what probable from the subsequent course of these Whigs. A large portion, if not a majority of them, have since slidden through the avenue of Know-Nothingism into the ranks of the slaveholders, with whom they have, in the last two presidential campaigns, fought valiantly against principles and measures which they had as zealously supported. But whatever may have been the ulterior design of Mr. Fillmore and his friends, the immediate object was evidently a nomination in 1852. And his reward for the abandonment of a noble and long cherished principle, consists in his having been beaten in Convention by Gen. Scott, and thus saved the mortification of a defeat at the polls by such a man as Franklin Pierce; and in the satisfaction of having received the electoral vote of one State, and that a Slave State, in 1856 !

The National Democratic Convention met at Baltimore, on the 1st of June, 1852. On the first ballot, Gen. Cass received 117 votes; James Buchanan, 93; Stephen A. Douglas, 20; Wm L. Marcy, 27. Ballotings were continued on two subsequent days, when, on the 49th ballot, Franklin Pierce, of N. H., received the unanimous vote of the Convention. Wm. R. King, of Alabama, was nominated for Vice-President.

The Whig Convention met at the same place on the 16th of June, and, as the other Convention had been, was in session five days. A platform of principles was adopted, 227 to 60, before any attempt at nomination had been made. Mr. Fillmore received on the first ballot, 132 votes; Gen. Scott, 131; Mr. Webster, 29. Balloting was resumed the next day with the 7th ballot; and on the 53d, the result was, for Scott, 159; Fillmore, 112; Webster, 21. Wm. A. Graham, of N. C., was nominated for Vice-President. Scott and Graham were both declared unanimously nominated. The platforms adopted by the two Conventions were less dissimilar than usual; on the question of Slavery, they were substantially the same. The Democrats resolved to "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 Whigs declared, "That the series of acts of the 31st Congress--the act known as the Fugitive Slave Law included—are received

and acquiesced in by the Whig party of the United States; and we deprecate all further agitation of the question thus settled, as dangerous to our peace; and will discountenance all efforts to continue or renew such agitation whenever, wherever, and 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 adoption of such a platform was the death blow to the Whig party-it was political suicide. The Northern portion of it had been distinguished from their opponents for their advocacy of free speech, free soil, and free labor; and in former National Conventions they had gone no farther than to be silent on the subject of Slavery, as a matter of necessity; but this humiliating bid against the Democrats for Southern votes was more than some Northern Whigs could indorse. Still the contest was spirited, and exhibited a fair vote for their electoral ticket. The aboli

tion vote, however, for Mr. Hale, was more than double that given for Mr. Birney in 1844. Gen. Scott received the electoral votes of Vermont, Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Tennessee, in all 42. Gen. Pierce received the votes of all the other States, 251.

CHAPTER VIII.

Administration of Franklin Pierce.

FRANKLIN PIERCE was inaugurated the 4th of March, 1853. He alluded in his Address to the subject “which had recently agitated the nation." Slavery was recognized by the Constitution; the States where it existed were entitled to efficient remedies to enforce the constitutional provisions; the "compromise measures of 1850" were constitutional, and must be carried into effect; and he said: "I fervently hope that the question is at rest, and that no sectional, or ambitious, or fanatical excitement may again threaten the durability of our institutions, or obscure the light of our prosperity."

The 33d Congress began its 1st session December 5th, 1853. The President, in his Message, again alluded to the late excitement, and spoke of the restoration of "repose and security to the public mind throughout the Confeder acy;" and said "That this repose is to suffer no shock during my official term, if I have power to avert it, those who placed me here may be assured."

On the first day of the session, the day before the delivery of the Message, Senator Dodge, of Iowa, gave notice of a bill to organize the Territory of Nebraska. It was referred to the Committee on Territories, and on the 15th was reported by Mr. Douglas with amendments. Doubts having been expressed whether the amendments repealed the Missouri Compromise, he made a special report on the 4th of January, 1854, so amending the bill as to assert that the said Compromise" was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures,” and to declare the Missouri restriction "inoperative and void."

This declaration was afterwards, on his own motion, struck out, and the following inserted:

Which, (the Missouri Compromise,) being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with Slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850, (commonly called the Compromise Measures,) is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act, not to legislate Slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States."

It is not easy to perceive how any one could sincerely maintain that the Missouri Compromise was, or could have been, repealed by the acts of 1850. It has been observed already, that no intimation to that effect had been made during the debates on them. Mr. Chase, in a speech on his motion to strike out the assertion for which the above was afterward substituted on Mr. Douglas' own motion, denied the truth of the statement. He said that, during the long discussion of these measures in 1850, it was never suggested that they were to supersede the Missouri prohibition. At the last session, (1852-1853,) a Nebraska bill passed the House, came to the Senate, and was reported on by Mr. Douglas, who made a speech in its favor; and in all not a word was said about a repeal by supersedure. The Senator from Missouri, (Mr. Atchison,) had also spoken upon the bill, and had distinctly declared, that the Missouri prohibition was not and could not be repealed. The same bill was introduced by the Senator from Iowa, at the commencement of the present session. Nor had he, nor any other man here, so far as could be judged from any discussion, or statement, or remark, even then received the notion that the Missouri prohibition had been superseded. Nor had Mr. Douglas' own report, made only thirty days ago, (Jan. 4th,) expressed such opinion. Besides all these, said Mr. Chase, the Committee on Territories themselves declared, that it was not wise, nor prudent, nor right to renew the old controversy, and to rouse agitation; but they would abstain from any recommendation of a repeal of the prohibition.

Now let the candid reader, from these facts, judge of the

honesty of a Senator, who had the hardihood to insert in his bill and to advocate the declaration, that the Missouri restriction had been repealed. And the reader is requested particularly to note the fact above stated, that the Committee would not recommend such repeal, as the recommendation would " rouse agitation." And yet, from that day to this, has the Democratic party, from its leaders down to their humblest followers, denounced their opponents as the authors of the agitation! Must not the man be either very dishonest or grossly ignorant, who charges the agitation upon those who have seen fit to resist the long train of flagrant outrages which were for years perpetrated both by our higher "public functionaries" and the "border ruffians," in their attempts to force Slavery into Kansas?

The bill of Mr. Douglas passed the Senate, 37 to 14.

A bill had also been reported in the House, on the same subject, for which the bill of Mr. Douglas was substituted, which passed, 113 to 100. Yeas from the Free States, 44, all Democrats; from the Slave States 69, of whom 12 were Whigs. Nays from Free States, 91, all Whigs, except two or three, who were called Abolitionists; from Slave States, 9-7 Whigs, 2 Democrats. Absent, and not voting, 21.

The Slave Power having now, by the aid of the Democratic party in Congress, headed by a leading Free State Senator, broken down the barrier which had for thirty-four years restricted Slavery below the Compromise line established in 1820, determined to appropriate the Territory to its own use. Meetings were held in various places, some of them attended by leading citizens of Missouri, to devise measures to prevent "abolitionists," (as they termed all the opponents of the extension of Slavery,) from settling in the Territory.

At one of these meetings, the two following resolu tions-similar to those passed at other meetings-were adopted:

"That we will afford protection to no abolitionist as a settler in this Territory.

“That we recognize the institution of Slavery as already existing in this Territory, and advise slaveholders to introduce their property as early as possible."

Before any election had been held, a secret society was