Chapter 38

he said he was able to do me a favor, that he had a ticket to a grand banquet to be attended by the leading men of Boston at Plymouth Rock, on the anniversary of the landing of the Pilgrim Fathers, and that Daniel Webster would preside. I heartily thanked him, and on the next day, prompt on time, I entered the train at Boston for Plymouth. When I arrived at the hotel, which is also a station- house of the railway, I did not know a single person in the great assemblage. In due time we were ushered into the dining hall where the banquet was spread. There was no mistaking Webster. He sat at the center of a cross table with the British minister on his right and Jeremiah Mason on his left. At the other end of the room sat Abbott Lawrence and other distinguished men. The residue of the guests, merchants, poets, and orators of Massachusetts, filled every seat at the tables. I sat some way down on the side and introduced myself to my neighbors on the right and left, but my eye was on Webster, from whom I expected such lofty eloquence as he alone could utter.

Much to my surprise, when the time came for the oratory to commence, Mr. Lawrence acted as toast master. We had stories, songs, poetry and oratory, generally good and appropriate, but not from Webster. And so the evening waned. Webster had been talking freely with those about him. He displayed none of the loftiness associated with his name. He drank freely. That was manifest to everyone. His favorite bottle was one labeled "Brandy." We heard of it as being "more than a hundred years old." It did not travel down to us. Webster was plainly hilarious. At this time the conductor appeared at a side door and announced that in fifteen minutes the cars would start for Boston. Then Webster arose--with difficulty --he rested his hands firmly on the table and with an effort assumed an erect position. Every voice was hushed. He said that in fifteen minutes we would separate, nevermore to meet again, and then, with glowing force and eloquence, he contrasted the brevity and vanity of human life with the immortality of the events they were celebrating, which century after century would be celebrated by your children and your children's children to the latest generation.

I cannot recall the words of his short but eloquent speech, but it made an impress on my mind. If his body was affected by the liquor, his head was clear and his utterance perfect. I met Mr. Webster afterwards on the cars and in Washington. I admired him for his great intellectual qualities, but I do not wonder that the people of the United States did not choose him for President.

Soon after the national Whig convention of 1852, of which I was a member, I heard this story told by his secretary. In the evening, when Mr. Webster was at his well-known residence on Louisiana Avenue, near Sixth street, he was awaiting the ballots in the convention. When it came by the telegraph, "Scott 159, Fillmore 112, Webster 21," he repeated it in his deep tones and said: "How will this read in history?" He did not like either Scott or Fillmore, and was disappointed in the votes of southern members. To be third in such a contest wounded his pride. He died before the year closed. He was, perhaps, the greatest man of intellectual force of his time, but he had faults which the people could not overlook. Another incident about Mr. Webster, and the house in which he lived, may not be without interest. On New Year's day of 1860, Mr. Corwin, Mr. Colfax and myself made the usual calls together. Among the many visits we made, was one on a gentleman then living in that house. As we entered, Mr. Corwin met an old well-trained negro servant who had been a servant of Mr. Webster in this house. I noticed that Mr. Corwin lost his usual gayety, and as we left the house he turned to us, and, with deep emotion, asked that we leave him at his lodgings, that his long associations with Mr. Webster, especially his meetings with him in that house during their association as members of the cabinet of Fillmore, unfitted him to enjoy the usual greetings of the day. I felt that the emotion of such a man as Corwin was the highest possible compliment to the memory of Daniel Webster.

From Boston I returned to New York. There, in the families of two brothers of my mother, both then living, I had a glimpse of New York society. With Mr. Scott, the son-in-law of my uncle, James Hoyt, I made nearly one hundred of the usual New Years' visits, then customary in New York. This custom I am told has been abandoned, but the New York of to-day is quite different from the New York of 1847. It still retained some of the knickerbocker customs of the olden time. The site of the Fifth Avenue Hotel was then a stone- yard where grave stones were cut. All north of Twenty-third street, now the seat of plutocracy, was then sparsely occupied by poor houses and miserable shanties, and the site of Central Park was a rough, but picturesque body of woodland, glens and rocky hills, with a few clearings partly cultivated. Even then the population of New York was about 400,000, or more than three-fold that of any city in the United States, and twenty-fold that of Chicago. Now New York contains 2,000,000 inhabitants, and Chicago, according to recent reports, about 1,700,000. Many cities now exist containing over 100,000 inhabitants, the sites of which, in that year, were within the limits of Indian reservations.

From New York I returned to Washington. Many incidents recur to me but they were of persons now dead and gone, the memory of whom will not be recalled by the present generation. Mr. Polk was then President. He was a plain man, of ordinary ability and more distinguished for the great events that happened during his presidency than for anything he did himself. I attended one of his receptions. His wife appeared to better advantage than he. I then saw Mr. Douglas for the first time. I think he was still a Member of the House of Representatives, but had attained a prominent position and was regarded as a rising man. I wished very much to see Henry Clay, the great favorite of the Whigs of that day, but he was not then in public life.

There was nothing in Washington at that time to excite interest, except the men and women in public or social life. The city itself had no attractions except the broad Potomac River and the rim of hills that surrounded the city. It then contained about 30,000 inhabitants. Pennsylvania avenue was a broad, badly paved, unattractive street, while all the other streets were unpaved and unimproved. All that part of the city lying north of K street and west of Fourteenth street, now the most fashionable part of the city, was then a dreary waste open, like all the rest of the city, as free pasturage for cows, pigs, and goats. It was a city in name, but a village in fact. The contrast between Washington then and now may be referred to hereafter.

Upon my return from the east in February, 1847, I actively resumed the practice of the law. I was engaged in several important trials, but notably one at Mount Vernon, Ohio, where the contesting parties were brothers, the matter in dispute a valuable farm, and the chief witness in the case the mother of both the plaintiff and defendant. It was, as such trials are apt to be, vigorously contested with great bitterness between the parties. Columbus Delano was the chief counsel for the plaintiff, and I was his assistant. I remember the case more especially because during its progress I was attacked by typhoid fever. I returned home after the trial, completely exhausted, and on the Fourth of July, 1847, found myself in a raging fever, which continued more than two months before I was able to rise from the bed, and then I was as helpless as a child. I was unable to walk, and was lifted from the house into the carriage to get the fresh air, and continued under disability until October, when I was again able to renew my business.

During my practice thus far, I had been able to accumulate in property and money more than ten thousand dollars. I had, in addition to my practice, engaged in a profitable business with Jacob Emminger, a practical mechanic, in the manufacture of doors, blinds and other building materials. We acquired valuable pine- lands in Michigan and transported the lumber to our works at Mansfield. We continued this business until I was appointed Secretary of the Treasury, in March, 1877, when I sold out my interest and also abandoned the practice of the law.

I spent the winter of 1847-8 at Columbus, where I made many acquaintances who were of great service to me in after life, and had a happy time also with the young ladies I met there. Columbus was then the headquarters of social life for Ohio. It had a population of about fifteen thousand, with few or no manufactures. It has now a population of more than one hundred thousand, the increase being largely caused by the great development of the numerous railroads centering there, and of the coal and iron mines of the Hocking Valley. It was also the natural headquarters of the legal profession, the Supreme Court of Ohio, then under the old constitution, and the District Court of the United States holding their sessions there.

On the first day of August, 1848, my grandmother, Elizabeth Stoddard Sherman, died at Mansfield at the residence of her daughter, Mrs. Parker. Her history and characteristics have already been referred to. She was to our family the connecting link between the Revolutionary period and our times. She had a vivid recollection of the burning of the principal towns of Connecticut by the British and Tories, of the trials and poverty that followed the War of the Revolution, of the early political contests between the Federalists and Republicans, of the events of the War of 1812, and of her journey to Ohio in 1816. She maintained a masterly care of her children and grandchildren. She was the best type I have known of the strong-willed, religious Puritan of the Connecticut school, and was respected, not only by her numerous grandchildren, but by all who knew her.

My brother-in-law, Thomas W. Bartley, was District Attorney of the United States during the administration of Mr. Polk, and, as he expected a change would be made by the incoming administration of Taylor, he advised me to become a candidate for his place, as that was in the line of my profession. I told him I doubted if my experience of the bar would justify me in making such an application, but he thought differently. I wrote to Mr. Ewing upon the subject and he answered as follows:

"Washington, D. C., Dec. 31, 1848. "John Sherman, Esq., Mansfield, Ohio.

"My Dear Sir:--I believe you would be able to perform the duties of District Attorney, but your youth would be an objection to your appointment, and in competition with one so long known, and so highly esteemed, as Mr. Goddard is both professionally and politically, would probably make your prospects but little encouraging. If you conclude to withdraw your name, signify the fact and the reason by letter to Mr. Goddard and it may be of use to you hereafter. I am, with great regard,

"Yours, T. Ewing."

I complied with his advice, though Mr. Goddard, I think, declined and Mr. Mason was accepted.

On the thirty-first of the same month I was married to Margaret Ceclia Stewart, the only child of Judge Stewart, whom I had known since my removal to Mansfield. She had been carefully educated at the Female College at Granville, Ohio, and at the Patapsco Institute, near Baltimore, Maryland. After the usual wedding tour to Niagara Falls, Montreal and Saratoga, we settled in Mansfield, and I returned to my profession, actively pursuing it until elected a member of Congress.

It is not worth while to follow my professional life into further detail. I shall not have occasion to mention that subject again. Sufficient to say that I was reasonably successful therein. During this period Henry C. Hedges studied law with my brother and myself, and when admitted to the bar became my partner. Mr. Stewart was elected by the legislature a judge of the Court of Common Pleas, and after the adoption of the new constitution of 1851, he was elected by the people to the same office.

I had determined in the fall of 1853 to abandon Mansfield and settle in Cleveland, then rapidly growing in importance as the leading city in the northern part of the state. I went so far as to establish an office there and place in it two young lawyers, nominally my partners, but the great political currents of that time soon diverted me from the practice of the law into the political contests that grew out of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

"The direful spring of woes unnumbered."

Before entering upon an account of my political life it seems appropriate for me to state my political bias and position. I was by inheritance and association a Whig boy, without much care for or knowledge of parties or political principles. No doubt my discharge from the engineer corps by a Democratic Board of Public Works strengthened this bias. I shouted for Harrison in the campaign of 1840. In 1842 I was enthusiastic for "Tom Corwin, the wagon- boy," the Whig candidate for Governor of Ohio. In that canvass Governor Corwin addressed a great meeting at Mansfield. I heard his speech, and was full of enthusiasm. Mr. Corwin was certainly the greatest popular orator of his time. His face was eloquent, changeable at his will. With a look he could cause a laugh or a tear. He would move his audience at his pleasure. I vividly remember the impression he made upon me, though I cannot recall anything he said. At the close of the meeting I was requested by the committee in charge to take Mr. Corwin in a buggy to Bucyrus. This I cheerfully did. I noticed that Mr. Corwin was very glum and silent, and to cheer him up I spoke of his speech and of the meeting. He turned upon me, and with some show of feeling, said that all the people who heard him would remember only his jokes, and warned me to keep out of politics and attend to my law. He told me that he knew my father, and was present at his death at Lebanon, where he, Mr. Corwin, lived. And then, brightening up, he gave me an interesting account of the early settlement of Ohio, and of the bar and bench, and of his early life as a wagon boy in Harrison's army. His sudden fit of gloom had passed away. I do not recall any circumstance that created a deeper impression on my mind than this interview with Mr. Corwin. His advice to keep out of politics was easy to follow, as no one could then dream of the possibility of a Whig being elected to office in Richland county, then called "the Berks of Ohio." Mr. Corwin was defeated at that election.

I took but little part in the campaign of 1844, when Mr. Clay was a candidate for President, but I then made my first political speech to a popular audience and cast my first vote. The meeting was held at Plymouth, and Honorable Joseph M. Root, the Whig candidate for Congress, was to be the orator. For some reason Mr. Root was delayed, and I was pressed into service. Of what I said I have not the remotest recollection, but my audience was satisfied, and I was doubly so, especially when Mr. Root came in sight. After that I made a few neighborhood speeches in support of the Whig candidate for governor, Mr. Mordecai Partley, a gentleman who for several years had lived in Mansfield, but had long since retired from public office after eight years' service in the United States House of Representatives. Mr. Bartley received 147,378 votes, Mr. Tod, Democrat, 146,461 votes and Mr. King, Third Party, 8,411 votes; so close were parties divided in Ohio in 1844.

At this time I had but two definite ideas in respect to the public policy of the United States. One was a hearty belief in the doctrine of protection to American industries, as advocated by Mr. Clay, and, second, a strong prejudice against the Democratic party, which was more or less committed to the annexation of Texas, and the extension of slavery. I shared in the general regret at the defeat of Mr. Clay and the election of Mr. Polk. I took some part in the local canvasses in Ohio prior to 1848, but this did not in the least commit me to active political life. I was appointed a delegate to the national Whig convention, held in Philadelphia, in 1848, to nominate a presidential candidate. I accepted this the more readily as it gave me an opportunity to see my future wife at her school at Patapsco, and to fix our engagement for marriage upon her return home. The chief incident of the convention was the struggle between the friends of General Scott and General Taylor.

When the convention was being organized, Colonel Collyer, chairman of the Ohio delegation, said there was a young gentleman in that convention who could never hope to get an office unless that convention gave him one, and nominated me for secretary of the convention. Mr. Defrees said there was a delegate from Indiana in the same condition and moved that Schuyler Colfax be made assistant secretary. We then marched together to the platform and commenced our political life, in which we were to be closely associated for many years.

The nomination of General Taylor, cordially supported by me, was not acceptable to all the Whigs of Ohio. The hostility to slavery had grown chiefly out of the acquisition of Texas as a slave state. An anti-slavery party headed in Ohio by Salmon P. Chase cast 35,354 votes for Van Buren. General Taylor was defeated in Ohio mainly by this defection, receiving 138,360 votes. General Cass received 154,755 votes. General Cass received the vote of Ohio, but General Taylor was elected President, having received a majority of the electoral vote.

General Taylor proved a very conscientious and acceptable President. His death, on the ninth day of July, 1850, preceded the passage of the compromise measures of Henry Clay, commonly known by his name. They became laws with the approval of Millard Fillmore.

It was my habit during this period to attend the annual state conventions of the Whig party, not so much to influence nominations as to keep up an acquaintance with the principal members of the party. I had not the slightest desire for public office and never became a candidate until 1854. In the state convention of 1850 I heartily supported the nomination of General Scott for President, at the approaching election of 1852. In this convention an effort was made to nominate me for Attorney-General in opposition to Henry Stanbery. I promptly declined to be a candidate, but received a number of votes from personal friends, who, as they said, wanted to introduce some young blood into the Whig party.

I then began seriously to study the political topics of the day. I was classed as a conservative Whig, and heartily supported the compromise measures of 1850, not upon their merits, but as the best solution of dangerous sectional divisions. Prior to this time I do not remember to have given any study, except through the newspapers of the day, to the great national questions that divided the political parties.

In the spring of 1852 I was designated by the state convention as a delegate at large in association with Honorable Samuel F. Vinton to the national Whig convention of that year. I was an earnest advocate of General Scott, and rejoiced in his nomination. Here, again, the slavery question was obtruded into national politics. The clear and specific indorsement of the compromise measures, though supported by a great majority, divided the Whig party and led to the election of Franklin Pierce. In this canvass I took for the first time an active part. I was designated as an elector on the Scott ticket. I made speeches in several counties and cities, but was recalled to Wooster by a telegram stating that my mother was dangerously ill. Before I could reach home she died. This event was wholly unexpected, as she seemed, when I left home, to be in the best of health. She had accompanied her daughter, Mrs. Bartley, to Cleveland to attend the state fair, and there, no doubt, she was attacked with the disease of which she died. I took no further part in the canvass.

I wish here to call special attention to the attitude of the two great parties in respect to the compromise measures.

The Democratic national convention at Baltimore was held in the first of June, 1852. The resolutions of that convention in reference to slavery were as follows:

"12. _Resolved_, That Congress has no power under the constitution to interfere with, or control, the domestic institutions of the several states, and that such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts of the Abolitionists or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friends of our political institutions.

"13. _Resolved_, That the foregoing proposition covers, and is intended to embrace, the whole subject of slavery agitation in Congress, and, therefore, _the Democratic party of the Union, standing on this national platform, will abide by, and adhere to, a faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measures settled by the last Congress, 'the act for reclaiming fugitives from service labor' included; which act, being designed to carry out an express provision of the constitution, cannot, with fidelity thereto, be repealed, nor so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency_.

"14. _Resolved, That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing in Congress, or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made_."

The Whig convention, which met at Baltimore on the 16th of June, 1852, declared as follows:--

"8. _That the series of acts of the 32nd Congress, the act known as The Fugitive Slave Law included, are received and acquiesced in by the Whig party of the United States as a settlement in principle and substance of the dangerous and exciting questions which they embrace, and so far as they are concerned, we will maintain them, and insist upon their strict enforcement_, until time and experience shall demonstrate the necessity of further legislation to guard against the evasion of the laws on the one hand, and the abuse of their powers on the other--not impairing their present efficiency; and we _deprecate all further agitation of the question thus settled as dangerous to our peace, and will discountenance all efforts to continue or renew such agitation whenever, wherever or however the attempt may be made_, and we will maintain the system as essential to the nationality of the Whig party and the integrity of the Union."

It will be noticed that these platforms do not essentialy differ from each other. Both declare in favor of acquiescence in the compromise measures of 1850. The Democratic party more emphatically denounces any renewal in Congress, or out of it, of the agitation of the slavery question under whatever name, shape or color, the attempt may be made. The Whig platform, equally positive in its acquiescence in the settlement made, known as the compromise measures, declared its purpose to: "Maintain them, and to insist upon their strict enforcement until time and experience shall demonstrate the necessity of further legislation to guard against the evasion of the laws."

It would seem that under these platforms both parties were committed to acquiescence in existing laws upon the subject of slavery, and to a resistance of all measures to change or modify them.

I took quite an active part in this canvass and wrote to Mr. Seward, then the great leader of the Whig party, inviting him to attend a mass meeting in Richland county, to which I received the following reply:

"Auburn, Sept. 20, 1852. "John Sherman, Esq., Mansfield, Ohio.

"Dear Sir:--I have the honor of receiving your letter urging me to accept the invitation of the Whig central committee to address a mass meeting in Richland county, Ohio, on the second of October. I appreciate fully the importance of the canvass in which we are engaged, and I have some conception of the responsibilities of the Whigs of Ohio. I wish, therefore, that it was in my power to comply with the wishes, expressed in several quarters, by going among them to attempt to encourage them in their noble and patriotic efforts, but it is impossible. Public and professional engagements have withdrawn me from my private affairs during the past two years, and the few weeks of interval between the last and the next session of Congress are equally insufficient for the attention my business requires and for the relaxation of public labors which impaired health demands. I am, dear sir, with great respect, you friend and humble servant,

"William H. Seward."

The election of 1852 resulted in the overwhelming defeat of General Scott, and the practical annihilation of the Whig party. Franklin Pierce received 244 electoral votes, and General Scott but 42.

The triumphant election of Mr. Pierce, on the platform stated, justified the expectation that during his term there would be no opening of the slavery controversy by the Democratic party. If that party had been content with the compromise of 1850, and had faithfully observed the pledges in its platform, there would have been no Civil War. Conservative Whigs, north and south, would have united with conservative Democrats in maintaining and enforcing existing laws. The efforts of the opponents of slavery and of aggressive pro-slavery propagandists would have been alike ineffective. The irrepressible conflict would have been indefinitely postponed. Yet, as will appear hereafter, the leaders of the 33rd Congress of both parties, and mainly on sectional lines, openly and flagrantly violated the pledges of their party, and renewed a contest that was only closed by the most destructive Civil War of modern times, and by the abolition of slavery. As this legislation brought me into public life, I wish to justify my statement by the public records, with all charity to the authors of the measures who no doubt did not anticipate the baleful events that would spring from them, nor the expanded and strengthened republic which was the final result. "Man proposes, but God disposes."

When the 33rd Congress met, on the 6th day of December, 1853, the tariff issue was practically in abeyance. The net ordinary receipts of the government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1853, were $61,587,031.68. The net ordinary expenditures of the government for the same year were $47,743,989.09, leaving a surplus of revenue over expenditures of $13,843,042.59, of which, $6,833,072.65 was applied to the payment of the public debt, leaving in the treasury, unexpended, about $7,000,000.00. The financial and political condition of the United States was never more prosperous than when this Congress met. The disturbance of this condition can be attributed only to the passage of the act to organize the territories of Nebraska and Kansas approved by President Franklin Pierce, May 30, 1854. The 32nd section of that act contained this provision:--

"That the constitution and all laws of the United States which are locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Kansas as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March sixth, eighteen hundred and twenty, which, being inconsistent with the principle of non- intervention by Congress with slavery in the states and territories, as recognized by the legislation of eighteen hundred and fifty, commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the United States: _Provided_, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of March sixth, eighteen hundred and twenty, either protecting, establishing, prohibiting or abolishing slavery."

This act contained a similar clause relating to Nebraska.

To understand the effect of this provision it is necessary to review the status of slavery in the United States under the constitution and existing laws.

The articles of Confederation make no mention of slavery or slaves. During and after the Revolution the general feeling was that slavery would be gradually abolished by the several states. In the Ordinance of 1787 for the government of the territories of the United States, northwest of the Ohio River, it was expressly provided that:

"There shall be no slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted; provided, always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any of the original states, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid."

This provision applied to all the territory of the United States that was subject to the jurisdiction of the Continental Congress.

The constitution of the United States did not mention either slaves or slavery. Its two provisions relating to the subject were the following:

"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand, eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. . . .

"No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

The first clause quoted was intended to enable Congress to prohibit the introduction of slaves after the year 1808, and this was promptly done. The second provision was intended to authorize the recapture of slaves escaping from their owners to another state. It was the general expectation of the framers of the constitution that under its provisions slavery would be gradually abolished by the acts of the several states where it was recognized.

The first great controversy that grew out of slavery was whether Missouri should be admitted into the Union as a slave state, and whether slavery should exist in the western territories.

The following provision became part of the law of March 6, 1820, approved by President James Monroe, and known as the compromise measure of that year:

"That, in all that territory ceded by France to the United States under the name of 'Louisiana,' which lies north of 36 deg. 30 min. north latitude, not included within the limits of the state contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly conviced, shall be and is hereby, forever prohibited: _Provided, always_, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any other state of territory of the United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service, as aforesaid."

This compromise measure fixed the boundary line between free and slave states in all the territories then belonging to the United States. Slavery was thus forever prohibited within the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska. This happy solution was regarded as something more than a mere enactment of Congress. It was a territorial division between the two great sections of our country, acquiesced in by both without question or disturbance for thirty- four years. The memorable controversy that arose in the 31st Congress in 1850 in respect to the territory acquired from Mexico did not in the least affect or relate to the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas. The subject-matter of the several bills originally embraced in Mr. Clay's report of the committee of thirteen, defined the northern boundary of the State of Texas on the line of 36 deg. 30 min. north latitude, provided for the addition of the State of California, for territorial governments for New Mexico and Utah, and for the surrender of fugitive slaves.

In the resolution annexing Texas to the United States there is this express recognition of the Missouri Compromise line:

"New states of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of the said state, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be _entitled to admission_ under the provisions of the Federal constitution; and such states as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying _south_ of 36 deg. 30 min. north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise line, _shall be_ admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each state asking admission may desire."

The convention providing for the admission of California expressly stipulated by a unanimous vote that slavery should be forever prohibited in that state. The bill providing for a territorial government for New Mexico, the great body of the territory which lay south of the parallel of latitude 36 deg. 30 min., provided, "That, when admitted as a state, the said territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission."

The act organizing the Territory of Utah, lying entirely north of the 37th degree of latitude, contains no provision recognizing the right of the people of that territory to permit slavery within its borders. The situation of the state and its population precluded the possibility of establishing slavery within its borders.

It will be perceived by the compromise measures of 1820 and 1850, the existence or prohibition of slavery was fixed by express laws, or by conditions which it was fondly believed defined the limits of slavery, and thus set at rest the only question that threatened the union of the states. This settlement was indorsed and ratified by the two great parties in their national platforms of 1852, with the solemn pledge of both parties that they would resist the re- opening of these questions.

The Senate of the 33rd Congress was composed of 36 Democrats, 20 Whigs and 2 Free Soilers. The House was composed of 159 Democrats, 71 Whigs, and 4 Free Soilers, with Franklin Pierce as President of the United States.

I need not narrate the long struggle in both Houses over the bill to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas. It was a direct invitation for a physical struggle between the north and south for the control of these territories, but it finally passed on the 30th of May, 1854.

This act repealed in express terms the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and falsely stated the terms of the compromise of 1850, which, as I have shown, had no reference whatever to the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas. It re-opened, in the most dangerous form, the struggle between freedom and slavery in the western territories, and was the congressional beginning of the contest which culminated in the War of the Rebellion.

It is difficult, at this distance of time, to describe the effect of the act of 1854 upon popular opinion in the northern states. The repeal was met in Ohio by an overwhelming sentiment of opposition. All who voted for the bill were either refused a nomination or were defeated by the people at the polls. Party lines were obliterated. In every congressional district a fusion was formed of Democrats, Whigs and Free Soilers, and candidates for Congress were nominated solely upon the issues made by the Kansas and Nebraska bill.

I had carefully observed the progress of the bill, had read the arguments for and against it, and was strongly convinced that it was the duty of every patriotic citizen to oppose its provisions. The firm resolve was declared by the state convention of Ohio, composed of men of all parties, that the institution of slavery should gain no advantage by this act of perfidy. It was denounced as a violation of a plain specific pledge of the public faith made by acts of Congress in 1820 and in 1850. With this feeling there ran current a conviction that the measure adopted was forced by southern domination, and yielded to by ambitious northern dough- faces anxious to obtain southern support.

Unfortunately the drift of parties was on sectional lines. The whole south had become Democratic, so that a united south, acting in concert with a few members from the north, could control the action of Congress. I believe that a feeling did then prevail with many in the south, that they were superior to men of the north, that one southern man could whip four Yankees, that their institution of slavery naturally produced among the masters, men of superior courage, gentlemen who could command and make others obey. Whether such a feeling did exist or not, it was apparent that the political leaders in the south were, as a rule, men of greater experience, were longer retained in the service of their constituents, and held higher public positions than their associates from the north. Besides, they had in slavery a bond of union that did not tolerate any difference of opinion when its interests were involved. This compact power needed the assistance only of a few scattered members from the north to give it absolute control. But now the south was to meet a different class of opponents. There had been growing all over the north, especially in the minds of religious people, a conviction that slavery was wrong. The literature of the day promoted this tendency. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise aroused the combative feeling of the north until it became general among all parties and sects. Still, the north recognized the legal existence of slavery in the south, and did not propose to interfere with it, and was entirely content to faithfully observe the obligations of the constitution and the laws, including those for the return of fugitive slaves. A smaller, but very noisy body of men and women denounced the constitution as "a covenant with hell and a contract with the devil." A much large number of conservative voters formed themselves into a party called the Free Soil party, who, professing to be restrained within constitutional limits, yet favored the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. They invoked the moral influence and aid of the government for the gradual prohibition of slavery in the states. "Liberty is National, Slavery is Sectional," was their motto.

The strong controlling feeling of the great body of the Whigs and of the Democrats of the north, who opposed the Nebraska and Kansas law was that the law was a violation of existing compromises, designed to extend slavery over free territory, that it ought to be repealed, but, if repeal was impracticable, organized effort should be made to make both territories free states. "Slavery shall gain no advantage over freedom by violating compromises," was the cry of a new party, as yet without a name.

It was on this basis in the summer of 1854, I became a candidate for Congress. Jacob Brinkerhoff and Thomas H. Ford, both residents of Richland county, Ohio, and gentlemen of experience and ability, were also candidates, but we agreed to submit our pretensions to a convention in that county, and I was selected by a very large majority. A district convention was held at Shelby, in July. Mr. James M. Root, for several terms a Member of Congress, was my chief competitor, but I was nominated, chiefly because I had been less connected with old parties and would encounter less prejudice with the discordant element of a new party.

I made a thorough canvass through the district, composed of the counties of Huron, Erie, Richland and Morrow. I visited and spoke in every town and township in the district. William D. Linsley, a Member of the 33rd Congress, was my competitor. He was a farmer, of popular manners, but defective education. When first a candidate a letter of his was published in which he spelled the word "corn" "korne." The Whig newspapers ridiculed him for his faulty spelling, but Democrats, who were offended at this criticism, said they would show the Whigs how to plant corn, and the incident proved a benefit rather than an injury to Lindsley. He had been elected to Congress in 1852 against a popular Whig by a majority of 754. He had voted against the Nebraska bill, but had cast one vote that opened the way to the consideration of that bill, which action was made the subject of criticism. This did not enter as a national element in the canvass. The real issue was whether the Democrats and Free Soilers would vote for a Whig. Among the Free Soilers I was regarded as too conservative on the slavery question. They were not content with the repeal of the offensive provisions of the Nebraska act, but demanded the prohibition of slavery in all the territories and in the District of Columbia. This feeling was very strong in the important county of Huron.

When I spoke in North Fairfield I was interrupted by the distinct question put to me by the pastor of the church in which I spoke, and whose name I do not recall, whether I would vote for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. I knew this was a turning point, but made up my mind to be frank and honest, whatever might be the result. I answered that I would not, that the great issue was the extension of slavery over the territories. I fortified myself by the opinions of John Q. Adams, but what I said fell like a wet blanket on the audience. I understood that afterwards, in a church meeting, the preacher commended my frankness and advised his people to vote for me.

This canvass, more than any other, assumed a religious tone, not on sectarian, but on moral grounds. Our meetings were frequently held in churches, and the speaker was invited to the pulpit, with the Bible and hymn-book before him, and frequently with an audience of men, women and children, arranged as for religious worship.

The probable course of Democrats opposed to the Nebraska bill was more than a matter of doubt. They were in the main content with Mr. Lindsley and voted for him. But out of the general confusion of parties there arose what was known as the "Know-nothing" order, or American party, opposed to the Catholics, and to free immigration. It was a secret organization, with signs and grips. There were perhaps one thousand of them in my district, composed about equally of Democrats and Whigs. They were indifferent, or neutral, on the political issue of the day.

The result of the election in October was against the Democratic party in Ohio. Every Democratic candidate for Congress was defeated. Twenty-one Members, all opposed to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, but differing in opinion upon other questions, were elected to Congress. The composition of the delegation was somewhat peculiar, as the party had no name, and no defined principles except upon the one question of the extension of slavery. On the day of the election everyone was in doubt. Mr. Kirkwood, who supported Mr. Lindsley, told me it was the strangest election he had ever seen, that everyone brought his ticket in his vest pocket, and there was no electioneering at the polls. He expressed his opinion, but not with much confidence, that Mr. Lindsley was elected. When the votes were counted, it was found that I had 2,823 majority, having carried every county in the district. Richland county, in which I lived, for the first time cast a majority adverse to the Democratic party, I receiving a majority of over 300 votes.

During the summer of 1855, the elements of opposition to the administration of President Pierce organized as the Republican party. County conventions were generally held and largely attended. The state convention met at Columbus on the 13th day of July, 1855. It was composed of heterogenous elements, every shade of political opinion being represented. Such antipodes as Giddings, Leiter, Chase, Brinkerhoff, and Lew Campbell met in concert. The first question that troubled the convention was the selection of a president. It was thought impolitic to take one who had been offensively conspicuous in one of the old parties. The result was that I was selected, much to my surprise, and, for a time, much to my chagrin. Mr. Allison, since a distinguished Member of the United States Senate, was elected secretary of the convention. I had never presided over any assembly excepting an Odd Fellows' lodge. When I assumed the chair I no doubt soon exposed my ignorance. A declaration of principles was formulated as follows:

"1. _Resolved_, That the people who constitute the supreme power in the United States, should guard with jealous care the rights of the several states, as independent governments. No encroachment upon their legislative or judicial prerogatives should be permitted from any quarter.

"2. _Resolved_, That the people of the State of Ohio, mindful of the blessings conferred upon them by the 'Ordinance of Freedom,' whose anniversary our convention this day commemorates, should establish for their political guidance the following cardinal rules:

"(1). We will resent the spread of slavery under whatever shape or color it may be attempted.

"(2). To this end we will labor incessantly to render inoperative and void that portion of the Kansas and Nebraska bill which abolishes freedom in the territory withdrawn from the influence of slavery by the Missouri Compromise of 1820; and we will oppose by every lawful and constitutional means, the extension of slavery in any national territory, and the further increase of slavery territory or slave states in this republican confederacy.

"3. _Resolved_, That the recent acts of violence and Civil War in Kansas, incited by the late Vice President of the United States, and tacitly encouraged by the Executive, command the emphatic condemnation of every citizen.

"4. _Resolved_, That a proper retrenchment in all public expenditures, a thoroughly economical administration of our state government, a just and equal basis of taxation, and single districts for the election of members of the legislature, are reforms called for by a wise state policy and justly demanded by the people.

"5. _Resolved_, That a state central committee, consisting of five, be appointed by this convention, and the said committee, in addition to its usual duties, be authorized to correspond with committees of other states for the purpose of agreeing upon a time and place for holding a national convention of the Republican party for the nomination of President and Vice President."

Joshua R. Giddings was the solitary member of the committee opposed to the resolutions, not, he said, because he objected to the resolutions themselves, but he thought they were a little too tender. They were not strong enough for the old guard and still they were better than none. If it offended his brother to eat meat he would eat no more while time lasted. He was opposed to this milk for babes. He disagreed with his colleagues, but had had the misfortune to disagree with people before. He was used to disagreement and hoped everybody would vote for the platform.

Lewis D. Campbell said his friend from Ashtabula wanted to make an issue with Frank Pierce. He did not wish to raise an issue with the dead. He hoped everybody would vote for the platform. He did not consider the resolutions milk for babes, but strong meat.

The platform was adopted by a unanimous vote.

The real contention was upon the nomination of governor. Salmon P. Chase was nominated, but there was difference of opinion concerning his somewhat varied political associations and some criticism of them. In 1845 he had projected what was called a liberty convention. In 1848 he had been a member of the Free Soil convention held at Buffalo and since 1849 had been a Senator of the United States. Thomas H. Ford, my townsman, was nominated as lieutenant governor, as the representative of the Whig party. Jacob Brinkerhoff, also of Mansfield, was nominated as judge of the Supreme Court. He had been a Member of Congress from 1843 to 1847 as a Democrat, but early took decided ground against the extension of slavery. He was the reputed author of what is known as the "Wilmot Proviso."

On the 8th day of August this famous proviso was offered as an amendment to a bill authorizing the President of the United States to employ $3,000,000 in negotiations for a peace with Mexico, by purchase of territory, by David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, a Member of the House. "That, as an express fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should ever exist in any part of said territory." This proviso was adopted by the House, but was rejected by the Senate. It was the basis of the organization known as the Free Soil party of 1848, and of the Republican party in 1856.

The other candidates on the ticket were fairly distributed.

The canvass of 1855 was conducted mainly by Senator Chase and Colonel Ford. I participated in it to some extent, but was chiefly engaged in closing my business in preparation for the approaching session of Congress. The result of the election was as follows: Chase, 146,770 votes; Medill, 131,019; Allen Trimble, 24,276.

The election of Senator Chase, upon a distinctly Republican platform, established the fact that the majority of the voters of Ohio were Republicans as defined by the creed of that party.

In the summer of 1855 I made my first trip to Iowa, accompanied by Amos Townsend and James Cobean. At that time Iowa was a far-off state, thinly populated, but being rapidly settled. We passed through Chicago, which at that time contained a population of about 50,000. The line of railroad extended to the Mississippi River. From thence we traveled in a stage to Des Moines, now the capital of Iowa, but then a small village with about 1,000 inhabitants. The northern and western parts of the state were mostly unsold public lands, open to entry. My three brothers, James, Lampson, and Hoyt, were living in Des Moines. James was a merchant in business. Lampson was the editor and proprietor of a newspaper, and Hoyt was actively engaged in the purchase and sale of land. With Hoyt for a guide we drove in a carriage as far north as Fort Dodge, where a new land office had been recently established. The whole country was an open plain with here and there a cabin, with no fences and but little timber. We arrived at Fort Dodge on Saturday evening, intending to spend some time there in locating land. The tavern at which we stopped was an unfinished frame building with no plastering, and sash without glass in the windows. On the next day, Sunday, Cobean invited us to join him in drinking some choice whisky he had brought with him. We did so in the dining room. While thus engaged the landlady came to us and told Cobean that she was not very well, and would be glad if he would give her some whisky. He handed her the bottle, and she went to the other end of the room and there poured out nearly a glass full and drank it. Cobean was so much alarmed lest the woman should become drunk that he insisted upon leaving the town immediately, and we acquiesced and left. Afterwards we learned that she became very drunk, and the landlord was very violent in denouncing us for giving her whisky, but we got outside the county before the sun went down. I had frequent occasion to be in Fort Dodge afterwards, but heard nothing more of the landlord or his wife.

The road to Council Bluffs from Des Moines was over a high rolling prairie with scarcely any inhabitants. The village of Omaha, opposite Council Bluffs, contained but a few frame houses of little value. The settlement of Iowa and Nebraska after this period is almost marvelous. Iowa now (1895), contains over 2,000,000 and Nebraska over 1,200,000 people. The twelve states composing the north central division of the United States contained 5,403,595 inhabitants in 1850, and now number over 24,000,000, or more than quadruple the number in 1850, and more than the entire population of the United States in that year. I have frequently visited these states since, and am not surprised at their wonderful growth. I believe there is no portion of the earth's surface of equal area which is susceptible of a larger population than that portion of the United States lying north of the Ohio River, and between the Alleghany Mountains and the Missouri River.