Chapter CDLXXXIV: Section 10: And be it further enacted, That when any person (1)

held to service or labor in any State or Territory, or in the
District of Columbia, shall escape therefrom, the party to
whom such service or labor shall be due, his, her, or their
agent or attorney, may apply to any court of record therein,
or judge thereof in vacation, and make satisfactory proof to
such court, or judge in vacation, of the escape aforesaid, and
that the person escaping owed service or labor to such party.
Whereupon the court shall cause a record to be made of the
matters so proved, and also a general description of the
person so escaping, with such convenient certainty as may be;
and a transcript of such record, authenticated by the
attestation of the clerk and of the seal of the said court,
being produced in any other State, Territory, or district in
which the person so escaping may be found, and being exhibited
to any judge, commissioner, or other officer authorized by the
law of the United States to cause persons escaping from
service or labor to be delivered up, shall be held and taken
to be full and conclusive evidence of the fact of escape, and
that the service or labor of the person escaping is due to the
party in such record mentioned. And upon the production by the
said party of other and further evidence if necessary, either
oral or by affidavit, in addition to what is contained in the
said record of the identity of the person escaping, he or she
shall be delivered up to the claimant.
{3391}
And the said court, commissioner, judge, or other person
authorized by this act to grant certificates to claimants of
fugitives, shall, upon the production of the record and other
evidences aforesaid, grant to such claimant a certificate of
his right to take any such person identified and proved to be
owing service or labor as aforesaid, which certificate shall
authorize such claimant to seize or arrest and transport such
person to the State or Territory from which he escaped:
Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed as
requiring the production of a transcript of such record as
evidence as aforesaid. But in its absence the claim shall be
heard and determined upon other satisfactory proofs, competent
in law. Approved, September 18, 1850."

_Statutes at Large,
ix. 462-465._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty with Great Britain.

See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1850.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.
The Hülsemann Letter.
Kossuth in America.

In July, 1850, Daniel Webster became Secretary of State in the
cabinet of President Fillmore and retained that post until his
death, in October, 1852. "The best-known incident of this
period was that which gave rise to the famous 'Hülsemann
letter.' President Taylor had sent an agent to Hungary to
report upon the condition of the revolutionary government,
with the intention of recognizing it if there were sufficient
grounds for doing so. When the agent arrived, the revolution
was crushed, and he reported to the President against
recognition. These papers were transmitted to the Senate in
March, 1850. Mr. Hülsemann, the Austrian Charge, thereupon
complained of the action of our administration, and Mr.
Clayton, then Secretary of State, replied that the mission of
the agent had been simply to gather information. On receiving
further instructions from his government, Mr. Hülsemann
rejoined to Mr. Clayton, and it fell to Mr. Webster to reply,
which he did on December 21, 1850. The note of the Austrian
Chargé was in a hectoring and highly offensive tone, and Mr.
Webster felt the necessity of administering a sharp rebuke.
'The Hülsemann letter,' as it was called, was, accordingly
dispatched. It set forth strongly the right of the United
States and their intention to recognize any de facto
revolutionary government, and to seek information in all
proper ways in order to guide their action. … Mr. Webster had
two objects. One was to awaken the people of Europe to a sense
of the greatness of this country, the other to touch the
national pride at home. He did both. … The affair did not,
however, end here. Mr. Hülsemann became very mild, but he soon
lost his temper again. Kossuth and the refugees in Turkey were
brought to this country in a United States frigate. The
Hungarian hero was received with a burst of enthusiasm that
induced him to hope for substantial aid, which was, of course,
wholly visionary. The popular excitement made it difficult for
Mr. Webster to steer a proper course, but he succeeded, by
great tact, in showing his own sympathy, and, so far as
possible, that of the government, for the cause of Hungarian
independence and for its leader, without going too far. … Mr.
Webster's course, … although carefully guarded, aroused the
ire of Mr. Hülsemann, who left the country, after writing a
letter of indignant farewell to the Secretary of State."

_H. C. Lodge,
Daniel Webster,
chapter 10._

ALSO IN:
_D. Webster,
Works,
volume 6, pages 488-504._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1851.
The Lopez Filibustering expedition to Cuba.

See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
Appearance of the Know Nothing or American Party.

"A new party had by this time risen to active importance in
American politics. It appeared in 1852, in the form of a
secret, oath-bound organization, of whose name, nature, and
objects nothing was told even to its members until they had
reached its higher degrees. Their consequent declaration that
they knew nothing about it gave the society its popular name
of Know Nothings. It accepted the name of the American Party.
Its design was to oppose the easy naturalization of
foreigners, and to aid the election of native-born citizens to
office. Its nominations were made by secret conventions of
delegates from the various lodges, and were voted for by all
members under penalty of expulsion in case of refusal. At
first, by endorsing the nominations of one or other of the two
great parties, it decided many elections. After the passage of
the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, the Know Nothing organization was
adopted by many Southern Whigs who were unwilling to unite
with the Democracy, and became, for a time, a national party.
It carried nine of the State elections in 1855, and in 1856
nominated Presidential candidates. After that time its
Southern members gradually united with the Democracy, and the
Know Nothing party disappeared from politics."

_A. Johnston,
History of American Politics, 2d edition,
chapter 18, section 4._

The ritual, rules, etc., of the American, or Know Nothing
party are given in the following work.

_T. V. Cooper,
American Politics,
pages 56-68._

ALSO IN:
_A. Holmes,
Parties and their Principles,
pages 287-295._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
Seventeenth Presidential Election.
Franklin Pierce.

"The question of slavery, in its comprehensive bearings,
formed the turning point in the presidential canvass of 1852.
… The national democratic convention which nominated Mr.
Pierce, unanimously adopted a platform approving the
compromise of 1850 as the final decision of the slavery
question. The Whig party were widely divided on the question
of acquiescence in the compromise measures, and still more at
variance in regard to the claims of rival candidates for the
presidency. Mr. Seward's friends in the free states united in
the support of General Scott, who had, to a considerable
extent, stood aloof from the agitations of the last few years.
On the other hand, the exclusive supporters of the compromise,
as a condition of party allegiance, were divided between
Millard Fillmore, at that time acting president, and Daniel
Webster, secretary of state. The Whig convention met in
Baltimore on the 17th of June, 1852, two weeks after the
democratic convention, and nominated General Scott as their
candidate for president. A large majority of the delegates
from New York, and a considerable number from other states,
maintained their opposition to the test resolutions which were
proposed by the other branch of the party. These resolutions,
however, were adopted, and a platform was thus established
resembling, in its main features, that of the democrats. …
Supported by several advocates of this new platform on the
ground of his personal popularity, General Scott received the
nomination.
{3392}
He was, however, regarded with great suspicion by a large
number of whigs in the slaveholding states. … Many ardent
friends of the compromise … refused to rally around General
Scott, distrusting his fidelity to the compromise platform;
while a large number of the Whigs of the free states, through
aversion to the platform, assumed a neutral position or gave
their support to a third candidate. Another portion of the
Whig party nominated Mr. Webster, who died [October 24, 1852],
not only refusing to decline the nomination, but openly
avowing his disgust with the action of the party."

_G. E. Baker,
Memoir of William. H. Seward
(Seward's Works, volume 4)._

"The Democratic convention was held, first, on June 1, 1852,
at Baltimore. It was a protracted convention, for it did not
adjourn until the 6th of the month, but it was not very
interesting. … After a short contest, the two-thirds rule was
adopted by an overwhelming majority. The struggle over the
nomination was protracted. On the first ballot, General Cass
had 116; James Buchanan, 93; William L. Marcy, 27; Stephen A.
Douglas, 20; Joseph Lane, 13; Samuel Houston, 8; and there
were 4 scattering. The number necessary to a choice was 188. …
On the twenty-ninth trial, the votes were: for Cass, 27; for
Buchanan, 93; for Douglas, 91; and no other candidate had more
than 26. At this point Cass began to recover his strength, and
reached his largest number on the thirty-fifth trial, namely,
131. On that same ballot, Virginia gave 15 votes to Franklin
Pierce. Mr. Pierce gained 15 more votes on the thirty-sixth
trial; but at that point his increase ceased, and was then
slowly resumed, as the weary repetition of balloting without
effect went on. The forty-eighth trial resulted as follows:
for Cass, 73; for Buchanan, 28; for Douglas, 33; for Marcy,
90; for Pierce, 55; for all others, 8. The forty-ninth trial
was the last. There was a 'stampede' for Pierce, and he
received 282 votes to 6 for all others. Ten candidates were
voted for as a candidate for the vice-presidency.—On the
second ballot, William R. King of Alabama was unanimously
nominated. … The anti-slavery organization, the Free Soil
Democrats, though a much less important political factor than
they had been four years earlier, held their convention in
Pittsburg on August 11. Henry Wilson of Massachusetts
presided. John P. Hale of New Hampshire was nominated for
President, and George W. Julian of Indiana for Vice-President.
… The canvass was not a very spirited one. All the early
autumn elections were favorable to the Democrats, and the
result in November was a crushing defeat of the Whigs in the
popular vote and one still more decisive in the electoral
vote. … The popular and electoral votes were as follows."
Popular vote: Franklin Pierce, 1,601,274; Winfield Scott,
1,386,580; John P. Hale, 155,825. Electoral vote: Pierce, 254;
Scott, 42.

_E. Stanwood,
History of Presidential Elections,
chapter 18._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.
The appearance of Uncle Tom's Cabin, and its effect.

"Of the literary forces that aided in bringing about the
immense revolution in public sentiment between 1852 and 1860,
we may affirm with confidence that by far the most weighty was
the influence spread by this book. This story, when published
[1851-1852] as a serial in the 'National Era,' an anti-slavery
newspaper at Washington, attracted little attention, but after
it was given to the world in book form in March, 1852, it
proved the most successful novel ever written. The author felt
deeply that the Fugitive Slave law was unjust, and that there
was cruelty in its execution; this inspired her to pour out
her soul in a protest against slavery. She thought that if she
could only make the world see slavery as she saw it, her
object would be accomplished; she would then have induced
people to think right on the subject. The book was composed
under the most disheartening circumstances. Worn out with the
care of many young children; overstrained by the domestic
trials of a large household, worried because her husband's
small income did not meet their frugal needs; eking out the
poor professor's salary by her literary work in a house too
small to afford a study for the author—under such conditions
there came the inspiration of her life. … The effect produced
by the book was immense. Whittier offered up 'thanks for the
Fugitive Slave law; for it gave occasion for Uncle Tom's
Cabin.' Longfellow thought it was one of the greatest triumphs
in literary history, but its moral effect was a higher triumph
still. Lowell described the impression which the book made as
a 'whirl of excitement.' Choate is reported to have said:
'That book will make two millions of abolitionists.' Garrison
wrote the author: 'All the defenders of slavery have let me
alone and are abusing you.'"

_J. F. Rhodes,
History of the United States from 1850,
volume 1, pages 278-280._

Writing only nine months after the publication of "Uncle Tom's
Cabin," C. F. Briggs, in Putnam's Monthly Magazine, said:
"Never since books were first printed has the success of Uncle
Tom been equalled; the history of literature contains nothing
parallel to it, nor approaching it; it is, in fact, the first
real success in bookmaking, for all other successes in
literature were failures when compared with the success of
Uncle Tom. … There have been a good many books which were
considered popular on their first appearance, which were
widely read and more widely talked about. But what were they
all, compared with Uncle Tom, whose honest countenance now
overshadows the reading world, like the dark cloud with a
silver lining. Don Quixote was a popular book on its first
coming out, and so was Gil Blas, and Richardson's Pamela, and
Fielding's Tom Jones, and Hannah More's Cœlebs, and Gibbon's
Decline and Fall; and so were the Vicar of Wakefield, and
Rasselas, and the Tale of a Tub, and Evelina, the Lady of the
Lake, Waverley, the Sorrows of Werter, Childe Harold, the Spy,
Pelham, Vivian Grey, Pickwick, the Mysteries of Paris, and
Macaulay's History. These are among the most famous books that
rose suddenly in popular esteem on their first appearance, but
the united sale of the whole of them, within the first nine
months of their publication, would not equal the sale of Uncle
Tom in the same time. … It is but nine months since this Iliad
of the blacks, as an English reviewer calls Uncle Tom, made
its appearance among books, and already its sale has exceeded
a million of copies; author and publisher have made fortunes
out of it, and Mrs. Stowe, who was before unknown, is as
familiar a name in all parts of the civilized world as that of
Homer or Shakspeare. Nearly 200,000 copies of the first edition
of the work have been sold in the United States, and the
publishers say they are unable to meet the growing demand.
{3393}
The book was published on the 20th of last March, and on the
1st of December there had been sold 120,000 sets of the
edition in two volumes. 50,000 copies of the cheaper edition
in one, and 3,000 copies of the costly illustrated edition. …
They [the publishers] have paid to the author $20,300 as her
share of the profits on the actual cash sales of the first
nine months. But it is in England where Uncle Tom has made his
deepest mark. Such has been the sensation produced by the book
there, and so numerous have been the editions published, that
it is extremely difficult to collect the statistics of its
circulation with a tolerable degree of exactness. But we know
of twenty rival editions in England and Scotland, and that
millions of copies have been produced. … We have seen it
stated that there were thirty different editions published in
London, within six months of the publication of the work here,
and one firm keeps 400 men employed in printing and binding
it. … Uncle Tom was not long in making his way across the
British Channel, and four rival editions are claiming the
attention of the Parisians, one under the title of 'le Père
Tom,' and another of 'la Case de l'Oncle Tom.'"

_Uncle Tomitudes
(Putnam's Monthly Magazine, January, 1853)._

"In May, 1852. Whittier wrote to Garrison: 'What a glorious
work Harriet Beecher Stowe has wrought. Thanks for the
Fugitive Slave Law. Better for slavery that that law had never
been enacted, for it gave occasion for Uncle Tom's Cabin.' …
Macaulay wrote, thanking her for the volume, assuring her of
his high respect for the talents and for the benevolence of
the writer. Four years later, the same illustrious author,
essayist, and historian wrote to Mrs. Stowe: 'I have just
returned from Italy, where your fame seems to throw that of
all other writers into the shade. There is no place where
Uncle Tom, transformed into Il Zio Tom, is not to be found.'
From Lord Carlisle she received a long and earnest epistle, in
which he says he felt that slavery was by far the 'topping'
question of the world and age, and that he returned his 'deep
and solemn thanks to Almighty God, who has led and enabled you
to write such a book.' The Rev. Charles Kingsley, in the midst
of illness and anxiety, sent his thanks, saying: 'Your book
will do more to take away the reproach from your great and
growing nation than many platform agitations and
speechifyings.' Said Lord Palmerston, 'I have not read a novel
for thirty years; but I have read that book three times, not
only for the story, but for the statesmanship of it.' Lord
Cockburn declared: 'She has done more for humanity than was
ever before accomplished by any single book of fiction.'
Within a year Uncle Tom's Cabin was scattered all over the
world. Translations were made into all the principal
languages, and into several obscure dialects, in number
variously estimated from twenty to forty. The librarian of the
British Museum, with an interest and enterprise which might
well put our own countrymen to blush, has made a collection
which is unique and very remarkable in the history of books.
American visitors may see there thirty-five editions (Uncle
Tom's Cabin) of the original English, and the complete text,
and eight of abridgments and adaptations. Of translations into
different languages there are nineteen, viz.: Armenian, one;
Bohemian, one; Danish, two distinct versions; Dutch, one;
Flemish, one; French, eight distinct versions, and two dramas;
German, five distinct versions, and four abridgments;
Hungarian, one complete version, one for children, and one
versified abridgment; Illyrian, two distinct versions;
Italian, one; Polish, two distinct versions; Portuguese, one;
Roman, or modern Greek, one; Russian, two distinct versions;
Spanish, six distinct versions; Swedish, one; Wallachian, two
distinct versions; Welsh, three distinct versions."

_Mrs. F. T. McCray,
Uncle Tom's Cabin
(Magazine of American History, January, 1890)._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852-1854.
The Perry Expedition.
Opening of intercourse with Japan.

See JAPAN: A. D. 1852-1888.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1853.
The Gadsden Purchase of Arizona.

See ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.
The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
The doctrine of "Squatter Sovereignty."

"The slavery agitation apparently had died away both in
congress and throughout the country. This calm, however, was
doomed to a sudden interruption. The prospect of … beneficent
legislation was destroyed by the introduction of a measure
which at once supplanted all other subjects in congress and in
the political interests of the people. This was the novel and
astounding proposal of Mr. Douglas [Senator Stephen A.
Douglas, of Illinois], in relation to the Kansas and Nebraska
territories. … The measure … alluded to … was a provision in
the bill for the organization of a territory in Nebraska,
declaring that the states which might at any future time be
formed in the new territory should leave the question of
slavery to be decided by the inhabitants thereof on the
adoption of their constitution,—[this being in accordance with
the doctrine which its advocates styled 'Popular Sovereignty,'
but which took the commoner name of 'Squatter Sovereignty'
from its opponents]. This provision was, as explained by the
bill itself, the application of the compromise policy of 1850
to Nebraska, and, as was evident, virtually repealed the
Missouri Compromise of 1820, which guarantied that slavery
should be forever excluded from the territory in question.
But, in order to bring the supporters of the bill and its
opponents to a more decided test, an amendment was moved
expressly annulling that portion of the Missouri Compromise
which related to the subject. Mr. Douglas, after some
deliberation, accepted the amendment, and modified his plan so
far as to introduce a new bill for the organization of
Nebraska and Kansas within the same limits, instead of the
territory of Nebraska alone, according to the original
programme. The administration lost no time in adopting this
policy as their own. It was at first proposed to hasten the
passage of the bill through both houses so rapidly as to
prevent any remonstrance on the part of the people. But the
opponents of the measure, including Mr. Seward, Mr. Chase, Mr.
Sumner, Mr. Truman Smith, Mr. Wade, Mr. Everett, Mr. Bell, Mr.
Houston, and Mr. Fessenden, combined against it such an
earnest and effective resistance that the attention of the
country was aroused, and an indignant protest called forth
from the people of the free states. The bill, however, passed
the senate on the 4th day of March, 1854, after a discussion
which had occupied nearly every day of the session since the
23d of January. …
{3394}
On the 21st of March, Mr. Richardson of Illinois, in the
house, moved to refer the bill, as it came from the senate, to
the committee on territories, of which he was the chairman.
Mr. Francis B. Cutting, of New York, moved that it be sent to
the committee of the whole, where it could be freely
discussed. His motion was carried, after a severe struggle, by
a vote of 110 to 95. This was regarded as a triumph of the
enemies of the bill and inspired hopes of its ultimate defeat
in the house. On the 22d of May, after a most exciting
contest, lasting nearly two months, in committee of the whole,
Mr. Alex. H. Stephens of Georgia, by an extraordinary
stratagem in parliamentary tactics, succeeded in closing the
debate and bringing the bill to a vote in the house, where it
finally passed, before adjournment, by a vote of 113 to 100."
Returned to the senate, on account of amendments which had
been made to it, it passed that body again "by vote of 35 to
13; and amid the firing of cannon and the shouting of its
friends, it was sent to the president for his signature, at
three o'clock in the morning of May 26, 1854. President Pierce
promptly gave it his approval, and the odious measure became
the law of the land. Thus was abrogated the Missouri
Compromise—a law enacted thirty years before with all the
solemnity of a compact between the free and the slave
states—and a territory as large as the thirteen original
states opened to slavery. The act was consummated by the
cooperation of the north. Originating with a senator from a
free state, it was passed by a congress containing in each
branch a majority of members from the free states, and was
sanctioned by the approval of a free state president. The
friends of this legislation attempted to defend it on the
pretence that it was not an original act, but only declaratory
of the true intent and significance of the compromise measures
of 1850."

_G. E. Baker,
Memoir of William H. Seward
(volume 4 of Seward's Works),
pages 24-27._

Senator Douglas' explanation of the reasons on which he
grounded his Kansas-Nebraska Bill is given in a report made by
Lieutenant-Colonel Cutts, of conversations held by him with
the Senator in 1859, and taken down in writing at the time, in
the exact language of Mr. Douglas. "There was," said Senator
Douglas, "a necessity for the organization of the Territory,
which could no longer be denied or resisted. … Mr. Douglas, as
early as the session of 1843, had introduced a bill to
organize the Territory of Nebraska, for the purpose of opening
the line of communication between the Mississippi Valley and
our possessions on the Pacific Ocean, known as the Oregon
country, and which was then under the operation of the treaty
of joint occupation, or rather non occupation, with England,
and was rapidly passing into the exclusive possession of the
British Hudson's Bay Fur Company, who were establishing posts
at every prominent and commanding point in the country. … Mr.
Douglas renewed the introduction of his bill for the
organization of Nebraska Territory, each session of Congress,
from 1844 to 1854, a period of ten years, and while he had
failed to secure the passage of the act, in consequence of the
Mexican war intervening, and the slavery agitation which
ensued, no one had objected to it upon the ground that there
was no necessity for the organization of the Territory. During
the discussions upon our Territorial questions during this
period, Mr. Douglas often called attention to the fact that a
line of policy had been adopted many years ago, and was being
executed each year, which was entirely incompatible with the
growth and development of our country. It had originated as
early as the administration of Mr. Monroe, and had been
continued by Mr. Adams, General Jackson, Mr. Van Buren,
Harrison, and by Tyler, by which treaties had been made with
the Indians to the east of the Mississippi River, for their
removal to the country bordering upon the States west of the
Mississippi or Missouri Rivers, with guaranties in said
treaties that the country within which these Indians were
located should never be embraced within any Territory or
State, or subjected to the jurisdiction of either, so long as
grass should grow and water should run. These Indian
settlements, thus secured by treaty, commenced upon the
northern borders of Texas, or Red River, and were continued
from year to year westward, until when, in 1844, Mr. Douglas
introduced his first Nebraska Bill, they had reached the
Nebraska or Platte River, and the Secretary of War was then
engaged in the very act of removing Indians from Iowa, and
settling them in the valley of the Platte River, with similar
guaranties of perpetuity, by which the road to Oregon was
forever to be closed. It was the avowed object of this Indian
policy to form an Indian barrier on the western borders of
Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa, by Indian settlements, secured
in perpetuity by a compact that the white settlements should
never extend westward of that line. This policy originated in
the jealousy, on the part of the Atlantic States, of the
growth and expansion of the Mississippi Valley, which
threatened in a few years to become the controlling power of
the nation. … This restrictive system received its first cheek
in 1844, by the introduction of the Nebraska Bill, which was
served on the Secretary of War, by its author, on the day of
its introduction, with a notice that Congress was about to
organize the Territory, and therefore he must not locate any
more Indians there. In consequence of this notice, the
Secretary (by courtesy) suspended his operations until
Congress should have an opportunity of acting upon the bill;
and inasmuch as Congress failed to act that session, Mr.
Douglas renewed his bill and notice to the Secretary each
year, and thus prevented action for ten years, and until he
could procure action on the bill. … When Congress assembled at
the session of 1853-1854, in view of this state of facts, Mr.
Douglas renewed his Nebraska Act, which was modified, pending
discussion, by dividing into two Territories, and became the
Kansas-Nebraska Act. … The jealousies of the two great
sections of the Union, North and South, had been fiercely
excited by the slavery agitation. The Southern States would
never consent to the opening of those Territories to
settlement, so long as they were excluded by act of Congress
from moving there and holding their slaves; and they had the
power to prevent the opening of the country forever, inasmuch
as it had been forever excluded by treaties with the Indians,
which could not be changed or repealed except by a two-third
vote in the Senate.
{3395}
But the South were willing to consent to remove the Indian
restrictions, provided the North would at the same time remove
the Missouri restriction, and thus throw the country open to
settlement on equal terms by the people of the North and
South, and leave the settlers at liberty to introduce or
exclude slavery as they should think proper." The same report
gives a distinction which Senator Douglas drew between
"Popular Sovereignty" and "Squatter Sovereignty," as follows:
"The name of Squatter Sovereignty was first applied by Mr.
Calhoun, in a debate in the United States Senate in 1848,
between himself and General Cass, in respect to the right of
the people of California to institute a government for
themselves after the Mexican jurisdiction had been withdrawn
from them, and before the laws of the United States had been
extended over them. General Cass contended that in such a case
the people had a right, an inherent and inalienable right, to
institute a government for themselves and for their own
protection. Mr. Calhoun replied that, with the exception of
the native Californians, the inhabitants of that country were
mere squatters upon the public domain, who had gone there in
vast crowds, without the authority of law, and were in fact
trespassers as well as squatters upon the public lands, and to
recognize their right to set up a government for themselves
was to assert the doctrine of 'Squatter Sovereignty.' The term
had no application to an organized Territory under the
authority of Congress, or to the powers of such organized
Territory, but was applied solely to an unorganized country
whose existence was not recognized by law. On the other hand,
what is called 'Popular Sovereignty' in the Territories, is a
phrase used to designate the right of the people of an
organized Territory, under the Constitution and laws of the
United States, to govern themselves in respect to their own
internal polity and domestic affairs."

_S. A. Douglas,
Brief Treatise upon Constitutional and Party Questions
(reported by J. M. Cutts),
pages 86-92, and 123-124._

"The repeal of the Missouri Compromise was the beginning of
the end, the fatal step of the South on its road to
destruction. Throughout the North the conviction grew that
Union and slavery could not exist much longer together. On the
4th of July, 1854, Garrison publicly burned a copy of the
Constitution of the United States with the words, 'The Union
must be dissolved!' He represented only an extreme sentiment.
But the people at large began to calculate the value of this
Union for which so many sacrifices had been made. Slavery
became odious to many persons hitherto indifferent to the
subject, on the ground that it persistently and selfishly
placed the Union in peril."

_B. Tuckerman,
William Jay and the Constitutional Movement for
the Abolition of Slavery,
chapter 7._

ALSO IN:
_M. Van Buren,
Inquiry into the Origin and Course of Political Parties,
chapter 8._

_G. T. Curtis,
Life of James Buchanan,
chapter 9._

_S. A. Douglas,
Popular Sovereignty in the Territories
(Harper's Magazine, September, 1859)._

_H. von Holst.
Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
volume 4, chapters 6-8._

_H. Greeley,
History of the Struggle for Slavery Extension,
chapter 14._

_J. F. Rhodes,
History of the United States from 1850,
chapter 5._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.
The Ostend Manifesto.

See CUBA: A. D. 1845-1860.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.
Solidification of Anti-slavery sentiment in the North.
The birth of the new Republican Party.

"The determined purpose of the Slave Power to make slavery the
predominating national interest was never more clearly
revealed than by the proposed repeal of the Missouri
compromise. This was a deliberate and direct assault upon
freedom. Many, indeed, under the pleas of fraternity and
loyalty to the Union, palliated and apologized for this breach
of faith; but the numbers were increasing every hour, as the
struggle progressed, who could no longer be deceived by these
hollow pretences. … Pulpits and presses which had been dumb,
or had spoken evasively and with slight fealty to truth, gave
forth no uncertain sound. … To the utterances of the sacred
desk were added the action of ecclesiastical bodies,
contributions to the press, and petitions to State
legislatures and to Congress. … These discussions from pulpit,
platform, and press, all pointed to political action as the
only adequate remedy. In the Northern States there were
Abolitionists, Free-Soilers, anti-slavery Whigs, anti-Nebraska
Democrats, and anti-slavery members of the American party,
which had just come into existence. … As the conflict
progressed, large and increasing numbers saw that no help
could be reasonably hoped but through the formation of a new
party that could act without the embarrassment of a Southern
wing. But the formation of a national and successful party
from materials afforded by the disintegration of hitherto
hostile organizations was a work of great delicacy and
difficulty. Such a party could not be made;—it must grow out
of the elements already existing. It must be born of the
nation's necessities and of its longings for relief from the
weakness, or wickedness, of existing organizations. The mode
of organizing this new party of freedom varied according to
the varying circumstances of different localities and the
convictions of different men. … One of the earliest, if not
the earliest, of the movements that contemplated definite
action and the formation of a new party, was made in Ripon,
Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin, in the early months of 1854." A
public meeting, held in one of the churches of the town, was
followed by a second meeting, on the 20th of March, at which
definite proceedings were taken. "By formal vote the town
committees of the Whig and Free Soil parties were dissolved,
and a committee of five, consisting of three Whigs, one
Free-Soiler, and one Democrat, was chosen. 'The work done on
that evening,' says Mr. Bovey [one of its originators], 'was
fully accepted by the Whig and Free Soil parties of all this
section immediately; and very soon—that is to say, in a few
months—by those parties throughout the entire State.' A State
convention was held in July, by which the organization of the
party was perfected for the State, a majority of the
delegation was secured for the next Congress, and a
Free-Soiler, Charles Durkee, was elected to the Senate of the
United States. At the meeting of the 20th of March, Mr. Bovey,
though stating his belief that the party should and probably
would take the name of 'Republican,' advised against such a
christening at that time and by that small local body of men.
He, however, wrote to the editor of the New York 'Tribune,'
suggesting the name. … But that 'little eddy' on that far-off
margin was only one of many similar demonstrations,—signs of a
turn of the tide in the great sea of American politics.
{3396}
In Washington, on the morning after the passage of the
Kansas-Nebraska bill, there was a meeting of some thirty
members of the House at the rooms of Thomas D. Eliot and
Edward Dickinson, of Massachusetts, called at the instance of
Israel Washburn, Jr., of Maine, for consultation in regard to
the course to be adopted in the exigencies of the case. The
hopelessness of any further attempts through existing
organizations was generally admitted; though a few still
counselled adherence to the Whig party, in the expectation of
securing its aid for freedom. But most present had become
convinced that in a new party alone lay any reasonable hope of
successful resistance to the continued aggressions of the
arrogant and triumphant Slave Power. The name 'Republican' was
suggested, discussed, and finally agreed upon as appropriate
for the new organization. … But, whatever suggestions others
may have made, or whatever action may have been taken
elsewhere, to Michigan belongs the honor of being the first
State to form and christen the Republican Party." A mass
convention of Whigs and Free Soilers in that State was held on
the 6th of July, at which the name was formally adopted, along
with a "platform" of principles opposing the extension of
slavery and demanding its abolition in the District of
Columbia. "Though the Republican Party was not immediately
organized in all the free States, its spirit inspired and its
ideas largely pervaded the North. Within one year eleven
Republican Senators were elected and fifteen States had
secured anti-Nebraska majorities. Out of 142 Northern members
of the House, 120 were opposed to the iniquitous measure. They
were in sufficient numbers not only to control the election of
Speaker, but they were able, by a majority of 15, to declare
that 'in the opinion of this House, the repeal of the Missouri
compromise of 1820, prohibiting slavery north of 36° 30', was
an example of useless and factious agitation of the slavery
question, unwise and unjust to the American people.' Several
States which had failed to organize a Republican Party in 1854
did so in 1855."

_H. Wilson,
Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
volume 2, chapter 31._

"The refusal of the Whigs in many States to surrender their
name and organization, and more especially the abrupt
appearance of the Know-Nothings on the field of parties,
retarded the general coalition between the Whigs and the
Free-soilers which so many influences favored. As it turned
out, a great variety of party names were retained or adopted
in the Congressional and State campaigns of 1854, the
designation of 'anti-Nebraska' being perhaps the most common,
and certainly for the moment the most serviceable, since
denunciation of the Nebraska bill was the one all-pervading
bond of sympathy and agreement among men who differed very
widely on almost all other political topics. This affiliation,
however, was confined exclusively to the free States. In the
slave States, the opposition to the Administration dared not
raise the anti-Nebraska banner, nor could it have found
followers; and it was not only inclined but forced to make its
battle either under the old name of Whigs, or as became more
popular, under the new appellation of 'Americans,' which grew
into a more dignified synonym for Know-Nothings. … While the
measure was yet under discussion in the House in March, New
Hampshire led off by an election completely obliterating the
eighty-nine Democratic majority in her Legislature.
Connecticut followed in her footsteps early in April. Long
before November it was evident that the political revolution
among the people of the North was thorough, and that election
day was anxiously awaited merely to record the popular verdict
already decided. The influence of this result upon parties,
old and new, is perhaps best illustrated in the organization
of the Thirty-fourth Congress, chosen at these elections
during the year 1854, which witnessed the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise. Each Congress, in ordinary course, meets
for the first time about one year after its members are
elected by the people, and the influence of politics during
the interim needs always to be taken into account. In this
particular instance this effect had, if anything, been
slightly reactionary, and the great contest for the
Speakership during the winter of 1855-1856 may therefore be
taken as a fair manifestation of the spirit of politics in
1854. The strength of the preceding House of Representatives,
which met in December, 1853, had been: Whigs, 71;
Free-soilers, 4; Democrats, 159—a clear Democratic majority of
84. In the new Congress there were in the House, as nearly as
the classification could be made, about 108 anti-Nebraska
members, nearly 40 Know-Nothings, and about 75 Democrats; the
remaining members were undecided. The proud Democratic
majority of the Pierce election was annihilated."

_J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay,
Abraham Lincoln,
volume 1, chapter 20._

ALSO IN:
_J. D. Long, editor,
The Republican Party: its History, etc._

_A. Holmes,
Parties and their Principles,
pages 274-278._

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1856.
The beginning of the struggle for Kansas.
Free-state settlers against Missouri "Border-ruffians."

See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1866.
The Canadian Reciprocity Treaty and its abrogation.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION, &c.
(UNITED STATES AND CANADA): A. D. 1854-1866.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1855-1856.
Long contest for the Speakership of the House.
Election of Mr. Banks, Republican.
Mr. Giddings' account.

"The free-soil party was now rapidly increasing in numbers and
influence. The Whig organization had disbanded: Yet its
leaders had too much pride of opinion to admit that the
anti-slavery men were right in their policy or in their
construction of the Constitution. Indeed, their prejudices
were too strong to permit them to join any other existing
organization. They therefore instituted a new party called the
'Know Nothings' or 'American party.' Their leading policy was
the exclusion of foreigners from office. … It was a secret
society, known to each other by signs, grips and passwords. It
increased rapidly in numbers, and in the autumn of 1844 they
elected a large majority of officers in all of the free
States. … The effect of their success became apparent at the
assembling of the thirty-fourth Congress. It had placed the
democratic party in a very decided minority in the House of
Representatives. … And the Free-soilers or Republicans were
placed in a most critical position. Their difficulty arose
from the determination of aspiring politicians to give all
influence into the hands of the organization which had
recently sprung up.
{3397}
Members of this new party were at the city of Washington some
weeks before the assembling of Congress, making such political
arrangements as they regarded necessary to secure the success
for the 'Know Nothings.' But all were conscious that neither
they nor the Free-soilers could succeed except by uniting with
each other." A partial combination of Know Nothings with the
Republicans was effected at a meeting on Friday before the
opening of the session of Congress. "Late in the day a
resolution was introduced pledging the members to vote for any
man on whom a majority of the members should unite, provided
he stood pledged by his past life or present declarations so
to arrange the committees of the House as to give respectful
answers to petitions concerning slavery. This resolution was
adopted by a unanimous vote of more than 70 members. But the
leading members of the 'Know Nothings' did not appear at any
of the caucuses. It was in this unorganized form that members
opposed to the extension of slavery met their associates on
Monday in the Hall of Representatives, to enter upon a contest
unequalled in the previous history of our Government. The
House consisted of 234 members—225 of whom answered to their
names at the first calling of the roll. The first business in
order was the election of Speaker: And the ballots being
counted, it was found that William A. Richardson, the
democratic candidate, had 74 votes; Lewis D. Campbell, of
Ohio, the 'Know Nothing' candidate, had 53 votes; Humphrey
Marshall, of Kentucky, the southern Know Nothing candidate, 30
votes; Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, was supported by
those Free-soilers or Republicans who refused to support any
man placed in nomination by the Know Nothings; and Hiram M.
Fuller, of Pennsylvania, received the votes of 17 members of
the Know Nothing party who refused to support any other
candidate. There were several other ballots cast during the
day, with little change. The voting continued on the second,
third, fourth and fifth days, without material change, except
that Mr. Campbell's vote rose on one occasion as high as 75.
After the result of the twenty-third ballot was announced, Mr.
Campbell withdrew his name from the list of candidates. On the
withdrawal of Mr. Campbell, Mr. Banks' rose regularly until
the 15th December, when it reached 107. … On the 19th
December, the ballot showed Mr. Banks to have 106, and Mr.
Richardson 75. Messrs. Marshall and Fuller, with their
adherents, continuing to vote by themselves. During the
debates the Republicans were constantly assailed, and as the
writer [Joshua R. Giddings, of Ohio] was the oldest member of
that party, he felt constrained to vindicate their cause. He
assured the Democrats and 'Know Nothings' that the Republicans
must soon come into power: And when once in power they would
not permit southern members to dissolve the Union. This seemed
to arouse much angry feeling. Mr. McMullen, of Virginia,
replied with much spirit, declaring that whenever a northern
President should be elected the South would dissolve the
Union. This is believed to be the first distinct enunciation
in Congress that the Union was to be dissolved upon the
election of a northern President. Northern Democrats appeared
mortified at the imprudence of Mr. McMullen. Mr. Banks, in a
public speech made some two years previously in Maine, had
said, that if we were to extend slavery or dissolve the Union,
he would say, 'Let the Union slide.' This saying was now
seized upon by southern men as an insuperable objection to Mr.
Banks' election: While, at the same time, Mr. Brooks, of South
Carolina, assured the House and the country that unless
slavery were extended he desired to see the Union slide.
Members appeared by common consent to enter upon a general
debate, which was suspended on the 24th so long as to take a
ballot, which showed no substantial change in the parties. On
the 27th, four ballots were taken with a similar result. … On
the 28th December the balloting was resumed, and continued
through that and the following day without material change of
parties, and debate was again renewed. … The President of the
United States sent his annual message to the Senate on the
31st December, and his private secretary appeared at the
entrance of the House of Representatives and announced that he
had brought with him the annual message of the President, to
be presented to that body. Aware that this was intended to
exert an influence against the Republicans, the author at once
objected to receiving it, as it was an attempt to introduce a
new practice—for up to that time no President had ever
presumed to thrust his message upon an unorganized body—and
that it could not constitutionally be received by members
until a Speaker were elected. But a majority voted to receive
it. The next attempt was to read it to the House; but it was
again objected that it was not addressed to members in their
disorganized condition, but was addressed to the Senate and
House of Representatives, which had not then been organized.
This objection was sustained, and although they had received
the message, they refused to read it. The new year found the
House unorganized, with the President's message lying upon the
Clerk's desk unopened and unread. One ballot was taken. A
motion was next made to take up and read the President's
message; but, after debate, the motion was laid on the table.
Members now began to make arrangements for continuing the
contest indefinitely. Most of them had expected to draw their
mileage to defray their current expenses; but being unable to
do that until the House were organized, found themselves out
of funds. In many Republican districts the people met in
public conventions and passed resolutions approving the action
of their Representatives, made provisions for their members to
draw on their local banks for such funds as they deemed
necessary for defraying expenses at Washington. To meet these
expenses, some State Legislatures made appropriations from
their State funds. Soon as the republican party became
consolidated, its members became more confident. Those of
greatest experience assured their friends that as the
President, officers of government, and the army and navy must
go without pay until the House should be organized, the
pressure would soon be so great upon the democratic party that
they would be compelled to submit to the election of a
republican Speaker. Some State Legislatures passed resolutions
sustaining the action of their Representatives, declaring the
issue involved to be the extension or non-extension of
slavery. …
{3398}
On the 29th January several propositions were made for an
immediate organization. They were rejected, but by such small
majorities as to indicate an organization at no very distant
period; and the Republicans now felt one, and only one doubt
in regard to success. The southern 'Know Nothings' had been
Whigs, and bitterly hated the Democrats; and the question now
presented was, whether they would unite with their old enemies
rather than see a republican Speaker elected. On the 3d
February a resolution was presented, declaring that three more
ballots should be taken and if no election were had, the
candidate having the highest number of votes on the 4th ballot
should be declared Speaker. Soon after this vote was announced
the House adjourned. Members now felt that the contest was
drawing to a close. The next morning … Mr. Aiken, of South
Carolina, was announced as the democratic candidate. And the
first ballot, under the resolution, showed little change of
parties. Banks received 102 votes; Aiken, 92; Fuller, 13;
Campbell, 4; and Wells, 2. By this time the spacious galleries
were filled with eager spectators, the lobbies and passages
were crowded by men and ladies anxious for the result. The
next ballot was taken without any change of parties. A motion
was made to adjourn, but it was voted down by 159 to 52. Mr.
Fuller announced that he was no longer a candidate. The result
now appeared to be anticipated by all, and as the Clerk
commenced calling the roll of members for the final vote,
there appeared to be the most intense interest felt on all
sides of the House. … When the roll had been called through
there was so much confusion that it was difficult for anyone
to be heard. But the clerks and tellers proceeded in their
duties, and when the count was completed, Mr. Benson, of Maine
—one of the tellers—rose, and in a loud voice proclaimed that
'On the one hundred and thirty-third ballot Nathaniel P. Banks
had received 103 votes; Mr. Aiken had received 100 votes; Mr.
Fuller had received 6 votes; and Mr. Campbell had received 4
votes. That Mr. Banks having received the highest number of
votes on this ballot, was declared duly elected Speaker of the
thirty-fourth Congress.' At this announcement the spectators
in the galleries broke forth in wild excitement. Cheer after
cheer went up, amid the waving of handkerchiefs and
demonstrations of unrestrained exultation, which were
responded to by hisses from the Administration side of the
House. … The effect of this victory was felt through the
country. … Sixteen years before this occurrence Mr. Adams and
the author of these sketches were the only representatives in
Congress of the doctrines now supported by a majority of the
House. The slaveholders and those who sympathized with them
appeared to realize that political power was gradually
escaping from their grasp, and that the day was rapidly
approaching when the people would resume control of the
Government."

_J. R. Giddings,
History of the Rebellion,
chapter 26._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1855-1860.
Walker's Filibustering in Nicaragua.

See NICARAGUA: A. D. 1855-1860.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856.
Refusal to sign the Declaration of Paris.
Proposed amendment.

See DECLARATION OF PARIS.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1856.
Senator Sumner's speech on "The Crime against Kansas,"
and the assault upon him by Brooks of South Carolina.