CHAPTER XII.

The Montgomery District-Contest of States-Rights and Union Men over Yancey-The Georgia PlatformYancey Retires and Cochran Takes His Place-Report of the Southern Rights Association-Defeat of the Yancey Party-Scheme to Acquire Cuba-Lopez and Quitman-Federal Arrest of a Governor-Reorganization of Parties-The Southern Whigs-The Whig Convention at Baltimore-Reply of Scott and Pierce to the States Rights Associations, Etc., Etc.

"But the indissoluble link of Union between the people of the several States of this confederated nation is, after all, not in the right, but in the heart. If the day should ever come (may Heaven avert it!) when the affections of the people of these States shall be alienated from each other, when the fraternal spirit shall give way to cold indifference or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited States to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint."

ADDRESS OF J. Q. ADAMS BEFORE THE N. Y. HIST. Soc., 1839.

The MONTGOMERY Congressional District, composed of some of the largest slave counties of the State, inhabited by descendents of Georgians, Virginians and Carolinians, occupied a most prominent position in the politics of Alabama. It was nearly divided between the two great political parties. Containing the capitol, it enjoyed a legal bar equal to that of any other portion of the State; and her mass meetings were therefore frequently addressed by the ablest men of the State. At that time Montgomery was upon the most direct highway from New Orleans to New York. The energy and intellect of the whole country became

familiar with her people, and aided to impart to them that intelligence and independence of character which is the result to so large a degree of contact with the world. This district had been ably represented in Congress for a number of years. DIXON H. LEWIS had won for himself a national reputation. HENRY W. HILLIARD was also well known throughout the Union. WILLIAM L. YANCEY had also made for himself a national reputation. These gentlemen, better known, were not however superior in point of character and ability to many others who had not yet played a part upon the national arena. With the States-Rights men it was a matter not only of ambition, but almost of necessity to wrest this district from the hands of the Whigs, who had held it but by an uncertain tenure for some years. On the other hand it was a matter of pride for the Whigs to continue to hold it, and for the Union man to defeat at his own door the plan of Mr. YANCEY for precipitating secession.

BIE.

In April, 1851, the District Convention of the Southern Rights party met at CLAYTON and nominated Mr YANCEY for Congress. In May, a Union Convention met at the same place and nominated JAMES ABERCROMThe resolutions of this latter convention presented an earnest "appeal to all quiet and law-abiding citizens "to aid with their influence and votes in arresting the "wild and fiery spirit of disunion." The Convention also adopted the Georgia Platform, which accepted the compromise measures as a permanent adjustment of sectional controversy. That platform after accepting the compromise measures provided that the South should, even to a disruption of the Union, resist certain measures if attempted by Congress. The measures to

be resisted were these:

Abolition by Congress of

slavery in the district without the consent of the owners; abolition of slavery at places owned by the United States in the slave States; suppression of slave trade between the States; refusal to admit as a State any territory applying for admission because of the existence of slavery therein; any act prohibiting the introduction of slaves into the territories of Utah and New Mexico; any act repealing or materially modifying the fugitive slave law. This enumeration of acts of Congress which would justify resistance does not include an act of Congress prohibiting the introduction of slavery into other territory than that acquired from Mexico. The reason for this omission may be found in the fact that the compromise measures of 1850 were held to deal only with the Mexican territory. The Missouri Compromise dealt only with the territory acquired with Louisiana. The latter act was held by the Whigs generally not to have been repealed by the former. They argued that it did not follow, because a part of the Mexican acquisition extended above 36 degrees 30 minutes, and any part even above that line, might come into the Union with slavery, therefore an act forbidding slavery above 36 degrees 30 minutes in the Louisiana acquisition was null and void. The Georgia platform therefore, holding to the compromise of 1850 as a final adjustment declared that the exclusion by Congress of slavery from any of the Mexican acquisition justified resistance, and was silent as to a similar exclusion from other territory. In the opinion of the friends of that platform the whole question of slavery in the territories was settled so far as the Mexican territory was concerned by the compromise of 1850; and

so far as the rest of the territories was concerned, by the Missouri Compromise. If this had not been their opinion they would have announced in their platform that the prohibition by Congress of the introduction of slaves into any of the territories would justify re

sistance.

The Union Convention of the Montgomery District, adopting the Georgia platform, held that the Missouri Compromise was not repealed by the compromise of 1850. Mr. STEPHENS, in his "History of the United States for schools," says that the compromise for 1850 established the principle of non-intervention for all the territories in lieu of the Missouri Compromise. As he was one of the committee who drafted the Georgia platform it is strange that he provided for resistance as to Utah and New Mexico, and not as to other territory. The argument set forth at a much later day than 1850 that the Missouri restriction was removed by the adoption of the new compromise which omitted such a restriction in the case of the newly acquired territory (a restriction to which the first compromise, of course, could not apply), did not meet the approval of the Whigs and Union Democrats of 1851. They held that in these compromises there was no question of principle; and that the Missouri restriction over territory of the Louisiana purchase was no more inconsistent with non-restriction over territory of the Mexican purchase, than restriction above the line of 36 degrees, 30 minutes, was inconsistent with non-restriction below the line.

Immediately following the Union Convention, the Southern Rights Association met at Montgomery and was addressed by Mr. YANCEY in one of his brilliant and captivating speeches. He declared that the only issue