Chapter 3:
- Senator Seward -- the ‘Irrepressible conflict’ -- Helper's ‘impending crisis’ -- the John Brown raid -- the nature of fanaticism -- the Democratic National Convention at Charleston -- its proceedings and adjournment to Baltimore -- reassembling at Baltimore and proceedings there -- its breaking up and division into the Douglas and the Breckinridge Conventions -- proceedings of each -- review of the whole and the effect on the South.
Senator Seward, of New York, was at this period the acknowledged head and leader of the Republican party. Indeed, his utterances had become its oracles. He was much more of a politician than a statesman. Without strong convictions, he understood the art of preparing in his closet, and uttering before the public, antithetical sentences well calculated both to inflame the ardor of his anti-slavery friends and to exasperate his pro-slavery opponents. If he was not the author of the ‘irrepressible conflict,’ he appropriated it to himself and converted it into a party oracle. He thus aroused passions, probably without so intending, which it was beyond his power afterwards to control. He raised a storm which, like others of whom we read in history, he wanted both the courage and the power to quell. We quote the following extract from his famous speech at Rochester on the 25th of October, 1858:1 ‘Free labor and slave labor, these antagonistic systems, are continually coming into close contact, and collision results. Shall I tell you what this collision means? They who think it is accidental, unnecessary, the work of interested or fanatical agitators, and therefore ephemeral, mistake the case altogether. It is an irrepressible [58] conflictbetween opposing and enduring forces, and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slaveholding nation or entirely a free-labor nation. Either the cotton and rice fields of South Carolina and the sugar plantations of Louisiana will ultimately be tilled by free labor, and Charleston and New Orleans become marts for legitimate merchandise alone, or else the rye fields and wheat fields of Massachusetts and New York must again be surrendered by their farmers to slave culture and to the production of slaves, and Boston and New York become once more markets for trade in the bodies and souls of men.’ However impossible that Massachusetts and New York should ever again become slaveholding States, and again engage in the African slave trade, yet such was the temper of the times that this absurd idea produced serious apprehensions in the North. It gave rise to still more serious apprehensions in the South. There they believed or affected to believe that the people of the North, in order to avoid the dreaded alternative of having slavery restored among themselves, and having their rye fields and wheat fields cultivated by slave labor, would put forth all their efforts to cut up slavery by the roots in the Southern States. These reckless fancies of Senator Seward made the deeper impression upon the public mind, both North and South, because it was then generally believed that he would be the candidate of the Republican party at the next Presidential election. In accordance with the views expressed by Senator Seward, Hinton Helper's ‘Impending Crisis’ soon afterwards appeared, a book well calculated to alarm the southern people. This was ushered into the world by the following warm commendation from Mr. Seward himself:2 ‘I have read the “Impending crisis of the South” with great attention. It seems to me a work of great merit, rich yet accurate in statistical information, and logical in analysis.’ On the 9th of March, 1859, a Republican committee in New York, consisting of Horace Greeley, Thurlow Weed, and others, issued a circular warmly commending the book, and proposing to publish one hundred thousand copies of a compendium of it [59] at a cheap rate for gratuitous circulation. In order to raise subscriptions for the purpose, they obtained the recommendation of this plan by sixty-eight Republican members of Congress, with Schuyler Colfax at their head. It is in the following terms:3 ‘We the undersigned, members of the House of Representatives of the National Congress, do cordially indorse the opinion and approve the enterprise set forth in the foregoing circular.’ The author of the book is by birth a North Carolinian, though of doubtful personal character, but his labors have since been recognized and rewarded by his appointment as Consul of the United States at Buenos Ayres. Published under such auspices, the ‘Impending Crisis’ became at once an authoritative exposition of the principles of the Republican party. The original, as well as a compendium, were circulated by hundreds of thousands, North, South, East, and West. No book could be better calculated for the purpose of intensifying the mutual hatred between the North and the South. This book, in the first place, proposes to abolish slavery in the slaveholding States by exciting a revolution among those called ‘the poor whites,’ against their rich slaveholding neighbors. To accomplish this purpose, every appeal which perverse ingenuity and passionate malignity could suggest, was employed to excite jealousy and hatred between these two classes. The cry of the poor against the rich, the resort of demagogues in all ages, was echoed and reechoed. The plan urged upon the non—slaveholding citizens of the South was—4 1st. ‘Thorough organization and independent political action on the part of the non-slaveholding whites of the South.’ 2d. ‘Ineligibility of pro-slavery slaveholders. Never another vote to any one who advocates the retention and perpetuation of human slavery.’ 3d. ‘No cooperation with pro-slavery politicians—no fellowship with them in religion—no affiliation with them in society.’ 4th. ‘No patronage to pro-slavery merchants—no guestship [60] in slave-waiting hotels—no fees to pro-slavery lawyers—no employment of pro-slavery physicians—no audience to pro-slavery parsons.’ 5th. ‘No more hiring of slaves by non-slaveholders.’ 6th. ‘Abrupt discontinuance of subscription to pro-slavery newspapers.’ 7th. ‘The greatest possible encouragement to free white labor.’ ‘This, then,’ says Mr. Helper, ‘is the outline of our scheme for the abolition of slavery in the Southern States. Let it be acted upon with due promptitude, and as certain as truth is mightier than error, fifteen years will not elapse before every foot of territory, from the mouth of the Delaware to the emboguing of the Rio Grande, will glitter with the jewels of freedom. Some time during this year, next, or the year following, let there be a general convention of non-slaveholders from every slave State in the Union, to deliberate on the momentous issues now pending.’5 Not confining himself even within these limits, Mr. Helper proceeds to still greater extremities, and exclaims: ‘But, sirs, slaveholders, chevaliers, and lords of the lash, we are unwilling to allow you to cheat the negroes out of all the rights and claims to which, as human beings, they are most sacredly entitled. Not alone for ourself as an individual, but for others also, particularly for five or six millions of southern non-slaveholding whites, whom your iniquitous Statism has debarred from almost all the mental and material comforts of life, do we speak, when we say, you must sooner or later emancipate your slaves, and pay each and every one of them at least sixty dollars cash in hand. By doing this you will be restoring to them their natural rights, and remunerating them at the rate of less than twenty-six cents per annum for the long and cheerless period of their servitude from the 20th of August, 1620, when, on James River, in Virginia, they became the unhappy slaves of heartless tyrants. Moreover, by doing this you will be performing but a simple act of justice to the non-slaveholding whites, upon whom the system of slavery has [61] weighed scarcely less heavily than upon the negroes themselves. You will, also, be applying a saving balm to your own outraged hearts and consciences, and your children—yourselves in fact— freed from the accursed stain of slavery, will become respectable, useful, and honorable members of society.’ He then taunts and defies the slaveholders in this manner:
And now, sirs, we have thus laid down our ultimatum. What are you going to do about it? Something dreadful of course I Perhaps you will dissolve the Union again. Do it, if you dare! Our motto, and we would have you to understand it, is, “The abolition of slavery and the perpetuation of the American Union.” If, by any means, you do succeed in your treasonable attempts to take the South out of the Union to-day, we will bring her back to-morrow; if she goes away with you, she will return without you. Do not mistake the meaning of the last clause of the last sentence. We could elucidate it so thoroughly that no intelligent person could fail to comprehend it; but, for reasons which may hereafter appear, we forego the task. Henceforth there are other interests to be consulted in the South, aside from the interests of negroes and slaveholders. A profound sense of duty incites us to make the greatest possible efforts for the abolition of slavery; an equally profound sense of duty calls for a continuation of those efforts until the very last foe to freedom shall have been utterly vanquished. To the summons of the righteous monitor within, we shall endeavor to prove faithful; no opportunity for inflicting a mortal wound in the side of slavery shall be permitted to pass us unimproved. Thus, terror engenderers of the South, have we fully and frankly defined our position; we have no modifications to propose, no compromises to offer, nothing to retract. Frown, sirs, fret, foam, prepare your weapons, threat, strike, shoot, stab, bring on civil war, dissolve the Union, nay, annihilate the solar system if you will—do all this, more, less, better, worse, any thing—do what you will, sirs, you can neither foil nor intimidate us; our purpose is as firmly fixed as the eternal pillars of heaven; we have determined to abolish slavery, and so help us God, abolish it we will! Take this to bed with you to-night, [62] sirs, and think about it, dream over it, and let us know how you feel to-morrow morning.Such are specimens from the book indorsed and commended by the acknowledged leader of the Republican party, after having read it ‘with great attention,’ and by sixty-eight prominent Republican members of Congress In the midst of the excitement produced by this book, both North and South, occurred the raid of John Brown into Virginia. This was undertaken for the avowed purpose of producing a servile insurrection among the slaves, and aiding them by military force in rising against their masters. John Brown was a man violent, lawless, and fanatical. Amid the troubles in Kansas he had distinguished himself, both by word and by deed, for boldness and cruelty. His ruling passion was to become the instrument of abolishing slavery, by the strong hand, throughout the slaveholding States. With him, this amounted almost. to insanity. Notwithstanding all this, he was so secret in his purposes that he had scarcely any confidants. This appears in a striking manner from the testimony taken before the Senate Committee.6 Several abolitionists had contributed money to him in aid of the anti-slavery cause generally, but he had not communicated to them for what particular purpose this was to be employed. He had long meditated an irruption into Virginia, to excite and to aid a rising of the slaves against their masters, and for this he had prepared. He had purchased two hundred Sharp's carbines, two hundred revolver pistols, and about one thousand pikes, with which to arm the slaves. These arms he had collected and deposited in the vicinity of Harper's Ferry. When the plot was ripe for execution, a little before midnight on Sunday evening, the 16th of October, 1859, he, with sixteen white and five negro confederates, rushed across the Potomac to Harper's Ferry, and there seized the armory, arsenal, and rifle factory belonging to the United States. When the inhabitants awoke in the morning they found, greatly to their terror and surprise, that these places, with the town itself, were all in possession of John Brown's force. It would be a waste of time to detail the history of this [63] raid. Suffice it to say that on Tuesday morning, 18th, the whole band, with the exception of two who had escaped, were either killed or captured. Among the latter was John Brown himself, badly wounded. In the mean time, however, his party had murdered five individuals, four of them unarmed citizens, and had wounded nine others. It is proper to observe that John Brown, after all his efforts, received no support from the slaves in the neighborhood. The news of this attack on Harper's Ferry spread rapidly over the country. All were at first ignorant of the strength of the force, and public rumor had greatly exaggerated it. The President immediately sent a detachment of marines to the spot, by which John Brown and his party were captured in the engine house, where they had fled for shelter and defence. Large numbers of volunteers from Virginia and Maryland had also hastened to the scene of action. John Brown and several of his party were afterwards tried before the appropriate judicial authorities of Virginia, and were convicted and executed. In the already excited condition of public feeling throughout the South, this raid of John Brown made a deeper impression on the southern mind against the Union than all former events. Considered merely as the isolated act of a desperate fanatic, it would have had no lasting effect. It was the enthusiastic and permanent approbation of the object of his expedition by the abolitionists of the North, which spread alarm and apprehension throughout the South. We are told by Fowler in his ‘Sectional Controversy,’ that on the day of Brown's execution bells were tolled in many places, cannon fired, and prayers offered up for him as if he were a martyr; he was placed in the same category with Paul and Silas, for whom prayers were made by the Church, and churches were draped in mourning. Nor were these honors to his memory a mere transient burst of feeling. The Republican party have ever since honored him as a saint or a martyr in a cause which they deemed so holy. According to them, ‘whilst his body moulders in the dust his spirit is still marching on’ in the van to accomplish his bloody purposes. Even blasphemy, which it would be improper to repeat, has been employed to consecrate his memory. [64] Fanaticism never stops to reason. Driven by honest impulse, it rushes on to its object without regard to interposing obstacles. Acting on the principle avowed in the Declaration of Independence, ‘that all men are created equal,’ and believing slavery to be sinful, it would not hesitate to pass from its own State into other States, and to emancipate their slaves by force of arms. We do not stop to inquire whether slavery is sinful. We may observe, however, that under the old and new dispensations, slaves were held both by Jews and Christians, and rules were prescribed for their humane treatment. In the present state of civilization, we are free to admit that slavery is a great political and social evil. If left to the wise ordinances of a superintending Providence, which never acts rashly, it would have been gradually extinguished in our country, peacefully and without bloodshed, as has already been done throughout nearly the whole of Christendom. It is true that other countries enjoyed facilities for emancipation which we do not possess. In them the slaves were of the same color and race with the rest of the community, and in becoming freemen they soon mingled with the general mass on equal terms with their former masters. But even admitting slavery to be a sin, have the adherents of John Brown never reflected that the attempt by one people to pass beyond their own jurisdiction, and to extirpate by force of arms whatever they may deem sinful among another people, would involve the nations of the earth in perpetual hostilities? We Christians are thoroughly convinced that Mahomet was a false prophet; shall we, therefore, make war upon the Turkish empire to destroy Islamism? If we would preserve the peace of the world and avoid much greater evils than we desire to destroy, we must act upon the wise principles of international law, and leave each people to decide domestic questions for themselves. Their sins are not our sins. We must intrust their punishment and reformation to their own authorities, and to the Supreme Governor of nations. This spirit of interference with what we may .choose to consider the domestic evils of other nations, has in former periods covered the earth with blood. Even since the advent of Christianity, until a comparatively late period, Catholics and Protestants, acting on this false principle, have, with### [65] equal sincerity, made war against each other, to put down dogmas of faith which they mutually believed to be sinful and dangerous to the soul's salvation, and this in the name of Him who descended from heaven to establish a kingdom of peace and charity on earth. Spain waged a reckless war against the poor Indians of Mexico, to root out the sin of idolatry from their midst and compel them to embrace the Christian faith; and whoever shall read the life of Cortes must admit that he acted with perfect sincerity, and was intent on their souls' salvation. Mahometans, believing Christianity to be sinful, have, in a similar spirit, made war on Christian nations to propagate their own faith. We might fill volumes with like examples from history. These days of darkness and delusion, of doing evil that good might come, have, it is to be hoped, passed away for ever under the pure light of the Gospel. If all these acts were great wrongs in the intercourse between independent nations, if they violated the benign principles of Christianity, how much greater would the wrong have been had one portion of the sovereign States of a confederate union made war against the remainder to extirpate from them the sin of slavery! And this more especially when their common constitution, in its very terms, recognizes slavery, restores the runaway slave to his master, and even makes the institution a basis for the exercise of the elective franchise. With like reason might the State of Maine, whilst the delusion of the Maine liquor law prevailed, have made war on her sister States to enforce its observance upon their people, because drunkenness is a grievous sin in the belief of all Christians. In justification of this, she might have alleged that the intemperance tolerated among her neighbors, and not her own spirit to intermeddle with their concerns, was the cause of the war, just as it has been asserted that slavery in the Southern States was the cause of the late war. We may believe and indeed know that the people of the North, however much they may have extolled the conduct of John Brown, would never in practice have carried out his teachings and his example; but justice requires that we should make a fair allowance for the apprehensions of the Southern people, who necessarily [66] viewed the whole scene from an opposite standpoint. Under these circumstances it is no wonder that the South should have entertained fearful apprehensions for their peace and safety, in the event that the Abolition party should succeed in obtaining the reins of the government, an event soon thereafter rendered morally certain by the breaking up of the Charleston Democratic Convention. To the history of the sad event we now proceed. It is certain that before the meeting of the Convention, the Democratic party of the North had become seriously divided between the old and the Douglas Democracy, and that the latter at least was strongly tinctured with an anti-slavery spirit. The Convention assembled at Charleston on the 23d of April, 1860, to nominate candidates for the offices of President and Vice-President. It was composed of delegates from all the thirty-three States of the Union, and each State was entitled to as many votes as it had Senators and Representatives in Congress. The whole number of votes was, therefore, 303; and under the two-thirds rule which it adopted, after the example of former Conventions, 202 votes were required to make a nomination.7 The Convention elected Hon. Caleb Cushing, of Massachusetts, its President. This Convention had no sooner assembled than a radical difference of opinion was exhibited among its members in regard to the status of slavery in the Territories. The old Democratic portion, invoking the Dred Scott decision, held that slave property, under the Constitution, was entitled to the same protection therein with any other property; whilst the Douglas delegates, in opposition to this decision, maintained the power of a Territorial Legislature to impair or destroy this property in its discretion. On the day after the Convention assembled (24th April), a committee was appointed, consisting of a delegate from each State, selected by the respective State delegations, to report resolutions as a platform for the party; and on the same day it was resolved unanimously ‘that this Convention will not proceed to ballot for a candidate for the Presidency until the platform shall have been adopted.’ On the 27th of April the Committee on Resolutions made majority and minority reports.8 [67] After a long, able, and eloquent discussion on the respective merits of the two reports, they were both, on motion of Mr. Bigler, of Pennsylvania, re-committed to the Committee on Resolutions,9 with a view, if possible, to promote harmony; but this proved to be impracticable. On the sixth day of the Convention (Saturday, April 28th),10 at an evening session, Mr. Avery, of North Carolina, and Mr. Samuels, of Iowa, from the majority and minority of the committee, again made opposite and conflicting reports on the question of slavery in the Territories. On this question the committee had divided from the beginning, the one portion embracing the fifteen members from the slaveholding States, with those from California and Oregon, and the other consisting of the members from all the free States east of the Rocky Mountains. On all other questions both reports substantially agreed, and therefore in regard to them no special notice is required. The following is the report of the majority made on this subject by Mr. Avery, of North Carolina, the chairman of the committee: ‘Resolved,That the platform adopted by the Democratic party at Cincinnati be affirmed with the following explanatory resolutions: 1st. That the Government of a Territory, organized by an act of Congress, is provisional and temporary, and during its existence all citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle with their property in the Territory, without their rights, either of person or property, being destroyed or impaired by Congressional or Territorial legislation. 2d. That it is the duty of the Federal Government, in all its departments, to protect, when necessary, the rights of persons and property in the Territories, and wherever else its constitutional authority extends. 3d. That when the settlers in a Territory having an adequate population form a State Constitution, the right of sovereignty commences, and being consummated by admission into the Union, they stand on an equal footing with the people of other States, and the State thus organized ought to be admitted into the Federal Union whether its constitution prohibits or recognizes the institution of slavery.’ It [68] will be perceived that these resolutions are in exact conformity with the decision of the Supreme Court. The following is the report of the minority, made by Mr. Samuels, of Iowa. After re-affirming the Cincinnati platform by the first resolution, it proceeds: ‘Inasmuch as differences of opinion exist in the Democratic party, as to the nature and extent of the powers of a Territorial Legislature, and as to the powers and duties of Congress, under the Constitution of the United States, over the institution of slavery within the Territories, Resolved, That the Democratic party will abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States upon questions of constitutional law.’ It must strike the reader that this resolution does not meet the question, but is vague and evasive. It entirely ignores the fact that all these ‘questions of constitutional law’ had been already decided by the Supreme Court, and that in regard to them no differences of opinion could exist among those who were willing to recognize its authority. It leaves the rights of the master over slave property in the Territories as an open question, and places them at the mercy of a majority in Territorial Legislatures, until some future decision should be made, not on this specific question, but generally ‘on questions of constitutional law.’ In fact, it treats the decision as though it had never been made. It is proper to observe that we have included the member of the committee from Massachusetts (Mr. Butler) among the sixteen votes in favor of the minority report, because, although he made a separate report of his own, this was confined to a simple recommendation of the Cincinnati platform and nothing more. The opposing reports from the Northern and the Southern members of the committee were thus distinctly placed before the Convention. It was soon manifest that should the minority report prevail, the Convention must be broken into fragments. After some preliminary remarks, Mr. Samuels moved the adoption of the minority report as a substitute for that of the majority.11 This gave rise to an earnest and excited debate. The difference between the parties was radical and irreconcilable. [69] The South insisted that the Cincinnati platform, whose true construction in regard to slavery in the Territories had always been denied by a portion of the Democratic party, should be explained and settled by an express recognition of the principles decided by the Supreme Court. The North, on the other hand, refused to recognize this decision, and still maintained the power to be inherent in the people of a Territory to deal with the question of slavery according to their own discretion. The vote was then taken, and the minority report was substituted for that of the majority by a vote of one hundred and sixty-five to one hundred and thirty-eight.12 The delegates from the six New England States, as well as from New York, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, fourteen free States, cast their entire vote in favor of the minority report. New Jersey and Pennsylvania alone among the free States east of the Rocky Mountains refused to vote as States, but their delegates voted as individuals. Had all the States voted as units, without regard to the respective minorities in each; or, on the other hand, had the delegates from all the States voted as individuals, in either case the majority report would have been sustained, and the Democratic party might have been saved. It was the want of uniformity in the mode of voting that produced the disastrous result. The means employed to attain this end were skilfully devised by the minority of the Pennsylvania delegation in favor of nominating Mr. Douglas.13 The entire delegation had, strangely enough, placed this power in their hands, by selecting two of their number, Messrs. Cessna and Wright, to represent the whole on the two most important committees of the Convention—that of organization and that of resolutions. These gentlemen, by adroitness and parliamentary tact, succeeded in abrogating the former practice of casting the vote of the State as a unit, and in reducing it almost to a cipher. In this manner, whilst New York indorsed with her entire thirty-five votes the peculiar views of Mr. Douglas, notwithstanding there was in her delegation a majority of only five votes in their favor on the question of Territorial sovereignty,14 the effective strength of Pennsylvania recognizing the judgment of the Supreme [70] Court was reduced to three votes, this being the majority of fifteen on the one side over twelve on the other. The question next in order before the Convention was upon the adoption of the second resolution of the minority of the committee, which had been substituted for the report of the majority. On this question Georgia, Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Florida, and Mississippi refused to vote.15 Indeed, it soon appeared that on the question of the final adoption of this second vague and general resolution, which in fact amounted to nothing, it had scarcely any friends of either party in the Convention. The Douglas party, abandoning their own offspring, and preferring to it the Cincinnati platform, pure and simple, without explanation or addition, voted against it.16 On the other hand, the old Democracy could not vote for it without admitting that the Supreme Court had not already placed the right over slave property in the Territories on the same footing with all other property, and therefore they also voted against it. In consequence the resolution was negatived by a vote of only twenty-one in its favor to two hundred and thirty-eight.17 Had the seven Southern States just mentioned voted, the negatives would have amounted to two hundred and eighty-two, or more than thirteen to one. Thus both the majority and the minority resolutions on the Territorial question were rejected, and nothing remained before the Convention except the Cincinnati platform. At this stage of the proceedings18 (April 30th), the States of Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas, having assigned their reasons for the act, withdrew in succession from the Convention.19 I After these seven States had retired, the delegation from Virginia made a noble effort to restore harmony.20 Mr. Russell, their chairman, addressed the Convention in a solemn and impressive manner. He portrayed the alarming nature of the crisis. He expressed his fears that we were on the eve of a revolution, and if this Convention should prove a failure it would be the last National Convention of any party which would ever assemble in the [71] United States. ‘Virginia,’ said he, ‘stands in the midst of her sister States, in garments red with the blood of her children slain in the first outbreak of the “irrepressible conflict.” But, sir, not when her children fell at midnight beneath the weapon of the assassin, was her heart penetrated with so profound a grief as that which will wring it when she is obliged to choose between a separate destiny with the South, and her common destiny with the entire Republic.’ Mr. Russell was not then prepared to answer, in behalf of his delegation, whether the events of the day [the defeat of the majority report, and the withdrawal of the seven States] were sufficient to justify her in taking the irrevocable step in question. In order, therefore, that they might have time to deliberate, and if they thought proper make an effort to restore harmony in the Convention, he expressed a desire that it might adjourn and afford them an opportunity for consultation.21 The Convention accordingly adjourned until the next day, Tuesday, May 1st; and immediately after its reassembling the delegation from Georgia, making the eighth State, also withdrew.22t In the mean time the Virginia delegation had consulted among themselves, and had conferred with the delegations of the other Southern States which still remained in the Convention, as to the best mode of restoring harmony.23 In consequence Mr. Howard, of Tennessee, stated to the Convention that ‘he had a proposition to present in behalf of the delegation from Tennessee, whenever, under parliamentary rules, it would be proper to present it.’ In this Tennessee was joined by Kentucky and Virginia, ‘the three great middle States which stand as a breakwater against fanaticism on one side and disunion on the other. He should propose the following resolution, whenever it would be in order: “ Resolved,That the citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle with their property in the Territories of the United States; and that, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which we recognize as the correct exposition of the Constitution of the United States, neither the rights of person nor property [72] can be destroyed or impaired by Congressional or Territorial legislation.” ’24* ‘Mr. Russell, as chairman of the delegation from Virginia, rose to express the sentiments entertained by the delegation from that State, and the position they occupy this morning in this Convention. They came here for the double purpose of defending the rights of the South, which are involved in the great issues of the day, and of maintaining the integrity of the American Union. The events of yesterday had especially left him a delicate task to perform. Events had occurred which their constituency never contemplated when they were sent here. They desired that the Democratic party should remain complete, whatever might be done in this Convention. With these general views, the Virginia delegation had entered into consultation among themselves, and had conferred with their sister Southern States remaining in the Convention. They believed that the resolution just read by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Howard] presented a reasonable basis of settlement among all parties, North and South, affirming, as it did, the doctrine of the decision of the Supreme Court, and going no further.’ On a subsequent day (May 3d), Mr. Russell informed the Convention that this resolution had, ‘he believed, received the approbation of all the delegations from the Southern States which remained in the Convention, and also received the approbation of the delegation from New York. He was informed there was strengthe nough to pass it when in order.’25 Of this there could have been no doubt, with the vote of New York in its favor. Had it been adopted, what an auspicious event this would have been both for the Democratic party and the country! Mr. Howard, however, in vain attempted to obtain a vote on his resolution. When he moved to take it up on the evening of the day it had been offered, he was met by cries of ‘Not in order,’ ‘Not in order.’26 The manifest purpose was to postpone its consideration until the hour should arrive which had been fixed by a previous order of the Convention, in opposition to its first order on the same subject, for the balloting to commence [73] for a Presidential candidate, when it would be too late. This the friends of Mr. Douglas accomplished, and no vote was ever taken upon it either at Charleston or Baltimore. Before the balloting commenced Mr. Howard succeeded, in the face of strong opposition, with the aid of the thirty-five votes from New York, in obtaining a vote of the Convention in affirmance of the two-thirds rule. On his motion they resolved, by 141 to 112 votes,27 ‘that the President of the Convention be and he is hereby directed not to declare any person nominated for the office of President or Vice-President, unless he shall have received a number of votes equal to two-thirds of the votes of all the electoral colleges.’ It was well known at the time that this resolution rendered the regular nomination of Mr. Douglas impossible. The balloting then commenced (Tuesday evening, May 1st), on the eighth day of the session.28 Necessary to a nomination, under the two-thirds rule, 202 votes. On the first ballot Mr. Douglas received 145 1/2 votes; Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, 42; Mr. Guthrie, of Kentucky, 35 1/2; Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee, 12; Mr. Dickinson, of New York, 7; Mr. Lane, of Oregon, 6; Mr. Toucey, of Connecticut, 2 1/2; Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, 1 1/2, and Mr. Pearce, of Maryland, 1 vote. The voting continued until 3d May, during which there were fifty-four additional ballotings. Mr. Douglas never rose to more than 152 1/2, and ended at 151 1/2 votes, 202 votes being necessary to a nomination. Of these votes, at least 110 were given by delegates from States which, judging from their antecedents, could not give him or any Democratic candidate a single electoral vote. This statement proves the wisdom and foresight of those who adopted the two-thirds rule. Until 1824 nominations had been made by Congressional caucus. In these none participated except Senators from Democratic States, and Representatives from Democratic Congressional districts. The simple majority rule governed in these caucuses, because it was morally certain that, composed as they were, no candidate could be selected against the will of the Democratic States on whom his election depended. [74] But when a change was made to National Conventions, it was at once perceived that if a mere majority could nominate, then the delegates from Anti-Democratic States might be mainly instrumental in nominating a candidate for whom they could not give a single electoral vote. Whilst it would have been harsh and inexpedient to exclude these States from the Convention altogether, it would have been unjust to confer on them a controlling power over the nomination. To compromise this difficulty, the two-thirds rule was adopted. Under its operation it would be almost impossible that a candidate could be selected, without the votes of a simple majority of delegates from the Democratic States. It had now become manifest that it was impossible to make a nomination at Charleston. The friends of Mr. Douglas adhered to him and would vote for him and him alone, whilst his opponents, apprehending the effect of his principles should he be elected President, were equally determined to vote against his nomination. In the hope that some compromise might yet be effected to save the Democratic party, the Convention, on the motion of Mr. Russell, of Virginia, resolved to adjourn to meet at Baltimore on Monday, the 18th June;29 and it was ‘respectfully recommended to the Democratic party of the several States, to make provision for supplying all vacancies in their respective delegations to this Convention when it shall assemble.’ The Convention re-assembled at Baltimore on the 18th June, 1860,30 according to its adjournment, and Mr. Cushing, the President, took the chair. It was greatly to be desired that the Southern delegates who had withdrawn at Charleston might resume their seats at Baltimore, and thus restore the Convention to its original integrity. In that event high hopes were still entertained that both parties might harmonize in selecting some eminent Democratic statesman, not obnoxious to either as a candidate, and thus save the Democracy of the Union from certain defeat. Every discerning citizen foresaw that without such a re-union the Democratic party would continue to be hopelessly divided, and the Republican candidates must inevitably be elected. [75] Immediately after the reorganization of the Convention, Mr. Howard, of Tennessee, offered a resolution, ‘that the President of this Convention direct the sergeant-at-arms to issue tickets of admission to the delegates of the Convention, as originally constituted and organized at Charleston.’ Thus the vitally important question was distinctly presented. It soon, however, became manifest that no such resolution could prevail. In the absence of the delegates who had withdrawn at Charleston, the friends of Mr. Douglas constituted a controlling majority. At the threshold they resisted the admission of the original delegates, and contended that by withdrawing they had irrevocably resigned their seats. In support of this position, they relied upon the language of the resolution adjourning the Convention to Baltimore, which, as we have seen, ‘recommended to the Democratic party of the several States to make provision for supplying all vacancies in their respective delegations to this Convention, when it shall reassemble.’ On the other hand, the advocates of their readmission contended that a simple withdrawal of the delegates was not a final renunciation of their seats, but they were still entitled to reoccupy them, whenever, in their judgment, this course would be best calculated to restore the harmony and promote the success of the Democratic party; that the Convention had no right to interpose between them and the Democracy of their respective States; that being directly responsible to this Democracy, it alone could accept their resignation; that no such resignation had ever been made, and their authority therefore continued in full force, and this, too, with the approbation of their constituents. In the mean time, after the adjournment from Charleston to Baltimore, the friends of Mr. Douglas, in several of these States, had proceeded to elect delegates to take the place of those who had withdrawn from the Convention, but not in any instance, it is believed, according to the rules and usages of the Democratic party. Indeed, it was manifest at the time, and has since been clearly proved by the event, that these delegates represented but a small minority of the party in their respective States. These new delegates, nevertheless, appeared and demanded seats. [76] After a long and ardent debate, the Convention adopted a resolution, offered by Mr. Church, of New York, and modified on motion of Mr. Gilmore, of Pennsylvania, as a substitute for that of Mr. Howard, to refer ‘the credentials of all persons claiming seats in this Convention, made vacant by the secession of delegates at Charleston, to the Committee on Credentials.’ They thus prejudged the question, by deciding that the seats of these delegates had been made and were still vacant. The Committee on Credentials had been originally composed of one delegate from each of the thirty-three States, but the number was now reduced to twenty-five, in consequence of the exclusion of eight of its members from the States of Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Florida. The committee, therefore, now stood 16 to 9 in favor of the nomination of Mr. Douglas, instead of 17 to 16 against it, according to its original organization.31 The committee, through their chairman, Mr. Krum, of Missouri, made their report on the 21st June, and Governor Stevens, of Oregon, at the same time presented a minority report, signed by himself and eight other members. It is unnecessary to give in detail these conflicting reports. It is Sufficient to state that whilst the report of the majority maintained that the delegates, by withdrawing at Charleston, had resigned their seats, and these were still vacant; that of the minority, on the contrary, asserted the right of these delegates to resume their seats in the Convention, by virtue of their original appointment. In some respects the majority report presented a strange aspect. Whilst it recommended the admission of all the new delegates from the States of Alabama and Louisiana, to the exclusion of the old, it divided Georgia equally between the conflicting parties, allowing one half to each, thus rendering the vote of the State a mere nullity. This anomaly was, however, afterwards corrected by a vote of the Convention. Indeed, the new delegates voluntarily withdrew their claim to seats. On the next day (June 22),32 the important decision was made between the conflicting reports. Mr. Stevens moved to [77] substitute the minority report for that of the majority, and his motion was rejected by a vote of 100 1/2 to 150. Of course no vote was given from any of the excluded States, except one half vote from each of the parties in Arkansas. The resolutions of the majority, except the ninth, relating to the Georgia delegation, were then adopted in succession. Among other motions of similar character, a motion had been made by a delegate in the majority to reconsider the vote by which the Convention had adopted the minority report, as a substitute for that of the majority, and to lay his own motion on the table. This is a common mode resorted to, according to parliamentary tactics, of defeating every hope of a reconsideration of the pending question, and rendering the first decision final.33* Mr. Cessna, always on the alert, with this view called for a vote on laying the motion to reconsider on the table. Should this be negatived, then the question of reconsideration would be open. The President stated the question to be first ‘on laying on the table the motion to reconsider the vote by which the Convention refused to amend the majority report of the Committee on Credentials by substituting the report of the minority.’ On this question New York, for the first time since the meeting at Baltimore, voted with the minority and changed it into a majority. ‘When New York was called,’ says the report of the proceedings, ‘and responded thirty-five votes’ (in the negative), ‘the response was greeted with loud cheers and applause.’34 The result of the vote was 113 1/2 to 138 1/2—‘so the Convention refused to lay on the table the motion to reconsider the minority report.’ The Convention then adjourned until the evening, on motion of Mr. Cochrane, of New York, amidst great excitement and confusion. This vote of New York, appearing to indicate a purpose to harmonize the party by admitting the original delegates from the eight absent States, was not altogether unexpected. Although voting as a unit, it was known that her delegation were greatly divided among themselves. The exact strength of the minority was afterwards stated by Mr. Bartlett, one of its members, in [78] the Breckinridge Convention.35 He said: ‘Upon all questions and especially upon the adoption of the majority report on credentials, in which we had a long contest, the line was strictly drawn, and there were thirty on one side and forty on the other.’ This was equal to fifteen votes to twenty. The position of New York casting an undivided vote of thirty-five, with Dean Richmond at their head, had been a controlling power from the commencement. Her responsibility was great in proportion. Had she cast her weight into the scale at Charleston in favor of the majority report on the resolutions and in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court, this, as we have already seen, would have prevailed by a vote of 173 to 130. Such a result might probably have terminated the controversy between the North and the South. After the retirement of the Southern delegations at Charleston, the delegation from New York had appeared to be willing to change their course and adopt the compromise platform proposed by Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky, with the approbation of the other border States still in the Convention. This was in fact nothing more than an affirmace of the decision of the Supreme Court. In advocating it, Mr. Russell, of Virginia, whose ability and spirit of conciliation had been displayed throughout, stated his belief, as we have seen, that it had ‘received the approbation of the delegation from New York;’ and this statement was not. contradicted. This would have secured its adoption. The means by which a vote upon the question was defeated at Charleston by the commencement of the balloting have already been presented. Strong expectations were, therefore, now entertained that after the New York delegation had recorded their vote against a motion which would have killed the minority report beyond hope of revival, they would now follow this up by taking the next step in advance and voting for its reconsideration and adoption.36 On the evening of the very same day, however, they reversed their course and voted against its reconsideration. They were then cheered by the opposite party from that which had cheered them in the morning. Thus the action of the Convention in favor of the majority report became final and conclusive.37 [79] Mr. Cessna, of Pennsylvania, always eager, at once moved ‘that the Convention do now proceed to nominate candidates for President and Vice-President of the United States.’ These proceedings immediately produced the disastrous effects which must have been foreseen by all.38 Mr. Russell rose and stated, ‘It has become my duty now, by direction of a large majority of the delegation from Virginia, respectfully to inform you and this body, that it is not consistent with their convictions of duty to participate longer in its deliberations.’39t Mr. Leader next stated ‘that it became his duty, as one of the delegates from North Carolina, to say that a very large majority of the delegation from that State were compelled to retire permanently from this Convention, on account, as he conceived, of the unjust course that had been pursued toward some of their fellow-citizens of the South. The South had heretofore relied upon the Northern Democracy — to give them the rights which were justly due them; but the vote today had satisfied the majority of the North Carolina delegation that these rights were now refused them, and this being the case, they could no longer remain in the Convention.’ Then followed in succession the withdrawal of — the delegations from Tennessee,40: Kentucky,41 Maryland,42 California,43j Oregon,44 and Arkansas.45 The Convention now adjourned at half-past 10 o'clock until the next morning at ten. Soon after the assembling of the Convention46 the President, Mr. Cushing, whilst tendering his thanks to its members for their candid and honorable support in the performance of his duties, stated that notwithstanding the retirement of the delegations of several of the States at Charleston, in his solicitude to maintain the harmony and union of the Democratic party, he had continued in his post of labor. ‘To that end and in that sense,’ said he, ‘I had the honor to meet you, gentlemen, here at Baltimore. But circumstances have since transpired which compel me to pause. The delegations of a majority of the States haves either in whole or in part, in one form or another, ceased to participate [80] in the deliberations of the Convention. * * * In the present circumstances, I deem it a duty of self-respect, and I deem it still more a duty to this Convention, as at present organized, * * * to resign my seat as President of this Convention, in order to take my place on the floor as a member of the delegation from Massachusetts. * * * I deem this above all a duty which I owe to the members of this Convention, as to whom no longer would my action represent the will of a majority of the Convention.’47 ‘Governor Tod, of Ohio, one of the Vice-Presidents, then took the vacant chair, and was greeted with hearty and long-continued cheers and applause from members of the Convention.’ ‘Mr. Butler, of Massachusetts, now announced that a portion of the Massachusetts delegation desired to retire, but was interrupted by cries of “No,” “No,” “Call the roll.” The indefatigable Mr. Cessna called for the original question, to wit, that the Convention now proceed to a nomination for President and Vice-President.’ ‘The President here ordered the Secretary to call the States. Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont were called, and they gave an unbroken vote for Stephen A. Douglas. When Massachusetts was called, Mr. Butler rose and said he had a respectful paper in his hand which he would desire the President to have read. A scene of great confusion thereupon ensued, cries of “ I object” being heard upon all sides.’ Mr. Butler, not to be baffled, contended for his right at this stage to make remarks pertinent to the matter, and cited in his support the practice of the Conventions at Baltimore in 1848 and 1852, and at Cincinnati in 1856. He finally prevailed, and was permitted to proceed. He then said he ‘would now withdraw from the Convention, upon the ground that there had been a withdrawal, in whole or in part, of a majority of the States; and further, which was a matter more personal to himself, he could not sit in a Convention where the African slave trade, which was piracy according to the laws of his country, was openly advocated.’ Mr. Butler then retired, followed by General Cushing and four others of the Massachusetts delegation. [81] The balloting now proceeded. Mr. Douglas received 173 1/2 votes; Mr. Guthrie 9; Mr. Breckinridge 6 1/2; Mr. Bocock and Mr. Seymour each 1; and Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Wise each half a vote. On the next and last ballot Mr. Douglas received 181j votes, eight of those in the minority having changed their votes in his favor. To account for this number, it is proper to state that a few delegates from five of the eight States which had withdrawn still remained in the Convention. On the last ballot Mr. Douglas received all of their votes, to wit: 3 of the 15 votes of Virginia, 1 of the 10 votes of North Carolina, 1 1/2 of the 3 votes of Arkansas, 3 of the 12 votes of Tennessee, 3 of the 12 votes of Kentucky, and 2j of the 8 votes of Maryland, making in the aggregate 14 votes. To this number may be added the 9 votes of the new delegates from Alabama and the 6 from Louisiana, who had been admitted to the exclusion of the original delegates. If these 29 votes from Southern States be deducted from the 181 1/2 votes nominating Dr. Douglas, that number would be reduced to 152 1/2. These proceedings had now rendered it clear that Mr. Douglas could not, as he did not, receive one electoral vote from any of the sixteen Democratic States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, California, and Oregon. He owed his nomination almost exclusively to States which could not give him a single electoral vote. What was still more ominous of evil, the division was sectional between the free and the slaveholding States, between the North and the South. It might have been supposed that these disastrous circumstances, foreboding such dangers both to the Democratic party and the Union, would have caused his friends to pause, and at the last moment consent to some means of conciliation. But they rushed on to complete their work, regardless of consequences. The two-thirds rule interposed no obstacle in their course, although it had been expressly adopted and readopted by this Convention, and the very case had now occurred—the nomination by nearly all the Anti-Democratic States—against which its original authors, with wise foresight, [82] intended to guard. Mr. Douglas was accordingly declared to be the regular nominee of the Democratic party of the Union,48 upon the motion of Mr. Church, of New York, when, according to the report of the proceedings, ‘The whole body rose to its feet, hats were waved in the air, and many tossed aloft; shouts, screams, and yells, and every boisterous mode of expressing approbation and unanimity, were resorted to.’ Senator Fitzpatrick, of Alabama, was then unanimously nominated as the candidate for Vice-President; and the Convention adjourned sine dieon the 23d June, the sixth and last day of its session.49 On the same day, but after the adjournment, Mr. Fitzpatrick declined the nomination, and it was immediately conferred on Mr. Herschel V. Johnson, of Georgia, by the Executive Committee. Thus ended the Douglas Convention. But another Convention assembled at Baltimore on the same 23d June,50: styling itself also, and with as little reason, the ‘National Democratic Convention.’ It was composed chiefly of the delegates who had just withdrawn from the Douglas Convention, and the original delegates from Alabama and Louisiana. One of their first acts was to abrogate the two-thirds rule, as had been done by the Douglas Convention. Both acted under the same necessity, because the preservation of this rule would have prevented a nomination by either. This consideration, instead of causing both to desist and appeal to the people of the States to appoint a new Convention for the salvation of the Democratic party, was totally disregarded. r. Cushing was elected and took the chair as President. In his opening address he said: ‘Gentlemen of the Convention, we assemble here, delegates to the National Democratic Convention [applause], duly accredited thereto from more than twenty States of the Union [applause], for the purpose of nominating candidates of the Democratic party for the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States, for the purpose of announcing the principles of the party, and for the purpose of continuing and reestablishing that party upon the firm foundations of the Constitution, the Union, and the coequal rights of the several States.’51 [83] Mr. Avery, of North Carolina, who had reported the majority resolutions at Charleston, now reported the same from the committee of this body, and they ‘were adopted unanimously, amid great applause.’ The Convention then proceeded to select their candidates. Mr. Loring, on behalf of the delegates from Massachusetts, who with Mr. Butler had retired from the Douglas Contention, nominated John C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, which Mr. Dent, representing the Pennsylvania delegation present, ‘most heartily seconded.’ Mr. Ward, from the Alabama delegation, nominated R. M. T. Hunter, of Virginia; Mr. Ewing, from that of Tennessee, nominated Mr. Dickinson, of New York; and Mr. Stevens, from Oregon, nominated General Joseph Lane. Eventually all these names were withdrawn except that of Mr. Breckinridge, and he received the nomination by a unanimous vote. The whole number of votes cast in his favor from twenty States was 103 1/2. The vote of Mr. Douglas was considerably greater, but Mr. Breckinridge received a large majority over him from States known to be Democratic. General Lane was unanimously nominated as the candidate for Vice-President. Thus terminated the Breckinridge Convention. The 23d of June, 1860, was a dark and gloomy day both for the Democratic party and the Union. It foreboded nothing but evil. There could be no pretence that either candidate had been nominated according to the established rules of the party. Every individual Democrat was, therefore, left at liberty So choose between them. In many localities, especially North, their respective partisans became more violent against each other than against the common foe. No reasonable hope could remain for the election of Mr. Douglas or Mr. Breckinridge. It was morally certain that Mr. Lincoln would be the next President, and this added greatly to his strength. The result was, that of the 303 electoral votes, Mr. Douglas received but 1252 (3 from New Jersey, and 9 from Missouri), and Mr. Breckinridge only 72 (3 from Delaware, 8 from Maryland, 10 from North Carolina, 8 from South Carolina, 10 from Georgia, 6 [84] from Louisiana, 7 from Mississippi, 9 from Alabama, 4 from Arkansas, 3 from Florida, and 4 from Texas). Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee cast their 39 votes for John Bell, of Tennessee, of the self-styled Constitutional Union party. In reviewing the whole, it is clear that the original cause of the disaster was the persistent refusal of the friends of Mr. Douglas to recognize the constitutional rights of the slaveholding States in the Territories, established by the Supreme Court. These rights the Southern States could not yield after the decision, without a sense of self-degradation, and voluntary abandonment of their equality with their sister States, as members of the Union. But were they justified, for this cause, in seceding from the Convention, and pursuing a course so extreme I Far from it. Had they remained at the post of duty, like Virginia and the other border States, it would have been impossible that a candidate so obnoxious to them, on account of his principles, could have been nominated. The final result would probably then have been the nomination of some compromise candidate, which would have preserved the unity and strength of the Democratic organization. Indeed, the withdrawal of these States, under the circumstances, has afforded plausible ground for the belief of many, that this was done with a view to prepare the way for a dissolution of the Union. Although, from the votes and speeches of their delegates, there do not seem to be sufficient grounds for so harsh a judgment, yet it cannot be denied that the act was rash, unwise, and unfortunate. An entire new generation had now come upon the stage in the South, in the midst of the anti-slavery agitation. The former generation, which had enjoyed the blessings of peace and security under the Constitution and the Union, had passed away. That now existing had grown up and been educated amid assaults upon their rights, and attacks from the North upon the domestic institution inherited from their fathers. Their post-offices had been perverted for the circulation of incendiary pictures and publications intended to excite the slaves to servile insurrection. In the North, the press, State Legislatures, antislavery societies, abolition lecturers, and above all the Christian pulpit, had been persistently employed in denouncing slavery as [85] a sin, and rendering slaveholders odious. Numerous abolition petitions had been presented to Congress, from session to session, portraying slavery as a grievous sin against God and man. The Fugitive Slave Law enacted by the first Congress, as well as that of 1850, for the security of their property, had been nullified by the Personal Liberty Acts of Northern Legislatures, and by the organized assistance afforded by abolitionists for the escape of their slaves. Wilmot provisos had been interposed to defeat their constitutional rights in the common Territories, and even after these rights had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, its decision had been set at naught not only by the Republican but by the Douglas party. ‘The irrepressible conflict’ of Senator Seward, and the Helper book, both portending the abolition of slavery in the States, had been circulated broadcast among the people. And finally the desperate fanatic, John Brown, inflamed by these teachings, had invaded Virginia, and murdered a number of her peaceful citizens, for the avowed purpose of exciting a servile insurrection; and although he had expiated his crimes on the gallows, his memory was consecrated by the abolitionists, as though he had been a saintly martyr. In the midst of these perils the South had looked with hope to the action of the Democratic National Convention at Charleston, but in this they had been sadly disappointed. This series of events had inflamed the Southern mind with intense hostility against the North, and enabled the disunion agitators to prepare it for the final catastrophe. It was not until after the breaking up of the Democratic party at Charleston and Baltimore, that the masses, even in the cotton States, always excepting South Carolina, could be induced to think seriously of seceding from the Union. The border States, with Virginia in the front rank, although much dissatisfied with the course of events at the North, still remained true to the Federal Government.
