Chapter IX

NORTHERN SYMPATHY AND SOUTHERN SUBTERFUGES.

1850-1860.

VIOLENT TREATMENT OF ANTI-SLAVERY ORATORS.--THE SOUTH
MISINTERPRETS THE MOBOCRATIC SPIRIT OF THE NORTH.--THE
"GARRISONIANS" AND "CALHOUNITES"--SLAVE POPULATION OF
1830-1850.--THE THIRTY-FIRST CONGRESS.--MOTION FOR THE ADMISSION
OF NEW MEXICO AND CALIFORNIA.--THE DEMOCRATIC AND WHIG PARTIES ON
THE TREATMENT OF THE SLAVE QUESTION.--CONVENTION OF THE
DEMOCRATIC PARTY AT BALTIMORE, MARYLAND.--NOMINATION OF FRANKLIN
PIERCE FOR PRESIDENT.--WHIG PARTY CONVENTION.--NOMINATION OF GEN.
WINFIELD SCOTT FOR THE PRESIDENCY BY THE WHIGS.--MR. PIERCE
ELECTED PRESIDENT IN 1853.--A BILL INTRODUCED TO REPEAL THE
"MISSOURI COMPROMISE."--SPEECH BY STEPHEN A. DOUGLASS.--MR.
CHASE'S REPLY.--AN ACT TO ORGANIZE THE TERRITORIES OF KANSAS AND
NEBRASKA.--STATE MILITIA IN THE SOUTH MAKE PREPARATIONS FOR
WAR.--PRESIDENT BUCHANAN IN SYMPATHY WITH THE SOUTH.

The arguments of anti-slavery orators were answered everywhere throughout the free States by rotten eggs, clubs, and missiles. The public journals, as a rule, were unfriendly and intolerant. Even Boston could contemplate, with unruffled composure, a mob of her most "reputable citizens" dragging Mr. Garrison through the streets with a halter about his neck. Public meetings were broken up by pro-slavery mobs; owners of public halls required a moneyed guarantee against the destruction of their property, when such halls were used for anti-slavery meetings. Colored schools were broken up, the teachers driven away, and the pupils maltreated.

The mobocratic demonstrations in the Northern States were the thermometer of public feeling upon the subject of slavery. The South was, therefore, emboldened; for the political leaders in that section thought they saw a light from the distance that encouraged them to entertain the belief and indulge the hope that their present sectional institution could be made national. Southerners thought slavery would grow in the cold climate of the North, excited into a lively existence by the warmth of a generous sympathy. But the South misinterpreted the real motive that inspired opposition to anti-slavery agitation in the North. The violent opposition came from the mercantile class and foreign element who believed that the agitation of the slavery question was a practical disturbance of their business affairs. The next class, more moderate in opposition to agitation, believed slavery constitutional, and, therefore, argued that anti-slavery orators were traitors to the government. The third class, conservative, did not take sides, because of the unpopularity of agitation on the one hand, and because of an harassing conscience on the other.

There were two classes of men who were seeking the dissolution of the Union. The Garrisonians sought this end in the hope of forming another Union _without_ slavery.

In an address delivered by Wm. Lloyd Garrison, July 20, 1860, at the Framingham celebration, he declares:

"Our object is the abolition of slavery _throughout the land_;
and whether in the prosecution of our object this party goes up
or the other party goes down, it is nothing to us. We cannot
alter our course one hair's breadth, nor accept a compromise of
our principles for the hearty adoption of our principles. I am
for _meddling with slavery everywhere_--_attacking it by night
and by day, in season and out of season_ (no, it can never be out
of season)--in order to _effect its overthrow_. (Loud applause.)
Higher yet will be my cry. Upward and onward! No union with
slave-holders! Down with this slave-holding government! Let this
'covenant with death and agreement with hell' be annulled! _Let
there be a free, independent, Northern republic_, and _the speedy
abolition of slavery_ will inevitably follow! (Loud applause.) So
I am laboring to dissolve this blood-stained Union as a work of
paramount importance. Our mission is to regenerate public
opinion."

The Calhounites sought the dissolution of the Union in order that another Union might be formed _with_ slavery as its chief corner-stone. Inspired by this hope and misguided by the apparent sympathy of the North, Southern statesmen began _preparations to dissolve the Union of the United States_.

During these years of agitation and discussion, although the foreign slave-trade had been suppressed, the slave population increased at a wonderful ratio.

CENSUS OF 1830.--SLAVE POPULATION.

District of Columbia 6,119
Delaware 3,292
Florida 15,501
Georgia 217,531
Illinois 747
Kentucky 165,213
Louisiana 109,588
Maryland 102,994
Alabama 117,549
Mississippi 65,659
Missouri 25,091
New Jersey 2,254
North Carolina 245,601
South Carolina 315,401
Tennessee 141,603
Virginia 469,757
Arkansas 4,576
---------
Aggregate 2,008,476

Now, this was the year the agitation movement began. Instead of the slave population decreasing during the first decade of anti-slavery discussion and work, it really increased 478,412![36]

CENSUS OF 1840.--SLAVE POPULATION.

Alabama 253,532
Arkansas 19,935
District of Columbia 4,694
Delaware 2,605
Florida 25,717
Georgia 280,944
Illinois 331
Kentucky 182,258
Louisiana 168,452
Maryland 89,737
Mississippi 195,211
Missouri 58,240
New Jersey 674
New York 4

CENSUS OF 1840.--SLAVE POPULATION.--(_Continued._)

Pennsylvania 64
North Carolina 245,817
South Carolina 327,038
Tennessee 183,059
Virginia 449,087
---------
Aggregate 2,487,399

During the next decade the slave population swept forward to an increase of 716,858. The entire population of slaves was 3,204,313; 2,957,657 were unmixed Africans, and 246,656 were Mulattoes. The free Colored population amounted to 434,495, of whom 275,400 were unmixed, and 159,095 mixed or Mulatto. The total number of families owning slaves in 1850 was 347,525.

CENSUS OF 1850.--SLAVE POPULATION.

Alabama 342,844
Arkansas 47,100
District of Columbia 3,687
Delaware 2,290
Florida 39,310
Georgia 381,682
Kentucky 210,981
Louisiana 244,809
Maryland 90,368
Mississippi 309,878
Missouri 87,422
New Jersey 236
North Carolina 288,548
South Carolina 384,984
Tennessee 239,459
Texas 58,161
Virginia 472,528
Utah Territory 26
---------
Total 3,204,313

The Thirty-first Congress was three weeks attempting an organization, and at last effected it by the election of a Southerner to the Speakership, the Hon. Howell Cobb, of Georgia. President Zachary Taylor had called the attention of Congress to the admission of California and New Mexico into the Union, in his message to that body upon its assembling. On the 4th of January, 1850, Gen. Sam. Houston, United States Senator from Texas, submitted the following proposition to the Senate:

"WHEREAS, The Congress of the United States, possessing only a
delegated authority, has no power over the subject of negro
slavery within the limits of the United States, either to
prohibit or to interfere with it in the States, territories, or
districts, where, by municipal law, it now exists, or to
establish it in any State or territory where it does not exist;
but as an assurance and guarantee to promote harmony, quiet
apprehension, and remove sectional prejudice, which by
possibility might impair or weaken love and devotion to the Union
in any part of the country, it is hereby

"_Resolved_, That, as the people in territories have the same
inherent rights of self-government as the people in the States,
if, in the exercise of such inherent rights, the people in the
newly acquired territories, by the annexation of Texas and the
acquisition of California and New Mexico, south of the parallel
of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes of north latitude,
extending to the Pacific Ocean, shall establish negro slavery in
the formation of their State governments, it shall be deemed no
objection to their admission as a State or States into the Union,
in accordance with the Constitution of the United States."

On the 29th of January, Henry Clay, of Kentucky, submitted to the United States Senate the following propositions looking toward an amicable adjustment of the entire slavery question:

"1. _Resolved_, That California, with suitable boundaries, ought,
upon her application, to be admitted as one of the States of this
Union, without the imposition by Congress of any restriction in
respect to the exclusion or introduction of slavery within those
boundaries.

"2. _Resolved_, That as slavery does not exist by law, and is not
likely to be introduced into any of the territory acquired by the
United States from the republic of Mexico, it is inexpedient for
Congress to provide by law either for its introduction into, or
exclusion from, any part of the said territory; and that
appropriate territorial governments ought to be established by
Congress in all the said territory not assigned as within the
boundaries of the proposed State of California, without the
adoption of any restriction or condition on the subject of
slavery.

"3. _Resolved_, That the western boundary of the State of Texas
ought to be fixed on the Rio del Norte, commencing one marine
league from its mouth, and running up that river to the southern
line of New Mexico, thence with that line eastwardly, and so
continuing in the same direction to the line as established
between the United States and Spain, excluding any portion of New
Mexico, whether lying on the east or west of that river.

"4. _Resolved_, That it be proposed to the State of Texas, that
the United States will provide for the payment of all that
portion of the legitimate and _bona-fide_ public debt of that
State contracted prior to its annexation to the United States,
and for which the duties on foreign imports were pledged by the
said State to its creditors, not exceeding the sum of----
dollars, in consideration of the said duties so pledged having
been no longer applicable to that object after the said
annexation, but having thenceforward become payable to the United
States; and upon the condition, also, that the said State of
Texas shall, by some solemn and authentic act of her Legislature,
or of a convention, relinquish to the United States any claim
which she has to any part of New Mexico.

"5. _Resolved_, That it is inexpedient to abolish slavery in the
District of Columbia whilst that institution continues to exist
in the State of Maryland, without the consent of that State,
without the consent of the people of the District, and without
just compensation to the owners of slaves within the District.

"6. _But Resolved_, That it is expedient to prohibit within the
District, the slave-trade in slaves brought into it from States
or places beyond the limits of the District, either to be sold
therein as merchandise, or to be transported to other markets
without the District of Columbia.

"7. _Resolved_, That more effectual provision ought to be made by
law, according to the requirement of the Constitution, for the
restitution and delivery of persons bound to service or labor in
any State, who may escape into any other State or territory in
the Union. And

"8. _Resolved_, That Congress has no power to prohibit or
obstruct the trade in slaves between the slave-holding States,
but that the admission or exclusion of slaves brought from one
into another of them, depends exclusively upon their own
particular laws."

Senator Bell, of Tennessee, offered a series of resolutions on the same question on the 28th of February, containing nine resolves. As usual, on all propositions respecting slavery, the debate was protracted, earnest, and able. The Clay resolutions attracted most attention. Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, said:

"Sir, we are called upon to receive this as a measure of
compromise! As a measure in which we of the minority are to
receive nothing. A measure of compromise! I look upon it as but a
modest mode of taking that, the claim to which has been more
boldly asserted by others; and, that I may be understood upon
this question, and that my position may go forth to the country
in the same columns that convey the sentiments of the Senator
from Kentucky, I here assert, that never will I take less than
the Missouri compromise line extended to the Pacific Ocean, with
the specific recognition of the right to hold slaves in the
territory below that line; and that, before such territories are
admitted into the Union as States, slaves may be taken there from
any of the United States at the option of the owners. I can never
consent to give additional power to a majority to commit further
aggressions upon the minority in this Union, and will never
consent to any proposition which will have such a tendency,
without a full guaranty or counteracting measure is connected
with it."

A number of very able speeches were made on the resolutions of Mr. Clay, but the most characteristic one--the one most thoroughly representing the sentiment of the South--was made by John C. Calhoun. He said:

"The Union was in danger. The cause of this danger was the
discontent at the South. And what was the cause of this
discontent? It was found in the belief which prevailed among them
that they could not, consistently with honor and safety, remain
in the Union. And what had caused this belief? One of the causes
was the long-continued agitation of the slave question at the
North, and the many aggressions they had made on the rights of
the South. But the primary cause was in the fact, that the
equilibrium between the two sections at the time of the adoption
of the Constitution had been destroyed. The first of the series
of acts by which this had been done, was the ordinance of 1787,
by which the South had been excluded from all the northwestern
region. The next was the Missouri compromise, excluding them from
all the Louisiana territory north of thirty-six degrees thirty
minutes, except the State of Missouri,--in all 1,238,025 square
miles, leaving to the South the southern portion of the original
Louisiana territory, with Florida, to which had since been added
the territory acquired with Texas,--making in all but 609,023
miles. And now the North was endeavoring to appropriate to
herself the territory recently acquired from Mexico, adding
526,078 miles to the territory from which the South was, if
possible, to be excluded. Another cause of the destruction of
this equilibrium was our system of revenue (the tariff), the
duties falling mainly upon the Southern portion of the Union, as
being the greatest exporting States, while more than a due
proportion of the revenue had been disbursed at the North.

"But while these measures were destroying the equilibrium between
the two sections, the action of the government was leading to a
radical change in its character. It was maintained that the
government itself had the right to decide, in the last resort,
as to the extent of its powers, and to resort to force to
maintain the power it claimed. The doctrines of General Jackson's
proclamation, subsequently asserted and maintained by Mr.
Madison, the leading framer and expounder of the Constitution,
were the doctrines which, if carried out, would change the
character of the government from a federal republic, as it came
from the hands of its framers, into a great national consolidated
democracy."

Mr. Calhoun also spoke of the anti-slavery agitation, which, if not arrested, would destroy the Union; and he passed a censure upon Congress for receiving abolition petitions. Had Congress in the beginning adopted the course which he had advocated, which was to refuse to take jurisdiction, by the united voice of all parties, the agitation would have been prevented. He charged the North with false professions of devotion to the Union, and with having violated the Constitution. Acts had been passed in Northern States to set aside and annul the clause of the slavery question, with the avowed purpose of abolishing slavery in the States, which was another violation of the Constitution. And during the fifteen years of this agitation, in not a single instance had the people of the North denounced these agitators. How then could their professions of devotion to the Union be sincere?

Mr. Calhoun disapproved both the plan of Mr. Clay and that of President Taylor, as incapable of saving the Union. He would pass by the former without remark, as Mr. Clay had been replied to by several Senators. The Executive plan could not save the Union, because it could not satisfy the South that it could safely or honorably remain in the Union. It was a modification of the Wilmot proviso, proposing to effect the same object, the exclusion of the South from the new territory. The Executive proviso was more objectionable than the Wilmot. Both inflicted a dangerous wound upon the Constitution, by depriving the Southern States of equal rights as joint partners in these territories; but the former inflicted others equally great. It claimed for the inhabitants the right to legislate for the territories, which belonged to Congress. The assumption of this right was utterly unfounded, unconstitutional, and without example. Under this assumed right, the people of California had formed a constitution and a State government, and appointed Senators and Representatives. If the people as adventurers had conquered the territory and established their independence, the sovereignty of the country would have been vested in them. In that case they would have had the right to form a State government, and afterward they might have applied to Congress for admission into the Union. But the United States had conquered and acquired California; therefore, to them belonged the sovereignty and the powers of government over the territory. Michigan was the first case of departure from the uniform rule of acting. Hers, however, was a slight departure from established usage. The ordinance of 1787 secured to her the right of becoming a State when she should have 60,000 inhabitants. Congress delayed taking the census. The people became impatient; and after her population had increased to twice that number, they formed a constitution without waiting for the taking of the census; and Congress waived the omission, as there was no doubt of the requisite number of inhabitants. In other cases there had existed territorial governments.

Having shown how the Union could not be saved, he then proceeded to answer the question how it could be saved. There was but one way certain. Justice must be done to the South, by a full and final settlement of all the questions at issue. The North must concede to the South an equal right to the acquired territory, and fulfil the stipulations respecting fugitive slaves; must cease to agitate the slave question, and join in an amendment of the Constitution, restoring to the South the power she possessed of protecting herself, before the equilibrium between the two sections had been destroyed by the action of the government.

Here was a clear statement of the position and feelings of the South respecting slavery. The ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri compromise of 1820 "were destroying the equilibrium between the _two sections_!" And the anti-slavery agitation, "if not arrested, would destroy the Union!" The sophistry of Calhoun sought a reasonable excuse for the South to dissolve the Union. In a speech of his, written during a spell of sickness, and read by Mr. Mason, of Virginia, he referred to Washington as "the illustrious Southerner." When it was read in the Senate Mr. Cass said:

"Our Washington--the Washington of our whole country--receives in
this Senate the epithet of 'Southerner,' as if that great man,
whose distinguished characteristic was his attachment to his
country, and his whole country, who was so well known, and who,
more than any one, deprecated all sectional feeling and all
sectional action, loved Georgia better than he loved New
Hampshire, because he happened to be born on the southern bank of
the Potomac. I repeat, sir, that I heard with great pain that
expression from the distinguished Senator from South Carolina."

There was certainly no ground for reasonable complaint on the part of the South. From the convention that framed the Federal Constitution, through all Congressional struggle, and in national politics as well, the South had secured nearly all measures asked for. And the discussion in Congress at this time was intended to divert attention from the real object of the South. Another fugitive-slave law was demanded by the South, and the Northern members voted them the right to hunt slaves upon free soil. The law passed, and was approved on the 18th of September, 1850.

It was difficult to choose between the Democratic and Whig parties by reading the planks in their platforms referring to the subject of slavery. On the 1st of June, 1852, the Democratic Convention, at Baltimore, Maryland, nominated Franklin Pierce, of New Hampshire, for the Presidency, on the forty-ninth ballot. This plank defined the position of that party on the question of slavery.

"That Congress has no power under the Constitution to interfere
with or control the domestic institutions of the several States,
and that such States are the sole and proper judges of every
thing appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the
Constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists, or others,
made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery,
or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to
lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that
all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the
happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and
permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any
friend of our political institutions.

"That the foregoing proposition covers, and was intended to
embrace, the whole subject of slavery agitation in Congress; and
therefore the Democratic party of the Union, standing on this
national platform, will abide by and adhere to a faithful
execution of the acts known as the compromise measures settled by
the last Congress--the act for reclaiming fugitives from service
or labor included; which act being designed to carry out an
express provision of the Constitution, can not with fidelity
thereto be repealed, nor so changed as to destroy or impair its
efficiency.

"That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing,
in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question,
under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made."

The Whig party, at the same city, in convention assembled, on the 16th of June, 1852, nominated Gen. Winfield Scott, for the Presidency, on the fifty-third ballot. The Whig party declared its position on the slavery question as follows:

"That the series of acts of the Thirty-first Congress--the act
known as the fugitive-slave law included--are received and
acquiesced in by the Whig party of the United States, as a
settlement in principle and substance of the dangerous and
exciting question which they embrace; and so far as they are
concerned, we will maintain them and insist on their strict
enforcement, until time and experience shall demonstrate the
necessity of further legislation, to guard against the evasion of
the laws on the one hand, and the abuse of their powers on the
other, not impairing their present efficiency; and we deprecate
all agitation of the question thus settled, as dangerous to our
peace; and will discountenance all efforts to continue or renew
such agitation whenever, wherever, or however the attempt may be
made; and we will maintain this system as essential to the
nationality of the Whig party of the Union."

The political contest ended in the autumn in favor of Mr. Pierce. The public journals in many parts of the country thought the end of the "slavery question" had come, and that as the Whigs were determined to "discountenance all efforts to continue or renew" the agitation of the subject, there was no fear of sectional strife.

In his inaugural address, March 4, 1853, President Pierce said:

"I believe that involuntary servitude is recognized by the
Constitution. I believe that the States where it exists are
entitled to efficient remedies to enforce the constitutional
provisions. I hold that the compromise measures of 1850 are
strictly constitutional, and to be unhesitatingly carried into
effect. And now, I fervently hope that the question is at rest,"
etc.

In the month of December, upon the assembling of Congress, the President, in his message to that body, again referred to slavery as "a subject which had been set at rest by the deliberate judgment of the people." But on the 15th of December, nine days after the message of the President had been received by Congress, Mr. Dodge, of Iowa, submitted to the Senate a bill to organize the territory of Nebraska, which was referred to the Committee on Territories. After some discussion in the committee, it was finally reported back to the Senate by Mr. Douglass, of Illinois, with amendments. The report was elaborate, and raised considerable doubt as to whether the amendments did not repeal the Missouri compromise. A special report was made on the 4th of January, 1854, so amending the bill as to remove all doubt; and, contemplating the opening of all the vast territory secured forever to freedom, startled the nation from the "repose" it had apparently taken from agitation on the slavery question, and opened an interminable controversy.

On the 16th of January, Mr. Dixon, of Kentucky, gave notice that he would introduce a bill clearly repealing the Missouri compromise. The first champion of the repeal of the compromise of 1820 was a Northern Senator, Stephen A. Douglass, of Illinois. He hung a massive argument--excelling rather in quantity than in quality--upon the following propositions:

"From these provisions, it is apparent that the compromise
measures of 1850 affirm, and rest upon, the following
propositions:

"_First._--That all questions pertaining to slavery in the
territories, and the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be
left to the decision of the people residing therein, by their
appropriate representatives, to be chosen by them for that
purpose.

"_Second._--That 'all cases involving title to slaves,' and
'questions of personal freedom,' are to be referred to the
adjudication of the local tribunals, with the right of appeal to
the Supreme Court of the United States.

"_Third._--That the provision of the Constitution of the United
States in respect to fugitives from service, is to be carried
into faithful execution in all 'the original territories,' the
same as in the States.

"The substitute for the bill which your committee have prepared,
and which is commended to the favorable action of the Senate,
proposes to carry these propositions and principles into
practical operation, in the precise language of the compromise
measures of 1850."

Mr. Douglass said:

"The legal effect of this bill, if passed, was neither to
legislate slavery into nor out of these territories, but to leave
the people to do as they pleased. And why should any man, North
or South, object to this principle? It was by the operation of
this principle, and not by any dictation from the Federal
government, that slavery had been abolished in half of the twelve
States in which it existed at the time of the adoption of the
Constitution."

On the 3d of February, Mr. Chase, of Ohio, moved to amend by striking out the words, "was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and," so that the clause would read: "That the Constitution, and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which is hereby declared inoperative."

Mr. Chase then proceeded to reply to Mr. Douglass. He called attention to that part of the President's message which referred to the "repose" of the subject of slavery, and then said:

"The agreement of the two old political parties, thus referred to
by the Chief Magistrate of the country, was complete, and a large
majority of the American people seemed to acquiesce in the
legislation of which he spoke. A few of us, indeed, doubted the
accuracy of these statements, and the permanency of this repose.
We never believed that the acts of 1850 would prove to be a
permanent adjustment of the slavery question. But, sir, we only
represented a small, though vigorous and growing party in the
country. Our number was small in Congress. By some we were
regarded as visionaries, by some as factionists; while almost all
agreed in pronouncing us mistaken. And so, sir, the country was
at peace. As the eye swept the entire circumference of the
horizon and upward to mid-heaven, not a cloud appeared; to common
observation there was no mist or stain upon the clearness of the
sky. But suddenly all is changed; rattling thunder breaks from
the cloudless firmament. The storm bursts forth in fury. And now
we find ourselves in the midst of an agitation, the end and issue
of which no man can foresee.

"Now, sir, who is responsible for this renewal of strife and
controversy? Not we, for we have introduced no question of
territorial slavery into Congress; not we, who are denounced as
agitators and factionists. No, sir; the quietists and the
finalists have become agitators; they who told us that all
agitation was quieted, and that the resolutions of the political
conventions put a final period to the discussion of slavery. This
will not escape the observation of the country. It is _slavery_
that renews the strife. It is slavery that again wants room. It
is slavery with its insatiate demand for more slave territory and
more slave States. And what does slavery ask for now? Why, sir,
it demands that a time-honored and sacred compact shall be
rescinded--a compact which has endured through a whole
generation--a compact which has been universally regarded as
inviolable, North and South--a compact, the constitutionality of
which few have doubted, and by which all have consented to
abide."

But notwithstanding the able and eloquent speech of Mr. Chase, his amendment only received thirteen votes. The debate went on until the 3d of March, when the bill was placed upon its passage, and even then the discussion went on. When the vote was finally taken, the bill passed by a vote of 37 yeas to 14 nays. The bill went to the House, where it was made a substitute to a bill already introduced, and passed by a vote of 113 yeas to 100 nays as follows:

"Representatives from free States in favor of the bill, 44.
"Representatives from slave States in favor of the bill, 69.
----
113.

"Representatives from free States against the bill, 91.
"Representatives from slave States against the bill, 9.
----
100."

And thus, approved by the President, the measure became a law under the title of "_An Act to Organize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska_."

Congress had violated the sublimest principles of law, had broken faith with the people; had opened a wide door to slavery; had blotted from the map of the United States the last asylum where the oppressed might seek protection; had put the country in a way to be reddened with a fratricidal war, and made our flag a flaunting lie in the eyes of the civilized world. There was nothing to be done now but to let the leaven of sectional malice work, that had been hurled into the slavery discussions in Congress. The bloodless war of words was now transferred to the territory of Kansas, where a conflict of political parties, election frauds, and assassination did their hateful work.

The South began to put her State militia upon a war footing, and to make every preparation for battle. The Administration of President Buchanan was in the interest of the South from beginning to end. He refused to give Gov. John W. Geary, of Kansas, the military support the "_border ruffians_" made necessary; allowed the public debt to increase, our precious coin to go abroad, our treasury to become depleted, our navy to go to the distant ports of China and Japan, our army to our extremest frontiers, the music of our industries to cease; and the faith of a loyal people in the perpetuity of the republic was allowed to faint amid the din of mobs and the threats of secession.

FOOTNOTES:

[36] There were nearly 500 slaves held in Northern States not placed in this census.