CHAPTER VI.

BIRTH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. The Name Formally Adopted at Jackson, Michigan, in 1854--Nomination of John C. Fremont at Philadelphia--Democratic Convention Nominates James Buchanan--Effect of the Latter's Election on the North--My Views Concerning President Pierce and His Administration--French Spoilation Claims--First Year of Buchanan's Administration--Dred Scott Case Decision by Supreme Court--The Slavery Question Once More an Issue in Congress--Douglas' Opposition to the Lecompton Scheme--Turning Point of the Slavery Controversy.

During the first session of the 34th Congress, the opponents of slavery were without a party name or organization. They agreed only in the one demand, that slavery should not be established in Kansas. On other questions they voted on old party lines. The Members elected in 1854 in the northern states were Democrats, Whigs or Free Soilers. Many of the Democrats still supported the administration of President Pierce, and acquiesced in the doctrine of popular sovereignty in the territories. A few of the Whigs, of conservative leanings, acted with the Americans, or "Know-Nothings," of the south. A strong popular movement was initiated in some of the western states as early as 1854 in favor of a new party. This was especially the case in Wisconsin and Michigan. On the 6th of July, 1854, a popular convention was held at Jackson, Michigan, composed of hundreds of men of all parties, who denounced slavery as a great moral, social and political evil, and resolved that, postponing and suspending all differences with regard to political economy or administrative policy, they would act cordially and faithfully in unison to oppose the extension of slavery, and be known as Republicans until the contest was terminated. This name was assumed in other states of the north.

The state convention held in Ohio on July 13, 1855, formally declared itself a convention of the Republican party. The long struggle in Kansas, the elections in 1855, and the contest for the speakership of the House, added strength to this movement, and the name "Republican" was formally given to the new party by the national convention held at Philadelphia, June 17, 1856, as the best expression of its views and principles.

It appeared for the time that the new party would carry the country in a blaze of enthusiasm. And, looking over the past, I am clearly of the opinion that this would have been the result but for the faulty nomination of Colonel John C. Fremont as the Republican candidate for President, and the sagacious nomination of James Buchanan as the Democratic candidate. The Republican party, still composed of uncertain elements, sought only for a candidate that was available. Seward or Chase was the natural candidate. They were fully identified with the principles and purposes of their party. They were men of marked ability, strong in their respective states, each elected governor of his state and sure of its support, but Chase was opposed on account of his advanced opinions on the slavery question, and Seward was actively opposed by the so-called American party, for his open hostility to its principles and policy. All these sought for a new man, and public opinion gradually, but strongly, turned to John C. Fremont. He had no experience in public life, but he attracted attention by his bold explorations in the west and, especially, by his marching to California, and occupation of this Mexican territory. A strong effort was made to secure the nomination of Justice McLean of the United States Supreme Court. He had been long in public life, had been a cabinet officer in two administrations, had been appointed to the supreme bench by Jackson, had held this position for twenty-six years, and was a man of spotless integrity. His nomination was strongly urged by conservative Republicans in all the northern states, and by the delegates from Pennsylvania, especially by Thaddeus Stevens, who asserted that the nomination of Fremont would not only lose the State of Pennsylvania, to the Republicans, but that the party would be defeated at the presidential election. But the current of opinion in the west, in New England and New York, was too strong in favor of Fremont, and he was nominated.

The Democratic national convention met at Cincinnati, June 2, 1856, for the nomination of candidates for President and Vice President. Popular feeling was then strongly aroused against that party by the assault of Brooks on Sumner, the removal of Reeder, the appointment of Shannon, the crimes in Kansas, and the recent sacking of Lawrence. A large proportion of northern Democrats, who still adhered to their party, were restless under the violence of their southern associates. It was this feeling, no doubt recognized by both northern and southern Democrats, that prevented the nomination of either Pierce or Douglas. Buchanan was regarded as a conservative man of great experience, who, being absent from the country during the entire period of the Kansas contest, would, it was believed, and as his supporters affirmed, pursue a quieting policy that would arrest and prevent further outrages and would secure fair elections in that territory. He was popular in Pennsylvania, had served for many years in each House of Congress, had creditably represented the United States as minister to Russia and Great Britain, had been Secretary of State and the head of the cabinet of President Polk. He was unanimously supported by the delegation from Pennsylvania, then a doubtful state, and, after many ballots and the defeat of Pierce, was nominated with the acquiescence of Douglas. This nomination greatly strengthened the Democratic party. It held in that party the protection Democrats, and a large proportion of those who in 1854 voted for anti-Nebraska Members of Congress. The appointment of Colonel Geary of Pennsylvania as Governor of Kansas, in the place of Governor Shannon, and his firm and impartial administration, greatly aided the Democratic party. It was regarded as evidence of a change of policy in Kansas, made at the request of Mr. Buchanan.

The American party met at the city of Philadelphia soon after the election of Banks as speaker, and nominated Millard Fillmore for President and Donelson for Vice President. This movement did not at first excite much attention, as it was known in the north it would draw equally from the two great parties, and in the south could only affect injuriously the Democratic party. Its platform of principles was condemned by both the Republican and Democratic conventions.

Mr. Fillmore took strong ground against what he called a sectional ticket presenting both candidates from the free states, with the avowed purpose of one part of the Union ruling over the whole United States.

The nomination of Fremont, however, greatly strengthened the movement in favor of Fillmore. There was a large element of the old Whig party in the north, which, though friendly to Republican principles and willing to support Seward or McLean, yet would not vote for Fremont, who had none of the qualities that commanded their respect. Such men as Ewing, Everett, Winthrop and Hilliard, conspicuous leaders and eminent statesmen, announced their purpose to vote for Fillmore. Mr. Choate, the eminent lawyer and statesman of Massachusetts, declared his purpose to vote for Buchanan, upon the plausible ground that, as the choice was between Buchanan and Fremont, he was compelled, by a sense of duty, to vote for Buchanan.

At the same time leading Democrats in the south declared that if Fremont was elected the Union could not and ought not to be preserved. The Whigs of the south, with scarce an exception, were committed to the support of Fillmore and Donelson, and joined in an outcry of danger to the Union.

As the canvass progressed this feeling increased, and before its close it became apparent that some of the older and more populous Republican states would be lost by the Republican party. I shared in this feeling of distrust of Fremont, but gave him my support.

I was nominated without any opposition for re-election to Congress by a convention held at Shelby on the 12th day of August, 1856, and was elected in October by a majority of 2,861.

I took an active part in the canvass, after the adjournment of Congress, mainly in southern Ohio, where it was apparent that the nomination of Buchanan was popular. In Pennsylvania, especially in Philadelphia, the cry was for "Buck, Breck and free Kansas." John G. Forney, the chairman of the Democratic state committee, promised that if Buchanan was elected there would be no interference with the efforts of the people of Kansas to make that territory a free state. The result of the canvass was that Buchanan carried the states of Pennsylvnia, New Jersey, Indiana, Illinois and California at the November election and was elected.

In reviewing the past it is apparent that the election of Buchanan was necessary to convince the people of the north that no successful opposition to the extension of slavery could be made except by a party distinctly pledged to that policy. Mr. Buchanan encountered difficulties which no human wisdom could overcome. Whatever may have been his desire he was compelled, by the prevailing sentiment in his party, to adopt measures that made a conflict between the sections inevitable. The election of Fremont would probably have precipitated this conflict before the north was ripe for it. His conduct during the early period of the war proves that he would have been unequal to such an emergency. His defeat was the postponement of the irrepressible conflict until it became apparent to all that our country must be all free or all slave territory. This was the lesson taught by the administration of Buchanan, and Lincoln was best fitted to carry it into execution.

Pierce was still President, but after his defeat for the nomination he changed his policy materially. Events were allowed to develop in Kansas with a growing tendency in favor of the Free State party. Judge Lecompte was removed from an office the duties of which he was totally unfit to perform. A large number of emigrants from many of the northern states were preparing to move in the spring to Kansas. Governor Geary of that territory, who had taken a decided stand in favor of equal and exact justice to all men, was met by opposition from the pro-slavery faction. His life was threatened and strong demands were made for his removal. He became satisfied that he would not be sustained by the administration, and on the 4th of March, 1857, resigned his position.

Immediately upon the assembling of Congress in December, 1856, and before the usual message had been sent to the President, notifying him that the House of Representatives was prepared to enter upon the duties of the session, a contest sprang up over the question of administering the oath of office to Mr. Whitfield as a delegate from the Territory of Kansas, and a struggle resulted which continued until the 9th of December, when the oath of office was administered to him and he took his seat.

President Pierce sent to the House of Representatives, December 2, 1856, his last message. He commenced it with a careful review of the Kansas question and this led to a debate which continued during the entire session. On the 8th of December I undertook to answer as much of the message as related to the slavery question. He had, in the message, defended the repeal of the restriction of slavery contained in the Missouri Compromise, asserting that this compromise was unconstitutional and abortive, but I showed that it had been recognized as in full force by every administration since and including that of Monroe, that it did not extend to the territory acquired from Mexico, and that it was consistent with the compromise acts of 1850. He asserted that the purpose was not only to exclude slavery from Kansas, but also from places where it then existed. I showed this to be inaccurate by the express denial of such purpose in every platform of the Republican party. I then declared that "If I had my voice, I would not have one single political Abolitionist in the northern states. I am opposed to any interference by the northern people with slavery in the slave states; I act with the Republican party, with hundreds of thousands of others, simply because the Republican party resists the extension, but does not seek the abolition, of slavery."

My speech, as reported, expresses, as I believe, the limit and extent of the aims of the Republican party at that time. The only regret I feel is that the tone and temper of my remarks were not such as should be addressed to the President of the United States by a Member of Congress.

What I say of myself can be truthfully said of many other Members. The feeling against the President was embittered by the firm stand taken by him in support of a policy which we regarded as unpatriotic, and dangerous in the highest degree to the public peace and the national Union. In his last message he defended or excused the lawless efforts made by residents of Missouri to establish slavery in Kansas. He made no effort to prevent the invasion of Kansas or the crimes committed against its citizens. He appointed many governors for this territory, and in every instance where they sought to protect the rights of its people, he either removed them or denied them his support. This was the case with Reeder and Shannon. Even Governor Geary, whom he praised in his message, and whom Buchanan had lauded during the canvass, was abandoned by both, and compelled to resign because he sought to protect all citizens alike.

President Pierce was properly, according to usage, a candidate for re-election when the convention met to nominate his successor, but he was defeated by Buchanan. Mr. Douglas, the chief instrument in the passage of the Nebraska bill, met a like fate. Buchanan was saved only by the popular cry of "Buchanan, Breckenridge and Free Kansas," and the confident belief, founded upon his declaration, that his election would secure freedom to Kansas.

The political excitement existing during the whole of President Pierce's term entered into social life in Washington. The President was not brought into contact with those who differed with him in opinion. His family afflictions were, no doubt, the partial cause of this. The sincere friendship that often exists between political adversaries in public life were not possible during this period. Social lines were drawn on sectional lines, and in the north party lines became hostile lines. Such causes, no doubt, led to unjust criticism of the President, and, in turn, caused him to regard his political adversaries as enemies to their country and disturbers of the public peace. I scarcely remember seeing him during this Congress, and was strongly prejudiced against him. A more careful study of the motives and conduct of public men during this period has changed my opinion of many of them, and, especially, of President Pierce. That he was a genial, social and agreeable companion is affirmed by all who were familiar with him. That his opinions were honestly entertained, and firmly supported, is shown by his adherence to them without change or shadow of turning. In this respect he compares favorable with many leading men of his party, who stifled their opinions to meet the currents of the day. He had been a general of distinction in the Mexican War and a Member of both the Senate and House of Representatives. He was a leading lawyer in his state. His messages to Congress, considered in a literary view, were able state papers, clearly and strongly expressed. It was his great misfortune to have to deal with a controversy that he did not commence, but he did not shrink from the responsibility. He believed in the policy of non-intervention in the territories, and so did not prevent the "border ruffians" of Missouri crossing the line and voting at every election in Kansas, setting up a bogus legislature, adopting the laws of Missouri as the laws of Kansas, and establishing negro slavery in that territory. Fortunately a more numerous, courageous and intelligent population reversed all this, and led, not only to the exclusion of slavery in Kansas, but also to its abolition in the United States.

With the kindly biography of President Pierce, written by his friend, Nathaniel Hawthorne, before me, I can appreciate his ability, integrity and agreeable social qualities, and only regret that he was President of the United States at a time when the sagacity of a Jefferson, the determined courage of a Jackson, or the shrewdness and wisdom of a Lincoln, were needed to meet the difficulties and dangers which he had to encounter.

There is but one more personal incident of the 34th Congress I care to mention. Mr. Banks designated me as a member of the committee on foreign affairs. Mr. Alexander C. M. Pennington, as chairman of that committee, handed me the voluminous papers in reference to the French Spoilation Claims. They covered an interesting period of American history, embracing all that between 1793 and 1801, in which were involved important negotiations both in England and France, and outrages committed upon our, then, infant government by the government of France and Great Britain. I had all the feeling of natural indignation against those great powers who sought to draw the United States into their controversies, and practice upon us enormities and outrages that we would not submit to for a moment in our day. Yet, after a full and careful examination of all the papers in the case, I became thoroughly satisfied that these claimants, whatever might be said as to their claims against the French government, had absolutely no foundation for a claim against the United States.

I wrote an adverse report, but it was suppressed in the committee. Bills for the payment of these claims were presented from time to time. In 1870 Senator Sumner reported favorably to the Senate a bill for the purpose from the committee on foreign relations. It was opposed by Senator Thurman and myself and again laid aside. On the 14th of December, 1882, the bill was again pressed, the debate which ensued clearly showing that the United States pressed these claims against France to the verge of war.

The whole case is this: Certain depredations were committed by the French government and by the citizens of France, upon the citizens of the United States, previous to the beginning of the present century. The government of the United States did all it could to secure payment and compensation to its citizens for these depredations. The French government denied the validity of the claims, holding, on the other hand, that the government of the United States had violated the treaties made with it under circumstances of sacred obligation, that its citizens therefore were justified in doing what they had done in seizing upon American vessels, and taking from them goods called contraband of war, and in committing these depredations. It uniformly justified and maintained the action of its cruisers in doing these things. In other words, our claims were repudiated by France, their payment being refused, and, as we could not force their payment, we simply abandoned them. Recently they have been referred to the court of claims, without regard to the lapse of time, and large sums of money are now being paid by the United States for the depredations committed by the French nearly one hundred years ago, to descendants, three generations removed, of merchants and ship owners, who, with all their losses, enjoyed the most profitable commerce in the history of our mercantile marine. Their payment is, perhaps, the most striking evidence of the improvidence of Congress in dealing with antiquated claims against the government.

The first year of Buchanan's administration, 1857, will always be noted as one of great political excitement, of sudden changes and unexpected results. At its beginning the Democratic party was in complete possession of all branches of the government. The House of Representatives, elected in the fall of 1856, had a strong Democratic majority. The Senate was composed of 37 Democrats, 20 Republicans and 4 Americans. The Supreme Court was composed of 5 Democrats from the slave states, and 2 Democrats and 2 Whigs from the free states. The cabinet of Buchanan had four members from the southern states and three from the northern. The south had full control of all departments of the government, with the President in hearty sympathy with the policy of that section. The condition of Kansas alone caused it trouble. The firm and impartial course of Governor Geary had imparted confidence and strength to the Free State citizens of that territory, who were now in an unquestioned majority through the large emigration from the north during the spring of 1857. The doctrine of popular sovereignty could not, therefore, be relied upon to establish slavery in Kansas, and it was abandoned. New theories had to be improvised and new agencies called into action.

I was present when the oath of office was administered to Mr. Buchanan, on the 4th of March, 1857. With my strong sympathy for the Free State people of Kansas, I hoped and believed that he would give some assurance that the pledges made for him in the canvass would be carried out, but the statement in his inaugural address, that the difference of opinion in respect to the power of the people of a territory to decide the question of slavery for themselves would be speedily and finally settled, as a judicial question, by the Supreme Court of the United States, in a case then pending before it, naturally, excited suspicion and distrust. It was regarded as a change of position, a new device in the interest of slavery. In two days after the inauguration, Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, as to the status of negroes in the United States. He said:

"They had, for more than a century before, been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit."

He said negroes "were not intended to be included in the word 'citizens' in the constitution, and therefore could claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to the citizens of the United States;" and announced as the opinion of the court that the Missouri Compromise act was not warranted by the constitution and was therefore void.

These declarations were in no sense necessary to the decision of the case before the court, as it was held that Dred Scott was a resident of Missouri and subject as a slave to the laws of that state.

Justices McLean and Curtis dissented from the decision of the court, and in elaborate opinions refuted, as I think, every position of the Chief Justice.

Thus the Kansas question became a political question in the Supreme Court. At once the south rejected the doctrine of popular sovereignty, and demanded, as a constitutional right, that slaves moved into a territory must be protected like other property, whether the people of the territory wish it or not. This was the first time in our history when this great tribunal entered into the political arena. Its action encouraged the south, but produced a strong feeling of resentment in the north, and widened the breach between the two great sections of the country.

Mr. Buchanan, early in his administration, found it necessary to appoint a Governor of Kansas. He selected Robert J. Walker, of Mississippi, who had held high positions in the national government, having been Secretary of the Treasury and Senator of the United States. He appointed Fred. P. Stanton, of Tennessee, as secretary of the territory. Mr. Stanton had long been a Member of high standing of the House of Representatives. Both were southern men and both wished to see Kansas a slave state, but both were honorable men who would not seek to gain their ends by dishonest means. After a careful estimate, made by them, it was believed that there were, in the territory, 9,000 Free State Democrats, 8,000 Republicans, 6,000 pro-slavery Democrats, and 500 pro-slavery Americans. A strong effort was made by Governor Walker to induce these elements to join in a movement for a convention to frame a constitution, with a view to admit Kansas as a state in the Union. The Free State men, while anxious for such a result, were not willing to trust their adversaries with the conduct of such an election, without some safeguards against the repetition of the frauds and violence of the previous elections. The result was that only 2,200 persons took part in choosing delegates to what became the notorious Lecompton convention.

Both before and after this so-called election Governor Walker promised that the constitution, when adopted, should be submitted to a vote of the people, and he added his assurance that the President of the United States would insist upon this condition. On the 12th of July Mr. Buchanan wrote to Governor Walker:

"On the question of submitting the constitution to the _bona fide_ resident settlers of Kansas, I am willing to stand or fall. In sustaining such a principle we cannot fail. It is the principle of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the principle of popular sovereignty, and the principle at the foundation of all popular government. The more it is discussed, the stronger it will become. Should the convention of Kansas adopt this principle, all will be settled harmoniously."

This promise was soon after violated, and the President declared in an open letter:

"At the time of the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act slavery existed, and still exists, in Kansas, under the constitution of the United States. This point has at last been finally decided by the highest tribunal known to our laws. How it could ever have been seriously doubted is a mystery."

It was known that the delegates elected would adopt a pro-slavery constitution and ask for admission to the Union. It was equally well known that no such constitution would be adopted by the people of Kansas. Under these circumstances the President, pressed by his cabinet, yielded to the demands of the south, violated his pledges, and supported the convention in the extreme measures adopted by it.

In the meantime the Free State party in Kansas, composed of nearly equal proportions of Republicans and Democrats, was persuaded by Governor Walker to take part in the regular election for the territorial legislature. The result was, the Free State party elected nine of the thirteen councilmen, and twenty-four of the thirty-nine representatives. This should have settled the Kansas controversy, and it would have done so on the principle of popular sovereignty, but a broader constituency in the south demanded that the doctrine of the Dred Scott case should be applied to and enforced, not only in Kansas, but in all the states. Henceforth the Lecompton constitution must be considered, not as a local question, but as a national one. The imperative issue, as pithily stated by Lincoln, was, all slave or all free states. The battle was to commence in Kansas, but was to become national in its scope.

The constitutional convention met on the 19th of October, 1857, within two weeks after the election of the legislature, but in its action little interest was taken, a quorum being preserved with difficulty. It adopted a pro-slavery constitution, which, it was well known, if submitted to the people, would be rejected by an overwhelming majority, and if not submitted would be resisted, if necessary, by open force. The President, Governor Walker, and all parties, had promised that the constitution, when framed, would be submitted to a popular vote. How not to do it, and yet appear to do it, was a problem worthy of a gang of swindlers, and yet the feeling was so strong in administration circles, that the plan devised as below given was cordially approved by the cabinet and acquiesced in by the President.

The constitution adopted by the convention provided: "The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction, and the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and its increase is the same and as inviolable as the right of the owner of any property whatever." Another provision of the constitution was that it could not be amended until after the year 1864, and even then no alteration should "be made to affect the rights of property in the ownership of slaves."

The election was to be held on December 21, 1857. The people might vote for the "constitution with slavery" or the "constitution with no slavery." In either event, by the express terms of the constitution, slavery was established for a time in Kansas and the doctrine of the Dred Scott case was to be embodied in our laws. No opportunity was offered to the people to vote against the constitution.

It is difficult to characterize in proper terms the infamy of these proceedings. The Free State party would take no part in the proposed election on December 21, and it resulted, for the constitution with slavery, 6,226 votes, of which 2,720 were proven to be fraudulent; for the constitution without slavery, 589. Governor Walker promptly denounced the outrage. He said: "I consider such a submission of the question a vile fraud, a base counterfeit, and a wretched device to prevent the people voting even on the slavery question." "I will not support it," he continued, "but I will denounce it, no matter whether the administration sustains it or not."

Mr. Buchanan supported the scheme after the constitution had been adopted by the convention. The elections in the fall preceding were favorable to the Democrats, and Mr. Buchanan was naturally encouraged to hope that his party had regained popular ascendancy, but the Lecompton juggle created a profound impression in the north, and divided the Democratic party to a greater extent than did the Kansas-Nebraska bill, especially in the northwest and in Ohio, where the feeling of resentment was almost universal. Mr. Douglas, the great leader for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, took immediate ground against the pro-slavery plan, and protested to the President against it. An open breach occurred between them.

When Congress assembled, the Lecompton scheme became the supreme subject for debate. Mr. Douglas assumed at once the leadership of the opposition to that measure. He said: "Up to the time of meeting of the convention, in October last, the pretense was kept up, the profession was openly made, and believed by me, and I thought believed by them, that the convention intended to submit a constitution to the people, and not to attempt to put a government into operation without such a submission." But instead of that, "All men must vote for the constitution, whether they like it or not, in order to be permitted to vote for or against slavery." Again he said: "I have asked a very large number of the gentlemen who framed the constitution, quite a number of delegates, and still a larger number of persons who are their friends, and I have received the same answer from every one of them. . . . They say if they allowed a negative vote the constitution would have been voted down by an overwhelming majority, and hence the fellows should not be allowed to vote at all." He denounced it as "a trick, a fraud upon the rights of the people."

Governor Walker declared: "I state it as a fact, based on a long and intimate association with the people of Kansas, that an overwhelming majority of that people are opposed" to the Lecompton constitution, "and my letters state that but one out of twenty of the press of Kansas sustains it. . . . Any attempt by Congress to force this constitution upon the people of Kansas will be an effort to substitute the will of a small minority for that of an overwhelming majority of the people."

On the 28th of January, 1858, during the debate on the Lecompton constitution, I made an elaborate speech, entering fully into the history of that constitution and the events that preceded it, and closed as follows:

"In conclusion, allow me to impress the south with two important warnings she has received in her struggle for Kansas. One is, that though her able and disciplined leaders on this floor, aided by executive patronage, may give her the power to overthrow legislative compacts, yet, while the sturdy integrity of the northern masses stands in her way, she can gain no practical advantage by her well- laid schemes. The other is, that while she may indulge with impunity the spirit of filibusterism, or lawless and violent adventure, upon a feeble and distracted people in Mexico and Central American, she must not come in contact with that cool, determined courage and resolution which forms the striking characteristic of the Anglo- Saxon race. In such a contest, her hasty and impetuous violence may succeed for a time, but the victory will be short-lived and transient, and leave nothing but bitterness behind. Let us not war with each other; but with the grasp of fellowship and friendship, regarding to the full each other's rights, and kind to each other's faults, let us go hand in hand in securing to every portion of our people their constitutional rights."

I may as well here briefly follow the progress and end of the Kansas controversy. Mr. Stanton, the acting governor in the absence of Governor Walker, convened an extra session of the territorial legislature, in which the Free State men had a majority. The legislature provided for an election to be held January 4, 1858, at which a fair vote might be taken on the constitution. At this election the vote stood: For the constitution with slavery, 138; for the constitution without slavery, 24; against the constitution, 10,226.

Notwithstanding this decisive evidence of the opposition to the Lecompton constitution by the people of Kansas, Mr. Buchanan sent a copy of it to Congress, and, recommending the admission of Kansas under that organic act, said:

"It has been solemnly adjudged, by the highest judicial tribunal known to our laws, that slavery exists in Kansas by virtue of the constitution of the United States. Kansas is therefore at this moment as much a slave state as Georgia or South Carolina."

During the controversy Gen. Denver, a conservative Democrat, a native of Virginia, long a resident of Ohio and a representative from California in the 34th Congress, was appointed Governor of Kansas. His predecessors, four of his own party, Reeder, Shannon, Walker and Stanton, had been either removed or compelled to resign, every one refusing to execute the extreme pro-slavery policy of the President. His efforts to secure justice to the citizens of Kansas would in all probability have led to his removal, but the march of events withdrew the question involved from the people of Kansas to the halls of Congress. The policy of the administration was driving a wedge into the Democratic party. The bill for the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution passed the Senate by a vote of 33 yeas to 25 nays, four northern Democrats and two southern Americans voting with the Republicans against it.

In the House of Representatives, composed of 128 Democrats, 92 Republicans and 14 Americans, the bill was defeated by the adoption of an amendment which provided that the Lecompton constitution should be submitted to a vote of the people of Kansas, but this amendment was disagreed to by the Senate, and the disagreement was referred to a committee of conference. The result was the adoption of a substitute known as the English bill. This bill, though faulty, and partisan, provided for the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, but provided also for a submission of the English bill to a vote of the people of Kansas. On the 2nd of August a vote was taken in Kansas, and 11,300, out of a total vote of 13,088, were cast against the English proposition. Thus the Lecompton constitution and the English bill were defeated, the exclusion of slavery made absolute, and the State of Kansas admitted into the Union as a free state, under a constitution approved by the people, but not until January 29, 1861.

This memorable result was the turning point of the slavery controversy. The people of the south hastened preparations for a dissolution of the Union and a civil war. The Confederate congress, meeting four days later, on February 9, elected Jefferson Davis as its president, he having resigned as United States Senator, January 21, 1861, eight days before Kansas was admitted to the Union.

I have given much space to this Kansas controversy, for I wish to impress upon the readers of this volume that the war was not caused by agitation for the abolition of slavery, but by aggressive measures for the extension of slavery over free territory. A large and influential class of southern men were born politicians, and were mainly slaveholders. They had, from the beginning of the government, a large influence, and held more public offices of chief importance than their northern associates. They were constantly complaining of opinions expressed by a comparatively few Abolitionists against slavery, while the great body of the north were either indifferent to or sympathized with them in their opposition to the Abolitionists.