Uncle Tom's Cabin. States, I, 278. states. This was popularly known as the "underground railroad," and its activity and efficacy increased enormously. Bearing all these things in mind, it is no doubt true, as Senator Benton declared, that the act "has been worth but little to the slave states in recovering their property." 309. Election of 1852.- Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin was published in the summer of 1852. Its Election of 1852. Stanwood's Elections, 178-191; Schouler's United States, V, 240-250. Harriet Beecher Stowe From a contemporary engraving far-reaching. It has been related that just after the battle of Bull Run Lincoln met Mrs. Stowe for the first time and greeted her as "the little woman who caused this great war." This story may not be true, but it is certain that Uncle Tom exercised a tremendous influence in arousing public opinion in the North. It is remarkable, however, that the Democrats were successful in the election which followed immediately on its appearance. The Democrats nominated a comparatively unknown man, Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire; the Whigs chose as their standard bearer the most successful soldier in the country, Winfield Scott. The Free-soilers also had a candidate in the field, but their strength had declined since 1848. The Democrats were now united, while the attempt 1852] Election of 1852 439 of the Whigs to avoid expressing an opinion on the slavery question had weakened them in the North without increasing their strength in the South. The Free-soilers, by attracting Whig voters, really aided the Democrats. Ridicule was heaped on Scott, who was a man of showy habits, and not always happy in the use of language. The real reason for the Democratic success, however, was a mistaken feel ing that with that party in control of the government, less would be heard of the contest over slavery. The Kansas- Schouler's *Rhodes's 310. The Kansas-Nebraska Act. For ten years since Act, 1854. 1844, Stephen Arnold Douglas, senator from Illinois, had been anxious to secure a territorial organization for the region west of Iowa and Missouri. Unless this were done, it might become an Indian reservation, which he undoubtedly thought would be a sacrifice. In January, 1854, Douglas introduced a bill to provide for the organization, as the territory of Nebraska, of all the Louisiana Purchase north of the States, V, Orations, III, 50-87. line of the Missouri Compromise (36° 30' north latitude), and west of the states of Missouri and Iowa. It was proposed that this territory should be admitted to the Union at some future time as one state or as several states, "with or without slavery as their constitution may prescribe at the time." On being reminded that this region had been devoted to freedom by the terms of the Missouri Compromise, Douglas asserted that that compromise had been superseded and repealed by the Compromise of 1850. He maintained that he now merely proposed to extend the principle of "popular sovereignty" to the country north of the line of 1820. He was driven to do this by "a proper sense of patriotic duty." He repeated Webster's argument that slavery was excluded by nature from the proposed territory. Before its passage, MacDonald's the bill was changed to provide for the organization of two Documents, territories: Kansas and Nebraska in place of one, Nebraska, – Nos. 85-88. Kansas to include the region between 37° and 40° north latitude, and Nebraska that between 40° and 49°. Kansas, as thus defined, would be situated directly west of the slave state of Missouri, and Nebraska of the free state of Iowa. Probably this division was made in the expectation that Kansas would become a slave and Nebraska a free state. The bill as finally passed also declared that the Missouri Compromise had been suspended and made inoperative by the principles of the Compromise of 1850. Opposition to the passage of the act. Rhodes's United States, I, 441; Johnston's Orations, III, 3-49. 311. Appeal of the Independent Democrats, 1854.Douglas's soothing assurances that the opening of these territories to slavery was a matter of no great moment, did not commend itself to the antislavery leaders in the Senate. Senator Chase of Ohio asserted that the proposed measure was "a violation of the plighted faith and solemn compact [the Missouri Compromise] which our fathers made, and which we, their sons, are bound by every sacred tie of obligation sacredly to maintain." The old political leaders had now passed away; new men had come to the front: Seward, Wade, Hale, but none more outspoken than Charles Sumner of Massachusetts. He joyfully welcomed the issue raised 1854] The Kansas-Nebraska Act 441 by the Kansas-Nebraska Bill: "To every man in the land, it says with clear penetrating voice, 'Are you for freedom or are you for slavery?'" Appeal Some of the leading opponents of the measure summed up their objections to it in a document entitled, Appeal of the of the Independent Democrats. They arraigned the bill "as Democrats." Independent a gross violation of a sacred pledge [the Missouri Compro- American mise]; as a criminal betrayal of precious rights; as part and History Leaflets, parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from a vast unoccupied region immigrants from the Old World, and free laborers from our own states, and convert it into a dreary region of despotism, inhabited by masters and slaves. "Take your maps, fellow-citizens, we entreat you, and see what country it is which this bill gratuitously and recklessly proposes to open to slavery." As to the statement that the Missouri Compromise had been made inoperative by the Compromise of 1850, the "Independent Democrats" de Popular sovereignty. Wishes of the slave owners. Abraham clared in a postscript to the "Appeal" that such a statement was “a manifest falsification of the truth of history." 312. Popular Sovereignty." Popular sovereignty," or squatter sovereignty," is thus defined in the KansasNebraska Act: “The true intent and meaning of this act [is] not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Apart from the question of the violation of the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska Act was fatally incomplete in providing no efficient means for the peaceful occupation of the territories by free immigrants, or by slave owners with their slaves. On the face of it, all that the slave owners asked was to be allowed to carry their slaves with them; "in reality," as Senator Benton said, what the slaveholder wanted was to carry the state law along with him to protect his slave," or rather his interest in his slave. It was necessary, therefore, the moment a slave entered a territory to enact a complete code of slave laws to keep him in bondage. It was impossible to permit slave owners and free immigrants to live together under a territorial organization, and settle the question when the time came to seek admission into the Union. 66 Douglas's ablest opponent in Illinois was Abraham Lincoln, who had already served one term in Congress, but had not been re-elected. While in Congress, he had made one speech which is interesting to note in view of his later career. It was in 1847 that Lincoln declared: "Any people anywhere have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. . . . Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people . . may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit." This would appear to be a recognition of the doctrine of "popular sovereignty" in its most extended application. But Lincoln now opposed most ... |