The reception of it gave rise to much debate, but in the end I was permitted on the same day to read it. The minority report of Mr.
Oliver was presented July 11 of that year. No action was taken on the reports, but they were widely published.
On July 31, 1856, I made a speech on the Kansas contested election between General Whitfield and Governor Reeder, during which I was drawn into a discussion with Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, and Mr. Oliver, of Missouri, in which the general questions involved in the Kansas controversy were fully debated. I closed with this language:
"The worst evil that could befall our country is civil war, but the outrages in Kansas cannot be continued much longer without producing it. To our southern brethren I especially appeal. In the name of southern rights, crimes have been committed, and are being committed, which I know you cannot and do not approve. These have excited a feeling in the northern states that is deepening and strengthening daily. It may produce acts of retaliation. You are in a minority and, from the nature of your inst.i.tutions, your relative power is yearly decreasing. In excusing this invasion from Missouri--in attempting to hold on to an advantage obtained by force and fraud--you are setting an example which, in its ultimate consequences, may trample your rights under foot. Until these wrongs are righted, you must expect northern men to unite to redress them. It may not be this year, but, as sure as there is a G.o.d in heaven, such a union will be effected; and you will gain nothing by sustaining northern agitators in violating the compromise of your fathers."
On July 28, 1856, I offered, as an amendment to the army appropriation bill, the following proviso:
"_Provided, nevertheless_, That no part of a military force of the United States herein provided for, shall be employed in aid of the enforcement of the enactments of the alleged legislative a.s.sembly of the Territory of Kansas, recently a.s.sembled at Shawnee Mission, until Congress shall have enacted either that it was or was not a valid legislative a.s.sembly, chosen in conformity with the organic law, by the people of said territory. And _Provided_, That until Congress shall have pa.s.sed on the validity of the said legislative a.s.sembly of Kansas, it shall be the duty of the President to use the military force in said territory to preserve the peace, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, and protect persons and property therein, and upon the national highways in the State of Missouri, from unlawful seizures and searches. And _be it further provided_, That the President is required to disarm the present organized militia of the Territory of Kansas and recall all the United States arms therein distributed, and to prevent armed men from going into said territory to disturb the public peace, or aid in the enforcement or resistance of real or pretended laws."
After long debate, this was agreed to by a vote of 80 yeas to 47 nays. The deliberate purpose of a majority of the House was to prevent any further support of the Lecompton territorial legislature.
This amendment, however, was disagreed to by the Senate and referred to a committee of conference. On the 18th of August, the last day of the session, the disagreement continued and the conference report was taken up for action. A motion was made that the House insist upon its amendments and agree to another committee of conference.
This was defeated, but no definite action was taken, as a majority of the House was opposed to a further conference, and so the army bill failed.
On the same day the President, by proclamation, convened the two Houses in extra session to meet on the 21st day of August, three days later. The President, in his message, urged Congress to recede from the Kansas proviso in the army bill. The Republicans of the House were determined to insist upon that proviso, and, by repeated votes, refused to withdraw it or to reconsider it, but, after a session of nine days, the House finally yielded, but only after the Senate had agreed to an amendment, which contained the substance of the proviso offered by me, as follows;
"_Provided_, That no part of the military force of the United States, for the support of which appropriations are made by this act, shall be employed in aid of the enforcement of any enactment heretofore pa.s.sed by the bodies claiming to be the territorial legislature of Kansas."
This amendment was agreed to and thus, in the final struggle, while no effective measures to relieve the people of Kansas from the tyranny imposed upon them were adopted, the declaration was made that the military force of the United States should not be used to aid in the enforcement of any enactment theretofore pa.s.sed by bodies claiming to be the territorial legislature of Kansas.
Thus it appears that during this long and wearisome session (for in fact the two were but one), I was almost exclusively occupied in a futile effort to restore the prohibition of slavery in Kansas, according to the Missouri Compromise, but the struggle made was fruitful in good. It strengthened the Free State sentiment in Kansas, it aroused public sentiment in the north, and drove the south to adopt new and strange theories which led to divisions in the Democratic party and its disruption and overthrow in 1860.
The compromise made was understood to be the work of Mr. Seward, and, though not satisfactory to the Republicans of the House, it was at least a drawn battle, and, like Bunker Hill to Yorktown, was the prelude to the Revolution that ended at Appomattox.
Among the many who attained distinction in the 34th Congress I can only refer to a few, the chief of whom was Nathaniel P. Banks, who, after a long struggle, was elected speaker. He was born in Waltham, Ma.s.sachusetts, January 30, 1816. He had risen into prominence without any aid or advantage of early education or training. He was the son of an overseer in a cotton factory at Waltham, where he was for a time employed. He improved his leisure hours by the study of history, political economy and the science of government.
He learned the trade of a machinist. He early acquired the habit of speaking well on various subjects, and was elected as a Democratic member of the legislature from his native town. In 1852 he was elected to Congress, running upon the ticket with General Pierce, the Democratic candidate for President. He took a decided stand against the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. He was a man of striking presence, with a fine voice and engaging manners. He filled the difficult position of speaker with great credit, and is still remembered by his a.s.sociates as perhaps the best fitted for the special duties of speaker of the House of any Member since the time of Henry Clay. He was afterward elected Governor of Ma.s.sachusetts and continued in that position for several years. When the war broke out he was appointed major-general of volunteers, but his service in the army was not marked. After the war was over he was re-elected to Congress, but seemed to have lost his power and influence. In later years his memory was impaired and he "lagged superfluous on the stage." He died September 1, 1894.
Lewis D. Campbell, of Ohio, was elected to Congress in 1848 as a Whig, and re-elected to each successive Congress down to 1856, when his seat was contested and the House of Representatives decided against him. He and Banks were the leading candidates for the speakership of the 34th Congress, but the majority of the anti- Nebraska Members voted for Banks, and upon his election Campbell was made chairman of the committee of ways and means, and had substantial control of the business of that Congress. He never was in hearty sympathy with the Republican party. He was subsequently elected to the 42nd Congress in 1870 as a Democrat, but had lost, in a great measure, his influence. He served for a time as colonel of a regiment in the war. He was a man of marked ability but was too erratic to be a successful leader in any cause or party.
In 1850, at the early age of twenty-seven, Galusha A. Grow was elected a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania. He was an active and very useful Member. He took strong ground against the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and in 1859 was a compet.i.tor with me for the position of speaker, but withdrew in my favor after the first ballot. In the following Congress he was chosen speaker and rendered very valuable service as such. After a continuous service in Congress for fourteen years, he retired from active political life and engaged in important business enterprises, but always took an interest in political affairs. He was elected by an overwhelming majority as a Member of the 53rd Congress at large from his state.
Schuyler Colfax was a conspicuous Member of Congress from 1855 until he was nominated for the office of Vice President, in 1868, on the ticket with General Grant. During this long period he represented one district, and served for six years as speaker. He was a very industrious, active Member. As we were of about the same age, and our lives ran in parallel lines, we were often thrown together. We and our families in Washington messed together in a household for several years, and our intercourse was always friendly and intimate. When he became Vice President he remarked to me that I was first to enter the Senate, but he was first to become Vice President. After his service as Vice President, he retired from public life and delivered lectures upon many topics.
Many other Members of Congress, equally worthy of note, have pa.s.sed away from the scenes of life, and some few survive. I would gladly recall their memory if my s.p.a.ce would allow.
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 a.s.sumed 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 a.s.serted 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 a.s.sault 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 a.s.sociates. 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 Ma.s.sachusetts, 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 canva.s.s 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 canva.s.s, 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 canva.s.s 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 a.s.sembling 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, a.s.serting that this compromise was unconst.i.tutional 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 a.s.serted 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 canva.s.s, 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 pa.s.sage 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.