Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

NON-INTERFERENCE BY CONGRESS WITH SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. ...VARD COLLEGE LIBRARY

JUN 30 1915,

CHARLES ELLIOTT PERKINS

SPEECH

OF

Hon. S. A. DOUGLAS, of Illinois,

IN THE SENATE, MAY 15 AND 16, 1860.

The Senate having under consideration the resolutions submitted by Mr. DAVIS on the 1st of March, relative to the relations of the States, and the rights of persons and property in the Territories, and the duty of protecting slave property in the Territories, when a necessity for co doing shall exist→

Mr. DOUGLAS said:

Mr. PRESIDENT: I have no taste and very little respect for that species of discussion which consists in assaults on the personal or political position of any Senator. I have no desire to elevate myself by attempting to pull down others, nor to place any Senator in a false position before his constituency. I have no assault to make apon any body; no impeachment of the record of any gentleman. I am willing that each Senator shall stand before the country and his own constituency on the record which he has made for himself. I do not complain of so much of the speech of the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. DAVIS] as arraigns my political position, for he seems to have deemed it necessary to draw a parallel between his opinions and my own, as we have been actors for many years in the same scenes, involving the same issue that is now presented, he taking the one side and I the other. In self-defence it may be necessary for me also to refer to the position of that Senator at various periods, with a view of illustrating my own position, by way of contrast, as we always differed on an isolated point.

I shall not indulge to-day in the discussion of any abstract theories of government, much less in the discussion of the legal questions which have lately been attempted to be forced on the Democratic party as political issues. On a former occasion, when forced into a discussion by the Attorney-General of the United States, the law officer of the Government, I did amuse myself in the discussion of certain legal propositions; not because they had any thing to do with the political issues before the country, but because that law officer seemed to have no official duties to

occupy his time, and I had the leisure to reply

to him.

The Secretary read the following extracts from Mr. DAVIS's speech of May 7:

"It is well known to those who have been associated with me in the two Houses of Congress that, from the commence ment of the question, I have been the determined opponent of what is called squatter sovereignty. I never gave it coun tenance, and I am now least of all disposed to give it quarter In 1848 it made its appearance for good purposes. It was ushered in by a great and good man. He brought it forward because of that distrust which he had in the capacity of the Government to bear the rude shock to which it was exposed His conviction, no doubt, to some extent sharpened and directed his patriotism, and his apprehension led him to a conclusion to which, I doubt not, to-day he adheres as te naciously as ever, but from which it was my fortune, good or ill, to dissent when his letter was read to me in manu script; I being, together with some other persons, asked whether or not it should be sent. At the first blush, I be lieved it to be a fallacy, a fallacy fraught with mischief; that it escaped an issue which was upon us which it was our duty to meet; that it escaped it by a side path, which led to danger. I thought it a fallacy which would surely be explod 1. I doubted then, and still more for some time afterwards, when held to a dread responsibility for the position which I occupied,-I doubted whether I should live to see that fallacy exploded. It has been. Let Kansas speak,the first great field on which the trial was made. What was the consequence? The Federal Government withdrawing con trol, leaving the contending sections, excited to the highest point upon this question, each to send forth its army. Kansas became the battle-field, and Kansas the cry which well nigh led to civil war. This was the first fruit. More deadly than

the fatal upas, its effect was not limited to the mere spot of

ground on which the dew fell from its leaves, but it spread throughout the United States; it kindled all which had been collected for years of inflammable material. It was owing to the strength of our Government and the good sense of the

quiet masses of the people that it did not wrap our country in one widespread conflagration.

"What right had Congress then, or what right has it now, to abdicate any power conferred upon it as trustee of the States?"

*

*

**

*

"In 1850, following the promulgation of this notion of squatter sovereignty, we had the idea of non-intervention

introduced into the Senate of the United States, and it is strange to me how that idea has expanded. It seems to have been more malleable than gold, to have been hammered out to an extent that covers boundless regions undiscovered by those who proclaimed the doctrine. Non-intervention then meant, as the debates show, that Congress should

neither prohibit nor establish slavery in the Territories.

That I hold to now. Will any one suppose that Congress then meant by non-intervention that Congress should legis the very acts which they passed at the time refute it. There late in no regard in respect to property in slaves? Why, sir,

The principal points to which I shall direct my remarks to-day, and the sole cause of my making any speech, will be found in certain extracts from the speech of the Senator from Mississippi, a few days since. I have put three extracts upon paper together, and will send them to the Secretary's desk, that they may be read. They will constitute the chief text to which my they will declare it null and void."

remarks will be addressed.

is the fugitive slave law, and that abomination of law which assumed to confiscate the property of a citizen who should attempt to bring it into this District with intent to remove it to sell it at some other time to some other place. Congress acted then upon the subject, acted beyond the limit of its authority, as I believed, confidently believed; and if ever that act comes before the Supreme Court, I feel satisfied that

[ocr errors]

*

By what species of legerdemain this doctrine of non

Printed and Sold at $2.50 per 100, by MURPHY & Co., 182 Baltimore Street, Baltimore.

1

1860

intervention has come to extend to a paralysis of the Government on the whole subject, to exclude the Congress from any kind of legislation whatever, I am at a loss to conceive. Certain it is, it was not the theory of that period, and it was not contended for in all the controversies we had then. I had no faith in it then; I considered it a sham; I considered that the duty of Congress ought to be performed; that the issue was before us, and ought to be met, the sooner the better; that truth would prevail if presented to the people; borne down to-day, it would rise up to-morrow; and I stood then on the same general plea which I am making now. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] and myself differed at that time, as I presume we do now. We differed radically then. He opposed every proposition which I made: voting against a proposition to give power to a Territorial Legislature to protect slave property which should be taken there; voting against a proposition to remove the obstruction of the Mexican laws; voting for a proposition to exclude the conclusion that slavery might be taken there; voting for the proposition expressly to prohibit its introduction; voting for the proposition to keep in force the laws of Mexico which prohibited it. Some of these votes, it is but just to him I should say, I think he gave perforce of his instructions; but others of them, I think it is equally fair to assert, were out

side of the limits of any instructions under which he acted. "In 1854, advancing in this same general line of thought, the Congress, in enacting Territorial bills, left out a provision which had always before entered them, requiring the Legislature of the Territory to submit its laws to the Congress of the United States. It was sometimes assumed that this was the recognition of the power of the Territorial Legislature to exercise plenary legislation, as might that of a State. It will be remembered that when our present form of Government was instituted there were those who believed the Federal Government should have the power of revision over the laws of a State. It was long and ably contended for in the convention which formed the Constitution; and one of the compromises which was made was, escaping from that, to lodge the power in the Supreme Court to decide all questions of constitutional law.

.

But did this omission of the obligation to send here the laws of the Territories work this grant of power to the Territorial Legislature? Certainly not; and that it did not is evinced by the fact that, at a subsequeut period, the organic act was revised, because the legislation of the Territory of Kansas was offensive to the Congress of the United States. Congress could not abdicate its authority; it could not abandon its trust; and when it omitted the requirement that the laws should be sent back, it created a casus which required it to act without the official records being laid before it, as they would have been if the obligation had existed. That was all the difference."

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President

Mr. DAVIS. With the permission of the Senator from Illinois, I wish to say, that if he had submitted to me those extracts as the text upon which he was going to speak, I should have made some verbal corrections, which would have more clearly expressed my opinion. However, as he has joined issue with me upon the report as it stands, let it be; but, with his permission, I wish to say a word in relation to a point which will not at all affect his discourse, but which bears upon another. It is with regard to a gentleman referred to there as a good and great man,-and I cordially believe him both; the history of the times has enabled every one to know that I referred to Mr. Cass. I wish to say that an omission at the close of a sentence, after the word "sent," may leave the inference that the letter was submitted to know whether it was to be sent to the person to whom it was addressed. would be an error if any one supposed so. was read to certain gentlemen to ascertain if, in their view, it should be sent out as an expression of our opinions, as an exposition of the party creed, or the opinions of the party at that time. And so, in relation to the adherence of that good and great man to the opinion he then expressed, it implies, what I believe, that he adheres to that opinion as an abstr nion still; but I should

It

It

do great injustice to him if I left any one to suppose that I thought that he, in defiance of the decision of the Supreme Court, still adhered to that opinion, and had not yielded his entire and implicit acquiescence in the decision which the court has given upon the point.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I have yielded to the Senator from Mississippi to make his explanation, and I am gratified that he has had an opportunity to make it. I did not submit these extracts to him, for I took it for granted that he was correctly reported in the Globe, which I found on our tables. I heard no intimation from him that he had been misreported.

Mr. DAVIS. I did not say so. I never revise the manuscript of the reporters.

ཝཱ ཙསྒྱུ

Mr. DOUGLAS. I only desire now to say to the Senator that, while I yielded to this.expla nation, I shall be obliged to him and to all others if they will allow me to go through with my remarks without interruption, (as I did in his case,) for the reason that I have a great deal of ground to travel over to-day in this debate, which will exhaust my strength, and, I fear, your patience; and he will have an opportunity of replying to me when I shall be through. I intend to treat him fairly, kindly, and courteously, in all that I have to say, as I doubt not it ever has been his intention to treat me in debate.

With this explanation, I shall proceed to remark, that the facts stated in the copious extracts from the Senator's speech, which have been, read, conclusively show that the doctrine of squatter sovereignty, or popular sovereignty, or non-intervention, as the Senator has indiffer ently styled it in different parts of his speech, did not originate with me, in its application to the Territories of the United States; that it was distinctly proclaimed by General Cass in what is known as his Nicholson letter; that the issue was then distinctly presented to the country in the contest of 1848; that General Cass became the nominee of the Democratic party with a full knowledge of his opinions upon the question of non-intervention; that he was supported by the party on that issue; that the same doctrine of non-intervention was incorporated into the com promise measures of 1850, in opposition to the views and efforts of the Senator from Mississippi, and in harmony with the views and efforts of myself; that it was reaffirmed by the Democratio party in the Baltimore convention of 1852; that General Pierce was elected President of the United States upon this same doctrine of nonintervention; that it was again affirmed by the Congress of the United States, in the KansasNebraska bill of 1854; and that it had its first trial, and yielded its first fruits, upon the plains of Kansas in 1855 and 1856.

These facts are distinctly and positively af firmed by the Senator from Mississippi. These facts conclusively disprove and refute the charges so often made in the Senate Chamber within the last year, so erroneously and so unjustly made against me, that I have changed my opinions in regard to this question since 1856. The Senator from Mississippi has done, me a service; he has searched the records with a view to my condemnation, and the result of his researches is to pro

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Auce the most conclusive and incontestable evidence that this charge of having changed my opinions on this question, and which was made the pretext for my removal from the Committee on Territories, was not true. He tells you frankly, what the world knew before, that he had always opposed this doctrine of non-intervention; that he and I always differed upon that point. He always regarded it as a fallacy; I as a sound principle. He claims that, after it has yielded its blighting effects upon the plains of Kansas, the Supreme Court has come to the rescue, and that he now is triumphantly sustained in his opposition to this doctrine in 1848, 1850, and 1851. Sir, whether we have been sustained and our consistency vindicated is not so material as to find out which is right in the point at issue, then and now, between the Senator from Mississippi and myself.

I propose, in the first place, to invite the attention of the Senate to the fact, that the doctrine of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Territories was brought distinctly before the American people, and especially before the Democratic party, in 1847, with a view to its decision by the convention of the party that was to assemble at Baltimore in 1848. The Senator has referred to the letter of General Cass, known as the Nicholson letter, which bears date the 24th of December, 1847. He tells the Senate (what most of us knew personally and privately who were here at that day) that that letter, in manuscript, was passed around among southern and northwestern Democrats, to receive their sanction before its publication. The letter was prepared, and in private circulation, for days and weeks before the date which it now bears in its publication. The Senator from Mississippi informs us-and unquestionably with entire accuracy of recollection that he, at the time, dissented from the doctrine of non-intervention, as stated in the Nicholson letter. Other southern Senators, now opposed to me at any rate, other leading distinguished politicians, I will not speak of Senators would not be able to say that, when it was submitted to them for their approval or disapproval, they condemned it as frankly as the Senator from Mississippi, did. During this period, while this letter was being privately circulated, to see how far it would receive the sanction of the representative men of the Democratic party, the especial friend, the right bower of General Cass in that great contest-Mr. Daniel S. Dickinson, of New York-presented to the Senate two resolutions embodying the same doctrine. I will ask my friend from Ohio to read those two resolutions.

Mr. PUGH read as follows:

"Resolved, That true policy requires the Government of the United States to strengthen its political relations upon this continent by the annexation of such contiguous territory as may conduce to that end and can be justly obtained, and that, neither in such acquisition nor in the territorial organization thereof, can any conditions be constitutionally imposed, or institutions be provided for or established, inconsistent with the rights of the people thereof to form a free sovereign State, with the powers and privileges of the originai members of the Confederacy.

"Besolved, That in organizing a territorial government for territory belonging to the United States, the principles of

selt-government upon which our federative system resta will be best promoted, the true spirit and meaning of the Constitution be observed, and the Confederacy strengthened, by leaving all questions concerning the domestic policy therein to the Legislature chosen by the people thereof."Congressional Globe, vol. 18, p. 21.

Mr. DOUGLAS. It will be observed that

these resolutions of Mr. Dickinson, which were presented to the Senate on the 14th of December, 1847, assert distinctly the very doctrine which the Senator from Mississippi then denounced and now denounces, and which I then and ever since affirmed, and now affirm. I am not aware that Mr. Dickinson and General Cass have ever modified their views, much less dişclaimed the doctrines of these resolutions and of the Nicholson letter. Yet my record on this question is held up to the Senate and to the country as if I stood alone in the Democratic party-a heretic then, a heretic now-and was therefore not entitled to fellowship in the regular Democratic organization. I am aware, sir, that some of the people and some of the States of this Union now hold different doctrines from those they formerly held upon this subject of non-intervention-or squatter sovereignty, as the Senator is pleased to call it, for he uses them as convertible and synonymous termsnon-intervention being the shibboleth of the party, and popular sovereignty, or squatter sovereignty, an incident or result only, but not the test, of political orthodoxy.

I will call attention upon this point to a resolution adopted by the Legislature of Florida, passed in the Senate of that State on the 28th of December, 1847, and in the House of Representatives on the 29th of December, 1847, and approved by the Governor on the 30th of December of the same year. I find these resolutions in the code of laws of Florida, published by authority of the Legislature of that State. I am aware that Florida subsequently passed resolutions asserting doctrines inconsistent with these; but I cite these resolutions as evidence that the doctrine of non-intervention, for which I am now arraigned, was not deemed to be a political heresy at that day. It may not be improper here to remark that, during this session of Congress, I received a letter from a State Senator in Florida enclosing resolutions which he had introduced for the repeal of those resolutions, and denouncing the resolutions, which I will read, as being unsound, revolutionary, unconstitutional, dangerous to the rights of the South, and denouncing me by name as the great author of all this, mischief that was to strike down southern rights. I will ask my friend from Ohio to read the second and third resolutions, which bear particularly on this pointfor the first only relates to the Wilmot provisoin order to show what the Legislature of Florida thought and said in 1847 upon this subject. Mr. PUGH read as follows:

"SEC. 2. Be it further resolved. That, in the opinion of this General Assembly, a just and correct interpretation of the Constitution of the United States rests in the territorial as well as the State Legislature's exclusive jurisdiction over the persons of individuals within their respective limits; and that it would be arbitrary, unjust, and a usurpation of power on the part of Congress to annex conditions to the admission of a State into the Union, or the annexing a Territory thereto, involving the right of jurisdiction in Congress over this sub

Ject, which exclusively belongs to the Territory itself before Its admission into the Union, and to the State afterwards. "SEC. 3. Be it further resolved, That it would be an arbitrary usurpation of power on the part of Congress to exclude slavery from any such territory as may hereafter be acquired by the United States, either by way of indemnity, by conquest, or by purchas3; that the people of the Territory alone have the right to determine upon this subject; and it is for them, while they remain a Territory, and for the State, when they shall ask to be admitted as a state, to say whether the institution of slavery shali exist within the limits of such Territory or State; they having, by a just interpretation of the Constitution, exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter within their limits."-(Laws of the State of Florida, 1845 to 1849, page 83.)

Mr. DOUGLAS. It will be observed that in these resolutions the State of Florida declared that, by a correct construction of the Constitution of the United States, a Territorial Legislature, while in a territorial condition, had the exclusive right to determine for itself whether slavery should or should not exist within the limits of such Territory. As I have already remarked, Florida subsequently changed her policy on that subject. If, however, she solemnly proclaimed that doctrine to the world, in the name of a sovereign State of this Union, telling the northern Democracy on what terms and conditions Florida would hold fellowship with them, and we accepted the doctrine, I should think she could forgive us for remaining faithful to her creed, if we can forgive her for abandoning it. I arraign no man; I much less arraign a sovereign State. She had the right to proclaim her opinions; and if subsequently she came to the conclusion that they were wrong, she ought to change them; but having proclaimed them, and then changed them, it seems to me a little indulgence, even "quarter," should be granted by Florida to those who stand by Florida's original position.

Florida was not the only Southern State whose Democracy held these doctrines in 1847, prior to the nomination of General Cass for the Presidency. I find here some resolutions adopted by the Democratic State convention of Georgia, held at Milledgeville, in December, 1847. I have not the entire proceedings. I have seen these resolutions in several Georgia papers recently, with the statement of the gentleman who either reported them or concurred in their passage, and with a further statement that these resolutions were copied and adopted by several State conventions in other Southern States at that period. On that newspaper authority, and that alone, I read these resolutions, so far as I find them published in the papers, bearing on this question. It is proper to state that in the proceedings of the convention it appears that certain gentlemen, eminent for ability, eminent for their devotion to southern rights, eminent for their position in the Democratic party, were present, and concurred in these proceedings. Among these I find F. H. Cone, R. A. L. Atkinson, Jesse Carter, W. S. Johnson, Robert Griffin, Thomas Hilliard, W. W. Wiggins, E. W. Chastain, W. J. Lawton, S. W. Colbert, and D. Phillips. I find, also, Hon. Mr. Jackson, member of Congress, and Hon. Lucius Q. C. Lamar, now a representative in Congress from Mississippi, but then a citizen of Newton county, Georgia. I will ask my friend from Ohio to

read these Georgia resolutions, which were good Democracy at that day, and were copied and adopted by several other Southern States in their Democratic State conventions. Mr. PUGH read as follows:

"Resolved, That Congress possesses no power under the Constitution to legislate in any way or manner in relation to the institution of slavery. It is the constitutional right of every citizen to remove and settle with his property in any of the Territories of the United States.

Congress to establish the institution of slavery in any of the "Resolved, That the people of the South do not ask of Territories that may be acquired by the United States; they simply require that the inhabitants of each Territory shall be left free to determine for themselves whether the institution of slavery shall or shall not form a part of their social system."

Mr. DOUGLAS. There again, sir, we find the doctrine of non-intervention distinctly defined by the Democratic State convention of Georgia. Two distinct propositions are affirmed; one is, that Congress has no constitutional power to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the Territories. That, I should think, was pretty distinct non-intervention. You cannot legislate against it; you cannot legislate for it; you cannot touch the subject at all in the Territories. Now, sir, it may be, and unquestionably is, true that some of the eminent men who participated in that State convention of Georgia have since changed their opinions upon this subject, and now believe just as conscientiously that it is both within the power and the duty of Congress to legislate for the protection of slavery in the Territories, as they then believed it was unconstitutional for Congress to do so. All I have to say of those eminent gentlemen, for whose talents I have great respect, is, that if I can forgive them for having abandoned the very doctrine that they invited us of the North to rally in support of, I think they may pardon us for remaining faithful to that doctrine which they and we agreed to stand by.

In pursuing this subject, I am afraid that I shall become tedious to the Senate; but still I feel it my duty to present full evidence upon this point, showing that the Democratic party, from 1848 to this day, have stood pledged, as a cardinal article in their creed, to the doctrine of non-intervention; and for that purpose I shall be compelled to have various extracts, and some long ones, read, and perhaps to be somewhat tedious in the exposition of the subject.

I have already shown on high authoritysouthern authority-that when the Baltimore convention assembled in May, 1848, to nominate a Democratic candidate for the Presidency, and to lay down a platform for the party, the attention of the country, the especial attention of the Democratic party of the southern States as well as of the northern States had been particularly called to this doctrine of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Territories; and hence the nomination of General Cass, with his opinions as expressed in the Nicholson letter, was not the result of accident or inadvertence; but he was chosen because his sentiments were the sentiments of the vast majority of the Democratic party, North and South. I have looked into the proceedings of the convention at Baltimore in 1848, when General Cass was nominated, and made an ab

On the first ballot the northern States gave Cass 59; Woodbury, 39; Buchanan, 82; showing that General Cass received only 59 out of 130 northern votes cast, New York not voting in consequence of her double delegation; and in all the slaveholding States he received, on the first ballot, 66 out of 118 votes, being a majority of the whole number. These facts show that General Cass was not the choice of a majority of the northern Democracy at that time, but was the choice of a majority of the southern Democracy.

Now I shall proceed to show that these votes were cast with distinct reference to the doctrine of non-intervention as now supported by myself and affirmed by the Democratic party at Charleston, and as resisted by the Senator from Mississippi and those who seceded from the Charleston convention. General Cass, on the fourth ballot, received the nomination. The whole number of votes cast was 257; necessary to a choice, 170. Thereupon the record says:

"Lewis Cass, of Michigan, having received two-thirds of the whole number of votes cast,

stract of the votes. I find that, in the slaveholding States, General Cass received, on the first ballot for the nomination, 66 votes; Mr. Buchanan, 19 votes; Mr. Woodbury, 15; Mr. Calhoun, 9; General Worth, 6; Mr. Dallas, 3. The following are the southern States that voted for General Cass on the first ballot: Delaware, 3 votes: Maryland, 6 votes; Virginia, 17 votes; Mississippi, 6 votes; Louisiana, 6 votes; Texas, 4 vetes; Arkansas, 3 votes; Tennessee, 7 votes; Kentucky, 7 votes; Missouri, 7 votes. These States did not then think. that non-intervention or squatter sovereignty, as it is now called in derision was such a fatal heresy as to furnish sufficient cause for disrupting the Democratic party, much less for dissolving the American Union. They voted for General Cass with a knowledge of his opinions on this question; and he was their first choice. Old Virginia did not take him then as a choice of evils. She had the opportunity of voting for a southern man, illustrious for his talents, public services, and devotion to southern rights. She had the opportunity of voting at that time for Mr. Calhoun, of South Carolina, on his platform. Old Virginia then believed that intervention on the "The announcement of this result by the Chair was folsubject of slavery meant disunion. Hence she lowed by enthusiastic and long-continued applause, the rejected intervention, and gave her vote first, members of the various delegations almost universally last, and all the time, for General Cass, the ex-springing to their feet, and uniting in one spirit-stirring shout of approbation. pounder, the embodiment of non-intervention. The same remark is true of Mississippi, represented now so ably by the Senator who arraigned me the other day. He tells us that he always fought this doctrine of non-intervention. So he has; but at that time he had not the same power in the State of Mississippi; he had not made the same impress on that people, by his eminent talents and great public services, as he has since; and hence he was then unable to seduce Mississippi away from the doctrine of non-intervention. Louisiana, too, then true to the Democratic creed; true to the doctrine of non-intervention; true to the maintenance of the Union; hostile to intervention-because intervention led directly to disunion-rallied around General Cass as the standard-bearer in 1848, first, last, and all the time. So of the other States which I have named.

On the fourth ballot, (which was the last one, and the one on which General Cass was nominated by a two-thirds vote,) in the slaveholding States, General Cass received 94 votes; Mr. Buchanan, 7 votes; Mr. Woodbury, 13 votes; General Worth,, 1; General Butler, 3. The southern States voting for General Cass were: Delaware, 3; Maryland, 6; Virginia, 17; North Carolina, 11; South Carolina, 9; Georgia, 10; Mississippi, 6; Louisiana, 6; Texas, 4; Arkansas, 8; Tennessee, 7; Kentucky, 7; Missouri, 7. Even South Carolina, when she found that her own favorite had no chance of a nomination-so soon as she found that General Cass was the choice of a majority of the party-wheeled into line, surrendered her preference, and declared the champion of non-intervention as her next choice for the Presidency. Then she did not think this doctrine was sufficient cause either to dissolve the Union or to disrupt the Democratic party.

"The chairman declared him duly nominated by the con

vention as the candidate for President.

"Mr. Toucey, of Connecticut, rose simultaneously with Mr. Bryce, of Louisiana, to move that those States whose delegates had not voted for General Cass, might have an opportunity of changing their vote, so that the nomination might be unanimous. This motion was agreed to, and the States whose votes had not been cast wholly for Mr. Cass, being called,"

the other States went on to change their votes and to make the nomination unanimous. They were proceeding to declare General Cass nominated on the votes of two-thirds of the members present, not two-thirds of the whole number of votes in the electoral college. Here you find an express decision that two-thirds of those present and voting, and not two-thirds of the whole electoral college, was the rule; New York not voting, because she had a double delegation, and neither would consent that the other should sit with them. Then speeches were made in favor of making the nomination unanimous: Humphreys of Maryland, Mr. Wells of New Hampshire, "Mr. McCandless of the Pennsylvania delegation, Mr. Mr. Turney of Tennessee, Mr. Toucey of Connecticut, Mr. Carey of Maine, Messrs. Rantoul and Hallet of Massachu setts, Mr. Hibbard of New Hampshire, Mr. Pearce of Rhode and eloquent speeches, announced the unanimous vote of Island, and Mr. R. P. Thompson of New Jersey, in brief their delegation for the nominee of the convention, and pledging him their cordial and united support."

These gentlemen had thus far opposed General Cass, because they preferred other men; but they felt it their duty to withdraw their opposition, and support him as the standard-bearer of the party.

Thereupon,

"Mr. Yancey, of Alabama, stated that he desired to have the platform on which they intended to place the candidate erected before he would be prepared to pledge his support. "Mr. Winston, of Alabama, pledged the people of Alabama to sustain the nominee.

"Messrs, King, J. E. Morse, Sydenham Moore, Scott, and Bowden, each united in the pledge given by Mr. Winston."

Some eminent names in those days are here who did not think that the doctrine of non

« ZurückWeiter »