Chapter XLIX: Section 10: And be it further enacted, That when any person (2)

"The most startling speech made during the debate [on affairs
in Kansas], and which, from the events succeeding, became the
most celebrated, was that of Charles Sumner. It was delivered
on the 19th and 20th days of May and was published under the
title of 'The Crime against Kansas.' … If there had been no
more to Sumner's speech than the invective against the slave
power, he would not have been assaulted by Preston Brooks. Nor
is it probable that the bitter attack which the senator made
on South Carolina would have provoked the violence, had it not
been coupled with personal allusions to Senator Butler, who
was a kinsman of Brooks. … It was said that Seward, who read
the speech before delivery, advised Sumner to tone down its
offensive remarks, and he and Wade regretted the personal
attack. But Sumner was not fully 'conscious of the stinging
force of his language.' To that, and because he was terribly
in earnest, must be attributed the imperfections of the
speech. He would annihilate the slave power, and he selected
South Carolina and her senator as vulnerable points of attack.
… Two days after this exciting debate (May 22d) when the
Senate at the close of a short session adjourned, Sumner
remained in the Chamber, occupied in writing letters. Becoming
deeply engaged, he drew his arm-chair close to his desk, bent
over his writing, and while in this position was approached by
Brooks, a representative from South Carolina and a kinsman of
Senator Butler. Brooks, standing before and directly over him,
said: 'I have read your speech twice over carefully. It is a
libel on South Carolina and Mr. Butler, who is a relative of
mine.' As he pronounced the last word, he hit Sumner on the
head with his cane with the force that a dragoon would give to
a sabre-blow. Sumner was more than six feet in height and of
powerful frame, but penned under the desk he could offer no
resistance, and Brooks continued the blows on his defenceless
head. The cane broke, but the South Carolinian went on beating
his victim with the butt. The first blows stunned and blinded
Sumner, but instinctively and with powerful effort he wrenched
the desk from its fastenings, stood up, and with spasmodic and
wildly directed efforts attempted unavailingly to protect
himself. Brooks took hold of him, and, while he was reeling
and staggering about, struck him again and again. The
assailant did not desist until his arm was seized by one who
rushed to the spot to stop the assault. At that moment Sumner,
reeling, staggering backwards and sideways, fell to the floor
bleeding profusely and covered with his blood. The injury
received by Sumner was much more severe than was at first
thought by his physicians and friends. Four days after the
assault, he was able to give at his lodgings his relation of
the affair to the committee of the House of Representatives.
But, in truth, the blows would have killed most men. Sumner's
iron constitution and perfect health warded off a fatal
result; but it soon appeared that the injury had affected the
spinal column. The next three years and a half was a search
for cure. … At last he went to Paris and put himself under the
care of Dr. Brown-Séquard, whose treatment of actual
cauterization of the back eventually restore him to a fair
degree of health; but he never regained his former physical
vigor.
{3399}
He was not able to enter regularly again on his senatorial
career until December, 1859. … The different manner in which
the North and the South regarded this deed is one of the many
evidences of the deep gulf between these two people caused by
slavery. … When Brooks returned to South Carolina he received
an enthusiastic welcome. He was honored as a glorious son of
the Palmetto State, and making him the present of a cane was a
favorite testimonial. … At the North the assault of Brooks was
considered brutal and cowardly; at the South, his name was
never mentioned without calling him gallant or courageous,
spirited or noble. … A committee was appointed by the House
which took a large amount of evidence, and the majority
reported a resolution in favor of the expulsion of Brooks. On
this resolution, the vote was 121 to 95; but as it required
two thirds, it was not carried. Only three Southern
representatives publicly condemned the assault; only one voted
to expel Brooks. After the decision by the House, Brooks made
a speech, which he ended by resigning his place as
representative. His district re-elected him almost
unanimously: there were only six votes against him."

_J. F. Rhodes,
History of the United States from 1850,
chapter 7 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_C. Sumner,
Works,
volume 4, pages 125-342._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856.
Eighteenth Presidential Election.
Buchanan made President.

"The presidential campaign of … 1856, showed a striking
disintegration and re-formation of political groups. Nominally
there were four parties in the field: Democrats, Whigs, Native
Americans or Know-Nothings, and Republicans. The Know-Nothings
had lately won some State elections, but were of little
account as a national organization, for they stood upon an
issue hopelessly insignificant in comparison with slavery.
Already many had gone over to the Republican camp; those who
remained nominated as their candidates Millard Fillmore and
Andrew J. Donelson. The Whigs were the feeble remnant of a
really dead party, held together by affection for the old
name; too few to do anything by themselves, they took by
adoption the Know-Nothing candidates. The Republican party had
been born only in 1854. Its members, differing on other
matters, united upon the one doctrine, which they accepted as
a test: opposition to the extension of slavery. They nominated
John C. Fremont and William L. Dayton, and made a platform
whereby they declared it to be 'both the right and the duty of
Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of
barbarism, polygamy and slavery.' … In this Convention 110
votes were cast for Lincoln for the second place on the
ticket. … In the Democratic party there were two factions. The
favorite candidate of the South was Franklin Pierce, for
reelection, with Stephen A. Douglas as a substitute or second
choice; the North more generally preferred James Buchanan, who
was understood to be displeased with the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise. The struggle was sharp, but was won by
the friends of Buchanan, with whom John C. Breckenridge was
coupled. The campaign was eager, for the Republicans soon
developed a strength beyond what had been expected and which
put the Democrats to their best exertions. The result was:
popular vote, Democrats [Buchanan] 1,838,169, Republicans
[Fremont] 1,341,264, Know-Nothings and Whigs [Fillmore]
874,534; electoral vote, Democrats 174, Republicans 114,
Know-Nothings and Whigs, 8. Thus James Buchanan became
President of the United States, March 4, 1857. … Yet, while
the Democrats triumphed, the Republicans enjoyed the presage
of the future; they had polled a total number of votes which
surprised everyone; on the other hand, the Democrats had lost
ten States which they had carried in 1852 and had gained only
two others, showing a net loss of eight States; and their
electoral votes had dwindled from 254 to 174."

_J. T, Morse, Jr.,
Abraham Lincoln,
volume 1, chapter 4._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856-1859.
The continued struggle in Kansas.
The Topeka vs. the Lecompton Constitution.

See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.
The Dred Scott decision.

"Dred Scott was a negro slave, the property of Dr. Emerson, a
surgeon in the army. In 1834, Dred was carried by his master
from the slave state of Missouri, first, to the military post
at Rock Island in the free state of Illinois, where he
remained till April or May, 1836; and, thence, to Fort
Snelling, in the territory known as Upper Louisiana, and lying
north of the line of the Missouri Compromise, in both of which
places he was held as a slave. At Fort Snelling, in the year
1836, he was married to Harriet, a negro slave, who had also
been brought to Fort Snelling by her master, Major Taliaferro,
and there sold to Dr. Emerson. In 1838, Dred, with his wife
and a child which had been born to him, was carried back by
his master to the state of Missouri. Subsequently, Dred, with
his wife, his daughter Eliza, and another daughter, Lizzie,
who was born after the return of her family to Missouri, was
sold to John F. A. Sandford—the defendant in the present case.
Dred commenced his efforts for the establishment of the
freedom of himself and family in the state courts of Missouri.
The suit was brought in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county.
Before this court, the judgment was in his favor, but, on
appeal by writ of error to the Supreme Court of the state,
this judgment was reversed, and the case remanded to the court
below,—where it remained, awaiting the decision of the suit
which, in the meanwhile, Dred had brought in the United States
courts. This second suit was brought before the Circuit Court
of the United States for the district of Missouri, and thence
carried, by writ of error, to the Supreme Court at Washington.
It may be added that the first suit was brought against Dr.
Emerson, but the second against Mr. Sandford, to whom Dred had
been sold. The action, though brought to assert the title of
Dred Scott and his family to freedom, was, in form, an action
of trespass 'vi et armis,' which is the usual form employed in
that state to try questions of this kind. The plaintiff,
Scott, in his writ both makes a declaration of the acts of
trespass—which of course are the acts of restraint necessarily
implied in holding himself and family as slaves—and avers,
what was necessary to give the court jurisdiction, that he and
the defendant are citizens of different states; that is, that
he is a citizen of Missouri, and the defendant a citizen of
New York. At the April term of the court, in 1854, the
defendant Sandford pleads, that the court has not
jurisdiction, because the plaintiff is not a citizen of
Missouri, but a negro of African descent, whose ancestors, of
pure African blood, were brought into this country and sold as
slaves.
{3400}
To this plea the plaintiff demurs as insufficient; the
demurrer is argued at the same term, and is sustained by the
court, that is, the court asserts its jurisdiction over the
case." It was on this plea that the case went finally to the
Supreme Court of the United States and was decided in 1857.
"The question of negro citizenship came up in the
consideration of the question of jurisdiction. For the
question of jurisdiction was the question, whether the
plaintiff was a citizen of Missouri, as he had averred in his
declaration; and the only fact pleaded to disprove his
citizenship was the fact that Scott was a negro of African
descent, whose ancestors had been sold as slaves in the United
States. The court, however, decided that this fact did not
exclude the possibility of his being a citizen; in other
words, it decided that a negro of this description can be a
citizen of the United States. The first question before the
Supreme Court was, whether it could rejudge this determination
of the circuit court."

_W. A. Larned,
Negro Citizenship
(New Englander, August, 1857)._

The decision of the Supreme Court, delivered by Chief Justice
Taney, March 6, 1857, not only closed the door of freedom to
Dred Scott, but shut the doors of the United States courts
against him and all those of his race who were or had been
slaves, or who sprang from an ancestry in the servile state.
The opinion of Chief Justice Taney was concurred in by all the
justices except Curtis and McLean-Justice Nelson dissenting on
one point only. The arguments and the sentiments in the
opinion which gave most offence to the conscience and the
reason of the country were the following: "It becomes … our
duty to decide whether the facts stated in the plea are or are
not sufficient to show that the plaintiff is not entitled to
sue as a citizen in a court of the United States. This is
certainly a very serious question, and one that now for the
first time has been brought for decision before this court.
But it is brought here by those who have a right to bring it,
and it is our duty to meet it and decide it. The question is
simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into
this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the
political community formed and brought into existence by the
Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled
to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied
by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the
privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the
cases specified in the Constitution. It will be observed, that
the plea applies to that class of persons only whose ancestors
were negroes of the African race, and imported into this
country, and sold and held as slaves. The only matter in issue
before the court, therefore, is whether the descendants of
such slaves, when they shall be emancipated, or who are born
of parents who had become free before their birth, are
citizens of a State, in the sense in which the word citizen is
used in the Constitution of the United States. And this being
the only matter in dispute on the pleadings, the court must be
understood as speaking in this opinion of that class only,
that is, of those persons who are the descendants of Africans
who were imported into this country, and sold as slaves. … The
words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are
synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe
the political body who, according to our republican
institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and
conduct the Government through their representatives. They are
what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every,
citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of
this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class
of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a
portion of this people, and are constituent members 'of this
sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not
included, and were not intended to be included, under the word
'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none
of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides
for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the
contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate
and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the
dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained
subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges
but such as those who held the power and the Government might
choose to grant them. It is not the province of the court to
decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy,
of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the
political or law-making power. … In discussing this question,
we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State
may confer within its own limits, and the rights of
citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means
follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a
citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United
States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the
citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and
privileges of a citizen in any other State. … The question
then arises, whether the provisions of the Constitution, in
relation to the personal rights and privileges to which the
citizen of a State should be entitled, embraced the negro
African race, at that time in this country, or who might
afterwards be imported, who had then or should afterwards be
made free in any State; and to put it in the power of a single
State to make him a citizen of the United States, and endue
him with the full rights of citizenship in every other State
without their consent? … The court think the affirmative of
these propositions cannot be maintained. And if it cannot, the
plaintiff in error could not be a citizen of the State of
Missouri, within the meaning of the Constitution of the United
States, and, consequently, was not entitled to sue in its
courts. It is true, every person, and every class and
description of persons, who were at the time of the adoption
of the Constitution recognised as citizens in the several
States, became also citizens of this new political body; but
none other. … It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine
who were citizens of the several States when the Constitution
was adopted. And in order to do this, we must recur to the
Governments and institutions of the thirteen colonies, when
they separated from Great Britain and formed new
sovereignties, and took their places in the family of
independent nations. We must inquire who, at that time, were
recognised as the people or citizens of a State, whose rights
and liberties had been outraged by the English Government; and
who declared their independence, and assumed the powers of
Government to defend their rights by force of arms.
{3401}
In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of
the times, and the language used in the Declaration of
Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had
been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they
had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of
the people, nor intended to be included in the general words
used in that memorable instrument. It is difficult at this day
to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that
unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and
enlightened portions of the world at the time of the
Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution was
framed and adopted. But the public history of every European
nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They
had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of
an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the
white race, either in social or political relations; and so
far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was
bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully
be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold,
and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic,
whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at
that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the
white race." Finally, having, with great elaboration, decided
the question of citizenship adversely to Dred Scott and all
his kind, the Court proceeded to obliterate the antislavery
provision of the Missouri Compromise, which constituted one of
the grounds on which Dred Scott claimed his freedom. "It is
the opinion of the court," wrote Chief Justice Taney, "that
the act of Congress which prohibited a citizen from holding
and owning property of this kind in the territory of the
United States north of the line therein mentioned, is not
warranted by the Constitution, and is therefore void; and that
neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family, were made
free by being carried into this territory; even if they had
been carried there by the owner, with the intention of
becoming a permanent resident. We have so far examined the
case, as it stands under the Constitution of the United
States, and the powers thereby delegated to the Federal
Government. But there is another point in the case which
depends on State power and State law. And it is contended, on
the part of the plaintiff, that he is made free by being taken
to Rock Island, in the State of Illinois, independently of his
residence in the territory of the United States; and being so
made free, he was not again reduced to a state of slavery by
being brought back to Missouri. Our notice of this part of the
case will be very brief; for the principle on which it depends
was decided in this court, upon much consideration, in the
case of Strader et al. v. Graham, reported in 10th Howard, 82.
In that case, the slaves had been taken from Kentucky to Ohio,
with the consent of the owner, and afterwards brought back to
Kentucky. And this court held that their status or condition,
as free or slave, depended upon the laws of Kentucky, when
they were brought back into that State, and not of Ohio; and
that this court had no jurisdiction to revise the judgment of
a State court upon its own laws. This was the point directly
before the court, and the decision that this court had not
jurisdiction turned upon it, as will be seen by the report of
the case. So in this case. As Scott was a slave when taken
into the State of Illinois by his owner, and was there held as
such, and brought back in that character, his status, as free
or slave, depended on the laws of Missouri, and not of
Illinois. … Upon the whole, therefore, it is the judgment of
this court, that it appears by the record before us that the
plaintiff in error is not a citizen of Missouri, in the sense
in which that word is used in the Constitution; and that the
Circuit Court of the United States, for that reason, had no
jurisdiction in the case, and could give no judgment in it.
Its judgment for the defendant must, consequently, be
reversed, and a mandate issued, directing the suit to be
dismissed for want of jurisdiction."

_Report of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States in the case of
Dred Scott vs. John F. A. Sandford
(Howard's Reports, volume 19)._

"By this presentation of the iniquity, naked and in its most
repulsive form, Taney did no small harm to the party which he
intended to aid. It has been said that slavery plucked ruin on
its own head by its aggressive violence. It could not help
showing its native temper, nor could it help feeding its
hunger of land, insisting on the restoration of its runaways,
or demanding a foreign policy such as would fend off the
approach of emancipation. But Taney's judgment was a
gratuitous aggression and an insult to humanity at the same
time, for which, supposing that the Southern leaders inspired
it, they paid dear. If the slave was mere property, his owner
might be entitled to take him anywhere, and thus slavery might
be made national. The boast of a daring partisan of slavery
might be fulfilled, that the day would come when men might be
bought and sold in Boston as freely as any other goods. The
issue, which all the politicians had striven to keep out of
sight, was presented in its most startling and shocking form."

_Goldwin Smith,
The United States,
page 235._

ALSO IN:
_H. Wilson,
Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
volume 2, chapter 39._

_S. Tyler,
Memoirs of Roger B. Taney,
chapters 4-5._

_A. Johnston,
The United States: Its History and Constitution,
section 249._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.
Tariff reduction.
The financial collapse.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1846-1861.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857-1859.
The Mormon rebellion in Utah.

See UTAH: A. D. 1857-1859.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1858.
Treaty with China.

See CHINA: A. D. 1857-1868.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1858.
The Lincoln and Douglas debate in Illinois.

The senatorial term of Mr. Stephen A. Douglas being about to
expire, the choice of his successor became an issue which
controlled the election of members of the Illinois
Legislature, in the fall of 1858. Mr. Douglas received an
endorsement at the hands of the Democratic State Convention,
in April, which virtually nominated him for re-election.
Abraham Lincoln, who had come markedly to the front in his
state during the Kansas discussions, "was the man already
chosen in the hearts of the Republicans of Illinois for the
same office, and therefore with singular appropriateness they
passed, with great unanimity, at their convention in
Springfield on the 16th of June, the characteristic
resolution: 'That Hon. Abraham Lincoln is our first and only
choice for United States Senator to fill the vacancy about to
be created by the expiration of Mr. Douglas' term of office.'
{3402}
There was of course no surprise in this for Mr. Lincoln. He
had been all along led to expect it, and with that in view had
been earnestly and quietly at work preparing a speech in
acknowledgment of the honor about to be conferred on him. This
speech he wrote on stray envelopes and scraps of paper, as
ideas suggested themselves, putting them into that
miscellaneous and convenient receptacle, his hat. As the
convention drew near he copied the whole on connected sheets,
carefully revising every line and sentence, and fastened them
together, for reference during the delivery of the speech, and
for publication. The former precaution, however, was
unnecessary, for he had studied and read over what he had
written so long and carefully that he was able to deliver it
without the least hesitation or difficulty. … Before
delivering his speech he invited a dozen or so of his friends
over to the library of the State House, where he read and
submitted it to them. After the reading he asked each man for
his opinion. Some condemned and not one endorsed it. One man,
more forcible than elegant, characterized it as a 'd-d fool
utterance;' another said the doctrine was 'ahead of its time;'
and still another contended that it would drive away a good
many voters fresh from the Democratic ranks. Each man attacked
it in his criticism. I was the last to respond. Although the
doctrine announced was rather rank, yet it suited my views,
and I said, 'Lincoln, deliver that speech as read and it will
make you President.' At the time I hardly realized the force
of my prophecy. Having patiently listened to these various
criticisms from his friends—all of which with a single
exception were adverse—he rose from his chair, and after
alluding to the careful study and intense thought he had given
the question, he answered all their objections substantially
as follows: 'Friends, this thing has been retarded long
enough. The time has come when these sentiments should be
uttered; and if it is decreed that I should go down because of
this speech, then let me go down linked to the truth—let me
die in the advocacy of what is just and right.' The next day,
the 17th, the speech was delivered just as we had heard it
read. [The part of this famous speech which made the
profoundest impression and gave rise to the most discussion
was the opening part, contained in the following sentences:
'If we could first know where we are, and whither we are
tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it.
We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was
initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of
putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of
that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has
constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a
crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided
against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot
endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect
the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to
fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will
become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents
of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it
where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in
the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push
it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the
States, old as well as new, North as well as South. Have we no
tendency to the latter condition? Let anyone who doubts
carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal
combination—piece of machinery, so to speak—compounded of the
Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him
consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do,
and how well adapted; but also let him study the history of
its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he
can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action
among its chief architects, from the beginning.'] … Lincoln
had now created in reality a more profound impression than he
or his friends anticipated. Many Republicans deprecated the
advanced ground he had taken, the more so as the Democrats
rejoiced that it afforded them an issue clear and
well-defined. Numbers of his friends distant from Springfield,
on reading his speech, wrote him censorious letters; and one
well-informed co-worker predicted his defeat, charging it to
the first ten lines of the speech. These complaints, coming
apparently from every quarter, Lincoln bore with great
patience. To one complainant who followed him into his office
he said proudly, 'If I had to draw a pen across my record, and
erase my whole life from sight, and I had one poor gift or
choice left as to what I should save from the wreck, I should
choose that speech and leave it to the world unerased.'
Meanwhile Douglas had returned from Washington to his home in
Chicago. Here he rested for a few days until his friends and
co-workers had arranged the details of a public reception on
the 9th of July, when he delivered from the balcony of the
Tremont House a speech intended as an answer to the one made
by Lincoln in Springfield. Lincoln was present at this
reception, but took no part in it. The next day, however, he
replied. Both speeches were delivered at the same place.
Leaving Chicago, Douglas passed on down to Bloomington and
Springfield, where he spoke on the 16th and 17th of July
respectively. On the evening of the latter day Lincoln
responded again in a most effective and convincing effort. The
contest now took on a different phase. Lincoln's Republican
friends urged him to draw Douglas into a joint debate, and he
accordingly sent him a challenge on the 24th of July. … On the
30th Douglas finally accepted the proposition to 'divide time,
and address the same audiences,' naming seven different
places, one in each Congressional district, outside of Chicago
and Springfield, for joint meetings. The places and dates
were, Ottawa, August 21; Freeport, August 27; Jonesboro,
September 15; Charleston, September 18; Galesburg, October 7;
Quincy, October 13; and Alton, October 15. … During the
canvass Mr. Lincoln, in addition to the seven meetings with
Douglas, filled thirty-one appointments made by the State
Central Committee, besides speaking at many other times and
places not previously advertised. … The election took place on
the second of November, and while Lincoln received of the
popular vote a majority of over 4,000, yet the returns from
the legislative districts foreshadowed his defeat. In fact,
when the Senatorial election took place in the Legislature,
Douglas received 54 and Lincoln 46 votes—one of the results of
the lamentable apportionment law then in operation."

_W. H. Herndon and J. W. Weik,
Lincoln, the True Story of a Great Life,
chapter 13 (volume 2)._

{3403}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.
Admission of Oregon into the Union, with a constitution
excluding free colored People.

See OREGON: A. D. 1859.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.
John Brown's attack on Slavery in Virginia.
The tragedy at Harper's Ferry.

"On the 17th of October, 1859, this country was bewildered and
astounded while the fifteen Slave States were convulsed with
fear, rage, and hate, by telegraphic dispatches from Baltimore
and Washington, announcing the outbreak, at Harper's Ferry, of
a conspiracy of Abolitionists and negroes, having for its
object the devastation and ruin of the South, and the massacre
of her white inhabitants. … As time wore on, further advices,
with particulars and circumstances, left no room to doubt the
substantial truth of the original report. An attempt had
actually been made to excite a slave insurrection in Northern
Virginia, and the one man in America to whom such an
enterprise would not seem utter insanity and suicide, was at
the head of it." This was John Brown, of Osawatomie, who had
been fighting slavery and the border ruffians in Kansas (see
KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859) for five years, and had now changed
his field. "A secret convention, called by Brown, and attended
only by such whites and blacks as he believed in thorough
sympathy with his views, had assembled in a negro church at
Chatham, Canada West, May 8, 1858; at which Convention a
'Provisional Constitution and Ordinances for the People of the
United States' had been adopted. It was, of course, drafted by
Brown, and was essentially an embodiment of his political
views. … John Brown was chosen Commander-in-Chief; J. H. Kagi,
Secretary of War; Owen Brown (son of John), Treasurer; Richard
Realf, Secretary of State. Brown returned to the States soon
after his triumphal entry into Canada as a liberator. … He was
in Hagerstown, Maryland, on the 30th [of June, 1859], where he
registered his name as 'Smith, and two sons, from Western New
York.' He told his landlord that they had been farming in
Western New York, but had been discouraged by losing two or
three years' crops by frost, and they were now looking for a
milder climate, in a location adapted to wool-growing, etc.
After looking about Harper's Ferry for several days, they
found, five or six miles from that village, a large farm, with
three unoccupied houses, the owner, Dr. Booth Kennedy, having
died the last Spring. These houses they rented for a trifle
until the next March, paying the rent in advance. … After they
had lived there a few weeks, attracting no observation, others
joined them from time to time, including two of Brown's young
daughters; and one would go and another come, without exciting
any particular remark. … Meantime, the greater number of the
men kept out of sight during the day, so as not to attract
attention, while their arms, munitions, etc., were being
gradually brought from Chambersburg, in well-secured boxes. No
meal was eaten on the farm, while old Brown was there, until a
blessing had been asked upon it; and his Bible was in daily
requisition. The night of the 24th of October was originally
fixed upon by Brown for the first blow against Slavery in
Virginia, by the capture of the Federal Arsenal at Harper's
Ferry; and his biographer, Redpath, alleges that many were on
their way to be with him on that occasion, when they were
paralyzed by the intelligence that the blow had already been
struck, and had failed. The reason given for this, by one who
was in his confidence, is, that Brown, who had been absent on
a secret journey to the North, suspected that one of his party
was a traitor, and that he must strike prematurely, or not at
all. But the women who had been with them at the Kennedy
farm—the wives or daughters of one or another of the party—had
already been quietly sent away; and the singular complexion of
their household had undoubtedly begun to excite curiosity, if
not alarm, among their neighbors. … Harper's Ferry was then a
village of some 5,000 inhabitants, lying on the Virginia side
of the Potomac, and on either side of its principal tributary,
the Shenandoah, which here enters it from the South. Its site
is a mere nest or cup among high, steep mountains. … Here the
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad crosses the Potomac. … Washington
is 57 miles distant by turnpike; Baltimore 80 miles by
railroad. … One of its very few streets was entirely occupied
by the work-shops and offices of the National Armory, and had
an iron railing across its entrance. In the old Arsenal
building, there were usually stored from 100,000 to 200,000
stand of arms. The knowledge of this had doubtless determined
the point at which the first blow of the liberators was to be
struck. The forces with which Brown made his attack consisted
of seventeen white and five colored men, though it is said
that others who escaped assisted outside, by cutting the
telegraph wires and tearing up the railroad track. The
entrance of this petty army into Harper's Ferry on Sunday
evening … seems to have been effected without creating alarm.
They first rapidly extinguished the lights of the town; then
took possession of the Armory buildings, which were only
guarded by three watchmen, whom, without meeting resistance or
exciting alarm, they seized and locked up in the guardhouse.
It is probable that they were aided, or, at least, guided, by
friendly negroes belonging in the village. … At a quarter-past
one, the western train arrived, and its conductor found the
bridge guarded by armed men. … A little after midnight, the
house of Colonel Washington was visited by six of Brown's men
under Captain Stevens, who captured the Colonel, seized his
arms, horses, etc., and liberated his slaves. On their return,
Stevens and party visited the house of Mr. Alstadtt and his
son, whom they captured, and freed their slaves. These, with
each male citizen as he appeared in the street, were confined
in the Armory until they numbered between forty and fifty.
Brown informed his prisoners that they could be liberated on
condition of writing to their friends to send a negro apiece
as ransom. At daylight, the train proceeded, Brown walking
over the bridge with the conductor. Whenever anyone asked the
object of their captors, the uniform answer was, 'To free the
slaves;' and when one of the workmen, seeing an armed guard at
the Arsenal gate, asked by what authority they had taken
possession of the public property, he was answered, 'By the
authority of God Almighty!' The passenger train that sped
eastward from Harper's Ferry, by Brown's permission, in the
early morning of Monday, October 17th, left that place completely
in the military possession of the insurrectionists. …
{3404}
But it was no longer entirely one-sided. The white Virginians,
who had arms, and who remained unmolested in their houses,
prepared to use them. … Several Virginians soon obtained
possession of a room overlooking the Armory gates, and fired
thence at the sentinels who guarded them, one of whom was
mortally wounded. Still, throughout the forenoon, the
liberators remained masters of the town. … Had Brown chosen to
fly to the mountains with his few followers, he might still
have done so, though with a much slenderer chance of impunity
than if he had, according to his original plan, decamped at
midnight, with such arms and ammunition as he could bear away.
Why he lingered, to brave inevitable destruction, is not
certain; but it may fairly be presumed that he had private
assurances that the negroes of the surrounding country would
rise. … At all events, if his doom was already sealed, his
delay at least hastened it. Half an hour after noon, a militia
force, 100 strong, arrived from Charlestown, the county seat,
and were rapidly disposed so as to command every available
exit from the place. … Militia continued to pour in; the
telegraph and railroad having been completely repaired, so
that the Government at Washington, Governor Wise at Richmond,
and the authorities at Baltimore, were in immediate
communication with Harper's Ferry, and hurrying forward troops
from all quarters. … Night found Brown's forces reduced to
three unwounded whites beside himself, with perhaps half a
dozen negroes from the vicinity. Eight of the insurgents were
already dead; another lay dying beside the survivors; two were
captives mortally wounded, and one other unhurt. Around the
few survivors were 1,500 armed, infuriated foes. … During that
night, Colonel Lee, with 90 United States marines and two
pieces of artillery, arrived, and took possession of the
Armory guard, very close to the engine-house. … At seven in
the morning, after a parley which resulted in nothing, the
marines advanced to the assault, broke in the door of the
engine-house by using a ladder as a battering-ram, and rushed
into the building. One of the defenders was shot and two
marines wounded; but the odds were too great; in an instant,
all resistance was over. Brown was struck in the face with a
saber and knocked down, after which the blow was several times
repeated, while a soldier ran a bayonet twice into the old
man's body."

_H. Greeley, The American Conflict,
volume 1, chapter 20._

"The Virginians demonstrated amply during the Civil War that
they were not cowards. What made them shake in their shoes was
not John Brown and his handful of men, but the shadows which
their excited imagination saw standing behind them. … The best
evidence of the frightful genuineness of the panic is the
brazen impudence with which it was brought forward as the
justifying motive for the many atrocities which marked the
trial. The brutalizing influences of slavery came to light
with terrible vividness. Kapp's statement that Brown 'enjoyed
very careful treatment' is not mistaken, but it is true only
of the later period of his imprisonment. Watson Brown, whose
life was prolonged until the early morning of the 19th of
October, complained of the hard bench he was forced to lie on,
His fellow-prisoner, Coppoc, begged for a mattress, or at
least a blanket, for the dying man, but could obtain neither.
Both Brown himself and Stevens, who was even more seriously
wounded, had nothing furnished them but wretched straw.
Redpath (page 373) assures us that 'from October 19 till
November 7 no clean clothing was given to Brown, but that he
lay in his soiled and blood-stained garments just as he had
fallen at Harper's Ferry.' On the 25th of October he was
brought before the court; he was not at first carried there on
a camp-bed, as was the case afterward, but compelled to walk,
leaning on two men. Virginia could not wait till he could
stand. … There was no such haste to carry out the sentence as
there had been to bring the trial to a close. On the 2d of
November, Brown was sentenced to suffer death by hanging on
the 2d of December."

_H. von Holst,
John Brown,
pages 139-155._

"Brown actually expected that the raid on Harper's Ferry would
be the stroke with which Moses called forth water from the
rock. The spring was to turn southward, and in its swift
course to swell to a mighty river. He declared expressly to
Governor Wise, and later still in his letters, that he had not
intended simply to break the chains of a few dozen or a few
hundred slaves, and to take them again to Canada. Emancipation
was to be spread farther and farther, and the freedmen were to
remain in the Southern States. Heaven itself could not have
brought this about, unless it had sent the angel of judgment
to cast down into the dust the whole white population from
Florida to Maine." At the last, when John Brown, wounded and a
prisoner, lay waiting his death, "he did not perceive that his
undertaking could not have succeeded under any circumstances;
but he did see that his failure and its consequences achieved
much greater results than its most complete success could have
done. … 'I can leave to God,' he writes, 'the time and manner
of my death, for I believe now that the sealing of my
testimony before God and man with my blood will do far more to
further the cause to which I have earnestly devoted myself,
than anything else I have done in my life.' And a few days
later, 'My health improves slowly, and I am quite cheerful
concerning my approaching end, since I am convinced that I am
worth infinitely more on the gallows than I could be anywhere
else.' … One year after the execution of Brown, on the 20th of
December, 1860, South Carolina declared its secession from the
Union, and on May 11, 1861, the Second Massachusetts Regiment
of infantry was raised, which was first to sing on its march
South:
'John Brown's body lies mouldering in the grave,
His soul goes marching on.'"

_H. von Holst,
John Brown,
pages 139-155, 125-126, 167-175._

"Editors persevered for a good while in saying that Brown was
crazy; but at last they said only that it was 'a crazy
scheme,' and the only evidence brought to prove it was that it
cost him his life. I have no doubt that if he had gone with
5,000 men, liberated 1,000 slaves, killed a hundred or two
slaveholders, and had as many more killed on his own side, but
not lost his own life, these same editors would have called it
by a more respectable name. Yet he has been far more
successful than that."

_H. D. Thoreau,
The Last Days of John Brown
(Anti-Slavery and Reform Papers)._

ALSO IN:
_H. Wilson,
Rise and Fall of the Slave Power,
volume 2, chapter 45._

_F. B. Sanborn,
Life and Letters of John Brown,
chapters 15-17._

_J. Redpath,
Public Life of Captain John Brown._

{3405}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860.
The Eighth Census.

Total population, 31,443,322, being an increase exceeding 35½
per cent. over the population of 1850; classified and
distributed as follows:

North.

White. Free black. Slave. California. 361,353 4,086 0 Colorado. 34,231 46 0 Connecticut. 451,520 8,627 0 Dakota. 2,576 0 0 Illinois. 1,704,323 7,628 0 Indiana. 1,339,000 11,428 0 Iowa. 673,844 1,069 0 Kansas. 106,579 625 2 Maine. 626,952 1,327 0 Massachusetts. 1,221,464 9,602 0 Michigan. 742,314 6,799 0 Minnesota. 171,864 259 0 Nebraska. 28,759 67 15 Nevada. 6,812 45 0 New Hampshire. 325,579 494 0 New Jersey. 646,699 25,318 18 New York. 3,831,730 49,005 0 Ohio. 2,302,838 36,673 0 Oregon. 52,337 128 0 Pennsylvania. 2,849,266 56,849 0 Rhode Island. 170,668 3,952 0 Utah. 40,214 30 29 Vermont. 314,389 709 0 Washington. 11,138 30 0 Wisconsin. 774,710 1,171 0 --- --- --- Total 18,791,159 225,967 64

South.

White. Free black. Slave. Alabama. 526,431 2,690 435,080 Arkansas. 324,191 144 111,115 Delaware. 90,589 19,829 1,798 District of Columbia. 60,764 11,131 3,185 Florida. 77,748 932 61,745 Georgia. 591,588 3,500 462,198 Kentucky. 919,517 10,684 225,483 Louisiana. 357,629 18,647 331,726 Maryland. 515,918 83,942 87,189 Mississippi. 353,901 773 436,631 Missouri. 1,063,509 3,572 114,931 New Mexico 82,924 85 0 North Carolina. 631,100 30,463 881,059 South Carolina. 291,388 9,914 402,406 Tennessee. 826,782 7,300 275,719 Texas. 421,294 855 182,566 Virginia. 1,047,411 58,042 490,865 ---- --- --- Total 8,182,684 262,008 8,958,696

Immigration in the preceding decade added 2,598,214 to the
population, being 1,388,098 from the British Islands, and
1,114,564 from other parts of Europe.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860.
The Southern view of Slavery.

The state of opinion and feeling on the subject of slavery to
which the people of the southern states had arrived in 1860 is
set forth with brevity and distinctness in Claiborne's Life of
General Quitman, which was published that year: "In the early
stages of African slavery in the South," says the writer, "it
was by many considered an evil, that had been inflicted upon
the country by British and New England cupidity. The Africans
were regarded as barbarians, and were governed by the lash.
The very hatred of the 'evil' forced upon us was, in a
measure, transferred to the unhappy victims. They were treated
with severity, and no social relations subsisted between them
and the whites. By degrees slavery began to be considered 'a
necessary evil,' to be got rid of by gradual emancipation, or
perhaps not at all, and the condition of the slave sensibly
improved. The natural sense of justice in the human heart
suggested that they had been brought here by compulsion, and
that they should be regarded not as savages, but as captives,
who were to be kindly treated while laboring for their
ultimate redemption. The progress of anti-slavery sentiment in
the Northern States (once regarded by the South as a harmless
fanaticism), the excesses it has occasioned, and the
unconstitutional power it claims, at length prompted a general
and searching inquiry into the true status of the negro. The
moment that the Southern mind became convinced, that slavery,
as it exists among us, instead of being a moral, social, and
political evil, is a moral, social, and political good, and is
the natural condition of the negro, as ordained by Providence,
and the only condition in which he can be civilized and
instructed, the condition of the Southern slave underwent a
thorough change. As a permanent fixture, as a hereditary
heirloom, as a human being with an immortal soul, intrusted to
us by God for his own wise purposes, his value increased, and
his relation to his owner approximated to the relation of
guardian and ward. Interest taught us that it would be wise to
cherish what was to be the permanent means of production and
profit, and religion exacted the humane and judicious
employment of the 'talent' committed to our care. Thus the
most powerful influences that sway the heart and the judgment
are in operation for the benefit of the slave, and hence his
present comfortable and constantly ameliorating condition. It
is due, almost solely, to the moral convictions of the
slaveholder. Our laws protect the slave in life and limb, and
against cruel and inordinate punishment. Those laws are
rigorously applied, though rarely necessary, for public
opinion, more formidable than law, would condemn to execration
and infamy the unjust and cruel master. Since these
convictions in regard to slavery have been adopted almost
unanimously in the South, the value of negroes has quadrupled.
This, however, is in some measure an evil, because the
tendency is to concentrate the slaves in the hands of the few,
who are able to pay the extraordinary rates now demanded. It
would be better for the commonwealth, and give additional
solidity to our system of domestic servitude, if every family
had an interest in it, secured, to a limited extent, against
liability for debt. It should constitute in the South, if
practicable, a part of every homestead, and then interest, and
household tradition, and the friendly, confidential, and even
affectionate relations that in the present state of public
feeling prevail between master and slave, would unite all men
in its defense. Neither land, nor slaves, which are here more
valuable than land, should, by either direct or indirect
legislation, be concentrated in few hands. Every citizen
should have, if possible, that immediate interest in them
which would make him feel that, in defending the commonwealth
and its institutions, he is defending his own inheritance."

_J. F. H. Claiborne,
Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman,
volume 1, chapter 4._

{3406}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (April-November).
Nineteenth Presidential Election.
Division of the Democratic Party.
Four candidates in the field.
A victory for freedom in the choice of Abraham Lincoln.