He proceeded to discuss the constitutionality of the act of 1850, and keenly analyzed the measure, pointing out in what respects he conceived it to be contrary to the Constitution. He contended that Congress did not have the power to pass such a measure, but, granting its right to do so, it was bound by a provision of the Constitution to give the fugitive a jury trial. Continuing, he said: "Even if this act could claim any validity or apology under the Constitution, which it cannot, it lacks that essential support in the public conscience of the States where it is to be enforced, which is the life of the law, and without which any law must become a dead letter." In the course of his speech he cited from an original letter of Washington to the collector at Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in regard to a runaway slave belonging to Mrs. Washington, and her wishes in the case. Said Washington: "I do not mean, however, by this request that violent measures should be used, as would excite a mob or riot-which might be the case if she has adherents or even uneasy sensations in the minds of well-disposed citizens. Rather than either of these should happen, I would forego her services altogether; and the example also, which is of infinite more importance." After reading this citation, Sumner added: "The existing slave act cannot be enforced without violating the precept of Washington. Not merely uneasy sensations' among welldisposed persons, but rage, tumult, commotion, mob, riot, violence, death, gush from its fatal, overflowing fountains. Not a case occurs without endangering the public peace."

He

In this first long oration that he delivered in the Senate, Sumner announced himself as a new foe of slavery with whom its advocates would have seriously to reckon. spoke with the cogency, diction, and fullness of knowledge of the lawyer, the scholar and historian, while as a moralist his appeal had all the force of conscience. Although Clemens, of Alabama, sneered at the speech of Sumner as the ravings of a maniac who some day might be dangerous, his associates of the South appeared to be more seriously impressed

with the strength of the man who had taken up the cudgels against them. The Northern members warmly congratulated the orator, Hale declaring that he had placed himself "side by side with the first orators of antiquity, and as far ahead of any living American orator as freedom is ahead of slavery." Chase said of the speech: "It will be received as an emphatic protest against the slavish doctrine of finality in legislation which two of the conventions recently held have joined in forcing upon the country." Horace Mann, in a private letter, said: "The 26th of August, 1852, redeemed the 7th of March, 1850." The wisdom of seeking to revive the discussion of slavery in the Senate at this time was questioned by many. Seward evidently shared this feeling and preferred to regard slavery as an issue which was accepted as settled and from the discussion of which no valuable result could be expected to accrue, for he was noticeably absent during the debate. His political aspirations in the campaign pending may have dictated this course, but his feelings were undoubtedly as indicated. William Cullen Bryant appreciated the impracticability of securing a reconsideration of the Fugitive Slave Law and pointed out what he thought to be its certain fate in the words: "I see not the least chance of a repeal or change of the Fugitive Slave Law. Its fate is to fall into disuse. All political organizations to procure its repeal are attempts at an impracticability. We must make it odious and prevent it from being enforced." Bryant was not the only one who was writing at this time in private correspondence, as well as in the public press, deprecations of the agitation of the Fugitive Slave Law. It was very generally felt to

be the most unfortunate issue which could be revived and two political conventions held about this time rigorously excluded it as not pertinent to the issues of the campaign.

When Congress closed the Southern men returned to their constituents to assure them that the reopening of the matter by Sumner had been unpopular even with many of his Northern associates. In these reports they could tell

measures.

how Mr. Bright, of Indiana, had favored silencing fanaticism and agitators who sought to disturb the compromise They could also report Mr. Pettit, of Indiana, as having with vehemence avowed his chagrin at having lived to hear fall from the lips of a senator who had sworn to support the Constitution the avowal that he disregarded "all such obligations." Not only had Mr. Pettit said this, but he had declared himself ready to cast a vote for a resolution to expel the member should a petition for his expulsion be originated. Turning to Mr. Sumner, he hurled at him the arraignment: "You swore that you would support the Constitution, all and singular, each and every part, from beginning to end; and you now, in the face of your peers, are the first in the Senate to openly declare that you will violate the oath you have taken and the bond of union your ancestors made for you." In thus hinting at expulsion, Pettit was referring to a purpose seriously entertained by the Democratic leaders, who were deterred from taking that action only by the fear that they would not be able to secure the number of votes needed for its passage. They could further report that Mr. Sumner had vindicated his position by referring to the attitude taken by President Jackson in his veto of the United States Bank, and the declaration made by that sturdy fighter that "each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others," and that Mr. Sumner had avowed that he supported the Constitution as he understood it and maintained that the Fugitive Slave act was an open and unmitigated usurpation of that instrument. Upon the whole, the report to the South of the proceedings of the Thirty-second Congress was a very satisfactory one.

CHAPTER X

REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE

AT the time when the country was felicitating itself upon an understanding on the great theme of the times, and when the incumbent of the White House was considered as colorless in regard to sectional sentiment, Douglas, as chairman of the Committee on Territories, was preparing a measure which should have the effect of disclosing upon what fragile grounds the feeling of public security rested. On January 4, 1854, he reported a bill for the organization of a Territorial government for Nebraska, which was a region embraced in the old Louisiana Purchase and was free from slavery by the Missouri Compromise act of 1820. Nebraska at that time contained nearly all the territory now included in the present States of Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Montana, Colorado, and Wyoming. Its area was four hundred and eighty-five thousand square miles, a territory ten times as large as New York State. It was thirtythree thousand square miles more extensive than the territory of all the free States then in the Union east of the Rocky Mountains. Stephen A. Douglas was an avowed aspirant for the presidency, although he was unpopular in the South. In the convention which nominated Pierce, Douglas had the smallest following from that section of all the candidates, notwithstanding the fact that he had social connections with the South and had married a Southern woman. On the other hand he was very popular in the West and was

not without substantial following in New York. Elsewhere in the Middle States and New England he was without strength. The "solid South" had come to be a fact to be reckoned with in political calculations and it would not be strange if Douglas had been governed by that consideration in an act which was in effect a political peace offering to the Southern States. The organization of new Territories opened up a field of political activity for the ambitious statesman which might be handled with good purpose for his own political ends. At the previous session of Congress the bill had come before the Senate but had not received the endorsement of that body because some clauses were thought to be unfair to the Indians. In 1853 it was referred to the Committee on Territories. One section of the bill, following the language which was employed in the compact of 1850 with reference to Utah and New Mexico, provided that when Nebraska should come into the Union it should be with or without slavery, as its constitution might prescribe.

In introducing the measure, Douglas remarked that “a proper sense of patriotic duty enjoins the propriety and necessity of a strict adherence to the principles, and even a literal adoption of the enactments, of the adjustment of 1850." When Douglas introduced the measure the country apparently was entering upon a time of financial prosperity. Even the agitation caused by the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave law was no longer visible, and for the first time in many years the vexed question between North and South was not uppermost in the minds of the sections. The wish of Clay for reconciliation seemed to have been realized to the fullest; the land was at peace. The president in his message had remarked upon the fact of there being a sense of repose and security to the public mind throughout the confederacy." But suddenly from the Senate there sounded forth the call to arms. Was Douglas merely influenced by ambition, or was it his realization that the people were staking their faith in a false confidence which