plans and purposes of the leaders in the upper degrees, the party became known by the nickname "Know-Nothing" instead of the name under which it wished to appear"American." In 1855 it discarded its secret machinery, and made its fight under the motto, "America for Americans."

466. The Presidential Election of 1856.-In the presidential election of 1856, the free-state Democrats in the north united with the Republicans, while the proslavery Whigs in the south united with the Democrats. This made the contest a sectional issue on the question of slavery. The Republicans nominated John C. Fremont of California, demanded the admission of Kansas with its Topeka constitution, opposed any further extension of slavery into new territory, and declared themselves content to leave the institution of slavery unmolested in the states where it already existed. The Democrats nominated James Buchanan of Pennsylvania, favored the principle of "squatter sovereignty," and asserted that the policy pursued by slavery agitators in the north would, if persisted in, "lead to civil war and disunion." The Know-Nothing party nominated ex-President Fillmore of New York, declared for a strong federal union, passed a lukewarm resolution referring to Kansas, and adhered to its principle of "America for Americans."

In the ensuing election the Democrats won, Buchanan receiving one hundred seventy-four of the electoral votes, Fremont one hundred fourteen, and Fillmore eight. John C. Breckinridge was elected vice-president.

BUCHANAN'S ADMINISTRATION

DEMOCRATIC: 1857-1861

467. James Buchanan, the fifteenth president of the United States, was the son of a Pennsylvania farmer. At the age of nineteen, he graduated from Dickinson College in his native state, and three years later entered the profession of law. He served in the legislature of his native state,

and was elected to the lower house of congress in 1820. He retired from congress in 1831, to accept the post of minister to Russia. On his return in 1834, he entered the United States senate, where he continued as an active member until 1845, when he resigned to become Polk's secretary of state. He retired to private life in 1849, but four years later was appointed minister to England, which position he held until 1856. Shortly after his return from London he was nominated to the presidency by the Democratic party. As a successful diplomat, Buchanan ranks high, as is shown in his splendid record while secretary of state and while minister to England, as well as in his foreign policy while president. In home. affairs, however, his administration fell upon troublous times. All the misfortunes of Pierce's administration were visited upon Buchanan. The slavery question would not down; the Kansas struggle still kept up; the north and the south were drifting farther and farther apart. The ship of state had come upon tempestuous seas, and Buchanan, with all his years of experience, was not the helmsman to guide her safely through the storm. He was handicapped by a disposition which lacked the essential element of vigor. He owed his election to the solid south. His associates were largely from that section, and he found it difficult to break the political ties which had bound him for more than a third of a century. It was charged that he was vacillating and weak, and such blame and censure has been heaped upon him as to obscure almost completely his achievements in the field of diplomacy. No president ever more willingly laid down the burden of official position than did Buchanan in 1861. He was not a candidate for renomination, nor did he wish to be. He retired to private life March 4, 1861, on his estate of Wheatland, near Lancaster, Pennsylvania, where he died in 1868. He was born near Mercerburg, Pennsylvania, in 1791.

468. The Dred Scott Decision and the Repeal of the Mis

souri Compromise.-On March 6, 1857, two days after Buchanan's inauguration, the supreme court of the United States handed down its celebrated Dred Scott decision. Dred Scott had been a slave in the slave state of Missouri, but in 1834 he had been carried by his master to the-free state of Illinois, and two years later to the free territory of Minnesota, where, by the provisions of the Missouri Compromise, slavery had been forever prohibited. While in the territory of Minnesota, Scott was married, with his master's consent, but, on being brought back to Missouri, he and his wife and two children were sold to another master. Scott at once sued for his freedom, and won his suit in the local court at St. Louis, on the grounds that his removal to Minnesota made him a free man by the provisions of the Missouri Compromise. The case was appealed to the supreme

court of Missouri, which reversed the decision. While the case was still before the Missouri courts, Scott brought a second suit for his freedom on the grounds that he was a citizen of the United States, and was therefore a citizen of Missouri, and as such entitled to his freedom. This suit was brought before the United States circuit court at St. Louis. This court granted his contention as to citizenship, but referred the question of his freedom to a jury, which decided that he was still a slave. The case was then appealed to the supreme court of the United States. A majority of this court held (1) that colored persons, whether freed or slave, were not citizens of the United States; (2) that the act of temporary removal of a master from a slave to a free state did not entitle his slaves to freedom; (3) that the removal of a master into any of the territory made free by the Missouri Compromise did not entitle his slaves to freedom, because the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and void. This decision emphatically said that there were no free territories within the meaning of the constitution, and implied that a slaveholder could carry his slaves into any state of the union without surrendering his

right to hold them as slaves. Of all the points in the decision, this last one produced the greatest alarm in the north, where it was now felt that the boast of a prominent southern slaveholder, that he would some day be able to call the roll of his slaves at the base of the Bunker Hill monument could soon be fulfilled.

No decision from the supreme court of the United States has ever created such a storm. In the south it was applauded to the echo, while in the north it was condemned as an outrage against human freedom and opposed to the advancing civilization of the day. Many northern states resented the decision by passing more stringent personal liberty laws. Taney's unfortunate historic reference, “The negro had no rights which the white man was bound to respect," was seized upon in the north as expressing the true meaning not only of the court but of the entire south as well. Two justices, John McLean and Benjamin R. Curtis, dissented from the majority opinion of the court. Justice Curtis set forth his objections in an able opinion, which became the generally accepted view in the north. His opinion was printed and circulated by the Republican party as campaign literature in 1860. Within a week after the decision had been rendered, Taney's desire of thus putting to sleep the slavery question was recognized as hopeless, even by the chief justice himself. The whole north was aroused as never before, and looked upon Taney's judicial opinion as a political decision meant to bolster up the tottering institution of slavery. It was even charged openly that the decision had been made on the demand of the leaders of the slaveholding section.

469. The Kansas Struggle Ends in Victory for Freedom. -Notwithstanding the annulling of the Missouri Compromise by this decision of the supreme court, the struggle for Kansas continued unabated. President Buchanan appointed Robert J. Walker governor of the territory. The old proslavery legislature still held the reins of government under the

fostering care of the administration at Washington. This legislature met at Lecompton and called a convention to frame a new state constitution. Governor Geary, before leaving the territory, had vetoed this call, but after his retirement the convention had met and proceeded to adopt the Lecompton constitution, which permitted slavery. The whole contest was transferred to the halls of congress, when Kansas asked for admission to the union under this fraudulently adopted constitution. In congress the struggle was long and stubborn, but a bill was finally passed, known as the "English Bill," which submitted the constitution, for the third time, to the people of the territory for their approval or rejection. In the vote which followed in August, 1858, the Lecompton constitution was repudiated at the polls by a decided majority. During this controversy, Governor Walker was removed from his position, because he declared for a free count. He was charged by the south as being a "turn coat." The action of the Lecompton convention in attempting to force this constitution upon the territory was so highhanded that even Stephen A. Douglas, champion of "squatter sovereignty" as he was, condemned it in the most scathing language.

In the meantime, a new election in the territory had resulted in the choice of a free-state legislature, which in December, 1857, met at Leavenworth and adopted the Leavenworth constitution, which declared that all men were equal before the law. The attorney-general of the United States, however, having declared that the bill calling this constitutional convention was illegal, this third attempt to adopt a state constitution fell by the wayside. While the Lecompton constitution was before congress for its consideration, both the free-state and proslavery men were comparatively quiet in the territory, awaiting the issue. But in 1858 the border warfare broke out again, and the old acts of plunder, pillage, massacre, murder, assassination, and