John Harrison Wilson, The life of Charles Henry Dana

[98] the Union was in danger, he frankly declared that “dissolution would not be the dreadful affair represented. If the South should ever want to secede, we go for giving her the largest liberty.” This was doubtless the precursor of that other saying, “Erring sisters, depart in peace!” While this was occasionally repeated during the decade, and finally became a favorite sentiment of the Tribune in the dark and doubtful days which preceded the end of the war for the Union, so far as I can discover, it found no place in Dana's writings, and at no time received his approval. He was doubtless as radical as Greeley in regard to the wickedness of slavery, and even more radical than he in resisting the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and the spread of slavery into the territories, but throughout his share in this agitation he refused to tolerate the idea of the dissolution of the Union. He believed then and afterwards in the power of Congress, not only to abolish the institution in the District of Columbia, but to prohibit it in the territories.

Early in 1850 the Tribune, for the first time, called attention to the fact “that a formidable body of politicians have been for a year plotting to dissolve the Union.” Similar statements, with increasing frequency, recurred throughout the decade, and in almost every discussion this great danger was, in one form or another, placed before the people. Agitation and discussion were the daily occupation of editors, politicians, and statesmen. Missouri Compromises, Wilmot Provisos, the Omnibus Resolutions, Squatter Sovereignty, the Nebraska Bill, the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, the prohibition of slavery in the territories, the dissolution of the Union, the preservation of the Union, were subjects of absorbing interest more or less constantly under discussion. The great public men of the period were Clay, Webster, and Calhoun; while Benton, Dayton, Davis, Douglas, Crittenden,