DISTURBERS OF THE PEACE. 341 which did not look favorable to the future peace of the Union, long before Southern secession had begun to assume any definite aspect. Indeed, there were well-informed and judicious persons, who were quite as apprehensive of an outbreak in the free States, in case of a Democratic triumph at the election to ensue, as of resistance at the South, should the turn of that election prove in favor of the Republican party. It is true, that the general disposition of the Northern population was such, and the numbers of those in favor of law and order so very largely exceeded any conceivable reckoning of others upon whose aid or sympathy the fanatics could possibly count, that the imagination of such an adventure might seem wild in the extreme. It was, nevertheless, believed that schemes of this description, perhaps, were entertained; seldom taking any distinct shape in the minds of more than a comparatively few of the more reckless, among the native, and a certain class of the foreign population, of the Union. For there were many of this latter class in the country-radicals, revolutionists, and Red-Republicans from the Continent of Europe-restless, and ready for any enterprise, which might seem likely to promote the doctrines which they had failed to inculcate successfully at home. Others of this same description of immigrants, who had been the victims of foreign revolution, more rationally became quiet citizens of a land, in which they had found peace and freedom, and which they felt it both unwise and ungrateful to disturb. 1 In evidence of the state of sentiment referred to-and it may be thought as conclusive as many citations from inferior authorities-the following passage is an extract from the report of a speech, delivered at a mass meeting held at South Framingham, Massachusetts, in October, 1860, by a leading Republican Senator of the North (Mr. John P. Hale), who had been the candidate of the Freesoil party for President a few years previously : "The South talked about dissolving the Union if Lincoln was elected. The Republican party would elect him, just to see if they would do it. The Union was more likely to be dissolved if he was not elected."-Report of Boston Courier, October 12th. CHAPTER XIV. The several Party Conventions for the Nomination of President and Vice-President in the Spring of 1860-the Democratic, the Constitutional Union, and the Republican.-The Doings of each stated, and those of the Democratic and Republican Parties particularly analyzed THE National Democratic Convention was first in the field, in the spring of 1860, and assembled at Charleston, South Carolina, on the 23d day of April. They came together in no very harmonious spirit. The Northern and Southern Democrats in Congress had not, for some time, acted with that cordial coöperation which had distinguished them in former times. Mr. Douglas was the prominent candidate of the party; and, judging of the matter simply upon those grounds of action which are obvious to the public apprehension, there seems to have been no sound reason why he should not have received a nomination which would have been equivalent to his election by a very great majority. For the aggregate sum of votes cast for the two Democratic candidates proved to be more than three hundred and fiftysix thousand larger than that given for Mr. Lincoln. Had Mr. Douglas been nominated, it may be judged improbable that the remnant of the Whig party would have thought it worth while to propose candidates; and, in that event, though it is likely that many would have declined to vote, there can be little question that, at least, five hundred thousand more votes would have swelled the Democratic majority. Whatever designs may have been entertained by any portion of the radicals, it does not seem probable that they would then have ventured upon an open rupture with the Govern THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION OF 1860. 343 ment, against the imposing manifestation of nearly a million plurality in favor of the Union under the Constitution. If they had made an attempt so quixotic, it is evident how short the strife would have been, and how complete and permanent the triumph of the supporters of the Constitution. In any event, it is certain that by the secession of most of its delegates from the convention, really upon an abstraction, or by the nomination of a separate candidate, the South fairly threw its best hopes away. In reality, they mistook the sentiment of a majority of the North, including a large body of its citizens of the most substantial character and influence. That majority was undoubtedly misled, for the moment, by the artful presentation of side issues; but it required only the sort of defeat the Republicans would have experienced, by the triumphant election of a Democratic candidate (if the Democrats had acted in unison), and the assuaging influence of a little time, to cure the evils which fanaticism and selfish ambition had wrought, so far as any future dangerous consequences were in question.' For, although the Republican party obtained the plurality at the election of 1860, its course had been like the unnatural swelling of a stream in a tempest, and the tide was about to turn. The truth is, that "aggression," at length having come to the point of open and violent outrage, had given a direction to the "crisis" very much in favor of the South. It had furnished them and the friends of the Constitution in the North with an unanswerable argument against fanaticism and its consequences, which only needed a little clearing up of the atmosphere, to present itself in the strongest possible light to the judgment of the sober popular masses of the Northern States; and of this return to reason, the 1 For example, the combined votes of Messrs. Douglas, Bell, and Breckinridge in the free States, amounted to 1,536,578—namely: for Douglas, 1,200,400; for Bell, 274,437; for Breckinridge, 61,741. At the election in 1864, the free States, besides the votes of those non-seceding slave States, in which the soldiery more or less controlled the popular action, threw nearly 1,800,000 votes for McClellan. South, if it had wisely avoided a rupture, could not but have had the signal advantage. The dispute upon which the Democratic Convention eventually divided, at Charleston, was simply about words, so far as it is possible to gain any intelligible idea of the nature of the controversy. A great deal of jarring had previously occurred in the assembly, in regard to the admission and exclusion of delegates, who appear to have been upon the spot with an extraordinary assortment of antagonistic credentials. The decision upon the various points thus raised, tended, of course, to affect the question of nomination; and the heated debates, in regard to the admission of delegates, and kindred matters, embroiled the Convention for days, before the balloting began. Mr. Douglas was not in cordial relations with the administration of Mr. Buchanan, in consequence of his opposition to the admission of Kansas with the "Lecompton Constitution." This matter, however, had been practically settled, by the passage of the bill of 1858, sup ported by the Southern members in general, submitting to the people of Kansas either the Lecompton constitution, or the formation of a constitution by means of a convention; which latter alternative had been already adopted by them. Nor was there any real question, between the Northern and the Southern Democrats, before the Convention. Mr. Douglas telegraphed to his supporters at Charleston, to "accept the Cincinnati Platform "-(which had been cordially adopted by the whole party in 1856)—" and the Dred Scott decision; but to go no further." The restriction seems to have been needless. It is true, that the South held to the doctrine, that the territories of the United States, either in their wild condition, or after the organization of a territorial government, were open for emigrants from all the States, with their property, of whatever description, of course including slaves; that citizens, thus emigrating, were equally entitled to protection, in the territory, for their property of every description; that to exclude slaveholders, with their property of the kind in question-that is, by refusing them such protec THE CINCINNATI PLATFORM. 345 tion as might be necessary-was to deprive them of equal rights with those of emigrants from the Free States; that if slaveholders became settled in a territory, it became pro tanto, slave territory; but that its final character was to be determined by the inhabitants, whenever they should form a constitution, preparatory to its admission as a State. Whether this view were reasonable, or unreasonable, upon general grounds, it was in precise conformity with the principles of the Cincinnati Platform. That celebrated manifesto asserted the right of "the people of all the territories," whenever the number of their inhabitants justifies it, to form a constitution, with or without domestic slavery, and to be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other States; and also asserted, "as embodying the only sound and safe solution of the slavery question 99 "Non-interference by Congress with slavery in State and territory, and in the District of Columbia." This declaration of principles presupposes that slaveholders, with their slaves, might be come resident in a territory; and, since it denies the right of Congress to interfere with slavery in this relation, would leave the matter of "protection" to the Executive; upon whom it would be simply incumbent to maintain the peace, if necessary, until the inhabitants were in a condition to form a constitution. This doctrine had been widely denounced in the North, by the Freesoilers, of course, whose cry was-"No more slave territory;" and by many others, to whom the idea of "protection to slavery" was repugnant, except as provided for by the Constitution, in the States. It was, nevertheless, as has been shown, the doctrine of the Cincinnati Platform; but was, after all, an abstraction; since positively no territory of the United States any longer existed, now that Kansas was practically removed from the arena of dispute, to which it could be applicable. New Mexico and Utah were open to the admission of slavery, if their inhabitants chose it, by the Compromises of 1850. Beyond them was California, reaching to the border of the Pacific Ocean, years before be |