"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 ma.s.s meeting in Richland county, Ohio, on the second of October.
I appreciate fully the importance of the canva.s.s 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 n.o.ble 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 Public and professional engagements have withdrawn me from my private affairs during the past two years, and the few weeks of interval between the last and the next session of Congress are equally insufficient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 antic.i.p.ate the baleful events that would spring from them, nor the expanded and strengthened republic which was the final result. "Man proposes, but G.o.d 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 pa.s.sage 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 const.i.tution 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 inst.i.tutions in their own way, subject only to the const.i.tution 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 const.i.tution 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 const.i.tution 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 const.i.tution 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 lat.i.tude, 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 lat.i.tude, 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 _ent.i.tled to admission_ under the provisions of the Federal const.i.tution; and such states as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying _south_ of 36 deg. 30 min. north lat.i.tude, 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 lat.i.tude 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 const.i.tution may prescribe at the time of their admission."
The act organizing the Territory of Utah, lying entirely north of the 37th degree of lat.i.tude, 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 pa.s.sed 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 inst.i.tution 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 inst.i.tution 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 const.i.tuents, and held higher public positions than their a.s.sociates 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 a.s.sistance only of a few scattered members from the north to give it absolute control. But now the south was to meet a different cla.s.s 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 const.i.tution and the laws, including those for the return of fugitive slaves. A smaller, but very noisy body of men and women denounced the const.i.tution as "a covenant with h.e.l.l 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 const.i.tutional 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 compet.i.tor, 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 canva.s.s 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 compet.i.tor. 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 canva.s.s. 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 canva.s.s, more than any other, a.s.sumed 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 a.s.sembly excepting an Odd Fellows" lodge.
When I a.s.sumed the chair I no doubt soon exposed my ignorance. A declaration of principles was formulated as follows:
"1. _Resolved_, That the people who const.i.tute 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.