crommelin, re 
 ports tariff bill, 231, 232 ; bill dis 
 cussed, 235 ; bill used in argument, 
 236; Clay s bill substituted for 
 Verplanck s bill, 237 
 
 Virginia, Commonwealth of, 8, 
 41 ; legislation on slavery, 43 ; 
 statute of 1662, 44, 45; slave 
 code of 1705, 45 ; legislation on 
 public elements of slavery, 46 ; 
 forbids importation of slaves, 48 ; 
 domestic slave-trade, 57, 58 ; as a 
 type, 86 ; relation to Cumberland 
 road, 116 ; attitude to internal 
 improvements bill of 1817, 117; 
 attitude to improvements bill of 
 1822, 119; stock held in United 
 States Bank, 203; relation to 
 slavery in District of Columbia, 
 253 ; anticipated by Connecticut 
 in recognizing Texas, 295 ; views 
 as to policies on slavery, 378 ; vote 
 on Kansas-Nebraska bill, 399 
 
 " Virginia dynasty," the, extinct,131 
 
 Vives, Francisco D., 37 
 
 WADE, EDWARD, signs National 
 Era address, 389; opposition to 
 Douglas, 391 
 
 Wakarusa River, the, settlement 
 near, 414 ; Missourians on, 429 
 
 Walker, Isaac P., motion as to Mex 
 ican acquisitions, 350, 351 ; declar 
 ation as to repeal of act of 1820, 
 395 
 
 Walker, Robert John, offers resolu 
 tion as to Texas, 298 ; adopted, 
 299 ; offers amendment to Texas 
 resolution, 323 ; appointed Gov 
 ernor of Kansas Territory, 461 ; 
 his address, 462 ; party relations, 
 
 462 ; declaration as to law control 
 ling territorial election, 464 ; ac 
 tion on fraudulent elections, 465 
 
 Walker, Samuel, in command of 
 "Free-state" forces in Kansas, 
 444 
 
 Walla Walla, mission on the, 315, 
 316 
 
 War of 1812, 1, 5, 8, 9, 13, 17, 24, 25, 
 28, 29, 33, 54,_58, 59; effect upon 
 political parties, 130 ; effect on 
 Republican party, 239 ; as to As 
 toria, 313 
 
 War with Mexico, a result of social 
 development, 277 ; relation of war 
 to election of Polk, 320 ; details, 
 327 et seq. ; the casus belli, 327 ; the 
 concentration of forces, 328 ; point 
 of conflict, 328, 329 ; beginning of 
 hostilities, 329; battles of Palo 
 Alto and Resaca de la Palma, 329, 
 330 ; attitude of parties to war, 
 330 ; character of war, 330, 331 ; 
 Congress authorizes war, 331 ; oc 
 cupation of New Mexico and Up 
 per California, 331 ; capture of 
 Monterey, 331, 332 ; seizure of Cali 
 fornia,, 332 ; return of Santa Anna 
 and plans against Vera Cruz, 332 ; 
 battle of Buena Vista, 333, 333 ; 
 capture of Vera Cruz, 333 ; battle 
 of Cerro Gordo, 338 ; capture of 
 Jaiapa, Perote, and Puebla, 333; 
 battles of Contreras, San Antonio, 
 and Cherubusco, 334 ; armistice, 
 334 ; Cass s view of relation of the 
 war and slavery, 338 ; battles of 
 Molino del Rey and Chapultepec, 
 338 ; capture of Mexico, 338 ; op 
 position to the Avar, 338 ; treaty of 
 Guadalupe Hidalgo, 338 
 
 War of 1861, an historical necessity, 
 65 ; a result of social development, 
 277 ; relation of events in Kansas 
 to, 473, 474 
 
 War Department, 28, 30, 31, 32, 35 
 
 Warrenton, Virginia, 138 
 
 Washington, D. C., 2, 33, 124, 299, 
 300, 301, 302, 304, 307, 313, 315, 327, 
 330, 339, 375, 389, 401, 426, 428, 
 439 
 
 Washington Hall, fugitive slave law 
 meetings, 373 
 
 Washington Union, the, relation to 
 President Pierce, 401, 402 
 
 Webb, James Watson, applies name 
 to Whig party, 281, 283 
 
INDEX 
 
 543 
 
 Webster, Daniel, objection to Bank 
 bill, 6 ; as to tariff bill, 12 ; quali 
 fications as presidential candidate 
 in 1824, 134, 136; attitude to tariff 
 of 1838, 162; Calhoun and the 
 Hayne debate, 179 ; relation to 
 Jackson and the Bank, 191 ; ad 
 vice to Bank party, 201 ; on Bank 
 committee of Senate, 301 ; answers 
 Calhoun s argument, 237; retires 
 from Tyler s cabinet, 286, 287; 
 New York speech on Texas, 301 ; 
 checks annexation plans, 303 ; re 
 signs from State Department, 303 ; 
 the Ashburton treaty, 303 ; negoti 
 ation with Ashburton, 314; views 
 on slavery in Mexican acquisitions, 
 351, 352 ; Seventh of March speech, 
 359 ; on Committee or Thirteen, 
 360 ; attitude to fugitive slave law, 
 368 ; denounced by Giddings, 369 ; 
 contest in Whig convention of 
 1852, 376 ; death, 377 
 
 Webster, Sidney, statement as to 
 position of Washington Union, 
 401,402 
 
 Welles, Gideon, Blair to Welles on 
 Seward, 387, 388 
 
 Wells, William, as to Bank bill, 8 
 
 West Florida, 21 
 
 Weston, Missouri, meeting of resi 
 dents of Platte County, 414 
 
 Westport, Missouri, meeting of 
 Whitman colonists, 316 
 
 Wheeling, West Virginia, 116 
 
 Whig party, appearance, 38, 104 ; ac 
 quisition of name, 279, 281, 282; 
 significance of its composition and 
 principles, 282, 283 ; relation to 
 Gordon s independent treasury 
 proposal, 285 ; opposes indepen 
 dent treasury bill of 1840, 285, 
 286 ; convention of 1839, 286 ; elec 
 tion of 1840, 286 ; Bank bill and 
 tariff bill as party measures, 286 ; 
 friction between Congress and 
 President, 286, 287 ; relation of its 
 principle to the new question of 
 slavery and territorial extension, 
 287, 288; address on Texas an 
 nexation, 303 ; convention nomi 
 nates Clay for presidency, 309 ; 
 position on Folk s first message, 
 324, 325 ; attitude to Mexican War, 
 330; piatform of 1848, 345; the 
 Clayton bill, 346, 347 ; election of 
 1848, 348, 349 ; convention of 1852, 
 
 376 ; tendency to division of party, 
 376, 377; election of 1852, 377; 
 controversy over Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill, 391 ; vote on Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill, 398, 399; vote in House on 
 Kansas-Nebraska bill, 404, 405; 
 meaning of the vote, 405, 406 ; as 
 to leaders of Emigrant Aid Com 
 pany, 413 ; effect of Kansas strug 
 gle, 417 ; tendency to dissolution, 
 417, 418 
 
 Whitfield, John W., elected to Con 
 gress in Kansas, 417 ; credentials 
 accepted, 418 ; contest for seat in 
 House of Representatives, 433, 
 433 ; leads Missourians in Kansas, 
 441 
 
 Whitman, Marcus, missionary to 
 Oregon, 315 ; settlement, and visit 
 to Tyler, 315 ; helped by the Ad 
 ministration, 315, 316 ; the Ore 
 gon colony, 315 
 
 Wick, William W., moves amend 
 ment, 341 , 342 
 
 Willuns, William, reports "Force 
 j Bill," 233, 234 ; bill used in argu 
 ment, 236; attitude of Calhoun, 
 236; bill passed by Senate, 237; 
 and by House, 237, 238 ; approved, 
 238 ; " Force Bill " considered, 240 
 
 Williams, J. M. S., in emigrant aid 
 ! work, 411 ; conference with Ho bin- 
 son, 413 
 
 Wilmot, David, moves amendment, 
 
 [ 335 ; passed by House, 335 ; no 
 action in Senate, 336 ; amendment 
 again passed by House, 336 (.see 
 Upham, William) ; motion for 
 amendment of Wilmot proviso, 
 341, 343; the proviso and the 
 Whig platform of 1848, 345 ; the 
 proviso in Berrien s speech, 352 ; 
 the proviso in abolitionist de 
 mands, 357 
 
 Wilson, Henry, meets Robinson at 
 I Lawrence, 463 ; urges new census 
 for Kansas, 463 
 
 Wisconsin, Commonwealth of, vote 
 on Kansas - Nebraska bill, 299; 
 early Republican party in, 418 
 
 Wise, Henry A. , demand as to Dis 
 trict of Columbia, 257 ; doctrine 
 on Texan annexation, 302; con 
 nection of speech with President s 
 policy, 303 
 
 Witan, 263 
 I Wood, S. N., Jones serves writ on, 
 
544 
 
 INDEX 
 
 433 ; as to 
 435 
 
 treason indictment," 
 
 Woodbury, Charles Levi, connection 
 
 with Sims case, 373 
 Woodbury, Levi, beginning of Bank 
 
 trouble, 191 
 Woodson, Daniel, Acting-Governor 
 
 of Kansas Territory, 425; super - 
 
 tion of August 25, 444, 445 ; orders 
 Cooke to attack Topeka, 445 
 
 s. Georgia [6 Peters, 515], 
 
 Worcesteri Samuel A Delation of 
 Georgia statute, 218, 219 ; case of 
 Worcester against Georgia, 219 
 Worcester, Massachusetts, home of 
 , Eli Thayer, 408 
 
 seded by Shannon, 427; again j Wright, William, not voting on Kan- 
 Acting-Governor, 444 ; proclama- sas-Nebraska bill, 398 
 
 - 
 
14 DAY USE 
 
 RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED 
 
 LOAN DEPT. 
 
 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or 
 
 on the date to which renewed. 
 Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. 
 
 - 
 
 JEC23196S76* 
 
 HE 
 
 DEC Ife GG "11 AM 
 
 161976 
 
 APR- 4 78 
 
 a oik MAY 8 1 
 
 LOAN DEPT. R =:CO 
 
 ^r^T- 
 
 MSTOl989 
 
 ;p 
 
 LD 21A-60m-10, 65 
 (F7763slO)476B 
 
 CIRGULAIIOM 
 
 General Library 
 
 University of California 
 
 Berkeley 
 
V B 44857 
 U.C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES 
 
 COOSE781fl5 
 
 I 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY