CHAPTER II.

IN THE CHARLESTON CONVENTION.

GENERAL BUTLER was elected a delegate to the democratic convention, held at Charleston, in April, 1860.

He went to Charleston with two strong convictions on his mind. One was, that concessions to the South had gone as far as the northern democracy could ever be induced to sustain. The other was, that the fair nomination of Mr. Douglas, by a national democratic convention was impossible.

When the convention had been organized, by the election of Mr. Cushing, of Massachusetts, to the chair, a committee was appointed of one member from each state, for the purpose of constructing that most perplexing piece of political joinery, a Platform. In this committee, General Butler represented the state of Massachu

setts.

The committee met. May we not say, that in the room which it occupied began the contention which now desolates large portions of the southern country. What transpired in the committee room has been related, with exactness and brevity, by General Butler himself.

"As a member of the committee," he says," *I felt that I had but one course to pursue, and I held that with unwavering tenacity of purpose. It was to obtain the affirmation of these democratic principles, laid down at Cincinnati, with which we had outrode the storm of sectionalism in 1856.****

"With these views, I proposed, in committee, the following reso. iution:

"Resolved, That we, the democracy of the Union, in convention assembled, hereby declare our affirmance of the democratic resolutions unanimously adopted and declared as a platform of principles at Cincinnati, in the year 1856, without addition or alteration; be

*Speech at Lowell, May 15, 1860.

lieving that democratic principles are unchangeable in their nature, when applied to the same subject-matter.'

"After a long and animated discussion, this was rejected by a vote of seventeen states to sixteen; young Oregon giving the casting vote against the Cincinnati platform, to which and the democracy she owed her existence as a sovereign state.

"There was but one additional resolution which, it was proposed, should be added, and that is as follows:

666

· Resolved, That it is the duty of the United States to extend its protection alike over all its citizens, whether native or naturalized.'

"This was to meet the case of the contradictory interpretations of the rights of foreign-born citizens, when abroad, made by the State Department. To this I had pledged myself, when the case arose. It is but just to add, that to this resolution, no opposition was made. The propositions of a majority of the committee were then brought forward, and by the same majority of one, were passed through the committee. They provided, in substance, for a slave code for the territories, and upon the high seas.

"Upon these two propositions, the committee divided; sixteen free states one way, and fifteen slave states, with Oregon and California, the other; and the difference was apparently irreconcilable. Without impugning the motives, or too closely criticising the course of any member of the committee, I saw, or thought I saw, that this disagreement was rather about men than principles. It seemed to me, that gentlemen of the extreme South were making demands which they did not consider it vital to be passed, lest a man should be nominated distasteful to them, and men from the North were willing to make concessions not desired by the South, and which would not be justified, either by democratic principles or their northern constituencies, in order to the success of their favorite candidate.

Subsequent events showed the correctness of this opinion, because, after the minority and majority of the committee had separated, sixteen to seventeen, and each had retired to make up its report, and when the sixteen northern states had nothing to do save to report the Cincinnati platform, pure and simple, then it was that three gentlemen came into the room where the minority of the committee were in consultation, and announced themselves as a sub

committee of a caucus of the friends of Judge Douglas, charged with a resolution which his friends desired to be reported to the convention, in order, as the chairman said, 'to help the southern friends of Judge Douglas.' One member of the committee on resolutions (General Butler) immediately raised a point of order. He said that the committee of the convention of the whole democ racy, could not act under the dictation of a caucus of anybody's friends; that his self-respect would forbid—that the report of the minority of the committee would lose all moral power, if they adopted such a resolution thus presented. The point of order of that member of the committee was overruled, and the caucus resolution was received and adopted in the minority report, almost in the words in which it was presented and passed in the caucus, as follows:

“Resolved, That all questions in regard to the rights of property in states or territories, arising under the constitution of the United States, are judicial in their character; and the democratic party is pledged to abide by, and faithfully carry out such determination of these questions, as has been, or may be made by the Supreme Court of the United States.'

"This resolution was insisted upon by the committee, as then constituted, because it would give aid and ground to stand upon at home to the southern friends of Judge Douglas. Not advocated on principle, not claimed for the North, but a concession to the South, which, as the sequel showed, the South neither desired, would adopt or accept. A piece of expediency, which your delegate would neither adhere to nor carry out.'

"To him it seemed quite immaterial whether a slave-code was made by congress or the decision of the courts. He had seen some of the most obnoxious laws made by judicial decisions, both in England and in this country. Indeed, a congressional slave-code were preferable to one made by a court, because the former could be defined, and if unjust, could be repealed, while the latter might be indefinite, shifting to meet the exigency of the case, and only limited by the partnership, or restrained by the consciences of judges holding office by a life-tenure, even if they were appointed like the midnight judges' of John Adams,' in the last hour of an expiring administration, upon which the people set the seal of reprobation."

So the committee could not agree. General Butler adhered to his proposal of the Cincinnati platform; the majority adhered to their demand for a slave-code for the territories and protection to the slave trade; the minority adhered to the resolution framed by Mr. Douglas, which left all questions relating to slavery in the territories to the decision of the Supreme Court. On returning to the convention, therefore, the committee furnished three reports, one from the majority, one from the minority, and one from General Butler; all agreeing in recommending the Cincinnati platform as a basis; all differing as to the nature of the additional "planks."

The majority report proposed four additional resolutions re. specting slavery:

"1. Resolved, That the democracy of the United States hold these cardinal principles on the subject of slavery in the territories: First, That congress has no power to abolish slavery in the territories. Second, That the territorial legislature has no power to abolish slavery in any territory, nor to prohibit the introduction of slaves therein, nor any power to exclude slavery therefrom, nor any power to destroy or impair the right of property in slaves by any legislation whatever.

"2. Resolved, That the enactments of state legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the fugitive slave law, are hostile in character, subversive of the constitution, and revolutionary in their effect.

"3. Resolved, That it is the duty of the federal government to protect, when necessary, the rights of persons, and property on the high seas, in the territories, or wherever else its constitutional authority extends. (Designed to protect the reopened slave trade.)

"4. Resolved, That the national democracy earnestly recommend the acquisition of the Island of Cuba at the earliest practicable period."

The minority report, introduced by Mr. Payne of Ohio, also pre sented the Cincinnati platform, with sundry additions, of which the following are the important ones:

"1. Resolved, That all questions in regard to the rights of property in states or territories, arising under the constitution of the United States, are judicial in their character; and the democratic party is pledged to abide by and faithfully carry out such determination of these questions as has been or may be made by the Supreme Court of the United States.

"2. Resolved, That the democratic party are in favor of the acquisition of the Island of Cuba, on such terms as shall be honorable to ourselves, and just to Spain.

"3. Resolved, That the enactments of state legislatures to defeat the faithful execution of the fugitive slave law, are hostile in character, subversive of the constitution, and revolutionary in their effect."

General Butler reported the two resolutions given in his narrative.

Such were the three reports. The first was supposed to express the sentiments of the party who afterward selected Mr. Breckinridge as their candidate. The second was the Douglas platform. The third conveyed the sense of northern democrats, who were aware that the Cincinnati platform conceded all to the South, that the North could concede. Mr. Douglas perfectly understood that, and he invented the device of the Supreme Court, to delay or confuse the issue. Each of the reports was explained and advocated at much length; the first by Mr. Avery of North Carolina, the chairman of the committee; the second by Mr. Payne of Ohio. Toward the close of the day, General Butler obtained the floor, and spoke in support of his views to a house crowded and excited beyond description, amid interruptions more entertaining to the audience than helpful to the speaker. His speech was ingenious and amusing, particularly that part of it which aimed to deprive the Douglas men of capital borrowed from the Supreme Court. Some of the personal hits produced prodigious effect.

He began by asking members around him why, if the Cincinnati platform was so defective, they had given it such enthusiastic indorsement in 1856. "I am told that it may be subjected to two interpretations. Will any man here attempt to make a platform that will not be subject to two or more interpretations? Why, sir, when Omniscience sends us the Divine law for our guidance through life and our hope in death, for 2,000 years almost bands of men have been engaged in different interpretations of that Divine law, and they have sealed their honesty of purpose with blood-they have burned their fellow creatures at the stake as an evidence of the sincerity of their faith." (Laughter.)

Adverting to the resolution which was evidently designed to throw the protection of the national flag over the slave trade, he humorously affected to be ignorant of its real purpose. "Our carping opponents," said he, "will see in it what I am sure southern gentlemen do not mean the reopening of the African slave trade,