20

THE DRED-SCOTT DECISION.

[1856.

1856) in the case of Dred Scott, a negro suing to establish the freedom of himself, his wife, and their two daughters. Chief Justice Taney not only decided the point in issue, that Scott was not a citizen of Missouri and could not sue, but went out of his way to declare also that a person of African blood could not be a citizen of the United States, and that if he were a citizen of a particular State, this would secure him no privileges in any other State; that, in short, he had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect." To the friends of liberty it seemed that the Court was nullifying the Constitution, instead of interpreting it.

But though there was an awakening conscience at the North on the subject of chattel slavery and its sinfulness, there was by no means a majority of her people thus troubled. The thing that alarmed the majority was the aggressive spirit of the institution, its evident determination to extend itself. Alexander H. Stephens and other statesmen of the South had declared that if the system was to survive it must have more land, more slaves, and more slaveholders. More land was to be had in the unsettled Territories; more slaves could be brought from Africa-were being brought already; and when the article was thus cheapened more whites could afford to own slaves and would at once become bound to uphold and perpetuate slavery. Thousands at the North who were perfectly willing to compromise for the continuance of slavery as it was, were roused to the point of resistance when they contemplated what it

1856.]

THE POLITICAL STRUGGLE.

21

They passed no sleep

seemed likely to become. less nights because the laws of their country doomed millions of human beings to perpetual servitude; but they were both vigilant and valorous when they saw bounds being set to their own spirit of enterprise and the natural expansion of their institutions in serious danger.

By this time the Democratic party throughout the country had become the pro-slavery party. In the Southern States it was the only party, and the Dred-Scott decision fairly represented its position on the great question of the day. In all the discussions carried on by its orators and journalists, there was a constant underlying assumption that the welfare of the black race was not in any way to be considered, that it was purely a question of satisfactory adjustment between the whites of the North and the whites of the South. All attempts to bring any moral arguments to bear were set aside with a sneer at "the everlasting nigger." In the South Jefferson Davis had concisely expressed the sentiment of his party when, after discussing the slave-trade, he said, "The interest of Mississippi, not the African, dictates my conclusion," and in the North Stephen A. Douglas, still more tersely, when he declared that he "didn't care whether slavery was voted up or voted down.'

The Whig party had gone to pieces after its disastrous defeat in 1852. The American or Know-Nothing party was but a short episode. The aggressions of the slave power called for an equally spirited, if not equally aggressive, free-soil organi

22

POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY.

[1854.

zation at the North, and the exigency was met by the formation of the Republican party in 1854. The first battle-ground, both literally and figuratively, was Kansas. The doctrine of Popular, or Squatter, Sovereignty, which had been broached as early as 1847, was definitely set forth in 1854 in the Kansas-Nebraska bill. This bill provided for the organization of two Territories west of Missouri, repealed the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional, and declared that the people of each Territory should determine for themselves whether it should be slave or free. The foremost apostle of this doctrine was Stephen A. Douglas, who reiterated it until he induced a great many people to believe it, and perhaps believed it himself, though its fallacy was perfectly transparent. When a Territory was thrown open for settlement, it was necessary to determine at once. whether it should be slave or free. If it should ultimately become free, a slaveholder who had taken his property into the Territory would lose it; and if it should ultimately be dedicated to slavery, Northern settlers depending upon free labor would lose their investments. To pour in immigration, and then tell the immigrants to settle the question for themselves, was to make a bloody struggle inevitable; and this is what really took place. At the election in Kansas, vast numbers of Missourians crossed the border, took possession of the polls, and elected a delegate and legislature to suit themselves. The free-State settlers repudiated the delegate and legislature thus chosen, and chose

1856.]

THE WAR IN KANSAS.

23

their own. But Congress admitted the pro-slavery delegate, and President Pierce sustained the proslavery legislature with the military power of the United States, while his soldiers dispersed the freesoil legislature and arrested its officers. Armed Southerners came even from South Carolina, and joined the "border ruffians," as they were called, in the attempt to secure Kansas for slavery. At the same time, organizations were formed in the free States to assist the free-soil settlers in that Terri

tory, and furnish them with arms. For two or three years (1856-59) there was actual war in Kansas, with burning of houses, sacking of towns, and destruction of life. This bloody drama roused the consciousness of many at the North whose consciences had been appealed to in vain. It was impossible to keep the subject out of the pulpit, and car-loads of improved rifles, paid for by popular subscriptions, were sent to the free-State settlers. The pro-slavery press appeared to be blind to the significance of these facts, could see in the movement nothing but fanaticism, and spent its breath largely in sneering at "freedomshriekers," "nigger-worshippers," and "political parsons."

John C. Frémont, the first Presidential candidate of the Republicans (1856), though defeated, made a magnificent canvass, carrying New York by 80,000. Had he been elected, the war would probably have broken out then, instead of four years later. The men that were bent upon the perpetuation and extension of slavery at all

24

THE GOLDEN CIRCLE.

[1856.

hazards, seem to have contemplated secession at least as early as this, and Calhoun had threatened it in the Senate in 1850; but the election of Buchanan-a pro-slavery man, on a pro-slavery platform-left no immediate excuse for the experiment; and the South contained large numbers of substantial and influential people that were devotedly attached to the Union. Politics had taken such shape that the most available presidential candidates, indeed the only available ones for the Democratic party, were described as "Northern men with Southern principles." The South, held firmly in the grip of the banded slave-holders, and knowing no such thing as free discussion, was absolutely solid for any candidate they might name. But to make sure of the necessary Northern votes, they were obliged to name a Northern man; for in the free States discussion was now free, and in spite of party trammels the vice of political solidity was impossible. To go on electing Northern men with Southern principles might serve the purpose of the South as a community, but it thwarted the highest ambition of her foremost men, who doubtless were influenced to some extent, in their desire for a new confederacy, by the consideration that not one of them could ever be president of the whole country.

David Christy published his "Cotton is King" in the year in which Buchanan was elected, and the Knights of the Golden Circle appear to have organized about the same time. The Golden Circle had its centre at Havana, Cuba, and with a radius