Governor Wise was conspicuous in that canvass for his zealous support of the Democratic ticket, because it maintained, he contended, the rights of the South. At a ratification meeting in Richmond, soon after the nomination, he unhesitatingly declared, in a speech of marked ability, purpose, and boldness, that Mr. Buchanan had ever been true to the interests of the South, "as reliable as Mr. Calhoun himself." Alarmed, in view of the possibility, if not probability, of the election of Fremont, he sent a circular, about the middle of September, to the Democratic governors of the Southern States, proposing a meeting at Raleigh on the 13th of October, to take into consideration the condition of the country. To this circular Governor Bragg of North Carolina replied, under date of the 19th. He expressed his dread of a disastrous result in the approaching Presidential election, concurred in the propriety of the meeting, and consented to be present. Governor Adams of South Carolina, under date of the 23d, replied that he would cheerfully meet the men invited at Raleigh, and pledged South Carolina to "joyously follow" in any measure that would bring security to the South. On the 24th, Governor Ligon of Maryland wrote that he thought the proposed meeting premature; that it would not be attended with beneficial results; and that it would injuriously affect the election of Buchanan. Four days afterward he wrote that such a collection of governors of Southern States would be regarded as preliminary to some decided action in the event of a certain contingency, and would injure the Democratic party in Maryland. Governor Winslow of Alabama responded on the 26th, and stated that if the meeting took place he would not be absent. On the 11th of October, he again wrote that he would second and support any line of policy that might be decided upon. He thought, if the governors of Virginia and North Carolina would meet, the Southern States would adopt any policy suggested, if it was only "bold enough"; if not, he said, they had only "to sink down in abject acquiescence until made to move like the terrapin, with burning coals on his back." Governor Broome of Florida wrote, on the 7th, that the objects of the meeting met his hearty concurrence,

and that it would give him great pleasure to meet "the exccutives of the Southern sisterhood in conference." The people of Florida, he thought, would stand shoulder to shoulder with the Southern States on the Georgia platform of 1851. Under date of 9th of October, Governor Wickliffe of Louisiana, who had telegraphed that he would attend the meeting, wrote that subsequent reflection had convinced him that the proposed meeting would "militate against the union of the South." He thought the meeting would be considered as having for its object the election of Buchanan, and would be considered solely as a Democratic movement. Governor Wickliffe, as did some of the other governors, wrote that the exclusion of the governors of Kentucky and Missouri, representing the American party, might be construed into a declaration that they were untrue to the South, and would tend to imbitter them against any recommendation that might be made.

The governors of Virginia and South Carolina met the governor of North Carolina at Raleigh. The governors of the other Southern States either refused or were unable to be present. But no action whatever was taken. The object of this movement at the time was generally understood to be either a dismemberment of the Union or resistance within it, and, as such, it tended to alarm timid and conservative men at the North. But Governor Wise, in a letter to Mr. Wilson, under date of November 5, 1873, after declaring that he had always been "a friend of the Union," writes: "My anxious desire and most zealous motive was to do all I could to prevent intestine war and guard against disunion; and, if that could not be done, to provide for the safety and protection of Virginia in a war which might come, and which I was sure would come unless a convention of all the States could be assembled to avert its dangers." Saying that it was his main object "to call a national convention in the Union," but that "it had too many enemies of the Union to contend with," he added: "I shall die in the conviction that if a convention of all the States could have been then held, that war would have been averted."

These threats and movements exerted no little influence

on the canvass. Many, especially manufacturers, merchants, and bankers, were prevented from voting the Republican ticket, though they could not but approve the doctrines of its platform, while constrained to vote for candidates whose principles they must condemn. The canvass resulted in the election of Mr. Buchanan, though he lacked more than three hundred and seventy thousand votes of a majority, Mr. Fremont receiving more than one million three hundred and forty-one thousand votes.

This Democratic victory was a severe blow to Republican hopes and to all liberty-loving men. Its lessons could neither be gainsaid nor ignored, for they were burned into the hearts of all who had participated in this heated canvass. They saw that, notwithstanding the constant antislavery agitations of twenty-five years, which had enlisted the ablest tongues and pens, and spread before the people by voice and press, by pulpit and platform, not only the primal truths of human rights, but the grim and abhorrent facts and features of the slave system; notwithstanding the high-handed aggressions of the Slave Power, all fully and even ostentatiously indorsed by the victorious party, in whose platform they had been made the prominent and commanding articles ;-notwithstanding all this, done with purpose and without concealment, the people, with seeming deliberation, had adopted it and made it their own. Though the Slave Power seemed more firmly seated than ever, and more securely enthroned; though the cries of "bleeding Kansas" lingered in the air, its soil was still moistened with the blood of the victims of slaveholding hate, and its skies were yet murky with the smoke of burning and desolated homes, the people seemed willing to make public record of their subserviency, stronger the chains of the slave, and more hideous their own ignoble vassalage.

CHAPTER XXXIX.

THE DRED SCOTT CASE.

Domination of the Slave Power. - Over the Judiciary. - Dred Scott "Case.". One of a series of slaveholding aggressions. His history. - Famous opinion. -Points of the case. Conflicting opinions. —Question of citizenship. — Historical survey. -Adverse to the negro's claim. Declaration of Independence and Constitution. - Not a question of law. Ulterior purposes. Line of argument. -Judge Daniel. - Slavery national. - Dissenting opinions of Justices McLean and Curtis. Strong and significant language of Judge McLean. Argument of Judge Curtis for negro citizenship. - General indignation and alarm. - Opinion severely condemned. Mr. Benton's review. Characterization.

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS's characterization of the workings of the Federal Constitution with its proslavery provisions, that it made "the preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of slavery the vital and animating spirit of the national government," was no more terse than true. No language less strong and severe would fully and fitly describe its terrible history. Nor was that influence anywhere more marked than on the judiciary. There, instead of even-handed justice, was its most shameless prostitution, and judges, instead of being "just, ruling in the fear of God," gave unmistakable evidence that their rulings were rather given in "fear" of the almost omnipotent Slave Power. And nowhere was this ever more apparent and distressing than in what was familiarly termed "The Dred Scott Case." In that "case," with its antecedent and attendant facts, there was much to alarm. Its interpretations and rulings were untrue in fact, barbarous in spirit, absolutely revolutionary in their scope and intent, inhuman towards the black, and despotic and defiant towards the white population of the land. It came, too, after and apparently as the sequel and culmination of new slaveholding aggressions, beginning with the compromises of 1850, followed up by the more disas

trous legislation of 1854, the border-ruffian policy in Kansas, and its full indorsement by the President, by Congress, and by the Democratic party. In it the Supreme Court not only gave a similar indorsement, but exhibited a forwardness to give it, a willingness, indeed, to go out of the way to do it. It was felt to be both an index and a presage, a milestone far in advance of any yet reached in that disastrous journey the nation was travelling so rapidly towards one of the alternatives of which Mr. Lincoln had spoken when he predicted that the nation must ultimately become "all slave or all free."

The "case" was that of Dred Scott of Missouri, formerly, with his wife, a slave of a gentleman of that State, though subsequently sold to John F. A. Sandford of New York. During the ownership of his former master he had been taken into Illinois, and also into a portion of the northwest territory, now Minnesota. Being taken back to Missouri, he had unsuccessfully sued for his freedom on the ground that he had been taken into a free State. After being purchased by Mr. Sandford, he sued again in the circuit court of St. Louis County, and obtained a favorable decision. His new owner, however, appealed to the supreme circuit court and obtained a reversal. The case now under consideration was on an appeal to the Supreme Court on a writ of error. It was on this appeal that Chief Justice Tancy gave utterance to the sentiment, which has been the subject of so much remark and animadversion, that "the black man has no rights which white men are bound to respect." It may be said, however, that he did not so much proclaim this as his personal opinion-though it evidently was -as that this was his interpretation of history, both European and American. Whether his interpretation was true or not, and whatever might have been his individual opinion, this was his method of placing the sentiment before the court, the nation, and the world.

By a singular coincidence and confluence of circumstances, the necessities of an individual, and the exigencies of a section and faction, this claim of a single unknown slave was made the occasion of a decision more radical in its character, more sweeping in its reach and range, and of greater notoriety,