1

Many pleasing incidents occurred in the interval between his nomination and election to relieve the tedium of the campaign. ' "One day there entered his room a tall Southerner, a Colonel from Mississippi, whose eyes' hard glitter spoke supercilious distrust and whose stiff bearing betokened suppressed hostility. It was beautiful,' says Dr. Bateman, 'to see the cold flash of the Southerner's dark eye yield to a warmer glow and the haughty constraint melt into frank good-nature under the influence of Mr. Lincoln's words of simple earnestness and unaffected cordiality. They got so far in half an hour that Mr. Lincoln could say, in his hearty way, 'Colonel, how tall are you?' 'Well, taller than you, Mr. Lincoln,' replied the Mississippian. 'You are mistaken, there,' retorted Mr. Lincoln. 'Dr. Bateman will you measure us?' So a big book was adjusted above the head of each, and pencil-marks made upon the white wall. Mr. Lincoln's height, as thus indicated, was a quarterinch greater than the Colonel's. I knew it,' said Mr. Lincoln. They raise tall men down in Mississippi, but you go home and tell your folks that 'Old Abe tops you a little.' The Colonel went away much mollified and impressed. 'My God,' said he to Dr. Bateman, as he went out, 'there is going to be a war; but could my people know what I have learned in the last half-hour, there would be no need of war.'"

A New York gentleman thus describes a meeting with Mr. Lincoln at Springfield, soon after the nomination: “I was in Chicago when Mr. Lincoln was nominated, and, being curious to see the man

1 Browne's "Life of Lincoln."

every one was going wild over, I went to Springfield I called at his office, but he was not in. Then I went to his residence and learned that he had a room in the Capitol Building and that I would find him there. Arrived at the room, I rapped at the door. It was opened by a tall, spare man, plain of face. I told him I had come to see Mr. Lincoln. Inquiring my name, he took me by the arm and introduced me to some half dozen persons who were in the room, and then remarked, 'My name is Lincoln.' In ten minutes I felt as if I had known him all my life. He had the most wonderful faculty I have ever seen in a man to make one feel at ease. I left him, feeling that he was an extraordinary man and that I should vote for him and influence all I could to do the same."

At one time when Hon. George S. Boutwell, of Massachusetts, was present, together with a number of other men of distinction, an old lady from the country entered, dressed in awkward, old-fashioned garments, with a tanned and wrinkled face looking out from the depths of a large sunbonnet. She had come to present "Mr. Linkin" with a pair of homemade stockings at least a yard long. He received them with kindly thanks and, holding one in each hand for inspection, he gravely assured her that he would take them to Washington with him, and that he was sure he should be unable to find any like them there. After she had gone, Mr. Boutwell remarked that the lady had evidently made a very correct estimate of Mr. Lincoln's latitude and longitude.

CHAPTER XIII.

THE campaign of 1860, with all its evil passions and boisterous enthusiasm, finally ended with the election of Mr. Lincoln by a large majority of electoral votes, but with a minority of nearly a million in the popular vote. It was with an ominous presage that the result was announced. Not an electoral vote south of Mason and Dixon's line was given to him. He was to become the first sectional President. The South understood neither Lincoln's character, nor his policy. Then, as to a great extent since, he was totally misapprehended, his character maligned and his motives impugned. Yet, the bitter hostility to the man was but a cloak for the enduring enmity felt towards the principles he was supposed to represent.

The campaign had been pre-eminently a conflict between opposing principles rather than persons. Douglas, in one of his speeches, remarked substantially, that the great principle involved in the contest was that of "interference' or "non-interference.” The Republicans who opposed, and the Buchanan Democrats who favored the extension of slavery, were, to all intents, committed to the same policy, while the American party, headed by Mr. Bell and the Douglas wing of the Democracy, could easily coalesce, being pledged to the principle of noninterference, a policy which would leave to each

State the decision of the question, whether it should be free or slave.

Many times before had slavery and anti-slavery met at the polls in violent, though nominally, peaceful strife. But the crisis had now come, when the decision of the ballot was no longer deemed authoritative. For the sake of slavery the South was ready to cast away all the memories of the past, fraught with the glory achieved by the heroes of an united country; to renounce the presage of future greatness and prosperity, which harmony alone could bring; to haul down the "Stars and Stripes" which had waved over many a battle-field where their fathers had stood, shoulder to shoulder, with the now hated heroes of the North in defense of a common country against a common tyranny. For slavery they would destroy the Government, disrupt the country and enter into a war which should devastate the land, destroy their homes and stain the soil with the blood of their beloved sons.

The question of secession was not a new one, nor was the issue hastily raised. It had its root in the opposition to the adoption of the Constitution. That instrument, efficient and able as it has since proven itself to be, was then viewed with disfavor and distrust by a majority of the people in New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and South Carolina. Yet the emergency of the hour and the ability of its advocates overrode the objections and secured its adoption. There was a constantly increasing party which believed that the Union was but a federation, a compact into which the States had voluntarily entered and from which they possessed the

power to withdraw at their discretion. The Union party believed that by the adoption of the Constitution, the States had merged their existence into that of the Nation, permanently surrendering their rights to the central government, except such as the Constitution should delegate to them. According to this view the events of 1789 constituted a revolution as radical as that of 1776, though of a different character. The one established the independence of the individual States, the other took away the independence of the States and made them component parts of a nation, laying emphasis upon their nationality.

The doctrine of State sovereignty was first distinctly stated in 1798, after the passage of the “ Alien and Sedition" laws by Congress. The Legislatures of Kentucky and Virginia passed resolutions, prepared by Jefferson and Madison, respectively, which asserted that the Constitution was of the nature of a compact to which the separate States were parties, and that each State had the exclusive right to decide for itself when the compact had been broken and the mode and measure of redress. At different times one or more of the States had asserted the right of secession, but had either been restrained by wiser counsels or by force. Calhoun's doctrine of nullification, which was tried in South Carolina in 1832 and failed, was a legitimate offspring of this political theory. Another outbreak was imminent in 1850, but was subdued by compromise and popular vote. The sentiment was not destroyed, but reposed in the faith of its ultimate triumph, and awaited an opportunity for an outbreak. The election of Lincoln brought the opportunity and a nominal provocation.