yeas to sixty-five nays. By States the vote in Convention stood twenty-seven States for the platform, three States only against it, and one State divided. The three States against it, were New York, Ohio, and Michigan. The State equally divided-four delegates for-and four against it was Maine. Every other State of the Union, by their delegates in that Convention, affirmed and endorsed it. How in the face of these facts Mr. Greeley could have stated, as a historic truth, that the Platform was imposed upon the Convention by Southern Delegates, I cannot well perceive. Another equally singular error is made by him in stating that General Scott, who was nominated, "made haste to plant himself unequivocally and thoroughly on the platform thus erected." The truth is, General Scott refused to express any direct approval of the platform, when he knew that the support of a large class of persons at the South, including Mr. Toombs and myself, and other Members of Congress, who had before 1850, acted with the Whig Party, depended upon his giving an unequivocal endorsement of that portion of it relating to the Compromise. He acted, as was supposed, under the advisement of Mr. Seward, then in the Senate, from New York, who was on intimate terms with him-was one of his most active friends in procuring his nomination, and who was known to be very much opposed to the platform. To this refusal of General Scott "to plant himself unequivocally and thoroughly on the platform thus erected," in my judgment, his great defeat was mainly owing. Mr. Pierce, who received the Democratic nomination, gave these measures his cordial approval, as well as another Resolution of the Democratic Convention, reaffirining the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of * National Intelligencer, June 19th, 1852. 1798-99. He it is known carried every State in the Union except four. Was there ever a more general and decided popular approval of any measure, than that given by the people and States of this Union, in that election, to the establishment of this new principle on the Territorial question? So much, then, for the Compromise of 1850, and its bearing upon the question of Slavery in the public domain. COLLOQUY XVII. DISCUSSION CONTINUED COMPOSITION OF SENATE IN 1854-LEGISLATION OF THAT YEAR-NO REPEAL OF MISSOURI COMPROMISE-IT WAS CARRYING OUT THE PRINCIPLE ESTABLISHED IN 1850-CLAMOR OF RESTRICTIONISTSKANSAS WAR OF 1856-TRIUMPH OF THE PRINCIPLE OF 1850 BY THE ELECTION OF MR. BUCHANAN-HIS DEPARTURE FROM THIS PRINCIPLE THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF SUBSEQUENT TROUBLES. MR. STEPHENS. We now come to the last point under consideration. That is, the legislation of 1854, in which Mr. Buchanan says the South, for the first time, was the aggressor. We will soon see how little weight this assertion, however high the authority from which it comes, has against the indisputable facts of history. These facts will show that the legislation of this year, was in strict conformity with the Territorial principle established in 1850. What then are these facts? In the first place, what was the principle settled, in 1850, upon the Territorial question which had for so long a time caused so great and fearful agitation, both in and out of Congress? This we have just seen. To repeat for the purpose of keeping it distinctly in mind, it was clearly this, that after the principle of division had been abandoned and repudiated by the North, in the organization of all Territorial Governments, the principle of Congressional Restriction should be totally abandoned also, and that all new States, whether North or South of 36° 30′, should be admitted into the Union, "either with or without Slavery, as their Constitutions might prescribe," at the time of their admission. This was, un 16 241 questionably, the principle established in 1850, on this subject. Well, then, in 1854, certain portions of the public domain embraced in the Louisiana cession, not included in Utah, lying outside of Missouri, and north of 36° 30', known as Nebraska and Kansas, became sufficiently populated to require local Governments. Two delegates to Congress were chosen, and petitions presented for the organization of Governments for them by Congress. Early in this Session, on the 4th of December, 1853, Mr. Dodge, of Iowa, introduced into the Senate a bill for the organization of a Territorial Government for Nebraska. This was referred to the Committee on Territories. At this time the Senate was changed in its personal composition very materially from what it was four years before. Several of the great lights then in it had departed. Some had gone down never more to shed their splendor upon subjects of earthly investigation. Mr. Clay survived his last great efforts in restoring peace and harmony between the Sections only two years. He sank to rest from all mortal cares in Washington, on the 29th of June, 1852. Mr. Webster followed him within a few months. He closed his earthly existence the 24th of October, the same year. William R. King, of Alabama, who had been elected Vice President on the Pierce ticket, was also no more. Others who added lustre to the Senatorial galaxy in 1850, were now filling other posts of honor and trust. Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, was Secretary of War. Mr. Benton who had been beaten for the Senate in Missouri, mainly on account of his vote to recede on the disagreeing vote between the two Houses on the Oregon Bill, in 1848, was now a member of the House of Representatives. Mr. Berrien was in private life. General Cass, |
