a frank and thoughtful people, the very essence of whose institutions is common participation, common undertaking, and common judgment. So great, however, was the desire of men in those harrowing days to avoid responsibility that this organization assumed alarming proportions and threatened the success of the party which faced present realities. It served a purpose quite different from the one hoped for or contemplated. Whigs and Democrats too obstinate or proud to transfer their allegiance at once to the Republicans took this secret passage, and finally emerged thence into good standing with the anti-slavery party, without the shame of having changed their coats in broad daylight.

This organization appeared in 1852. At first it simply interrogated candidates, but in 1854 it masqueraded as a political party, and for a few years played its rôle not without some success. In some of the Eastern States, especially, it held its head high; and in the Border States it lingered long, until Western Republicanism with its sense of present duty, sincerity, and actuality shamed it out of sight. The real name adopted by these whispering politicians was as silly as their purpose. "The Sons of '76, or the Order of the Star-Spangled Banner," was the title used in its inner mysterious circles. The sobriquet, "Know-Nothing," arose from the answers of its members, who uniformly replied, “I don't know," to all inquiries as to the name and purpose of the organization; only those who had taken the higher degrees knew its more serious intents or how ambitiously it had been christened. No party can hope to succeed in the United States which has but one aim, and that, too, not a political one. The success of the Republican party has often been cited to disprove such a statement and to furnish inspiration for new movements. The historic analogy is deceptive. The Republican party, although inspired with a truly moral purpose, was a political party, with a well-known and welldefined policy in affairs of state, and not simply a com

bination of enthusiasts burning with zeal for the realization of a single idea. The Know-Nothing party had no political virility. "It would seem," sneered Greeley, "as devoid of the elements of persistence as an anti-cholera or an anti-potato-rot party would be. . . ."

66

The campaign of 1856 followed close upon these exciting events. The Democratic National Convention met in Cincinnati in June. Buchanan had the lead from the start, and was nominated. In answer to a letter signed by Andrew F. Webster and others in November of 1855, Cass Isaid that he did not desire to have his name used in the convention; but some of the delegates insisted on voting for him. He received only five votes on the first ballot, and at no time showed great strength, though retaining a few faithful adherents to the end. John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky was nominated as vice-president. The convention adopted a platform on the old lines, repudiating "all sectional parties . . . whose avowed purpose, if consummated, must end in civil war and disunion.” “Noninterference was once more proclaimed the sovereign remedy. The American party put Fillmore in nomination, and he attracted the few Whigs who still answered to the name. The Republicans, holding their first national convention at Philadelphia, selected as their candidates John C. Frémont of California and William L. Dayton of New Jersey. The platform was definite and decided. It recounted the crimes against Kansas, and advocated its immediate admission as a State under a free constitution; it denied "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," and proclaimed its belief that Congress had "sovereign power over the Territories of the United States.' The issue between the two great parties was sharply drawn. One announced that Congress had authority over the Territories, and was in duty bound to exercise it for the prevention of slavery. The other advocated the uniform

application of the "democratic principle" of non-interference in "the organization of the Territories and the admission of new States."

The campaign was one of the most serious, earnest, and enthusiastic in our history. Frémont, because of his romantic career and personal charms, was easily converted into an ideal champion, strongly appealing to the imagination and the affection of the vigorous young party of freedom. Everywhere in the North went up the rallying cry, "Free soil, free speech, free men, and Frémont." The times were not yet ripe for complete success. The Democratic party gained the day, carrying every Southern State save Maryland, which gave itself up to Know-Nothingism. But such a victory was the victory of Pyrrhus. The Republicans cast more votes in the Free States than did the Democrats. In the East only Pennsylvania and New Jersey, in the West only Illinois, Indiana and California, cast their electoral votes for the Democratic candidate. In the first of these alone, Buchanan's own State, did the Democrats outnumber the Republicans and Know-Nothings combined. The "sectional party" exhibited a wonderful vigor. The threat was often heard in the campaign that its success meant the separation of the Union. From the time of this election that was a standing menace.

A. C. McLaughlin: Lewis Cass in the American Statesmen Series, Vol. XXIV, pp. 300-323. Houghton Mifflin Co., 1899.

QUESTIONS

How did the repeal of the Missouri Compromise reopen the question of the extension of slavery? Explain why it drove many of the Democrats and Whigs, who had considered the Compromise of 1850 as final, into a new party. Describe the meeting at Ripon, Wisconsin, March 20, to illustrate this point. The organization of the Republican party in Michigan. Explain the statement that the new party was the party of nationalism and freedom. Why did it appeal to the men of the Northwest especially? Why did the East hang back in the formation of the new party? How was the name Republican adopted? Show how the vote in the election of

1854 illustrated the mixture of Northern and Southern elements in the population of Indiana and Illinois. What were the principles of the Know Nothing party? How did its organization differ from that of other political parties? Explain why the secret element in its organization insured its ultimate failure? How did its existence seem for a time to endanger the development of the Republican party? Explain how it became a halfway house for those transferring from the Whig and Democratic parties to the Republicans. What was the platform of the Republican party in 1856? Who were its candidates? Since this book was written, an eastern man, Roosevelt, was nominated and elected by the Republicans (1904).

XLI

"A HOUSE DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF
CANNOT STAND"

This speech was delivered by Abraham Lincoln at Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858, at the close of the Republican State Convention which had endorsed Lincoln as the party candidate for United States Senator. The speech strikes the keynote of Lincoln's senatorial campaign.

The charge that the Kansas-Nebraska Act was part of a deliberate conspiracy to turn the territories over to slavery was advanced generally by the Republicans; for instance, Seward claimed that the Supreme Court had been packed by the proslavery party to secure proslavery decisions similar to the Dred Scott decision. Such a conspiracy is improbable. It is, however, conceded by most historians that Chief Justice Taney in his opinion decided in favor of slavery points of law which were not directly brought up by the case, and which, accordingly, he should not have touched on.

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention: If we could first know where we are and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased,

but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall-but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South..

Have we no tendency to the latter condition?

Let anyone who doubts carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination - piece of machinery, so to speak compounded of the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action among its chief architects, from the beginning.

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States by State constitutions, and from most of the national territory by congressional prohibition. Four days later commenced the struggle which ended in repealing that congressional prohibition. This opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained.

But, so far, Congress only had acted; and an indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable to save the point already gained and give chance for more.

This necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of squatter sovereignty," otherwise called "sacred right of self-government," which latter phrase, though express

66