CHAPTER XXIX.

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 1852.

Preparations by the slaveholders of both parties. — Slaveholding compact. — Mr. Webster. His speech at Capon Springs. - Rival Whig candidates. Whig caucus. - A "finality" resolution. - Speeches of Brooks and Stanley. - Letter to Democratic candidates. - Replies. - Democratic convention. Resolu tions in favor of compromise measures. Candidates. Pierce nominated. -Dawson's defiant

Whig convention. - Mr. Jessup's amendment and speech.

--

speech. Amendment withdrawn. Resolutions indorse compromise measures. Mr. Webster's agency. Mr. Choate's speech. Candidates. - General Scott's selection. Mr. Webster's disappointment. Free Soil convention. Mr. Hale made candidate. - Gerrit Smith's resolutions.

and result. - General Pierce triumphantly elected.

The canvass

As the Presidential canvass of 1852 drew near, the busy note of preparation was heard. The more far-reaching, astute, and earnest slave propagandists had been for a long time forecasting the future and laying their plans with reference to the prospective action of the Whig and Democratic parties in their approaching national conventions. They made no concealment of their purpose to dragoon these great organizations into the support of their policy by making their indorsement of the compromise measures a condition precedent of their support. Indeed, before the close of the XXXIst Congress, a compact was entered into by some of the leading members of both parties, declaring their purpose to make the compromise measures a final settlement of the slavery question, and pledging themselves not to "support for President or Vice-President of the United States, for Senator or Representative for Congress, or for member of a State legislature, any man, of whatever party, who is not known to be opposed to the disturbance of the settlement aforesaid, and to the renewal, in any form, of agitation upon the subject of slavery." This was signed by Mr. Clay, Howell Cobb, and

others, Whigs and Democrats There were thirty-three signers from the slaveholding States and ten from the free. Among the latter was Mr. Eliot, the Representative from Boston. There were also, scattered throughout the former States, large numbers who occupied the same ground, and who styled themselves the "Reserves," avowedly determined to make everything secondary to what they recognized as sound views upon the slavery question.

While these combined efforts were in progress, Mr. Webster gave himself to a most determined and persistent series of efforts, not simply to defend the compromise measures, but to defame antislavery men and efforts, and to treat with ridicule those religious scruples which many urged as the ground of their opposition. Writing of Syracuse, New York, he spoke of it as "that laboratory of Abolitionism, libel, and treason." Visiting Virginia, in the latter part of June he addressed a large meeting at Capon Springs. In the course of his remarks he thus ridiculed the "higher law": "And, when nothing else will answer," he said, "they invoke religion, and speak of a higher law. Gentlemen, this North Mountain is high, the Blue Ridge is higher still, the Alleghany higher than either; and yet this higher law ranges farther than an eagle's flight above the highest peaks of the Alleghany. No common vision can discern it; no conscience, not transcendental and ecstatic, can feel it; the hearing of common men never listens to its high behests; and, therefore, one should think it is not a safe law to be acted on in matters of the highest practical moment. It is the code, however, of the fanatical and factious Abolitionists of the North." Thus bitterly did Mr. Webster assail the men and women of New England, even a large majority of his own constituents, who had so long delighted to honor him with their confidence and suffrages.

When Congress assembled, in December, 1851, the indications were that Mr. Fillmore would receive the Whig nomination, as he was the favorite of the South, and of those at the North most fully committed to the compromise measures; though Mr. Webster, who had shown himself equally intent on conciliating the Slave Power, had a few earnest advo

cates. But, as time wore on, those indications became less marked. Symptoms of defection began to appear, resulting from both the pertinacious efforts of Mr. Webster's friends, on the one hand, and the very large numbers who could not indorse, or who did not deem it policy to indorse, the measures of which the President aimed to be the especial champion. It could not be concealed, however, that the slavery issue was felt to be full of menace and weakness to the Whigs, many of whom regarded it as a disturbing and dangerous element, to be considered and disposed of with main reference to its political rather than its moral bearings. The Democrats, on the other hand, with reckless profligacy of principle, looked at it with complacency, and even welcomed it as a source of unity, strength, party discipline, and ultimate

success.

On the 20th of April, there was a Whig caucus, for the purpose of fixing the time and place for holding the national presidential convention. A motion being introduced indorsing the compromise measures as "a finality," Mr. Stanley of North Carolina raised a point of order, which was sustained by the chairman, that such a resolution was not "germane to the purposes of the meeting. A sharp debate ensued, but the decision of the chair was sustained by a decisive vote, though nearly all the Southern members retired from the caucus. During the discussion it was unequivocally affirmed by Clingman of North Carolina, Gentry of Tennessee, Cabell of Florida, and others, that the decisions of the convention would not be regarded by the Whigs of their States if the finality of the compromise measures was not recognized.

This action caused great excitement, especially in Congress. James Brooks of New York, while accusing a portion of the Northern Whigs with faltering in their support of the compromise measures, attributed it to the wavering of their Southern brethren. Alluding reproachfully to this desertion of himself and friends, who had been "hunted down" because of their votes for the measures, so unpopular in his section, he said that without Southern support we shall "all become the miserable victims of fanaticism and political fury." "In that

terrible hour of trial here," he said, " two sessions ago, our services were necessary for them, and they were given to them freely, with the implied, if not expressed, understanding that they would protect us to the extent of their ability." Mr. Stanley replied, maintaining that the compromise measures had not been rejected; that no candidate could receive the Southern vote who did not indorse them; that the national convention would take action concerning them; and that General Scott was in favor of them and would support them, the Fugitive Slave Act included.

In the Democratic party there was less division and doubt. Senator Gwin declared in his place that there was no dissent, at least among those who were seeking the Presidential nomination. To render, however, "assurance doubly sure," Robert G. Scott of Richmond, Virginia, addressed a circular letter to the gentlemen whose names had been mentioned in connection with the Presidency. The substance of his letter was the inquiry whether, if elected, they would support and enforce the compromise measures in all their fulness, including the Fugitive Slave Act; whether they would oppose all efforts to modify or weaken their provisions; and whether, if any such action should be adopted by Congress, they would or would not veto it. A large number hastened to reply. Mr. King of Alabama declared that he should feel bound to negative any such action. Mr. Houston of Texas said that he should not hesitate to veto any bill "impairing the law for the protection of slave property." Daniel S. Dickinson of New York declared that he would most certainly use the veto power to defeat any attempt to disturb or change the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act. George M. Dallas of Pennsylvania expressed it as his answer that every chief magistrate should say, in relation to the execution of all the compromises, heartily and positively, "Yes, I would." General Joseph Lane, afterward candidate for the Vice-Presidency, spoke of the "valuable enactments," and his readiness to veto any legislation that would impair them. Mr. Douglas said that no act calculated to impair the efficiency of those measures could receive his approval. Mr. Buchanan characterized the

Fugitive Slave Act as a "bond of peace between the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding States," and declared that these measures of adjustment without that act "would not deserve the name of compromise," and that "the harmony of the States and the preservation of the Union depended on the execution of the compromise measures in their fulness." Mr. Cass expressed the belief that a repeal or essential modification of the Fugitive Slave Act would destroy all confidence in the good faith of the North, and "would lead to the dissolution of the Union"; and he believed it would be the duty of any President to veto any legislation designed to impair its efficiency. Similar answers and pledges were given by several other gentlemen addressed.

The Democratic convention met at Baltimore, June 1, 1852. Every State in the Union was represented but South Carolina. The convention was called to order by Benjamin F. Hallett of Massachusetts, chairman of the national executive committee, and John W. Davis was chosen president. There was little difference of opinion in the convention concerning anything but men. The Slave Power had crushed out all opposition, and there was none to raise a single word of remonstrance against the most high-handed oppression, or to speak even faintly for justice and humanity. One member had been guilty of the grave offence of sympathizing somewhat with the friends of freedom in Massachusetts, and of acting with the coalition in that State between the Democrats and the Free Soil parties; and, although a leading lawyer and a most accomplished gentleman, the choice, too, of the great body of his party in his District, Robert Rantoul, Jr., was refused admission, and his seat was given to Mr. Lord, who was simply known to be conservative on the great question. This outrage was perpetrated against the earnest opposition of Mr. Nye and Mr. Dix of New York, who strongly protested against such proscription for opinion's sake.

As soon as the convention was organized, Senator Bright of Indiana and others hastened to introduce resolutions in favor of the compromise measures and of the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave Act. There was little difficulty in forming