CHAPTER XI.

Availability as the Motive of Nomination a Mistake of the Democracy in 1856, as it was of the Whig Party in 1852.-Seditious Legislative Proceeding.-The Nomination of Fremont and Dayton the first Instance of Sectionalism, as to Candidates for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency.-Party Success, on merely available Grounds, insecure.— Southern Leaders seeking to inform themselves as to Northern Sentiment-Visit of Mr. Davis to New England in 1858-Mr. Toombs gives a Lecture in Boston-Mr. Lincoln's Opinion of the State of Union Sentiment at the South, during the War.

THE object of this work has been to point out, in a somewhat general way, the movements of popular feeling and the course of action of the several parties, as tending towards certain results, not to examine the conduct of particular administrations of the General Government. It may, however, be properly enough suggested at this point, that the Democratic party, however actuated by considerations thought important to insure success, at a great public exigency, and, doubtless, also, by patriotic views of public duty, may have committed a political error in failing to renominate President Pierce in 1856. Without any reference to the subsequent turn of events, under the administration of his successor, President Buchanan, and allowing for the impossibility of foreseeing their progress and result, it was the evident fact that a great national question of absorbing interest, unexpectedly coming up early in the term of President Pierce, must be met and be brought to an issue, mainly by the intelligent action and popular strength of the Democratic party throughout the country. The embarrassments with which the administration of the latter was encumbered, in relation to the disturbances in Kansas, grew out of causes at work

CONDUCT OF PRESIDENT PIERCE.

311

remote from the Territory itself, as has been already shown; and causes which it was quite out of the power of the national executive to control. In his message to Congress of January 24th, 1856, he remarked:

"The inflammatory agitation, of which the present is but a part, has for twenty years produced nothing save unmitigated evil, North and South. But for it, the character of the domestic institutions of the future new State would have been a matter of too little interest to the inhabitants of the contiguous States, personally or collectively, to produce among them any political emotion."

It is difficult to see how he could have properly pursued any other course than that adopted, in regard to affairs within the Territory. He had declined to interfere by force with the action, regular or irregular, of the people of the Territory in their elections, on the just ground that it would be "subversive of public freedom." Nor could he have done so without incurring severe censure from one side or the other, perhaps from both. But when lawless violence ran riot through the Territory, he despatched a sufficient armed force to restore and maintain order, as soon as he could induce the reluctant Congress, which he had reassembled for the purpose, to vote the necessary supplies for the troops; a measure of public duty and necessity resisted by the opponents of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.'

1 After a long and exciting session, Congress finally adjourned, August 18th, 1856, without passing the ordinary appropriation bill for the support of the army. This the House had refused to do, unless the Senate would agree to terms which would prevent the President from using the military force, according to his judgment of the exigency, in Kansas. The President, thereupon, issued his proclamation to reassemble Congress, August 21st. The House had proposed the following proviso:

"That no part of the military force of the United States, for the support of which appropriation was made by this act, shall be employed in aid of the enforcement of any enactment heretofore passed by the bodies claiming to be the Territorial Legislature of Kansas."

The Senate proposed to strike out this proviso, to which the House eventually agreed, by a vote of yeas 101, to nays 98; and the bill having thus passed, the extra session ended, by adjournment, August 30th. .

A striking illustration of the difficulties with which the administration was environed appears in the tenor of certain resolutions adopted by the Legislature of Massachusetts, which were approved June 3d, 1856. These resolutions came up in consequence of an order moved for the appropriation of a considerable sum of money by the State, in aid of Kansas. The motion was advocated in the legislature, and by a part, at least, of the Freesoil press; though its passage would evidently have placed the State in the open attitude of furnishing funds in aid of an insurrectionary condition of things on the distant border of civilization. Instead of taking this step, the legislature ingeniously passed resolves commending the case to the popular favor and assistance, as follows:

Resolved,

That we have heard the call for sympathy and aid which has come up to the people of the United States from the settlers of Kansas,1 and while we do not claim that as a State legislature we are clothed with power to initiate measures for their relief, we nevertheless present their case to the people of this Commonwealth, in full confidence that they will use all just and constitutional means to aid these heroic men in maintaining and defending their liberties.

The legislature thus stirred up the people, and, by its authority, solicited contributions in favor of the side with which it was in political sympathy, and which was in conflict with the General Government. And the party thus always most professed to guard themselves with the Constitution, when most intent upon breaking it down. The resolves proceed to charge the disturbed state of affairs in the Territory to the "neglect of the Government of the United States to protect the settlers" (meaning the Freesoil settlers) " and redress their wrongs;" and, in the same breath, refer to the action of the President in issuing a proclamation of warning to all those who, by any means, were seeking to resist the execution of the territorial laws. They leave in no doubt the state of mind in the Freesoil party, by declaring that

1 Doubtless from "old John Brown," who came to Massachusetts for that purpose.

A DEMOCRATIC RESOLUTION.

313

"the question of free or slave territory is become a prominent and vital issue before the country, and threatens to drive the nation into civil war."

Kansas was then, and had been for two years, under a territorial government, by virtue of an act of Congress, and although the President was bound to see to it, that peace was kept or restored, as he did, by means of the troops of the United States, yet he had no authority whatever to interfere with the popular vote in Kansas, or between the Governor of the Territory and its legislature, or to adjudicate upon alleged points of fraud in the conduct of its elections. At a later period in the history of the country we have seen less scruple exhibited, in giving executive direction to the popular action at elections, on a much larger scale, and under that plea of " necessity," which was only the party necessity of obtaining a show of the major vote.

The Democratic Convention which nominated Mr. Buchanan in 1856, could have used no terms more expressive of the views entertained by it. It declared:

"The American Democracy recognize and adopt the principles contained in the organic laws establishing the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, as embodying the only sound and safe solution of the 'slavery question,' upon which the great national idea of the people of the whole country can repose in its determined conservatism of the Union-non-interference by Congress with slavery in State and Territory, or in the District of Columbia. That this was the basis of the Compromises of 1850-confirmed by both the Democratic and Whig parties in national conventions-ratified by the people in the election of 1852-and rightly applied to the organization of Territories in 1854."

The same Convention, in the warmest language of comprehensive eulogy, as well as by specification of particular policy pursued, proclaimed its unqualified approbation of the measures, and general conduct of the administration of President Pierce. It was, nevertheless, thought best to select Mr. Buchanan as the candidate, who had been out of the immediate sphere of politics by reason of his absence as minister of the United States at the court of Great Britain. It was evident that no slight was intended to his predecessor,

who, it was understood, urged no pretensions to the nomination; but it was equally evident, that the doctrine of supposed "availability" was applied to the case, and that the direct issue before the people was thus in some measure avoided. The Democrats were shrewd enough to be aware, that a great many persons would vote for the candidate of the party, who had never read the resolutions. It was upon these grounds, therefore, that it was thought best to take up a fresh candidate, whose name had not been mingled with the agitating Kansas imbroglio. It may well be questioned, whether that was not the propitious moment for meeting the issue fairly and squarely, upon its very face. Not to do so indicated something of a shiver in the breeze. There is good reason to believe that President Pierce would have been reëlected; and such a result would have definitively settled, in due time, and would have afforded the most favorable means of settling the Kansas question, if the administration, under which the original measure was adopted, had been sustained by the popular suffrage. The line was already drawn with considerable clearness, though not so stiffly as afterwards between those who accounted themselves the unswerving supporters of constitutional principles, and those who, upon sectional grounds, had made the sectional nominations of Mr. Fremont, of California, for President, and Mr. Dayton, of New Jersey, for Vice-President; the first instance in which one or the other of the candidates for these offices had not been selected from a slave State.

In the election which ensued, Kentucky, so strongly impregnated with Whig opinions, and Tennessee, which also had voted for General Scott in 1852, notwithstanding allegations likely to prejudice his cause in a slave State, now cast their weight into the scale for Mr. Buchanan. In all the fifteen slave States, including Delaware, Mr. Fremont received but about twelve hundred votes; and in all but four of those States, not a single ballot was thrown for the ticket which bore his name. It was felt to be a moment, indeed, when all other considerations should be postponed, for the one great