vention of New York in 1821, out of one hundred and twenty-six members, thirty-two were natives of Connecticut, while only nine were natives of Massachusetts. In the Ohio Legislature of 1838-39, in the lower house of seventyfour members, twelve were from Connecticut, two from Massachusetts, two from Vermont. Hon. James Hillhouse, when in Congress, found that forty-seven of the members, or about one-fifth of the whole number in both houses, were native-born sons of Connecticut. Of the New-York representatives, sixteen, or nearly one-half, were sons, or descendants in the male line, of Connecticut. Mr. Calhoun once said that he had seen the time when the natives of Connecticut in Congress, together with all the graduates of Yale College there sitting, lacked only five of being a majority. This result is constantly repeating itself throughout the Western States.

"How beautiful is the attitude of our little State," says Dr. Bushnell," when seen through the medium of facts like these! Unable to carry weight by numbers, she is seen marching out her sons, empowered in capacity and fortified by virtue, to take their posts of honor and influence in other States; in her behalf to be their physicians and ministers of religion, their professors and lawyers, their wise senators, their great lawyers and incorruptible judges, bulwarks of virtue, truth, and order to the Republic in all coming time. And then, when the vast area of our country between the two oceans is filled with a teeming population, when the delegates of sixty or a hundred States, from the granite shores of the East, and the alluvial plains of the South, and the golden mountains of the West, are assembled in the halls of our Congress, and little Connecticut is there represented in her own behalf by her one delegate, it will still and always be found that she is numerously represented also by her sons from other States; and her one delegate shall be himself regarded, in his person, as the symbol of that true Brother Jonathan whose name still designates the great Republic of the world."

CHAPTER II

The War begun at the Ballot-box. -Elections in Connecticut in 1860.- Attitude of Parties. Secession becomes Formidable. - Discussion and Recrimination. - Our Representatives in Congress.-Their Action on Peace Propositions. - Foresight of Gov. Buckingham. - The Peace Conference. - Hon. Isaac Toucey. - Spring Election of 1861.- Connecticut declares for Coercion.

HE citizens of Connecticut retain their ancestral independence of thought, and tenacity of opinion. Though conservative in tendency, they accept, without flinching, the logical consequences of their principles. This characteristic was strikingly exemplified in the elections during the year 1860. The spring election, instead of the presidential, decided the position of Connecticut upon national questions. The issues being already sharply defined, the campaign was intensely animated and vigorous, and brought out almost every elector. In the extraordinary poll of 88,375 votes, the Republican candidate received 44,458 votes; a majority of only 541.

A close and hotly-contested presidential campaign was at first expected; but the rupture of the Democratic party, and the result of the October gubernatorial elections in Pennsylvania and other States, so clearly foreshadowed the election of Mr. Lincoln, that excitement and effort subsided. The people of Connecticut quietly assembled on the 6th of November, and polled a total vote of 77,292, distributed as follows: Lincoln, 43,792; Douglas, 15,522; Breckenridge, 14,641; Bell, 1,485; Fusion, 1,852. Total opposition, 33,500. Majority for Lincoln, 10,292.

The supporters of Mr. Lincoln did not generally believe the explicit and reiterated declarations of the Southern leaders, that his election would be the signal of an immediate attempt at disunion. Those who did, decided to vote for their candidate, and abide the issue.

The leading men and journals of this State opposed to Mr. Lincoln predicted, in case of his election, a determined effort at separation by the slave States; but their fears of disunion, or objections to it, were not so serious as to heal their party dissensions, and cause them to unite to defeat the Republican candidate at the polls.

After the election, they at once avowed for themselves entire acquiescence in the decision of the people constitutionally expressed.1

Our people were turning with renewed energy to their usual business; but the Legislature of South Carolina, convened for the purpose on the day after the election, voted at once to call a convention for secession. Other States prepared precipitately to follow.

Action so abrupt and apparently resolute startled our people. They did not yet fear disruption by open rebellion; but they were alarmed, lest, by the unfamiliar process of secession, the dismemberment of the Union might, in spite of protesting millions, be adroitly compassed.

They began at once to examine the theory of secession and the legal and practical effect of the actual ordinance, neither of which had been much discussed at the North. Prominent supporters of Mr. Lincoln asserted that "secession is treason, and must be treated by the government as treason," and that "the government has the right and the power to compel obedience." A considerable number of Republicans, while they emphatically denied the right of secession, questioned the policy of forcibly preventing it. They held, that, if an undoubted majority of the adult

1 "It is right that he (Lincoln) should be inaugurated, and that he should be sustained in the legitimate discharge of the executive duties of the government. Certain it is that he will not be permitted to encroach on the rights of any State. - Hartford Times, Nov. 7.

THE DOCTRINE OF SECESSION.

31

population of any State deliberately pronounced for separation, the rest of the States, though they might legally compel that State to remain, would do better to assemble in national convention, and acquiesce in her departure from the Union Withdrawal under these sanctions is the only secession ever deemed valid or permissible by any number of the supporters of Mr. Lincoln. Many who had voted against him also concurred in this view.

Some of the opponents of the President elect denied the right of secession, but claimed that there was no constitutional remedy against it. The greater part held that the recusant States were theoretically if not practically right; that the United States was simply a confederation of sovereign States, any one of which possessed a constitutional right to withdraw whenever it should consider the arrangement no longer profitable. They deemed an attempt to coerce a State, in order to vindicate the supreme authority of the Federal Government and to preserve the territorial integrity of the Union, to be both illegal and useless.2

Though the doctrine of secession found defenders, the champions of the overt act were few. The mass of our citizens deeply deprecated disunion, as portending only grave and measureless calamity. To avert this calamity, they professed to be eager to act with "such moderation and forbearance as will draw out, strengthen, and combine the Union sentiment of the whole country." But the attempt to reduce this general expression to a more specific statement revealed a wide difference of opinion. The opponents of Mr. Lincoln accused his friends of the ulterior purpose of interfering with slavery in the States, and asserted that the Southern people had abundant provocation for their treasonable conduct. They demanded of the Republicans a repu

2 The Hartford Times of Nov. 7, after referring to the danger that the slave States would "form a separate confederacy, and retire peaceably from the Union," proceeds to say, “If they do so decide and act, it will be useless to attempt any coercive measures to keep them within the voluntary copartnership of States. . . . We can never force Sovereign States to remain in the Union when they desire to go out, without bringing upon our country the shocking evils of civil war, under which the Republic could not, of course, long exist."

diation of the distinctive principle on which the political campaign had been fought and won, and declared that the conservatives of the North would never consent to coercion ; adding the not unfrequent menace, that, "if war is to be waged, that war will be fought in the North."

The Republicans replied, that no misstatement of their principles and purposes, and no threat, empty or significant, would move them a hair's-breadth; and that the intemperate language of their opponents tended rather to mislead than to undeceive the Southern people. At the same time, they avowed a sincere desire to make their real opinions and designs understood by the South, and a readiness to join in a convention of all the States and parties for mutual consultation and reconciliation; and repeatedly pledged 66 any sacrifice of mere feeling or interest" for harmony and union. A majority of our people, though uneasy at the portentous and expanding proportions of secession, were confident that excitement would subside, reason displace passion, and a peaceful solution of our difficulties be at length safely reached. So believing, they anxiously awaited the assembling of Congress.

Connecticut was represented in the Thirty-sixth Congress by Senators Lafayette S. Foster and James Dixon, and Representatives Dwight Loomis, John Woodruff, Alfred A. Burnham, and Orris S. Ferry.

They, like their constituents, hoped much from personal intercourse and consultation with the representatives of the South; and were resolved to omit no honorable effort to avert disunion and civil strife.

The House of Representatives, on the second day of the session, raised a committee of thirty-three- one from each State upon "the state of the Union." Messrs. Ferry and Woodruff voted for the resolution; Messrs. Burnham and Loomis, against it. Mr. Ferry was designated as the Connecticut member of that important committee. The message of the President, and the thirty or more sets of resolutions submitted, comprised every conceivable plan of adjustment.