SALIENT POINTS OF THE CAMPAIGN 
 
 INTO. 1. 
 
 A TRACT ISSUED BY THE 
 
 ILL REPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE. 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER I.—Judge Bates’ Letter in Support of 
 Lincoln and Hamlin. 
 
 CHAPTER II.—The Three National Platforms—Repub¬ 
 lican, Douglas, and B/eckinridge. 
 
 CHAPTER III.—The Wickliffe (slave code) Resolution 
 adopted by the Douglas Baltimore Convention. 
 
 CHAPTER IV.—Herschel V. Johnson’s Record. 
 
 CHAPTER V.—Squatter Sovereignty and the African 
 Sltivc Triidc 
 
 CHAPTER VI.—What “Popular Sovereignty” has done 
 
 CHAPTER VII.—Slavery in New Mexico—Serfdom of 
 White Laborers. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII.—Slavery in Nebraska — Ineffectual 
 Effort to Abolish it. 
 
 CHAPTER IX.—All votes cast for Douglas are £iven 
 practically for Breckinridge or Joe Lane. 
 CHAPTER X.—“The Everlasting Nigger Question.” 
 CHAPTER XI.—Lincoln’s and Hamlin’s Letters of 
 Acceptance. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 JUDGE BATES’ LETTER IN SUPPORT OF LINCOLN AND IIAMLIN. 
 
 St. Louis, June 11, 1SC0, 
 
 0. H. Browning, Esq., Quincy, Illinois. 
 
 Dear Sir: —When I received your letter of 
 May 22d, I had no thought that the answer 
 would be so long delayed; but, waiving all 
 excuses, I proceed to answer it now. 
 
 Under the circumstances of the case, it 
 ought not to have been doubted that I would 
 give Mr. Lincoln’s nomination a cordial and 
 hearty support. But in declaring my inten¬ 
 tion to do so, it is due to myself to state some 
 of the facts and reasons, which have a con¬ 
 trolling influence over my mind, and which 
 I think ought to be persuasive arguments with 
 some other men, whose political opinions and 
 antecedents are, in some important particulars, 
 like my own. 
 
 There was no good ground for supposing 
 that I felt any pique or dissatisfaction because 
 the Chicago Convention failed to nominate 
 me. I had no such feeling. On party grounds, 
 
 I had no right to expect the nomination. , I 
 had no claims upon the Republicans as a party, 
 for I have never been a member of any party, 
 so as to be bound by its dogmas and subject 
 to its discipline, except only the Whig party, 
 which is now broken up and its materials, for 
 the most part, absorbed into other organiza¬ 
 tions. And thus I am left, alone and npwer- 
 less indeed, but perfectly free to follow the 
 dictates of my own judgment and to take 
 such part in current politics as my own sense 
 of duty and patriotism may require. Many 
 Republicans, and among them, I think, some 
 of the most moderate and patriotic of that 
 party, honored me with their confidence, and 
 desired to make me their candidate. For 
 this favor I was indebted to the fact that be¬ 
 tween them and me there was a coincidence 
 of opinion ucon certain important questions 
 of government. They and I agreed in believ¬ 
 ing that the national government has sover¬ 
 eign power over the Territories, and that it 
 would be impolitic and unwise to use that 
 power for the propagation of negro slavery, 
 by planting it in free territory. Some of them 
 believed also, that my nomination, while it 
 
 would tend to soften the tone of the Repub¬ 
 lican party, without any abandonment of its 
 principles, might tend also to generalize its 
 character and attract the friendship and sup¬ 
 port of many, especially in the border States, 
 who, like me, had never been members of 
 their party, but concurred with them in opin¬ 
 ion about the government of the Territories. 
 Those are the grounds, and I think the only 
 grounds, upon which I was supported at all at 
 Chicago. 
 
 As to the platform put forth by the Chicago 
 Convention, I have little to say, because 
 whether good or bad, that will not constitute 
 the ground of my support of Mr. Lincoln. 
 I have no great respect for party platforms in 
 general. They are commonly made in times 
 of high excitement, under a pressure of cir¬ 
 cumstances, and with the view to conciliate 
 present support, rather than to establish a per¬ 
 manent system of principles and line of policy 
 for the future good government of the country. 
 The conventions which form them are tran¬ 
 sient in their nature ; their power and influ¬ 
 ence are consumed in the using, leaving no 
 continuing obligation upon their respective 
 parties. And hence we need not wonder that 
 platforms so made, are hardly ever acted out 
 in practice. I shall not discuss their relative 
 merits, but content myself with saying that 
 this Republican Platform, though in several 
 particulars it does not conform to my views, 
 is still far better than any published creed, 
 past or present, of the Democrats. And as 
 to the new party, it has not chosen to pro¬ 
 mulgate any platform at all, except two or 
 three broad generalities which are common 
 to the professions of faith of all parties in 
 the country. No party, indeed, dare ask the 
 confidence of the nation, while openly deny¬ 
 ing the obligation to support the Union and 
 the Constitution, and to enforce the laws. 
 That is a common duty, binding upon every 
 citizen, and the failure to perform it is a 
 crime. 
 
 To me it is plain that the approaching con¬ 
 test must be between the Democratic and Re- 
 
2 
 
 publican parties ; and, between them, I prefer 
 the latter. 
 
 The Democratic party, by the long posses¬ 
 sion and abuse of power, has grown wanton 
 and reckless; has corrupted itself and pervert¬ 
 ed the principles of the Government; has set 
 itself openly against the great home interests 
 of the people, by neglecting to protect their 
 industry, and by refusing to improve and keep 
 in order the highways and depots of commerce; 
 and even now is urging a measure in Cor gress 
 t(f abdicate the constitutional power and duty 
 to regulate commerce among the States, and 
 to grant to the States the discretionary power 
 to levy tonnage duties upon all our commerce, 
 under the pretence of improving harbors, riv¬ 
 ers and lakes ; has changed the status of the 
 negro slave by making him no longer mere 
 property, but a politician—an antagoni.-t poiv- 
 er in the State ; a power to which all other 
 powers are required to yield, under penalty of 
 a dissolution of the Union ; has directed its 
 energies to a gratification of its lusts of for¬ 
 eign domain, as manifested in its persistent 
 efforts to seize upon tropical regions, not be¬ 
 cause those countries and their incongruous 
 people are necessary, or even desirable, to be 
 incorporated into our nation, but for the mere 
 purpose of making slave States, in order to 
 advance the political power of the party in 
 the Senate and in the choice of the President, 
 so as effectually to transfer the chief powers 
 • of the government from the many to the few; 
 has in various instances endangered the equal- 
 ity of the co-ordinate branches of the gov¬ 
 ernment, by urgent efforts to enlarge the pow¬ 
 ers of the Executive at the expense of the 
 legislative department; has attempted to dis¬ 
 credit and degrade the Judiciary, by affecting 
 to make it, at first, the arbiter of party quar¬ 
 rels, to become soon and inevitably the passive 
 registrar of party decrees. 
 
 In most if not all these particulars, I under¬ 
 stand the Republican party (judging it by its 
 acts and by the known opinions of many of 
 its leading men) to be the exact opposite of 
 the Democratic party; and that is the ground 
 of my preference of the one party over the 
 other. And that alone would be a sufficient 
 reason, if I had no other good reason, for 
 supporting Mr. Lincoln against any man wt.o 
 may be put forward by the Democratic party 
 as the exponent of its principles and the agent 
 to work out, in practice, its dangerous politics. 
 
 The third party, which, by its very forma¬ 
 tion, has destroyed the organization of the 
 American and Whig parties, has nominated 
 two most excellent men. I know them well, 
 as sound statesmen and true patriots. More 
 than thirty years ago I served with them both 
 in Congress, and from that time to this I have 
 always held them in respect and honor. But 
 what can the third party do towards the elec¬ 
 tion of even such worthy men as these against 
 the tw r o great parties which are now in actual 
 contest for the power to rule the nation ? It 
 is made up entirely of portions of the disinte¬ 
 grated elements of the late Whig and Ameri¬ 
 
 can parties—good materials, in the main, I 
 admit, but quite too weak to elect any man or 
 establish any principle. The most it can do 
 is, here and there in particular localities, to 
 make a division in favor of the Democrats. 
 In 1856, the Whig and American parties (not 
 forming a new party but united as allies), with 
 entire unanimity and some zeal, supported 
 Mr. Fillmore for the Presidency,and with what 
 results ? We made a miserable failure, carry¬ 
 ing no State but gallant little Maryland. And 
 surely, the united Whigs and Americans of 
 that day had a far greater shoiv of strength, 
 and far better prospects of success than any 
 which belong to the Constitutional Union 
 party now. In fact, I see no possibility of 
 success for the third party, except in one con¬ 
 tingency : the destruction of the Democratic 
 party. That is a contingency not likely to 
 happen this year, for, badly as I think of many 
 of the acts and policies of % that party, its cup 
 is not yet full—the day has not yet come when 
 it must dissolve in its own corruptions; but 
 the day is coming, and is not far off. The 
 party lias made itself entirely sectional; it 
 has concentrated its very being into one single 
 idea : negro slavery has control of all its facul- 
 ties , and it can see and hear nothing else —“ one 
 stern, tyrannic thought, that makes all other 
 thoughts its slaves ! ” 
 
 But the Democratic party still lives; and 
 while it lives, it and the Republican party are 
 the only real antagonistic powers in the nation, 
 and for the present I must choose between 
 them. I choose the latter, as wiser, purer, 
 younger, and less corrupted by time and self- 
 indulgence. 
 
 The candidates nominated at Chicago are 
 both men who, as individuals and politicians, 
 rank with the formost of the country. I have 
 heard no objection to Mr. Hamlin, personally, 
 but only to his geographical position, which 
 is thought by some to be too far North and 
 East to allow his personal good qualities to 
 exercise their proper influence over the nation 
 at large. But the nomination for the Presi¬ 
 dency is the great controlling act. Mr. 
 Lincoln, his character, talents, opinions and 
 history, will be criticised by thousands, while 
 the candidate for the Vice Presidency will be 
 parsed over in comparative silence. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln’s nomination took the public by 
 surprise, because, until just before the event, 
 it was unexpected. But really it ought not to 
 have excited any surprise, for such unforeseen 
 nominations are common in our political his¬ 
 tory. Polk and Pierce by the Democrats, 
 and Harrison and Taylor by the Whigs, were 
 all nominated in this extemporaneous manner 
 —all of them were elected. I h^ive known 
 Mr. Lincoln for more than twenty years, and 
 therefore have a right to speak of him with 
 some confidence. As an individual he has 
 earned a high reputation for truth, courage, 
 candor, morals and amiability, so that, as a 
 man, he is most trustworthy. And in this par¬ 
 ticular, he is more entitled to our esteem than 
 some other men, his equals who had far better 
 
3 
 
 opportunities and aids in early life. Ilia tal¬ 
 ents and the will to u->e them to the best ad¬ 
 vantage, are unquestionable ; and the proof 
 is found in the fact that in every position in 
 life, from his humble beginning to his present 
 well-earned elevation, he has more than ful¬ 
 filled the best hopes of his friends. And now, 
 in the full vigor of his manhood, and in the 
 honest pride of making himself what he is, he 
 is the peer of the first men of the nation, well 
 able to sustain himself and advance his cause 
 against any adversary, and in any field where 
 mind and knowledge are the weapons used. 
 
 In politics he has but acted out the princi¬ 
 ples of his own moral and intellectual charac¬ 
 ter. He has not concealed his thoughts nor 
 hidden his light under a bushel. With the 
 boldness of conscious rectitude, and frankness 
 of down-right honesty, he has not failed to 
 avow his opinions of public affairs upon all 
 fitting occasions. 
 
 This I know may subject him to the carping 
 censure of that class of politicians who mis¬ 
 take cunning for wisdom and falsehood for 
 ingenuity; but such men as Lincoln must act 
 in keeping with their own characters, and 
 hope for success only by advancing the truth 
 prudently and maintaining it bravely. All his 
 old political antecedents are, in my judgement, 
 exactly right, being square up to the old Whig 
 standard. And as to his views about “the 
 pestilent negro question,” I am not aware that 
 he has gone one step beyond the doctrine 
 publicly and habitually avowed by the great 
 lights of the Whig party, Clay, Webster, and 
 their fellows, and, indeed, sustained and car¬ 
 ried out by the Democrats themselves, in their 
 wiser and better days. 
 
 The following, I suppose, are in brief his 
 opinions upon that subject: 1. Slavery is a 
 
 domestic institution within the States which 
 choose to have it, and exists within those 
 States beyond the control of Congress. 2. Con¬ 
 gress has supreme legislative power over all 
 the Territories, and may, at its discretion, al¬ 
 low or forbid the existence of slavery within 
 them. 3. Congress, in wisdom and sound 
 policy, ought not so to exercise its power, di¬ 
 rectly or indirectly , as to plant and establish 
 slavery in any Territory heretofore free. 
 4. And that it is unwise and impolitic in the 
 government of the United States to acquire 
 tropical regions for the mere purpose of con¬ 
 verting them into slave States. 
 
 These, I believe, are Mr. Lincoln’s opinions 
 upon the matter of slavery in the Territories, 
 and I concur in them. They are no new in¬ 
 ventions, made to suite the exigencies of the 
 hour, but have come down to us, as the De¬ 
 claration of Independence and the Constitu¬ 
 tion have, sanctioned by the venerable au¬ 
 thority of the wise and good men who estab¬ 
 lished our institutions. They are comformable 
 to law, principle and wise policy, and their 
 utility is proven in practice by the as yet un¬ 
 broken current of our political history. They 
 will prevail, not only because they are right 
 in themselves, but also because a great and 
 
 growing majority of the people believe them 
 to be right, and the sooner they are allowed 
 to prevail in peace and harmony, the better 
 for all concerned, as well those who are against 
 them as those who are for them. 
 
 I am aware that small partisans, in their 
 little warfare against opposing leaders, do 
 sometimes assail them by the trick of tearing 
 from their contexts some particular, objection¬ 
 able phrases, penned, perhaps, in the hurry of 
 composition, or spoken in the heat of oral de¬ 
 bate, and holding them up as the leading doc¬ 
 trines of the persons assailed, and d: awing 
 from them their own uncharitable inferences. 
 That line of attack betrays a little mind con¬ 
 scious of its weakness, for the falsity of its 
 logic is not more apparent than the injustice 
 of its design. No public man can stand that 
 ordeal, and, however willing men may be to 
 see it applied to their adversaries, all flinch 
 from the torture when applied to themselves. 
 In fact, the man who never said a foolish thing, 
 will hardly be able to prove that he ever said 
 many wise ones. 
 
 I consider Mr. Lincoln a sound , safe , national 
 man. He could not be sectional if he tried. 
 His birth, his education, the habits of his life, 
 and his geographical position, compel him to 
 be national. All his feelings and interests 
 are identified with the great valley of the 
 Mississippi, near whose center he has spent 
 his whole life. That Yalley is not a section, 
 but, conspicuously, the body of the nation, 
 and, large as it is, it is not capable of being 
 divided into sections, for the great river can¬ 
 not be divided. It is one and indivisible, and 
 the North and the South are alike necessary 
 to its comfort and prosperity. Its people, too, 
 in all their interests and affections, are as 
 broad and general as the regions they inhabit. 
 They are emigrants—a mixed multitude— 
 coming from every State in the Union, and 
 from most countries in Europe ; they are un¬ 
 willing, therefore, to submit to any one petty 
 local standard. They love the nation as a 
 whole, and they love all its parts, tor they are 
 bound to them all, not only by a feeling of 
 common interest and mutual dependence, but 
 also by the recollections of childhood and 
 youth, by blood and friendship, and by all 
 those social and domestic charities which 
 sweeten life, and make this world worth living 
 in. The Yalley is beginning to feel its power, 
 and will soon be strong enough to dictate the 
 law of the land. Whenever that state of 
 things shall come to pass, it will be most for¬ 
 tunate for the nation to find the powers of 
 government lodged in the hands of men 
 whose habits of thought, whose position and 
 surrounding circumstances constrain them to 
 use those powers for general and not sectional 
 ends. 
 
 I give my opinion freely in favor of Mr. 
 Lincoln, and hope that, for the good of the 
 whole country, he may be elected. But it is 
 not my intention to take any active part in 
 the canvass. For many years past I have had 
 little to do with public affairs, and have as- 
 
4 
 
 pired to no political office ; and now, in view 
 of the mad excitement which convulses the 
 country, and the general disruption and dis¬ 
 order of parties and the elements which com¬ 
 pose them, I am more than ever assured that 
 for me, personally, there is no political future, 
 and I accept the condition with cheerful sat¬ 
 isfaction. Still, I cannot discharge myself 
 from the life-long duty to watch the conduct 
 of men in power, and to resist, so far as a 
 mere private man may, the fearful progress of 
 official corruption, which for several years 
 past, has sadly marred and defiled the fair 
 fabric of our government. 
 
 If Mr. Lincoln should be elected, coming 
 in as a new man, at the head of a young 
 party, never before in power, he may render 
 a great service to his country, which no Demo¬ 
 crat could render. He can march straight 
 forward in the discharge of his high duties, 
 
 guided only by his own good judgment and 
 honest purposes, without any necessity to 
 temporize with established abuses, to wink at 
 the delinquencies of old party friends, or to 
 unlearn and discard the bad official habits 
 that have grown up under the misgovernment 
 of his Democratic predecessors. In short, 
 he can be an honest and bold reformer on 
 easier and cheaper terms than any Democratic 
 President can be, for, in proceeding in the 
 good work of cleaniug and purifying the ad¬ 
 ministrative departments, he will have no oc¬ 
 casion to expose the vices, assail the inter¬ 
 ests, or thwart the ambition of his political 
 friends. 
 
 Begging your pardon for the length of this 
 letter, I remain, with the greatest respect, 
 
 Your friend and obedient servant, 
 
 EDWARD BATES. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE THREE PLATFORMS. 
 
 NATIONAL REPUBLICAN PLATFORM, ADOPTED BY THE CHICAGO CONVENTION, MAY 17, 1860. 
 
 Resolved , That we, the delegated represen¬ 
 tatives of the Republican electors of the 
 United States, in Convention assembled, in 
 discharge of the duty we owe to our constit¬ 
 uents and our country, unite in the following 
 declarations: 
 
 The Republican Party. 
 
 1. That the history of the nation during 
 the last four years, has fully established the 
 propriety and necessity of the organization 
 and perpetuation of the Republican party, 
 and that the causes which called it into ex¬ 
 istence are permanent in their nature, and 
 now, more than ever before, demand its peace¬ 
 ful and constitutional triumph. 
 
 material resources; its rapid augmentation of 
 wealth ; its happiness at home and its honor 
 abroad: and we hold in abhorrence all schemes 
 for Disunion, come from whatever source they 
 may. And we congratulate the country that 
 no Republican member of Congress has utter¬ 
 ed or countenanced the threats of Disunion 
 so often made by Democratic members, with¬ 
 out rebuke and with applause from their polit¬ 
 ical associates; and we denounce those threats 
 of Disunion, in case of a popular overthrow 
 of their ascendancy, as denying the vital prin 
 ciples of a free government, and as an avowal 
 of contemplated treason, which it is the im¬ 
 perative duty of an indignant people sternly 
 to rebuke and forever silence. 
 
 Its Fundamental Principles. 
 
 2. That the maintenance of the principles 
 promulgated in the Declaration of Independ¬ 
 ence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, 
 “ That all men are created equal; that they 
 are endowed by their Creator with certain 
 inalienable rights; that among these are life, 
 liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ; that 
 to secure these rights, governments are insti¬ 
 tuted among men, deriving their just power 
 from the consent of the governed ”—is essen¬ 
 tial to the preservation of our Republican 
 institutions; and that the Federal Constitu¬ 
 tion, the Rights of the States, and the Union 
 of the States, must and shall be preserved. 
 
 True to the Union. 
 
 3. That to the Union of the States, this 
 nation owes its unprecedented increase of 
 population; its surprising development of 
 
 State Sovereignty. 
 
 4. That the maintenance, inviolate, of the 
 Rights of the States, and especially the right 
 of each State to order and control its own 
 domestic institutions according to its own 
 judgment exclusively, is essential to that bal¬ 
 ance of power on which the perfection and 
 endurance of our political fabric depends ; and 
 we denounce the lawless invasion by armed 
 force, of the soil of any State or Territory, 
 no matter under what pretext, as among the 
 gravest of crimes. 
 
 Sectionalism of the Democracy. 
 
 5. That the present Democratic Adminis¬ 
 tration has far exceeded our worst apprehen¬ 
 sions, in its measureless subserviency to the 
 exactions of a sectional interest, as especially 
 eviuced in its desperate exertions to force the 
 infamous Lecompton Constitution upon the 
 
5 
 
 protesting people of Kansas; in construing 
 the personal relation between master and serv¬ 
 ant to involve an unqualified property in per¬ 
 sons; in its attempted enforcement every¬ 
 where, on land and sea, through the interven¬ 
 tion of Congress and of the Federal Courts, 
 of the extreme pretensions of a purely local 
 interest; and in its general and unvarying 
 abuse of power entrusted to it by a confiding 
 people. 
 
 Its Extravagance and Corruption. 
 
 6. That the people justly view with alarm 
 the reckless extravagance which pervades 
 every department of the Federal Government; 
 that a return to rigid economy and accounta¬ 
 bility is indispensable to arrest the systematic 
 plunder of the public treasury by favored par¬ 
 tisans; while the recent startling develop¬ 
 ments of frauds and corruptions at the Federal 
 Metropolis, show that an entire change of 
 administration is imperatively demanded. 
 
 A Dangerous Political Heresy. 
 
 7. That the new dogma that the Constitu¬ 
 tion, of its own force, carries Slavery into any 
 or all of the Territories of the United States, 
 is a dangerous political heresy, at variance 
 with the explicit provisions of that instrument 
 itself, with cotemporaneous exposition, and 
 with legislative and judicial precedent; is 
 revolutionary in its tendency, and subversive 
 of the peace and harmony of the country. 
 
 Freedom , the Normal Condition of Territories. 
 
 8. That the normal condition of all the 
 territory of the United States is that of Free¬ 
 dom : That as our Republican fathers, when 
 they had abolished slavery in all our national 
 territory, ordained that “ no person should be 
 deprived of life, liberty or property, without 
 due process of law,” it becomes our duty, by 
 legislation, whenever such legislation is neces¬ 
 sary, to maintain this provision of the Consti¬ 
 tution against all attempts to violate it; and 
 we deny the authority of Congress, of a terri¬ 
 torial legislature, or of any individuals, to 
 give legal existance to slavery in any territory 
 in the United States. 
 
 The African Slave Trade. 
 
 9. That we brand the recent re-opening of 
 the African Slave Trade, under the cover of 
 our national flag, aided by perversions of judi¬ 
 cial power, as a crime against humanity, and 
 a burning shame to our country and age ; and 
 we call upon ^Congress to take prompt and 
 efficient measures for the total and final sup¬ 
 pression of that execrable traffic. 
 
 Democratic Popular Sovereignty. 
 
 10. That in the recent vetoes, by their Fed¬ 
 eral Governors, of the acts of the legisla¬ 
 tures of Kansas and Nebraska, prohibiting 
 Slavery in those Territories, we find a practi¬ 
 cal illustration of the boasted Democratic 
 principle of Non-Intervention and Popular 
 Sovereignty embodied in the Kansas-Nebraska 
 
 Bill, and a demonstration of the deception 
 and fraud involved therein. 
 
 Admission of Kansas. 
 
 11. That Kansas should, of right, be imme¬ 
 diately admitted as a State under the Consti¬ 
 tution recently formed and adopted by her 
 people, and accepted by the House of Rep¬ 
 resentatives. 
 
 Encouragement of American Industry. 
 
 12. That, while providing revenue for the 
 support of the general government by duties 
 upon imports, sound policy requires such an 
 adjustment of these imports as to encourage 
 the development of the industrial interests of 
 the whole country; and we commend that 
 policy of national exchanges, which secures 
 to the working men liberal wages ; to agricul¬ 
 ture, remunerating prices ; to mechanics and 
 manufacturers, an adequate reward for their 
 skill, labor and enterprise ; and to the nation, 
 commercial prosperity and independence. 
 
 Free Homesteads. 
 
 13. That we protest against any sale or 
 alienation to others of the Public Lands held 
 by actual settlers, and against any view of the 
 Free Homestead policy which regards the set¬ 
 tlers as paupers or suppliants for public 
 bounty ; and we demand the passage by Con¬ 
 gress of the complete and satisfactory Home¬ 
 stead Measure which has already passed the 
 House. 
 
 Rights of Citizenship. 
 
 14. That the Republican party is opposed 
 to any change in our Naturalization Laws or 
 any State Legislation by which the rights of 
 citizenship hitherto accorded to emigrants 
 from foreign lands shall be abridged or im¬ 
 paired ; and in favor of giving a full and effi¬ 
 cient protection to the rights of all classes of 
 citizens, whether native or naturalized, both 
 at home and abroad. 
 
 River and Harbor Improvements. 
 
 15. The appropriations by Congress for 
 River and Harbor improvements of a National 
 character, required for the accommodation 
 and security of an existing commerce, are 
 authorized by the Constitution, and justified 
 by the obligation of Government to protect 
 the lives and property of its citizens. 
 
 A Pacific Railroad. 
 
 16. That a Railroad to the Pacific Ocean is 
 imperatively demanded by the interests of the 
 whole country ; that the Federal Government 
 ought to render immediate and efficient aid in 
 its construction; and that, as preliminary 
 thereto, a daily Overland Mail should be 
 promptly established. 
 
 Co-operation Invited. 
 
 17. Finally, having thus set forth our dis¬ 
 tinctive principles and views, we invite the 
 co-operation of all citizens, however differing 
 on other questions, who substantially agree 
 with us in their affirmance and support. 
 
6 
 
 PLATFORM OF THE DO¥GLAS FACTION OF THE DEMOCRACY, ADOPTED AT BALTIMORE, JUNE 23. 1860. 
 
 Resolved , That we, the Democracy of the 
 Union, in Convention assembled, hereby de¬ 
 clare our affirmation of the resolutions unani¬ 
 mously adopted and declared as a platform of 
 principles by the Democratic Convention at 
 Cincinnati, in the year 1856, believing that De¬ 
 mocratic principles are unchangable in their 
 nature when applied to the same subject 
 matter. 
 
 Resolved, That it is the duty of the United 
 States to afford ample and complete protection 
 to all its citizens, at home or abroad, and 
 whether native or foreign born. 
 
 Resolved, That one of the necessities of the 
 age, in a military, commercial and postal point 
 of view, is speedy communication between the 
 Atlantic and Pacific States, and the Democratic 
 party pledge such constitutional enactment as 
 will insure the construction of a railroad to 
 the Pacific coast at the earliest practicable 
 period. 
 
 PLATFORM OF THE BRECKINRIDGE FACTION 
 
 MORE, JU E 
 
 Resolved , That the platform adopted by the 
 Democratic party at Cincinnati be affirmed, 
 with the following explanatory resolutions : 
 
 1. That the government of the Territory or¬ 
 ganized by an act of Congress is provisional 
 and temporary, and during its existence all 
 citizens of the United States have an equal 
 right to settle with their property in the Ter¬ 
 ritory, without their rights, either of person 
 or property, being destroyed or injured by 
 Congressional or Territorial legislation. 
 
 2. That it is the duty of the Federal Gov¬ 
 ernment, in all its departments, to protect the 
 rights of persons and property in the Territo¬ 
 ries, and wherever else its constitutional au¬ 
 thority extends. 
 
 3. That when the settlers in a Territory hav¬ 
 ing an adequate population to form a State 
 constitution, the right of sovereignty com¬ 
 mences, and being consummated by their ad¬ 
 mission into the Union, they stand on an 
 equality with the people of other States, 
 and a State thus organized ought to be admit¬ 
 ted into the Federal Union, whether its con¬ 
 stitution prohibits or recognises the institution 
 of slavery. 
 
 Resolved , That the Democratic party are in 
 favor of the acquisition of the Island of Cuba, 
 
 Resolved, That the Democratic party are in 
 favor of the acquisition of the Island of Cuba, 
 on such terms as shall be honorable to our¬ 
 selves and just to Spain. 
 
 Resolved , That the enactments of State Legis¬ 
 latures to defeat the faithful execution of the 
 Fugitive Slave law are hostile in character, 
 subversive of the Constitution and revolution¬ 
 ary in their effect. 
 
 Rexolved , That it is in accordance with the 
 Cincinnati Platform, that during the existence 
 of Territorial Governments the measure of re¬ 
 striction, whatever it may be, imposed by the 
 Federal Constitution on the power of the Terri¬ 
 torial Legislature over the subject of the domes¬ 
 tic relations, as the samehas been or shall hereaf¬ 
 ter be decided by the Supreme Court of the United 
 States , should be respected by all good citizens, 
 and enforced with promptness and fidelity by 
 every branch of the General Government. 
 
 OF THE DEMOCRACY, ADOPLED AT BALTI- 
 
 23, 1860. 
 
 on such terms as shall be honorable to our¬ 
 selves and just to Spain, at the earliest prac¬ 
 ticable moment. 
 
 Resolved, That the enactments of State Leg¬ 
 islatures to defeat the faithful execution of the 
 Fugitive Slave law are hostile in character, 
 subversive of the Constitution, and revolution¬ 
 ary in their effect. 
 
 Resolved, That the Democracy of the United 
 States recognize it as the imperative duty of 
 this government to protect the naturalized 
 citizen in all his rights, whether at home or 
 in foreign lands, to the same extent as its na¬ 
 tive born citizens. 
 
 Whereas, One of the greatest necessities 
 of the age, in a political, commercial, postal 
 and military point of view, is a speedy com¬ 
 munication between the Pacific and Atlantic 
 coasts, therefore, be it 
 
 Resolved , That the National Democratic 
 party do hereby pledge themselves to use every 
 means in their power to secure the passage of 
 some bill, to the extent of their constitutional 
 authority, by Congress, for the construction 
 of a Pacific Railroad from the Mississippi 
 River to the Pacific Ocean, at the earliest 
 practicable moment. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE WICKLIFFE RESOLUTION. 
 
 The concluding resolution of the Douglas 
 Platform should be carefully examined by 
 every voter in the North. It was offered just 
 after Mr. Douglas was declared nominated, by 
 Mr. Wickliffe, of Louisiana, who stated in 
 
 open Convention, that its adoption “ would 
 give Douglas 40,000 votes in Louisiana.” 
 Whereupon, on motion of Mr. Payne, of Ohio, 
 it was adopted unanimously in the following 
 words: 
 
7 
 
 “ Resolved, That it is in accordance with the Cin¬ 
 cinnati platform, that during the existence of Terri¬ 
 torial Governments, the measure of restriction, what¬ 
 ever it may be, imposed by the Federal Constitution 
 on the power of the Territorial Legislature over the 
 subject of the domestic relations, as the same has been 
 or shall hereafter be decided by the Supreme Court 
 of the United States, should be respected by all good 
 citizens, and enforced with promptness and fidelity by 
 every branch of the General Government .” 
 
 The question naturally and properly arises, 
 What does this resolution mean? Why was it 
 adopted? If it means nothing, why is it 
 there ? If it means something, what is that 
 something ? It was avowedly introduced to 
 give Douglas 40,000 votes in Louisiana ! At 
 Freeport Mr. Douglas said: “It matters not 
 what way the Supreme Court may hereafter 
 decide as to the abstract question whether 
 slavery may or may not go into a Territory 
 under the Constitution, the people have the 
 lawful means to introduce or to exclude it as 
 they please.” But now his platform says that, 
 as the aforesaid question has been or may 
 hereafrer be decided bv the Supreme Court, 
 it should be “enforced with promptness and 
 fidelity by every branch of the general govern¬ 
 ment!'" Is not Congress one branch of the 
 general government; and if the Supreme 
 Court has already, or shall hereafter, decide 
 that Territorial Legislatures cannot exclude 
 slavery, or that slaves, being property under 
 the Constitution, may be held as such in the 
 Territories, is not the Douglas party, as well 
 as the Breckinridge party, committed to a 
 Congressional slave code? It happens that the 
 whole quarrel in the Democratic ranks, so far 
 as any principle is involved in it, has grown 
 out of the fact that the Supreme Court have 
 already decided, the question. In the Dred Scott 
 case, the Court, after deciding that Congress 
 had no power to prohibit shivery in a Terri¬ 
 tory, proceeded as follows: 
 
 “ The powers over person and property of which we 
 speak are not only not granted to Congress, but are in 
 express terms denied, and they are forbidden to exer¬ 
 cise them. And this prohibition is not confined to the 
 States, but the words are general, and extend to the 
 whole territory over which the Constitution gives it 
 power to legislate, including those portions of it re¬ 
 maining under Territorial Government, as well as that 
 covered by States. It is a total absence of power eve¬ 
 rywhere within the dominion of the United States, and 
 places the citizens of a Territory, so far as these rights 
 are concerned, on the same footing with citizens of the 
 States, and guards them as firmly and plainly against 
 any inroads which the General Government might at¬ 
 tempt, under the plea of implied or incidental powers. 
 And if Congress itself cannot do this—if it is beyond 
 the powers conferred on the Federal Government— it 
 will be admitted, we premme, that it could not au¬ 
 thorize a Territorial Government to exercise them. 
 It could confer no power on any local government 
 established by its authority, to violate the provisions 
 of the Constitution. 
 
 “It seems, however, to be supposed that there is a 
 difference between property in a slave and other prop¬ 
 erty, and that different rules may be applied to it in 
 expounding the Constitution of the United States. 
 And the laws and usages of nations, and the writings 
 of eminent jurists upon the relation of master and 
 slave, and their mutual rights and duties, and the 
 powers which governments may exercise over it, have 
 been dwelt upon in the argument. 
 
 “ But in considering the question before us, it must 
 be borne in mind that there is no law of nations stand¬ 
 ing bet ween the people of the United States and their 
 government, and interfering with their relation to each 
 
 other. The powers of the government, and the rights 
 of the citizen under it, are positive and practical regu¬ 
 lations plainly written down. The people of the United 
 States have delegated to it certain enumerated powers, 
 and forbidden it to exercise others. It has no power 
 over the person or property of a citizen but what the 
 citizens of the United S ates have granted. And no 
 laws or usages of other nations, or reasoning of states¬ 
 men or jurists upon the relation of master and slave, 
 can enlarge the powers of the government, or take from 
 the citizens the rights they have reserved. And if the 
 Constitution recognizes the right of property of the 
 master in a slave, and makes no distinction between 
 that description of property and other property owned 
 by a citizen, no tribunal, acting under the authority 
 of the United States, whether it be legislative, exec¬ 
 utive or judicial, has a right to draw such a dis¬ 
 tinction, or deny to it the benefit of the provisions 
 and guarantees which have been provided for the 
 protection of private property against the encroach¬ 
 ments of the government. 
 
 “ Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of 
 this opinion, upon a different point, the right of prop¬ 
 erty in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed 
 in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an 
 ordinary article of merchandise and property, was 
 guaranteed to the citizens of the United States in every 
 State that might desire it, for twenty years. And the 
 Government in express terms is pledged to protect it in 
 all future time, it the slave escapes from his owner. 
 This is done in plain words, too plain to be misunder¬ 
 stood. And no word can be found in the Constitution 
 which gives Congress a greater power over slave prop¬ 
 erty, or which entitles property of that kind to less pro¬ 
 tection than property of any other description. The 
 only power conferred is "the power, coupled xcith 
 the duty, of guarding and protecting the ownerin 
 his rights .” 
 
 Nowhere is a plain logical proposition, which 
 no man can fail to understand: 1. The Su¬ 
 preme Court have decided that neither Con¬ 
 gress nor a Territorial Legislature can pro¬ 
 hibit slavery in a Territory ; 2. The Douglas 
 platform says that the opinion of the Court on 
 this point “ as it has been or shall hereafter 
 be decided,” must be enforced “ by every 
 branch of the general government;” 3. There¬ 
 fore Congresq as a branch of the general 
 government, should enforce the doctrine that 
 a Territorial Legislature cannot exclude sla¬ 
 very, by piomptly repealing every law which 
 may be enacted prohibiting slavery. If any 
 one is so purblind as not to see that the Su¬ 
 preme Court have already decided the ques¬ 
 tion adversely to “ squatter sovereignty,” let 
 him read the above quotation from the Dred 
 Scott decision, and ask himself what the Court 
 will hereafter decide when the question shall 
 come distinctly before them. The Wickliffe 
 resolution is worded to accommodate both 
 those who believe that the question has been 
 already decided and those who believe it is 
 “hereafter” to be decided. If it be admitted 
 that the question is not yet decided, how will it 
 be decided when it comes up again ? Let the fair 
 minded reader scan the decision which has been 
 made, and frame the answer for himself. It is 
 submitted to all candid persons that the Wick¬ 
 liffe resolution was adopted for the purpose of 
 cheating somebody. If it is to be carried out 
 in good faith to Mr. Wikcliffe and his fiiends in 
 Louisiana, its obvious purpose is to cheat the 
 Democracy of Illinois. If it is to be nullified af¬ 
 ter the campaign is over, of course Wickliffe & 
 Co., are to be cheated in like manner. Fraud 
 is stamped upon every letter of it. But Wick¬ 
 liffe & Co., have taken good care that they 
 
8 
 
 shall not be cheated. They have got their 
 resolution into the platform, and they have got 
 the Dred Scott decision behind it. They 
 know, if there is a controversy in the party as 
 to what the Court did actually decide, the 
 Court will “ hereafter ” decide in their favor. 
 Who then is to be cheated ? Douglas Demo¬ 
 crat of the North, it is you! Some of your 
 leaders are honest enough to admit that the 
 Supreme Court have really decided against 
 you. John W. Forney, of Pennsylvania, is one 
 of these. In an “address to the People of 
 Pennsylvania,” published July 11, 1859, signed 
 “John W. Forney, Chairman, Democratic 
 State Rights Committee,” he says: 
 
 “ It will be observed that when Mr. Buchanan wrote, 
 and when Mr. Cobb spoke, and when the entire Demo¬ 
 cratic party stood squarely united upon the honest con¬ 
 struction of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the odious theory 
 advanced by this Pennsylvania National Democratic 
 committee was not a novelty, nor was the subsequent 
 obiter dictum, as it is, of the Supreme\ Court , an un¬ 
 anticipated event. But it was notorious that every 
 conservative, Union-loving statesman in Congress, from 
 Henry Clay, in the South, to Lewis Cass, in the North, 
 had denounced the idea of an Executive or Congres¬ 
 sional protection for the Territories, on the subject of 
 slavery, as unworthy of the consideration of a free coun¬ 
 try, and that more than one eminent Southern leader had 
 declared that the political opjinion of no court, high 
 or low , could be wielded against the sacred and in¬ 
 alienable franchises of the people , when they came 
 to exercise their highest acts of sovereignty in regard to 
 this very question of slavery.” 
 
 Is it not a plain and palpable inference 
 from this language, that Col. Forney admits 
 the Southern construction,—the Wickliffe 
 construction—of the Dred Scott decision to be 
 correct, and that he proposes to repudiate it 
 as the only proper way to save “ popular 
 sovereignty”? He calls it an obiter dictum 
 —a “ decision out of the way,” that is, a dec¬ 
 laration of law apart from the case before the 
 Court, and therefore having no binding force. 
 But Mr. Douglas does not consider it an obiter 
 dictum. He says: 
 
 “ The Court did not attempt to avoid responsibility 
 by disposing of the case upon technical points without 
 touching the merits, nor did they go out of their way to 
 decide questions not properly before them and directly 
 presented by the record. Like honest and conscien¬ 
 tious judges, as they are, they met and decided each 
 point as it arose, and faithfully performed their whole 
 duty and nothing but their duty to the country by de¬ 
 termining all the questions in the case, and nothing 
 but what was essential to the decision of the case upon 
 its merits.’’--[Douglas’ Springfield Grand Jury Speech, 
 June 12th, 1857,—as published in the State Register. ] 
 
 Hence he (Douglas), is bound to construe 
 the decision as lavj , and he is bound by the 
 Platform of his party to frame the territorial 
 policy of the government “as the same has 
 been, or shall hereafter be, decided by the Su¬ 
 preme Court.” Are there not two slave-code 
 parties in the field ? 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 HERSCHEL V. JOHNSON’S RECORD. 
 
 It was fitting that the Douglas Democracy, 
 after putting a slave code plank in their plat¬ 
 form, should nominate the original slave code 
 man of the South , as their candidate for Vice- 
 President That man is Herschel V. Johnson, 
 of Georgia. The nomination of Fitzpatrick, 
 who voted for the Lecompton bill, in all its 
 stages, and who actually supported Jeif. Davis’ 
 slave code resolutions in the Senate, was bad 
 enough ; but the nomination of Johnson was, 
 if possible, still worse. For the purpose of 
 showing the Douglas Democracy of the North¬ 
 west the sentiments of their candidate for the 
 Vice-Presidency, we quote from his speech 
 delivered in the United States Senate, on the 
 7th of July, 1848, commencing on page 887 of 
 the Appendix to the Congressional Globe for 
 that year: 
 
 Protection of Slavery in the Territories. 
 
 “ It remains now to consider the question involved in 
 the amendment proposed by the Senator from Missis¬ 
 sippi. [Mr. Davis.] That question is, whether it is 
 the duty of Congress to guarantee to the slaveholder 
 who shall remove with his slaves into the territory of 
 the United States the undisputed enjoyment of his 
 property in them., so long as it continues to be a Ter¬ 
 ritory. Or, in other words, whether the inhabitants 
 of a Territory, during their territorial condition , 
 have the right to prohibit slavery therein. 
 
 No Power Whatever can Exclude Slavery from 
 the Territories. 
 
 “ For the purpose of this question, it matters n^t 
 where the power of legislating for the Territory resides 
 
 —whether exclusively in Congress, or jointly in pon- 
 gress and the inhabitants, or exclusively in the inhabi¬ 
 tants of the Territory ; the power is precisely the same 
 —no greater in the hands of one than the other. In 
 no event, can the slaveholder of the South be excluded 
 from settling in such Territory with his property 
 
 OF EVERY DESCRIPTION. 
 
 Squatter Sovereignty Squelched. 
 
 “ But suppose that Congress have the right to estab¬ 
 lish a Territorial Government only, and that then, all 
 further governmental control ceases : can the Territo¬ 
 rial Legislature pass an act prohibiting slavery t 
 Surely not. For the moment you admit the right 
 to organize a Territorial Government to exist in Con¬ 
 gress, you admit necessarily the subordination of the 
 people of the Territory—their dependence on this Gov¬ 
 ernment for an organic law, to give them political ex¬ 
 istence. Hence, all the legislation must be in conformi¬ 
 ty with the organic law, they can pass no act in viola¬ 
 tion of it—none but such as it permits. Since, therefore, 
 Congress has no power, as I have shown, to prohibit 
 Slavery, they cannot delegate such a power to the in¬ 
 habitants of the Territory ; they cannot authorize the 
 Territorial Legislature to do that which they have no 
 power to do. The stream cannot rise higher than its 
 source. 
 
 Absolute Congressional Sovereignty vs. Non-Inter¬ 
 vention. 
 
 “It is idle, however, to discuss this question in this 
 form. For if Congress posesses the power to organize 
 temporary governments, it must then possess the power 
 to legislate for the Territories. If they may perform 
 the greater, they may the less; the major includes 
 the minor proposition. Hence, Congress has, in all 
 cases since the foundation of our government, reserved 
 a veto upon the legislation of the Territorial Govern¬ 
 ments : it is absolutely necessary, in order to restrain 
 them from violations of the Constitution, and infringe- 
 
9 
 
 ments of the rights of the States, as joint owners of the 
 public lands. If, therefore, an act of the Territorial 
 Government, prohibiting Slavery, should be sent up to 
 Congress for approval, they would be bound to with¬ 
 hold it, upon the ground of its being an act which 
 Congress themselves could not pass. 
 
 The People cannot Exclude Slavery from a Ter¬ 
 ritory. 
 
 “ But suppose the right of legislation for the Territo¬ 
 ry be in its inhabitants, car. they prohibit Slavery ? 
 Surely pot; and for reasons similar to those which 
 show that Congress cannot. 
 
 He demands a Slave Code. 
 
 “ It is ur^ed that slavery does not exist in New Mexi¬ 
 co and California ; that they are free Territories ; and 
 although we deny to Congress any jurisdiction over the 
 subject, yet we ask Congress by this amendment to 
 establish slavery therein. Upon the execution of the 
 treaty, all political regulations of the United States 
 were extended over the Territories, and the institution 
 of slavery being political in its character , it now ex¬ 
 ists , in legal intendment , as absolutely in New Mexi¬ 
 co and California as it docs in Virginia and 
 Georgia. 
 
 Popular Sovereignty is Ridiculous and Absurd. 
 
 “ If you assert the broad proposition that the inhabi¬ 
 tants of the Territory, by virtue of the right of self- 
 government , have the right, to exclude slavery therein 
 the question arises, how many inhabitants shall there 
 be to enable them to do thk ? Shall it be five hundred, 
 or ten or twenty thousand ? Shall a few thousand peo¬ 
 ple in Oregon—a vast territory out of which five or six 
 States may be carved—determine that question for all 
 future generations, and fix their destiny for all time to 
 come? Shall a few thousand half civilized Mexicans, 
 inhabiting the Territories of California and New Mexi¬ 
 co decide what institutions shall exist there ? The idea 
 is ridiculous and absurd. 
 
 “The institution of Slavery is guaranteed by the 
 Constitution of the United States, and it has the same 
 protection thrown around it, which guards our citizens 
 against the granting of titles of nobility, or the estab¬ 
 lishment of religion ; therefore Congress would be as 
 much bound to veto an act of Territorial legislation 
 prohibiting it, as an act violating these rights of every 
 citizen of the Republic. 
 
 , ( . . JLt 
 
 A Disunion Tirade. 
 
 “ But suppose, Mr. President, you have the right to 
 prohibit Slavery in the Territories of the United States, 
 what high political consideration requires you to exer¬ 
 cise it? All must see. that it cannot be affected with¬ 
 out producing a popular convulsion which will pro¬ 
 bably dissolve the Union." 
 
 These were Mr. Johnson’s sentiments in 
 1848. Let us see what they are in 1860. 
 To show that he has not yet changed his mind 
 on the matter in issue between the two wings of 
 the pro--lavery party, we reprint from the 
 Soutliei'ner and Advertiser , a Douglas paper, 
 published at Rome, Ga., (an authority, there¬ 
 fore, that cannot be disputed,) the pro¬ 
 ceedings of the Democratic State Convention, 
 held at Milledgeville, June 4th, called to take 
 action in regard to the secession of most of the 
 Georgia, delegates at Charleston. It seems 
 that a Business Committee of twenty-four was 
 
 appointed, of which Herschel V. Johnson was 
 one. This Committee disagreed as to the pro¬ 
 priety of appointing new delegates to Balti¬ 
 more' the friends of the seceders opposing, 
 and a few who preferred to see Douglas elec¬ 
 ted to a dissolution of the party, favored that 
 step; and the consequence was, that two 
 reports were presented—a majority one by 
 twenty members of the Committee, and a 
 minority one by four members, which latter 
 division included Herschel V. Johnson, who, 
 as Chairman, introduced the minority report 
 which was as follows : 
 
 “ Resolved , That we re-affirm the Cincinnati plat¬ 
 form, with the following additional propositions : 
 
 “ 1st. That the citizens of the United States have an 
 equal right to settle with their property of any kind , 
 in the organized Territories of the United States, and 
 and that under the decision of the Supreme Court of 
 the United States in the case of Dred Scott, which we 
 recognize as the correct exposition of the Constitution 
 in this particular, slave property stands on the same 
 footing as all other descriptions of property, and that 
 neither the General Government, NOR ANY TERRI¬ 
 TORIAL GOVERNMENT, can destroy or impair the 
 right to slave property; that property of all kinds, 
 slaves as well as any other species of property, in the 
 Territories, stand upon the same equal and broad 
 Constitutional basis, and subject to like principles of 
 recognition and PROTECTION in the LEGISLATIVE, 
 judicial and executive departments of the Government. 
 
 “2d. That we will support any man who may be 
 nominated by the Baltimore Convention, for the Presi¬ 
 dency, who holds the principles set forth in the fore¬ 
 going proposition, and who will give them his endorse¬ 
 ment, and we will not hold ourselves bound to support 
 any man, who may be the nominee, who entertains 
 principles inconsistent with those set forth in the above 
 propositions, or who denies that slave property in the 
 Territories does stand on an equal footing and on the 
 same Constitutional basis of other descriptions of 
 property. 
 
 “ In view of the fact that a large majority of the 
 delegates from Georgia felt it to be their duty to with¬ 
 draw from the late Democratic Convention, thereby 
 depriving this State of her vote therein, according to 
 the decision of said Convention. 
 
 “ Resolved , That this Convention will appoint twenty 
 delegates—four from the State at large, and two from 
 each Congressional District—to represent the Demo¬ 
 cratic party of Georgia, in the adjourned Convention 
 at Baltimore, on the ISth inst., and that the delegates 
 be and are hereby instructed to present the foregoing 
 propositions, and ask their adoption by the National 
 Democratic Convention. 
 
 “HERSCHEL V. JOHNSON, 
 “Thos. P. Saffoud, 
 
 “II. K. McCay, 
 
 “ H. COLVARD.” 
 
 But this is not all, nor is it the worst. 
 Mr. Johnson believes that capital should own 
 its labor, irrespective of color or condition. 
 In a public speech delivered in Philadelphia 
 on the 15th of September, 1856, he said: 
 
 “ We believe that capital should oxen labor; is 
 there any doubt that there must be a laboring class 
 everywhere? In all countries and under every form of 
 social organization there must be a laboring class—a 
 class of men who get their living by the sweat of their 
 brow ; and then there must be another class that con¬ 
 trols and directs the capital of the country.” 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 OPINIONS OF ANOTHER DOUGLAS MAN IN GEORGIA. 
 
 This is perhaps as suitable a place as we 
 can find to reprint the sentiments of another 
 Douglas man—Mr. Gaulden, a delegate from 
 Georgia in the Baltimore Convention. Mr. 
 Gaulden was an enthusiastic advocate of 
 “ non-intervention ” as will be seen from the 
 following remarks which be made in the Con¬ 
 vention on the 
 
 RE-OPENING OP THE SLAVE TRADE. 
 
 “ I say I go for non-intervention in the broadest sense 
 of the term. I say that this whole thing should be 
 taken out. of the hands of the General Government. 
 I say it is all wrong to be spending two or three mil¬ 
 lions of dollars annually from our pockets, and sacri¬ 
 ficing thousands of lives upon the coast of Africa, in 
 that terrible clime, to prevent our going there to get a 
 few negroes. If it is right for us to go to Virginia 
 and buy a negro and pay $2,000 for him , it is equal¬ 
 ly right for us to go to Africa , where we can get them 
 for $50. [Applause and laughter.] Here is the con¬ 
 dition we are placed in, and you may as well come to 
 your senses and face the music. 
 
 “ There are 2,000 of our negroes now down at Key 
 West, begging and pleading not to be sent back. If 
 they should be sent back, what would be the result? 
 One-half of them would die before they got there, and 
 the other half would be turned upon the coast of Afri¬ 
 ca—upon the coast of Liberia, among strangers, to be 
 eaten up by the cannibals, or caught and sold again, or 
 
 die of starvation ; and this you call humanity ! I say 
 it is piracy ; I say that our Government is acting 
 against right and reason in this matter ; and if the 
 Southern men had the spunk and spirit to come right 
 up and face the North, I believe the Northern Democ¬ 
 racy at least, would come to the true doctrine of pop¬ 
 ular sovereignty and non-intervention. [Applause and 
 laughter.] 
 
 “ Think of it: two thousand of these poor barbari¬ 
 ans from Africa, caught within the last four weeks, and 
 kept upon the miserable Island of Key West, dying 
 there from disease and starvation ; and what do not 
 die are to be sent back by our Government at an ex¬ 
 pense of one or two millions, though they are begging 
 not to be sent back, and landed upon the coast of Afri¬ 
 ca. It is cruel, inhuman, wrong, and I appeal to the 
 good sense of the American nation against it. Look at 
 John Bull; he has bound us to catch all we can, and 
 we send them back at an expense of twenty-five dollars 
 per head. We send them back, but what does John 
 Bull do when he gets them? He apprentices them out 
 again, and makes slaves of them. That is the hypo¬ 
 critical treaty that you are bound by, and yet I hear 
 no Southern voice, or Northern voice, raised against 
 this aggression upon the law of nature and of nature’s 
 God, but I intend to raise my voice against it, humble 
 as it is. 
 
 ‘ ‘ Now, this may be a secondary question before us to¬ 
 night. The great point is harmony and union in the 
 Democratic party. Let us whip the Black Republicans, 
 let us win the fight, and when we hare settled, these 
 things, let us act together and all will be right.” 
 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 WHAT “POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY” HAS DONE. 
 
 It will be admitted that Mr. Douglas is a 
 good judge of what his dogma of “Popular 
 Sovereignty” has accomplished during the 
 past six years. Therefore, we let him tell the 
 result in his own words, quoting from his 
 speech in the Senate on the 16th of May, 
 1860, as printed in the Congressional Globe : 
 
 ‘ ‘ But, we are told that the necessary result of this 
 doctrine of non-intervention, which gentlemen, by way 
 of throwing ridicule upon, call squatter sovereignty, is 
 to deprive the South of all participation in what they 
 call the common Territories of the United States. That 
 was the ground on which the Senator from Mississippi 
 (Mr. Davis) predicated his opposition to the compromise 
 measures of 1850. He regarded a refusal to repeal the 
 Mexican law as equivalent to the Wilmot proviso; a 
 refusal to recognize by an act of Congress the right to 
 carry a slave there as equivalent to the Wilmot proviso ; 
 a refusal to deny to a Territorial Legislature the right 
 to exclude slavery as equivalent to an exclusion. He 
 believed at that time that this doctrine did amount to 
 a denial of southern rights, and he told the people of 
 Mississippi so; but they doubted it. Now, let us see 
 how far his predictions and suppositions have been ver¬ 
 ified. I infer that he told the people so, for as he makes 
 it a charge in his bill of indictment against me, that I 
 am hostile to Southern rights, because I gave those 
 votes. 
 
 “Now, what has been the result? My views were 
 incorporated into the compromise measures of 1850, and 
 his were rejected. Has the South been excluded from 
 all the territory acquired from Mexico ? What says the 
 bill from the House of Representatives now on your 
 table, repealing the slave code in New Mexico, estab¬ 
 lished by the people themselves? It is part of the 
 history of the country that under this doctrine of 
 non-intervention, this doctrine that you delight to 
 call squatter sovereignty, the people of New Mexico 
 
 have introduced and protected slavery in the tchole 
 of that Territory. Under this doctrine they have 
 converted a tract of free territory into slave terri¬ 
 tory more than five times the size of the State of New 
 York. Under this doctrine slavery has been ex¬ 
 tended from the Rio Grande to the Gulf of Calfornia, 
 and from the line of the Republic of Mexico , not 
 only up to 36 deg. 30 min., but up to 38 deg .— 
 
 GIVING YOU A DEGREE AND A HALF MORE SLAVE TER¬ 
 RITORY than you ever claimed. In 1S48 and 1849 
 and 1850, you only asked to have the line of 36 deg. 30 
 min. The Nashville Convention fixed that as its ulti¬ 
 matum. I offered it in the Senate in August, 1848, and 
 it was adopted here, but rejected in the House of Rep¬ 
 resentatives. Yo ’ asked only up to 36 deg. 30 min., 
 and non-intervention has given you slave territory 
 up to 38 deg .— a degree and a half more than you 
 asked ; and yet you say that this is a sacrifice of South¬ 
 ern rights? 
 
 “ These are the fruits of this principle which the Sen¬ 
 ator from Mississippi regards as hostile to the rights of 
 the South. Where did you ever get any other fruits 
 that were more palatable to your taste or refreshing to 
 your strength? What other inch of free territory has 
 been converted into slave territory on the American con¬ 
 tinent, since the Revolution, except in New Mexico and 
 Arizona, under the principle of non-intervention 
 affirmed at Charleston. If it be true that this principle 
 of non-intervention has conferred upon you all that 
 immense territory; has protected slavery in that com¬ 
 paratively northern and cold region where you did not 
 expect it to go, cannot, you trust the same principle fur¬ 
 ther South when you come to acquire additional terri¬ 
 tory from Mexico, which was surrounded on nearly every 
 side by free territory ? will not the same principle pro¬ 
 tect you in the northern States of Mexico when they are 
 acquired, since they are now surrounded by slave ter¬ 
 ritory ; are several hundred miles further South; have 
 many degrees of greater heat; and have a climate and 
 soil adapted to southern products ? Are you not satis¬ 
 fied with these practical results ? ” 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 SLAVERY L\ T NEW MEXICO.—SERFDOM OF WHITE LABORERS. 
 
 
 It is appropriate to inquire in this connec¬ 
 tion what kind of slavery Popular Sovereignty 
 has been instrumental in introducing into 
 New Mexico ; “ a Territory,” as Mr. Douglas 
 says, “ more than five times the size of the 
 State of New York.” The reader will be sur¬ 
 prised to learn that it includes the serfdom of 
 white men as well as the slavery of the blacks, 
 and that it allows any man who employs other 
 men in the capacity of laborers to flog, beat, 
 
 CUFF, AND OTHERWISE PUNISH THEM, tO his 
 heart’s content, irrespective of color or sex, 
 and denies to the party so flogged and beaten 
 any redress at law! We copy the‘following 
 sections from “an act amendatory of the law 
 relative to contracts between masters and 
 servants,” passed by the Territorial Legisla¬ 
 ture of New Mexico, January 26, 1859 : 
 
 “ Sec. 1. When any servant shall run away from the 
 service of his master, he shall be considered as a fugi¬ 
 tive from justice, and in such case it shall be the duty 
 of all officers of the Territory, judicial or ministerial, 
 on being informed that such persons are within the lim¬ 
 its of their jurisdiction, to ascertain whether such per¬ 
 sons are runaway servants or not, and if they ascertain 
 that they are, said officers shall immediately arrest 
 them and put them to work at public labor, or hire them 
 out to any person so that they may be employed, with 
 security, until their master shall be informed thereof, 
 in order that they may demand them, and to whom they 
 shall immediately be delivered. 
 
 “ Sec. 2. Every person of this Territory, either a con¬ 
 tracted servant according to the law of contracts, or 
 engaged on trips or as shepherds, shall be compelled to 
 serve for the time stipulated for in the contract; and 
 any servant so contracted who shall fail to serve by 
 abandoning his master or property placed under his 
 care, shall be held responsible for all costs and damages 
 which through his neglect may result to the owner. 
 
 “ Sec. 4. Xo Court of this Territory shall hare 
 jurisdiction nor shall take cognizance of any cause 
 for the correction that masters may give their serv¬ 
 ants for neglect of their duties as servants, for they are 
 considered as domestic servants to their masters, and 
 they should correct their neglect and faults; for as 
 soldiers are punished by their chiefs, without the inter¬ 
 vention of the civil authority, by reason of the salary 
 they enjoy, an equal right should he granted those 
 persons who pay their money to be served in the 
 protection of their property: Provided , That such 
 correction shall not be inflicted in a cruel manner with 
 clubs or stripes.” 
 
 The concluding proviso is similar to that 
 
 | which prevails in all the slave codes of the 
 Southern States—leaving it discretionary 
 with*the “master” as to what constitutes “cor¬ 
 rection inflicted in a cruel manner.” The 
 slave code of New Mexico, by the terms of 
 Sections 12, 13, 14 and 15, allows any person 
 to arrest any one whom he calls an abscond¬ 
 ing slave, by force , and without any legal pro¬ 
 cess from any court or magistrate, and to de¬ 
 liver such person so arrested to the sheriff of 
 the county in which the arrest may be made, 
 which sheriff shall imprison such person for 
 six months, (without a commitment,) and 
 advertise for a master, and if no master 
 come, shall imprison six months longer, and 
 advertise for sale; and at the end of twelve 
 months’ imprisonment, the sheriff shall sell 
 such person, at the door of the jail or court¬ 
 house, to the highest bidder, for cash, and his 
 bill of sale “shall vest in the purchaser a good 
 and indefeasible title against all persons what¬ 
 ever.” 
 
 On the 16th of February, 1860, the Hon. 
 John A. Bingham, of Ohio, from the House 
 Committee on Territories, reported a bill de¬ 
 claring these infamous acts null and void. A 
 vote was thereupon taken in the House of 
 Representatives, on Mr. Bingham’s bill, result¬ 
 ing as follows: 
 
 TEAS. 
 
 Republicans,.97 
 
 Democrats.00 
 
 South Americans.00 
 
 KAYS. 
 
 Democrats and South 
 
 Americans. 91 
 
 Republicans. 00 
 
 Among the nays were Messrs. John A. Logan, 
 Isaac N. Morris and James C. Robinson, of 
 Illinois, (Messrs. Fouke and McClernaud not 
 voting,) Chas. II. Larrabee, of Wisconsin, 
 Geo. B. Cooper, of Michigan, and all the other 
 Democratic members from the Northwest, 
 tvho thus sanctioned, in express terms, the 
 serfdom or peonage of persons of their own 
 color and kindred, in New Mexico. It was 
 this bill of Mr. Bingham’s which Mr. Douglas 
 refers to in the extract from his speech of the 
 16th of May, quoted above. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 SLAVERY IN NEBRASKA—INEFFECTUAL EFFORTS TO ABOLISH IT. 
 
 It is not deemed necessary to revert to the 
 workings of Popular Sovereignty in Kansas— 
 the violence, rapine and bloodshed which fol¬ 
 lowed the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. 
 These things are too fresh in the recollections 
 of the people. But it is well to call to mind 
 the unavailing efforts of the Republicans in 
 Nebraska, to abolish slavery in that Territory, 
 and the successful exertions of the Democracy 
 
 to thwart that beneficient purpose. Early in 
 the session of the Nebraska Legislature, last 
 winter, Mr. Dundy, a Republican member of 
 the Council, and Mr. Collier, a Republican 
 member of the House of Representatives, in¬ 
 troduced bills in their respective bodies, for 
 the abolition and prohibition of slavery in the 
 Territory. The Omaha Nebraskian and the 
 Nebraska City News , the Democratic organs of 
 
12 
 
 the Territory, immediately denounced the 
 measure as a wanton agitation of t^e slavery 
 question, designed to create “ political capi¬ 
 tal.” The Chicago Times cordially seconded 
 its confederates in Nebraska by reprobating 
 the proposed law, and pronouncing it “ a most 
 unnecessary piece of buncombe.” The Re¬ 
 publican journals and members of the Legis¬ 
 lature replied that slavery did exist in tne 
 Territory, and urged the Democrats to assist 
 in passing the law as the easiest way to destroy 
 ail the political capital which might be made 
 out of it by the Republican side. The bills 
 were referred to a select committee of whom 
 a majority were Democrats. 
 
 First, an investigation was had into the 
 fact whether slavery did or did not exist in 
 the Territory. The Democratic majority re¬ 
 ported that there were “ four and a half per¬ 
 sons” held in slavery in the Territory, and 
 that it was unwise, unnecessary and inexpe¬ 
 dient to pass any law prohibiting the institu¬ 
 tion. The Republican minority reported that 
 the fact was notorious and indisputable that 
 slaves were held at a number of places in the 
 Territory, and that parties of slave hunters 
 had frequently sallied across the river into 
 Iowa, in pursuit of fugitives from service and 
 labor held in Nebraska. They also recom¬ 
 mended the passage of the law abolishing and 
 prohibiting the institution. A vote was taken 
 on the 20th of December, 1859, and the bill 
 was defeated by the Democrats. Every Repub¬ 
 lican in the two houses voted for it, and all 
 but two or three Democrats against it. Thus 
 was “ Popular Sovereignty ” vindicated! 
 
 But this was not all. The bill was resusci¬ 
 tated on a motion to re-consider, and was 
 forced to a second vote on the 3d of January, 
 1860. It was proposed by both parties to call 
 a convention for the formation of a State Con¬ 
 stitution, and some of the Democrats became 
 frightened by the evidences that they would 
 be utterly defeated if they allowed the slavery 
 record to stand against them. Hence, when 
 brought to the scratch a second time the bill 
 passed both houses on the 3d of January, 
 aforesaid, by the following vote: 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTITIVES. 
 
 Ayes — Bain, Barker, Bowen, Burbank, Camp¬ 
 bell, Collier, Crowe, Davis, Fanscum, Lake, Latta, 
 Marquette, Maxwell, Myers, Rogers , Reck, Stephen¬ 
 son, Stewart, Taffe —19. 
 
 Nays —Adams, Arnott, Barnard, Belden, Brodhead, 
 Goshen, Hinsdale, Johnson, Kelling, Kennedy, Mal¬ 
 colm, Noel, Nuckolls of Otoe, Nuckolls of Rich, Rey¬ 
 nolds, Shields, Tufft—17. 
 
 Absent— Bates, McCasland. 
 
 IN THE COUNCIL. 
 
 Ayes —Messrs. Boykin, Cheever, Doane, Dundy, 
 Furnas, Porter , Reeves —7. 
 
 Noes —Messrs. Collier, Little and Scott—3. 
 
 [Democrats in Roman, Republicans in Italics.'] 
 
 The bill was as follows : 
 
 “ Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Council and House of 
 Representatives of the Territory of Nebraska, that 
 slavery or involuntary servitude except for the pun¬ 
 ishment of crime, be and the same is forever prohibited 
 in this Territory. 
 
 “ Sec. 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from 
 and after the first day of July, A. D. 1860.” 
 
 On the occasion of its passage in the Coun¬ 
 cil, Mr. Little, an ardent advocate of -popular 
 
 sovereignty, delivered his views as follows. 
 We quote from the Omaha Nebraskian , of Jan¬ 
 uary 4th : 
 
 “ Mr. LITTLE— Mr. President:—I have heretofore 
 been, as I am now, a zealous follower of Stephen A. 
 Douglas, in so far as I have regarded him the leader of 
 the principles of popular sovereignty in the Territories ; 
 believing, as I do, that the people have the right to leg¬ 
 islate upon this subject, ?nd if necessary, to prevent 
 Southerners from bringing their slaves here among us. 
 But, sir, I shall vote to-day as I have heretofore done, 
 against this, or any similar bill, in whatever shape it 
 may come up, from principles of policy. There is no 
 need of this legislation now. If we could actually see 
 a black cloud rising in the South, and should a horde 
 of slaves be precipitated upon our fair soil to-day, no 
 one would vote quicker than I to repel such an evil trom 
 the land. But where is the danger ? Where is this 
 dreaded African spectre that, like Hamlet’s ghost, flits 
 ever before the hallucinated vision cf the supporters of 
 this bill? Our soil is yet unstained with slavery; we 
 are free, and surrounded with free soil; Iowa on the 
 east is free. Kansas, on the south, is free, and is there 
 danger on our northern and western borders ? Sir, I 
 too, like the gentleman from Burr, take issue with Mr. 
 Buchanan I believe that Congress has no power over 
 the Territories upon this question. But I shall not vote 
 for what is now uncalled for. This bill had its origin in 
 Black Republican buncombe. As a Democrat, I shall 
 not vote to honor their political caprices, and exercising 
 common sense, I shall not vote to dispel a phantom. 
 Sir, I vote ‘no* upon this bill.” 
 
 So far, so good. The bill was passed, and 
 nothing was lacking but the signature of the 
 Governor to give it the authority of law. But 
 hardly had the vote been recorded, when the 
 Democratic organs began to hint that it was the 
 duty of the Governor to apply his negative to 
 the “ unnecessary piece of buncombe.” Four 
 or five diys later the Democratic Governor of 
 Nebraska, vetoed the bill. Gov. Black’s reasons 
 for withholding his signature, were substan¬ 
 tially these: 
 
 “1st. The existence of Slavery in the Louisiana Terri¬ 
 tory, ceded to the United States, is recognized by the 
 treaty of cession ; hence, until the formation of a State 
 out of the Territory so conveyed or any portion thereof, 
 the abolition of Slavery is impossible without a violation 
 of the treaty stipulations. 
 
 ‘‘2d. The equality of the States demands that the peo¬ 
 ple of the Slave, as well as the people of the Free States 
 may take their “ property ” to the Territory belonging 
 to all States in common ; hence the abolition of Slavery 
 by a Territorial Legislature becomes impossible, be¬ 
 cause, by denying the citizens of the Slave States the 
 right of migrating with their negroes, the equality of the 
 States would be destroyed. In other words, the Dred 
 Scott decision which Gov. Black recognizes as in force 
 forbids the Legislature to prohibit Slavery.” 
 
 So Slavery exist* in Nebraska to-day in 
 spite of the effort of the Legislature to abolish 
 it! It is there, a fixed fact in the Territory, 
 above and beyond the reach of Congress or of 
 the people! As to the question whether 
 Slavery does or does not exist in the Territory, 
 it is in evidence, as a matter of public re¬ 
 cord, that a citizen of Page county, Iowa, a 
 few weeks since, recover* d damages in the 
 amount of $8,000 from a gang of scoundrels 
 who broke into his house while hunting for 
 two negro girls, held in Slavery in Nebraska , 
 who had “ escaped from service or labor,” a 
 year and a half ago. 
 
 It may be added in this connection, that 
 the legislature of Kansas , also, passed a bill 
 last winter, abolishing Slavery in that Terri¬ 
 tory, and that the Democratic Governor, (Me- 
 dary,) vetoed it! 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 ALL VOTES CAST FOR DOUGLAS ARE GIVEN PRACTICALLY TO 
 
 BRECKINRIDGE OR JOE LANE. 
 
 When the Charleston Convention assem¬ 
 bled, on the 23d of April, in the present year, 
 it became apparent that Mr. Douglas had no 
 strength in the Southern States. It was pro¬ 
 claimed with great volubility by his opponents, 
 that while the delegates from the Republican 
 States were all in favor of Douglas, the Demo¬ 
 cratic States were all against him. It is suf¬ 
 ficient for our purpose that the Convention 
 split on the Douglas issue, and that the dele¬ 
 gates from South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, 
 Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and a 
 majority from Arkansas and Deleware seceded, 
 and, after a brief session apart from the regu¬ 
 lar Convention, adjourned to meet at Rich¬ 
 mond, on the 20th of June. The other Con¬ 
 vention took fifty-seven ballots without making 
 any nomination, and then adjourned to meet 
 at Baltimore on the 18th of June, “ to enable 
 those States which were unrepresented to 
 fill up their delegations.” Well, the South 
 Carolina Democratic State Committee called 
 a new Convention, which met in due time 
 at Columbia, and appointed a new set of 
 delegates, instructing them not to go to 
 Baltimore at oil , but to meet at Richmond, 
 pursuant to the Seceders’ adjournment. 
 The Georgia Democratic Executive Com¬ 
 mittee called a new Convention to meet at 
 Milledgeville. Primary meetings were held 
 in all the counties, and when the Convention 
 assembled the vote stood 298 in favor of the 
 Seceders, and 41 against them. The 298 there¬ 
 upon re-appointed the old delegates to Balti¬ 
 more, and the 41 withdrew and appointed a 
 new set. The Florida Democratic State Com¬ 
 mittee called a new Convention, which met 
 at Tallahasge, and did exactly what the South 
 Carolina Convention had done. The Alabama 
 Democratic State Committee called a new Con¬ 
 vention to meet at Montgomery on the 4th 
 day of June. Very soon after the call was 
 issued, a number of private citizens, headed 
 by John Forsyth, of Mobile, issued a sort of 
 prospectus for a Convention to be held at 
 Selma on the same day, to which “ the De- 
 “mocracy and all other persons who were 
 “ willing to abide by the action of the Bal- 
 “ timore Convention and support its nomi- 
 “ nees,” were invited to send delegates. Both 
 Conventions met. The Democratic concern 
 re-appointed the Seceders by a unanimous 
 vote, and the Forsyth men elected a new dele¬ 
 gation. The Mississippi Democratic State 
 Committee called a new Convention which 
 unanimously re-appointed the Seceders, and 
 no other Convention was held. The Lousiana 
 Democratic State Committee called a new 
 Convention to meet at Baton Rouge, which 
 unanimously re-appointed the Seceders. The 
 Hon. Pierre Soule and a few others in New 
 Orleans, however, called a mass meeting to 
 assemble at Donaldsonville, which appointed a 
 
 new set of delegates. The Texas Democracy 
 re-appointed the Seceders without opposition. 
 The Arkansas Democracy held a Convention 
 and endorsed the Seceders, and the Delaware 
 Democracy did the same. Tlius the delegations 
 were “filled up” in pursuance to the resolu¬ 
 tion adopted at Charleston. Seven weeks 
 transpired between the adjournment at that 
 place and the re-assembling at Baltimore. 
 The delegates all visited their constituents; 
 they all had opportunity to learn the wishes 
 of those who gave them their commissions. 
 Those who took part in the secession at 
 Charleston had all been sent back by the reg-. 
 ular organization of the party, except in two 
 States which utterly refused to have anything 
 more to do with “ National Democracy,” and 
 dispatched their delegates to an antagonistic 
 Convention at Richmond. Those who ad¬ 
 hered to the remains of Democracy—those 
 who “ stuck to the ship,” and talked of going 
 down on the last timber—also had conferences, 
 anxious and prolonged, no doubt, with their 
 neighbors and constituents. They had abund¬ 
 ant time to consider the question in all its 
 phases. The question itself had been of such 
 magnitude—had been so overmastering in its 
 importance to the people, that no man who 
 carried the vote of his district could fail to 
 learn exactly what was desired of him and 
 exactly what it would be safe or unsafe for 
 him to do. The Convention met again at 
 Baltimore on the 18th of June. Five days 
 later it was rent in twain. Douglas was nom¬ 
 inated by the delegates from Maine, New 
 Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecti¬ 
 cut, a portion of New York, a portion of New 
 Jersey, a portion of Pennsylvania, a portion 
 of Maryland, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, 
 Wisconsin, Iowa, a portion of Minnesota, and 
 a portion of Missouri. John C. Breckinridge 
 and Joseph Lane were nominated by the dele¬ 
 gates from Delaware, Virgima, North Caro¬ 
 lina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ala¬ 
 bama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, 
 Kentucky, Tennessee, California, Oregon, 
 Massachusetts, a portion of Maryland, a por¬ 
 tion of M ssouri, a portion of Pennsylvania, 
 a portion of Minnesota, and a small portion of 
 New Yoi k. The Breckinridge and Lane Con¬ 
 vention was presided over by the Hon. Caleb 
 Cushing, the Chairman of the Charleston Con¬ 
 vention. The question wdiich arises here, is 
 this: Did the delegates from the Southern 
 States faithfully represent their constituents at 
 Baltimore ? If so, were they in earnest in nom¬ 
 inating Breckinridge and Lane, or were they in 
 fun ? Are the Southern States going for 
 Breckinridge and Lane, or for Douglas and 
 Johnson ? A few days ago, Mr. Johnson 
 himself was hooted dow n at a public meeting, 
 held at Macon, in his own State, and after¬ 
 wards burned in effigy. He was not allowed 
 
14 
 
 to make his speech at all, and it has 
 since been published in the Atlanta Confed¬ 
 eracy as the only means of reaching the pub¬ 
 lic. (The Confederacy, by the way, is a Doug¬ 
 las paper, which goes strongly for the re-open- 
 ing of the Af rican slave trade.) In Delaware, 
 there is to be no Douglas electoral ticket. 
 In Virginia there arc only six newspapers sup¬ 
 porting Douglas, while there are over forty 
 for Breckinridge and Lane. Mr. Roger A. 
 Pryor, who adhered to Douglas up to the final 
 split at Baltimore, has publicly announced 
 himself for Breckinridge and Lane. In North 
 Carolina it seems probable there will be no 
 Douglas electoral ticket. In South Carolina, 
 the electors are chosen by the Legislatur e, and 
 nobody is for Douglas. In Florida, Alabama, 
 Mississippi, Texas and Arkansas, there is 
 next to nobody for him. The Democratic 
 State Convention of Kentucky met a few days 
 ago, and endorsed Breckinridge, with hardly 
 a dissenting vote. In Tennessee, the few 
 Douglasites that live iu and around Memphis, 
 have sold out body and breeches to Bell and 
 Everett. In short, there is no Douglas party, 
 which can properly be called a party, in any 
 Southern State, except Missouri. 
 
 Now, if Mr. Douglas secures any electoral 
 votes in the North, what is to be the result ? 
 The Electoral College consists of 303 votes. 
 One hundred and fifty-two are required to 
 elect a President. Deprived of Southern sup¬ 
 port, Douglas must carry almost the entire 
 North to secure an election. Who believes that 
 New England, New York, Ohio, Michigan, 
 Wisconsin and Iowa, which went so over¬ 
 whelmingly for Fremont, are now going for 
 him ? But if he succeeds in taking from 
 Lincoln the votes of the Northern States 
 which went for Buchanan, four years ago, he 
 merely carries the election into the present 
 House of Representatives, where he has only 
 one vote, and where Breckinridge has thirteen. 
 The Constitution of the United States, Article 
 XII, Amendments , says: 
 
 u If no person have a majority of the whole number 
 of Electors, then from the persons having the highest 
 numbers, not exceeding three , on the list of those voted 
 for as President, the House of Representatives shall 
 choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in 
 choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by 
 states, the representation from each state having one 
 vote ; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a mem¬ 
 ber or members from two-thirds of the states, and a 
 majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. 
 And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a 
 President, whenever the right of choice shall devolve 
 upon them, before the fourth day of March next follow¬ 
 ing, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as 
 in case of the death, or constitutional disability, of the 
 President. 
 
 “ The person having the greatest number of votes as 
 Vice-President shall be the Vice-President, if such num¬ 
 ber be a majority of the whole number of Electors ap¬ 
 pointed ; and if no person have a majority, then, from 
 the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall 
 choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose 
 shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Sen¬ 
 ators ; a majority of the whole number shall be neces¬ 
 sary to a choice.” 
 
 Thus it appears that only the th ree highest 
 candidates can be balloted for in theHouse, who 
 in all human probability will be Lincoln, 
 Breckinridge and Bell. But if we suppose 
 
 that Mr. Douglas is one of the three highest, 
 how will the case stand ? Each State having: 
 one vote, the House would be divided as fol¬ 
 lows : 
 
 FOR LINCOLN. 
 
 FOR BRECKINRIDGE. 
 
 Maine, 
 
 Delaware, 
 
 New Hampshire, 
 
 Virginia, 
 
 V errnont, 
 
 Massachusetts, 
 
 South Carolina, 
 
 Georgia, 
 
 Rhode Island, 
 
 Florida, 
 
 Connecticut, 
 
 Alabama, 
 
 New York, 
 
 New Jersey, 
 
 Mississippi, 
 
 Louisiana, 
 
 Pennsylvania, 
 
 Texas, 
 
 Ohio, 
 
 Arkansas, 
 
 Indiana, 
 
 Missouri, 
 
 Michigan, 
 
 California, 
 
 Wisconsin, 
 
 Iowa, 
 
 Minnesota-15. 
 
 Oregon-13. 
 
 FOR DOUGLAS. 
 
 FOR BELL. 
 
 Illinois-1. 
 
 Tennessee-1 
 
 EQUALLY DIVIDED. 
 
 Maryland, North Carolina, Kentucky-3. 
 
 The Maryland delegation in the House, con¬ 
 sists of three Americans and three Democrats. 
 The North Carolina delegation consists of 
 four Americans and four Democrats. The 
 Kentucky delegation consists of five Ameri¬ 
 cans and five Democrats. Seventeen States 
 being required to elect a President, Breckin¬ 
 ridge will have to secure Maryland, N.rth 
 Carolina, Kentucky, and either Tennessee or 
 Illinois, in addition to the thirteen which he 
 has already. The Breckinridge faction believe 
 that they can, without difficulty, get the votes 
 of Mr. Webster, of Maryland, Mr. Vance, of 
 North Carolina, Mr. Bristow or Mr. Mallory, 
 or both, of Kentucky, and Messrs. Maynard, 
 Brabson and Hatton, of Tennessee, wiien the 
 pinch comes—which would give them all of 
 these States, and elect their man. All of 
 these South Americans are intensely pro-slav¬ 
 ery, and it is calculated they would unhesita¬ 
 tingly vote for Breckinridge, if there was no 
 chance for Bell. But if no election should be 
 made by the House, prior to the 4th of March, 
 1861, the Breckinridge faction are sure of suc¬ 
 cess in the Senate. The Constitution declares, 
 that only the two highest candidates for Vice- 
 President, shall be voted for there. These 
 will inevitably be Lane and Hamlin. The 
 Senate is divided as follows: Republicans 
 26 ; Breckinridge Democrats, 37 ; Americans, 
 1 ; Douglas, 1. (Mr. Pugh, of Ohio, leaves 
 the Senate on the 4th of March, and Mr. Chase 
 takes his seat; Mr. Crittenden, of Kentucky, 
 leaves on the same day, and Mr. Breckinridge 
 takes his seat; Mr. Lane, of Oregon, leaves on 
 the same day, and his successor has not been 
 elected.) Of course, Mr. Lane would be elect¬ 
 ed Vice-President on the first ballot, and he 
 would then assume the functions of President 
 of the United States, for four years. What 
 sort of a figure then does Mr. Douglas cut in 
 the three or four cornered fight ? Simply 
 that of a catspaw, to rake the chestnuts out of 
 the fire for Breckinridge, or Joe Lane, his 
 bitterest enemies ! It was a special cruelty, 
 almost a satanic ingenuity, on the part of 
 those who nominated Breckinridge and Lane, 
 
( 
 
 15 
 
 to so order the battle that all the electoral votes 
 carried for Douglas , should , in reality , play the 
 game into their hands and not into his. Are the 
 honest supporters of “Popular Sovereignty,” 
 to be cheated in this way? Will they allow 
 the election to go into the House, aiid thus in¬ 
 sure the success of Breckinridge or Lane, by 
 throwing aw r ay their votes on Douglas ? 
 
 The following sharp article from the Buffalo 
 Commercial Advertiser , of July 12th, the old 
 and influential Fillmore organ, of Western i 
 New York, still further elucidates this ques¬ 
 tion : 
 
 “ We have the highest regard and respect for Gov. 
 Hunt, and that gentleman will not misinterpret our 
 motives or accuse us of undue personality, if we remind 
 him of a business transaction with which he was once 
 familiar. A gentleman, whom he knows very well, had 
 built a boom across the Genesee river, at Mt. Morris, 
 and profited by the spring freshet to float down several 
 thousands of saw-logs. Other people relied upon the 
 same boom; so many of them, in fact, that the boom 
 went out and the logs of all parties were carried down 
 the river, some of them fetching up in Lake Ontario. 
 
 Mr.-was making his arrangements to chase up his 
 
 vagabond logs, when one day he received a call from a 
 person who was a loser by the boom. Person wanted 
 to make an arrangement: he had trusted the boom, and 
 its insecure construction had occasioned him serious 
 
 loss; ergo , Mr. - should make him reparation. 
 
 Whereupon, the following proposition was made : Mr. 
 
 - owned a tract of land in Scio; 13,000 acres ; great 
 
 m any deer on it. He wouldgive a deer for every saw-log; 
 
 Mr. -to take the logs where he could find them, the 
 
 other party to do the same with the deer. 
 
 “ Now it seems to us that the result of the late Union 
 Convention, at Utica, is pretty much after the fashion 
 of this proposition. The Union men agree to deliver to 
 the Douglas men some 60,000 American saw-logs, run¬ 
 ning down stream like mad in a Republican freshet. 
 The Douglas men pass over to the Union party some¬ 
 thing still more intangible, and if ever the Union leaders 
 see anything more than the tail of that Douglas veni¬ 
 son, we shall be astonished. We are tolerably well 
 posted on the American vote of New York. It is recal¬ 
 citrant, individualized, independent, knows no leaders, 
 and now that the boom is broken, it will float olf on the 
 swift rolling tide of the Lincoln flood, beyond the reach 
 of bargain and sale. Said a distinguished American— 
 not Union—leader, a few days since, “ I always found 
 it easy enough to sellout the American vote : the trouble 
 was to deliver.” 
 
 “ We take it for granted that Americans and old 
 Whigs will shy off from this bargain, for the following 
 very evident reasons : Douglas is as far from any re¬ 
 semblance to Americanism orWhigism as can well be con¬ 
 ceived. Nothing can be gained for principle by electing 
 him ; and even the slavery issue will not be quieted. 
 Douglas is the leading agitator of the question. He 
 re-opened the quarrel after it had been satisfactorily 
 closed by the compromise of 1S50, and it would be 
 queer policy now to look to the agitator as the source 
 of quiet. Then again, they know perfectly well that 
 even should the election go to the House, nothing can 
 be done there as long as Bell has only one and Douglas 
 one of thirty-three votes, seventeen of which are re¬ 
 quired to elect. And the House failing to elect., what 
 can they expect of the Senate t fhe choice then 
 would he between Lane and Hamlin , and Lane 
 would win .” 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 “THE EVERLASTING 
 
 Senator Douglas has been marking out for 
 himself a departure from the dignified course 
 of all the Presidential candidates we have ever 
 had, by making a stumping tour in behalf of 
 Douglas and Johnson. In his Boston speech, 
 as we find it reported in the newspapers of that 
 city, he said: 
 
 “ For the last few years, the whole time of Congress 
 has been employed in the discussion of the slavery 
 question, to the exclusion of the important business af¬ 
 fecting the whole country. (1.) Whenever you ask 
 your representatives why they did not revise the reve¬ 
 nue system, in order to defray the expenses of the gov¬ 
 ernment, without borrowing twenty millions of dollars 
 a year, they will tell you they had not time. The whole 
 time was occupied in the discussion of slavery, and there 
 was no time to raise money to pay your honest debts. (2.) 
 When you ask your representatives why it is that the 
 Pacific Railroad has not been made, you were told that 
 there was no time, because the Slavery question ab¬ 
 sorbed the entire session of Congress. (3.) When you 
 ask your representatives why it is that the mail system 
 has not been reformed and carried on with vigor through¬ 
 out the country, you are told that the bill was lost for' 
 want of time. (4.) When you ask why it is that you 
 have no overland mail route to the Pacific, and no steam 
 lines, you are told that the slavery question occupied 
 the w hole session, and the bills were lost for want of 
 time. (5.) Thus you find that all the great measures 
 which affect the commercial interests, the shipping in¬ 
 terests, the manufacturing interests, the industrial in¬ 
 terests of the country, have been lost for want of time. 
 (6.) My fellow-citizens, there never will be time to per¬ 
 form the duties for which the government was made, 
 unless you banish forever the slavery question from the 
 halls of Congress, and remand it to the people of each 
 State and each Territory, according to the platform of 
 the Democratic party.” 
 
 Mr. Douglas makes haste to pronounce his 
 own condemnation. His remarks constitute 
 one of the best Republican nrguments that 
 
 NIGGER QUESTION. ” 
 
 has been put forth since the nomination of 
 Lincoln, vff proceed to notice them in the 
 order in which they are numbered above. 
 
 I. “ Whenever you ask your representa¬ 
 tives why they did not revise the revenue 
 system in order to defray the expenses of the 
 Government, without borrowing twenty mil¬ 
 lions of dollars a year, they tell you they had 
 not time. The whole time was occupied in 
 the discussion of slavery.” At the last ses¬ 
 sion of Congress the Republicans in the House 
 of Representatives did revise the revenue 
 system in order to defray the expenses of the 
 Government without borrowing twenty mil¬ 
 lions of dollars a year, but Senator Douglas 
 was too busy discussing the slavery question 
 to give his influence or even his vote for the 
 measure! The bill passed the House by a 
 large majority, and was defeated by the Dem¬ 
 ocrats in the Senate—by the opposition of 
 some, and by the pre-occupation of others 
 with the nigger question. Mr. Douglas was 
 found in the latter category. He could “find 
 no time ” to attend to the revenue system. 
 
 II. “When you ask your representatives 
 why it is that the Pacifie Railroad has not 
 been made, you were told that there was no 
 time, because the slavery question had ab¬ 
 sorbed the entire session of Congress.” The 
 Republicans in the House of Representtaives 
 did essay, earnestly and manfully, to pass a Pa¬ 
 cific Railroad bill at the last session of Con¬ 
 gress. They were thwarted at every point by 
 the Democracy, some of whom were Mr. 
 
 V 
 
16 
 
 Douglas’peculiar friends! Did Douglas him¬ 
 self display any zeal for the measure ? No. 
 He was too busy discussing Sedition Laws and 
 the various phases of the slavery question. 
 
 III. “When you ask your representatives 
 why it is that your mail system has not been 
 reformed and carried on with vigor throughout the 
 country, you are told that the bill was lost for want of 
 time.” 'I he bill” which Mr. Douglas talks of was 
 prepared and carried through the House of Represen¬ 
 tatives by the Republicans, in opposition to the votes 
 of the Jive Douglas members from Illinois! Mr. 
 Douglas was too much occupied discussing the slavery 
 question to give it any assistance, and all his friends 
 voted squarely against it. It was finally defeated by 
 Democratic votes in the Senate—Douglas himself not 
 voting for it at all ! He was doubtless preparing anew 
 speech or magazine article on the “everlasting nigger 
 question.” 
 
 IV. “When you ask why it is that you have no 
 overland mail route to the Pacific, and no steam lines, 
 you are told that the slavery question occupied the whole 
 session, and that the bills were lost for want of time.” 
 Both measures were carried through the House by the 
 Republicans, and were defeated by the Democracy in 
 the Senate. Mr. Douglas was so busy discussing the 
 slavery question. 
 
 V. “ Thus you find that all the great measures which 
 affect the commercial interests, the shipping interests, 
 
 the manufacturing interests, the Industrial interests of 
 the country, have been lost for want of time.” This is 
 rather the coolest thing of all. A single debate on the 
 slavery question, initiated by Mr. Douglas on the 23d 
 of February, and mainly carried on by himself, filled 
 forty columns of the Globe. Another speech of his in 
 May occupied two days in delivery. Another (on the 
 Sedition Law) consumed the better part of two differ¬ 
 ent days. Another (his wanton and disreputable attack 
 on Senator Seward) filled six or eight columns of the 
 Globe. In short, he occupied about three times as 
 much of the public attention in discussing the slavery 
 question during the last session of Congress as any 
 other member ! 
 
 VI. “ My fellow citizens, there never will be time to 
 perform the duties for which the government was made, 
 unless you banish forever the slavery question from the 
 halls of Congress, and remand it to the people of each 
 State and each Territory according to the platform of 
 the Democratic party.” In 1852 the platform of the 
 Democratic party declared that they would “ resist all 
 attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agi¬ 
 tation of the slavery question, under whatever shape 
 or color the attempt may be made.” One year and a 
 half after the adoption of the platform, this Douglas 
 set about repealing the Missouri Compromise, and by 
 that act laid the foundation of all the slavery agitation 
 which has since followed. Was there ever impudence 
 like this, which he now puts on before the good people 
 of Boston ? Where else is it to be found ? 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 * LINCOLN’S AND HAMLIN’S LETTERS OF ACCEPTANCE. 
 
 Springfield, Ill., May 23,1S60. 
 Hon. Georye Ashmun, President of the Repub¬ 
 lican National Convention : 
 
 Sir :— I accept the nomination tendered me 
 by the Convention over which you presided, 
 and of which I am formally apprised, in the 
 letter of yourself and others acting as a Com¬ 
 mittee of the Convention t or that purpose. 
 The declaration of principlc^ and sentiments, 
 which accompanies your letter, meets my 
 approval, and it shall be my care not to 
 violate it or disregard it in any part. Im¬ 
 ploring the assistance of Divine Provi¬ 
 dence, and with due regard to the views 
 and feelings of all who were represented 
 in the Convention; to tb$ rights of all the 
 States and Territories and' the people of the 
 nation; to the inviolability of the Constitution 
 and the perpetual union, harmony and pros¬ 
 perity of all, I am most happy to co-operate 
 for the practical success of the principles de¬ 
 clared by the Convention. 
 
 Your obliged friend and fellow citizen, 
 
 Abraham Lincoln. 
 
 Washington, May 30,1860. 
 Gentlemen :— Your official communication 
 of the 18th inst., informing me that the Repre¬ 
 sentatives of the Republican party of the 
 United States, assembled at Chicago on that 
 day, had, by unanimous vote, selected me as 
 their candidate for the office of Vice-President 
 of the United States, has been received, to¬ 
 gether with the resolutions adopted by the 
 Convention as its declaration of principles. 
 Those resolutions enunciate clearly and forci¬ 
 bly the principles which unite us, and the ob¬ 
 jects proposed to be accomplished. They 
 address themselves to all, and there is neither 
 necessity nor propriety in my entering upon a 
 discussion of any of them. They have the ap¬ 
 
 proval of mv judgment, and in any action of 
 mine will be faithfully and cordially*sustained. 
 I am profoundly grateful to tho ; e with whom 
 it is my pride and pleasure politically to co¬ 
 operate, for the nomination so unexpectedly 
 conferred, and I desire to tender through you 
 to the members of the Convention my sincere 
 thanks for the confidence thus reposed in me. 
 Should the nomination which I now accept 
 be ratified by the people, and the duties de¬ 
 volve upon me of presiding over the Senate of 
 the United States, it will be my earnest en¬ 
 deavor faithfully to discharge them, with ajust 
 regard for the rights of all. It is to be ob¬ 
 served, in connection with the doings of the 
 Republican Convention, that a paramount ob¬ 
 ject with us is to preserve the normal condi¬ 
 tion of our Territorial domain as homes for 
 free men. The able advocate and defender 
 of Republican principles whom you have nomi¬ 
 nated for the highest place that can gratify 
 the ambition of man, comes from a State 
 which has been made what it is by the special 
 action in that respect of the wise and good 
 men, who founded our institutions. The 
 rights of free labor have there been vindicat¬ 
 ed and maintained. The thrift and enterprise 
 which so distinguished Illinois as one of the 
 most flourishing States of the glorious West, 
 we would see secured to all the Territories of 
 the Union and restore peace and harmony to 
 the whole country by bringing back the Gov¬ 
 ernment to what it was under the wise and 
 patriotic men who created it. If the Repub¬ 
 licans shall succeed in that object, as they 
 hope to, they will be held in garteful remem¬ 
 brance by the busy and teeming millions of 
 future ages. 
 
 I am, very truly yours, 
 
 H. Hamlin. 
 
 To Hon. G. Ashmun, Pres’t, &c.