longed, and proved the means of extending that jealousy and making it more intense.

3. Was the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, which was the great measure of General PIERCE'S Administration so far as sectional interests were concerned, a judicious measure? It seemed to be the occasion of aggravating, rather than of diminishing the sectional difficulties and the sectional hatred. But if another course had been taken, it might have proved the occasion of as great or even greater sectional difficulties and sectional hatred. In this latter case, perhaps, there might not have been an opportunity to ring the changes upon the phrases, the "traitor DOUGLAS," the "Kansas swindle." There might not have been so much blackguardism and disgraceful personalities in Congress, or as much ruffianism and bad blood generated in the States, or as much blood shed in the territory, or as many dragon's teeth sown broadcast over the land which have since started up armed men.

But when we undertake to judge of the comparative wisdom of two measures, one of which has been adopted, simply on the ground of results, we are in danger of running into error for the reason that one term of the comparison is wanting. One class of results we never can know, namely, the results of the measure that was not adopted. Human passions are refractory subjects to deal with, especially as exhibited in two great political parties, jealous of each other, each intent on the acquisition of political power, and they will often practically convert the wisest measures into causes of national arrogance and injury After the passage of the Kansas and Nebraska bill, if things had taken their natural course, and men had emigrated westward according to the more general practice along the same parallels of latitude; if there had not been any unnatural stimulus given to emigration by "Emigrant Aid Societies " on the one hand, and "Friendly Societies " on the other; if means had not been adopted to address the combativeness of young men and to inflame their passions and their conscience, and to appeal to their love of gain, and to put arms into their hands, as if they were to go against enemies to win an empire, the results of the repeal of the slavery restriction north of 36° 30′ might have been very different from what they were, and the measure

might in this case have proved by the results to be a wise.

one.

In regard to the application of physical force for correcting the evils of the times connected with slavery, Mr. SEWARD, in his speech delivered at Detroit, speaks in the following judicious terms: "You ask, how are these great evils to be corrected, these great dangers to be avoided? I answer, it is to be done not, as some of you have supposed, by heated debates, sustained by rifles and revolvers at Washington; nor yet by sending armies, and supplies, and Sharp's rifles into Kansas. I condern no necessary exercise of self-defence in any place where public safety is necessary to practice of the real duties of champions of freedom. But this is a contest in which the race is not to the physically swift, nor the battle to those who have the most muscular strength. Least of all is it to be won by retaliation and revenge."

It was unfortunate that the geographical line of 36° 30′, established by the Missouri Compromise, was not made the rule of division afterwards, by being extended to the Pacific Ocean, according to the proposal of Mr. DOUGLAS. It would have prevented the disputes that afterwards arose. This the Northern members repeatedly refused to do. Another mode for settling the difficulty had to be found, namely, the Constitutional mode. If the geographical mode of division adopted in the Compromise of 1820 could not be carried out, then the principles of the Compromise of 1850 had to be applied, namely, the principle of popular sovereignty.

In general, it may be asserted that the Missouri Compromise never ought to have been made; that being made, it ought not to have been repealed; and having been repealed, it ought never to be restored without some modification.

4. It is not known to the writer that any similar "appeal " by members of Congress, while a question was pending, was ever before made to the people of the United States. Neither is it known to the writer that any similar "protest" was ever addressed to Congress by the clergymen of New England, in their professional character, as distinguished from "private citizens."

CHAPTER XV.

JAMES BUCHANAN'S ADMINISTRATION.

MARCH 4, 1857-March 4, 1861.

MR. BUCHANAN was the candidate of the Democratic party throughout both the Northern and the Southern States. Mr. FILLMORE was the candidate of the Union party,' embracing Conservative Whigs and Americans throughout the Northern and the Southern States. JOHN C. FREMONT was the candidate of the Republican party, which was confined mainly to the Northern or non-slaveholding States. This last party grew up. out of the troubles and excitements connected with the settlement of Kansas, and was cemented by a common feeling of opposition to slavery and the common hope of gaining political power. It was composed, in part, of the old Liberty party and of the Freesoil party, and in part of the Abolition wing of the Whig party, and in part of others who were disgusted with the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The origin of the party has been referred to an anti-Nebraska convention held in Auburn, New York, Sept. 27, 1854, which passed the following resolution: "Resolved that we recommend that a convention of Delegates from the Free States, equal in number to their Representatives in Congress, be held in Syracuse, N. Y., on the 4th of July, 1856, to nominate candidates for the Presidency and the Vice-presidency of the United States for the next presidential election." This resolution was adopted by tremendous cheering. It was also moved to call this the "Republican Organization;" which resolution was also carried. A leading member of that same convention declared it to be an object of that Republican party to " employ all constitutional measures to restrain and cripple slavery where it now exists."

The proposed convention was held in Philadelphia, in which only the Free States were represented. Among the Resolutions passed were the two following:

“Resolved, That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislature, of any individual or association of individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained.

"Resolved, That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign power over the Territories of the United States for their government, and that in the exercise of this power it is both the right and the duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism-polygamy and slavery."

I do not quote these resolutions to show their evident inconsistency in admitting the sovereignty of Congress over the Territories, with power to prohibit slavery therein; and then denying the power to legislate slavery into any Territory, but only to exhibit the sectional relations and bearings, and the spirit of the convention. The ends aimed at were sectional, as were the means used, and the spirit manifested, and the men brought forward as candidates.

IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SECTIONAL?

Mr. FILLMORE, in a speech delivered at Albany, in the summer of 1856, not long after his return from abroad, held the following language in relation to the politics of the country, and the approaching election:

"Sir, you have been pleased to say that I have the union of these States at heart. This, sir, is most true; for if there be one object dearer to me than any other it is the unity, prosperity, and glory of this great Republic. I confess frankly, sir, that I fear it is in danger. I say nothing of any particular section, much less of the several candidates before the people. I presume they are all honorable men. But, sir, what do we see? An exasperated state of feeling between the North and the South on the most exciting of all topics, resulting in bloodshed and organized military array. But this is not all, sir. We see a political party presenting candidates for the Presidency

and the Vice-Presidency selected for the first time from the Free States alone, with the avowed purpose of electing these candidates by suffrages from one part of the Union only, to rule over the whole United States.

"Can it be possible that those who are engaged in such a measure can have seriously reflected on the consequences which must inevitably follow in case of success? Can they have the madness or the folly to believe that our Southern brethren would submit to be governed by such a Chief Magistrate? Would he be required to follow the same rule prescribed by those who elected him, in making his appointments? If a man living south of Mason and Dixon's line be not worthy to be President or Vice-President, would it be proper to select one from the same quarter as one of his cabinet council, or to represent the nation in a foreign country, or, indeed, to collect the revenue, or administer the laws of the United States? If not, what new rule is the President to adopt for selection to office, that the people themselves discard in selecting him?

"These are serious but practical questions, and in order to appreciate them fully, it is only necessary to turn the tables upon ourselves, and suppose that the South, having a majority of the electoral votes, should declare that they would only have slave-holders for President and Vice-President, and should select such by their exclusive suffrages to rule over us at the North, do you think we would submit to it? No, not for one moment. And do you believe your Southern brethren less sensible on this subject than you are, or less jealous of their rights? If you do, let me tell you you are certainly mistaken. And therefore you must see, that if this sectional party succeeds, it leads inevitably to the destruction of this beautiful fabric, reared by our forefathers, cemented by their blood, and bequeathed to us as a priceless inheritance.

"I tell you, my friends, that I speak warmly on this subject, for I feel that we are in danger. I am determined to make a clean breast of it. I will wash my hands of the consequences, whatever they may be; and I tell you that we are treading on the brink of a volcano that is liable at any moment to burst forth and overwhelm the nation."

There were many

threats of disunion in case of the election