York; David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania; Jacob Brinkerhoff and James J. Faran, of Ohio, and Robert McClelland, of Michigan. The result of their deliberations was the framing of a clause to be added to the bill, providing, "That, as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty that may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the Executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except for crime, whereof the party shall first be duly convicted."

David Wilmot was then only 33 years old, and was serving his first term in Congress. He was not among the most prominent of those present at the conference, but the proviso was entrusted to him for presentation, and made his name known wherever the history of the contest that followed was read. In House Committee of the Whole he moved the addition of this proviso to the first section of the bill, and it was adopted by vote of 80 to 64, only three members from the free states voting against it. The bill, as amended, was reported to the House, and upon its passage, Mr. Rathbun, of New York, moved the previous question. Mr. Tibbals, of Kentucky, moved to lay the bill on the table, and the affirmative votes on this question showed that the Southerners were willing to sacrifice the whole measure rather than to accept this proviso.

The motion to table was lost by vote of 93 to 79, among the latter being Stephen A. Douglas and John A. McClernand, Democrats, of Illinois, and Robert C. Schenck, Whig, of Ohio. The bill then passed, with the proviso, by a vote of 85 to 80. Henry Grider, Whig, of Kentucky, was the only member south of Mason and Dixon's line who voted for it. Among the prominent Northern Whigs who voted for it were Washington Hunt, of New York; Robert C. Winthrop, of Massachusetts; Truman Smith, of Connecticut; Joseph R. Ingersoll and James Pollock, of Pennsylvania. Among the prominent Democrats who voted the same way were Hannibal Hamlin, of Maine; Preston King, of New York; John Wentworth, of Illinois; Allen G. Thurman, of Ohio, and Robert McClelland, of Michigan. The last two of these remained Democrats throughout their political careers. Most of the others afterwards joined the Republican party. The bill was reported to the Senate toward the close of the session. A motion was made to strike out the proviso, and on this motion Senator

John Davis, of Massachusetts, talked against time until the hour for adjournment, both bill and proviso thus falling together.

Before the next session of Congress the same methods of persuasion and of threat, that the Pro-Slavery leaders so often found effective in those days with Northern men of weak fibre, prevailed again. The appropriation was increased from $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 and was voted without the obnoxious proviso.

Of the next Congress Robert C. Winthrop, Whig, was chosen Speaker by one majority. A resolution was offered in this Congress by Harvey Putnam, of New York, embodying the substance of the Wilmot Proviso, but it was tabled by a vote of 105 yeas to 93 nays. Although the Whigs had accepted the doctrine of the proviso, the result of this vote was not at all surprising. In the first place their bare majority of one, while sufficient to secure the organization of the House, was not sufficient to secure the passage of any disputed resolution or bill. Those of the Whig leaders who were inclined to consult expediency soon recognized the danger, that if they persisted in any course of opposition to slavery aggression, it would give the whole South to the Democracy. Throughout the whole of this stage of the controversy, covering a period of several years, this fear was constantly before their eyes, and fully accounted for a timidity which sometimes amounted to cowardice. In this case,

also, the fact that the Whigs had organized the House, and were, at least theoretically, responsible for its acts, undoubtedly deterred some Democrats from further supporting the doctrine contained in the proviso. Beyond this, the cry which some of the Southerners were always ready to make, that opposition to their desires or plans would endanger the Union, was used with effect.

Although this Congress did not adopt the Wilmot Proviso nor any other measures of special note, it served as a school of instruction to some men who obtained a clear insight into Southern plans, and who afterwards became conspicuous in the Republican party. One of these was Abraham Lincoln who, now for the only time, appeared in Congress. He learned much here, acquired a nickname and ranked well with the earnest, Anti-Slavery Whigs, but accomplished nothing that gave indications of his future greatness. He gained his nickname through a series of questions which he proposed asking the executive. President Polk had, in his message, sought to convey the impression that the Mexican war was undertaken to repel invasion, and to avenge the killing of American citizens upon

our own soil. Mr. Lincoln attacked this position in a series of resolutions, the first three clauses of which asked the President to inform the House "Whether the spot on which the blood of our citizens was shed, as in his message declared, was or was not, within the territory of Spain, until the Mexican revolution; (2) Whether that spot is, or is not, within the territory wrested from Spain by the revolutionary government of Mexico; (3) Whether that spot is, or is not, within a settlement of people, which settlement has existed ever since long before the Texas revolution, and until its inhabitants fled before the approach of the United States army." The resolutions, which contained five other questions, were supported by Mr. Lincoln in the first speech which he made in Congress, but they were tabled. His frequent use of the word "spot" in the resolutions and speech, gave him the nickname of "Spot Lincoln."

The House of this Congress included in its membership the following who were afterwards prominent in the Republican party: Jacob Collamer and George P. Marsh, of Vermont; Amos Abbott, Julius Rockwell and Horace Mann, of Massachusetts; James Dixon, John A. Rockwell and Truman Smith, of Connecticut; Horace Greeley and Washington Hunt, of New York; William A. Newell, of New Jersey; David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania; Robert C. Schenck and Joshua R. Giddings, of Ohio; Richard W. Thompson, of Indiana; John Went worth, of Illinois; Kinsley S. Bingham, of Michigan, and Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee.

The following senators, who were afterwards conspicuous in Republican ranks, were also in the Thirtieth Congress: Hannibal Hamlin, of Maine; John P. Hale, of New Hampshire; Roger S. Baldwin, of Connecticut; John A. Dix, of New York; William L. Dayton, of New Jersey, and Simon Cameron, of Pennsylvania.

In addition to Mr. Bingham, Michigan had Robert McClelland and Charles E. Stuart, in the House, with Thomas Fitzgerald and Alpheus Felch in the Senate. Among the prominent Southerners in the Senate were Wm. Rufus King, of Alabama; John M. Clayton, of Delaware; David L. Yulee, of Florida; Herschell V. Johnson and John M. Berrien, of Georgia; Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland; Jefferson Davis and Henry Stuart Foote, of Mississippi; David R. Atchison and Thomas H. Benton, of Missouri; Willie P. Magnum, of North Carolina; A. P. Butler and John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina; Sam Houston, of Texas; James M. Mason and R. M. T. Hunter, of Virginia.

During this Congress the slavery question came up in a number

of forms. One was in the shape of a resolution directing a committee to present a bill abolishing the slave trade in the District of Columbia. To this Mr. Lincoln moved an amendment, instructing the committee to introduce a bill abolishing slavery itself in the District. Repeated efforts were also made to apply the principle of the Wilmot Proviso to Oregon, and to what was afterwards the State of California. None of these measures, however, came to a conclusive vote. They were not even presented until the second session of the Congress, after the Presidential election of 1848. In truth, although individual members could not always be repressed, the Whig leaders were not at all desirous of having the slavery question injected into the Presidential campaign. They feared that a strong assertion of their anti-extension principles would divide their party in the South, and they knew that any pro-slavery leanings would divide it in the North. Besides this, judging from the probabilities of party success, they had firmer ground to stand upon. The tariff had been the main issue in 1844, and the Democrats had carried two or three states, notably Pennsylvania, and with them the election, on the false cry of "Polk and Dallas, and the tariff of '42." Many of their speakers had given the pledge that this tariff should be retained. The pledge was broken, and the tariff of 1846, which was a virtual abandonment of the protective principle, was adopted. The fact that this act was carried in the Senate by the casting vote of Vice-President Dallas, of Pennsylvania, made it all the more galling. Upon this subject the party could be united, if the slavery question could be avoided as a cause of disruption. They also felt that they were on the popular side of another important economic question. As a party they favored a policy of government construction or aid to internal improvements, while the Democratic leaders were either hostile to such improvements, or vacillating on the subject. Their party resolutions were generally hostile to them. Besides this the vote on Mr. Putnam's resolution, asserting the principle of the Wilmot Proviso, was too conclusive to afford any encouragement for a successful fight on this question in this Congress. In view of all these considerations little real opposition was made to ratifying the Guadalupe-Hildalgo treaty, which ter minated the Mexican war, and Congress voted the fifteen million dollars asked for payment of the ceded territory, without any stipulation upon the subject of slavery.

By this time the Southerners felt very sure that they were secure from any further assertion of the doctrines contained in the Wilmot

Proviso, as is shown by an incident connected with the negotiations for peace. The Mexican government proposed, as part of the treaty, a guaranty from the United States that slavery should not be reestablished in any of the ceded territory, but the American Commissioner, Nicholas T. Trist, replied that if the territory "were increased ten-fold in value, and, in addition to that were covered a foot thick with pure gold, on the single condition that slavery should forever be excluded, he would not entertain the offer for a moment, not even think of sending it to the government, for no American President would dare to send such a treaty to the Senate."

It was under these conditions that the Whig National Convention met in Philadelphia, June 7, 1848. In a whirl of military enthusiasm, which was entirely out of keeping with the attitude of the party as a whole upon the Mexican war, it nominated Gen. Zachary Taylor for President, much to the disgust and wrath of Daniel Webster, who sought the nomination for himself.

The convention even found it necessary to vouch for the Whig standing of its candidate which it did in the third resolution, as follows: "General Taylor, in saying that, had he voted in 1844, he would have voted the Whig ticket, gives us the assurance and no better is needed from a consistent and truth-seeking man-that his heart was with us at the crisis of our political destiny, when Henry Clay was our candidate, and when, not only were Whig principles well defined and clearly asserted, but Whig measures depended upon success. The heart that was with us then is with us now, and we have a soldier's word of honor, and a life of public and private virtue as the security."

Every other plank in the platform was almost wholly taken up with some form of eulogy upon General Taylor. But upon real issues it was the most non-committal of any pronouncement ever made by any political party in a National campaign. Although it contained seven resolutions it really said but little more than the Whig convention of December 4, 1839, which nominated Harrison for President, and presented no platform at all. The nominee for Vice-President was Millard Fillmore, of New York.

The Democratic Convention was held about a fortnight earlier in Baltimore. It nominated Lewis Cass, of Michigan, for President, and William O. Butler, of Kentucky, for Vice-President. Its platform was long and sufficiently explicit. It defended the Mexican war; opposed taking from the President the veto power; denied the