tic institutions; and that any cause that shall permanently array the different sections of the Union in political hostility and organize parties founded only on geographical distinctions, must inevitably prove fatal to a continuance of the national Union.

Resolved, That the whigs of the United States declare, as a fundamental article of political faith, an absolute necessity for avoiding geographical parties. The danger, so clearly discerned by the father of his country, has now become fearfully apparent in the agitation now convulsing the nation, and must be arrested at once if we would preserve our constitution and our Union from dismemberment, and the name of America from being blotted out from the family of civilized nations.

Resolved, That all who revere the constitution and the Union, must look with alarm at the parties in the field in the present presidential campaign, one claiming only to represent sixteen northern states, and the other appealing mainly to the passions and prejudices of the southern states; that the success of either faction must add fuel to the flame which now threatens to wrap our dearest interests in a common ruin.

Resolved, That the only remedy for an evil so appalling is to support a candidate pledged to neither of the geographical sections nor arrayed in political antagonism, but holding both in a just and equal regard. We congratulate the friends of the Union that such a candidate exists in Millard Fillmore.

Resolved, That, without adopting or referring to the peculiar doctrines of the party which has already selected Mr. Fillmore as a candidate, we look to him as a well tried and faithful friend of the constitution and the Union, eminent alike for his wisdom and firmness-for his justice and moderation in our foreign relations-for his calm and pacific temperament, so well becoming the head of a great nation-for his devotion to the constitution in its true spirit-his inflexibility in executing the laws; but, beyond all these attributes, in possessing the one transcendent merit of being a representative of neither of the two sectional parties now struggling for political supremacy.

Resolved, That, in the present exigency of political affairs, we are not called upon to discuss the subordinate questions of administration in the exercising of the constitutional powers of the government. It is enough to know that civil war is raging, and that the Union is in peril; and we proclaim the conviction that the restoration of Mr. Fillmore to the presidency will furnish the best if not the only means of restoring peace.

CHAPTER XVII.

BUCHANAN'S ADMINISTRATION.

1857-1861.

BUCHANAN'S POLICY.

In his inaugural address President Buchanan said, "that Congress was neither 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." This was the doctrine of "popular sovereignty," which became applicable to all the territories after the repeal of the Missouri compromise.

DRED SCOTT CASE.

The Dred Scott case was originally one of assault and battery, but it finally became one of the most important cases ever decided in the United States. A slave named Dred Scott was owned by a military officer living in Missouri. He was taken by his master to a military post in Illinois, where the latter had been ordered in 1834. In this state, from which slavery was excluded by statute, Scott was allowed to marry the female slave of another officer, each master giving his consent. In 1838 Scott was taken to Minnesota, a territory in which slavery was prohibited by the act of Congress, 1820, known as the Missouri compromise. Thence the owner took him, his two children, and the mother, back to Missouri, and sold them all there as slaves. Scott was whipped for some offense, and sued for his freedom on the plea of his residence, for several years, in the free-labor territory of Illinois and Min

nesota. "The owner's demurrer denied that the plaintiff was a citizen, or could sue, since he was descended from slave ancestors, and had never been set free." This was in the circuit court of St. Louis, and the decision was in Scott's favor. This was reversed by the Supreme Court of the state, and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney presiding. The Chief Justice, and a majority of the justices, being friends of the slave system, the decision was against Scott. Though the case was decided in 1856, it was deemed best to reserve judgment until after the excitement of the presidential election should subside. Two days after the inauguration of Buchanan, Chief Justice Taney declared that any person "whose ancestors were imported into this country and held as slaves” had no right to sue in a court in the United States. This denied the right of citizenship to a slave, or the descendant of a slave. The Chief Justice further declared that the framers of the Declaration of Independence did not include the negro race in America in the declaration that "all men are created equal; that the patriots of the revolution regarded the negro race as so far inferior that he had "no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the government might choose to grant him;" that they were spoken of only as property; and that the framers of the constitution held the same views. The Chief Justice further declared that the Missouri compromise, and all other acts restricting slavery, were unconstitutional, and that there was no authority in Congress or the local legislatures for restricting the spread of slavery over the whole Union. It was decided that Dred Scott, the plaintiff in error, was no citizen of Missouri, but a thing; that his residence in Minnesota could avail him nothing, because the act of Congress, forbidding slaves north of 36° 30′, was unconstitutional and could not debar a slave-owner from living in any territory with all his property; that Scott, being a

thing, was without standing in court; and that his case must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The northern states were startled by this decision of the Supreme Court, for the dissenting justices of that body, and the mass of the people in the free states, regarded slaves as a "kind of property whose secure possession was guaranteed only by the state laws which made them property." A slaveowner lost this guarantee on leaving a state whose laws afforded it. It was resisted by all opponents of slavery, but the President spoke of the measure as the one which would speedily and finally settle the slavery question, and as one to which he would cheerfully submit. The dominant party assumed that the decision was final, and that slavery was nationalized.

The Dred Scott decision was the last attempt made to decide the struggle by form of law between slavery restriction and slavery extension, and henceforth the course of events tended rapidly to a settlement of the difficulty by the force of arms. In 1820 the first compromise had prohibited slavery in a portion of the territory, and had left the question open as to the remaining portion. The compromises of 1850 had opened all the territory to slavery, if it could be established by popular sovereignty. The people submitted to both these measures; but the Dred Scott decision opened all the territories and states of the Union "to at least a temporary establishment of slavery wherever a slave owner might see fit to carry his slaves." It was evident that the free states would never receive this as law, although it was promulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States. This remarkable decision had no practical results, beyond showing the failure of the Supreme Court as an arbiter, and calling the attention of the north to the "impracticable demands of the slave owners." The northern or Douglas democrats, who,

preceding this time, had supported the south, chose rather to divide the party than follow the southern lead any further.

DESIGNS OF THE SLAVE POWER.

The constitution, as originally drafted, gave a representation to three-fifths of the slave population, so that the owner of one thousand slaves held the same political power as six hundred men not owning slaves. By this provision, the three hundred thousand slave owners had grown into a slave power that controlled the south in 1857. At this time the south controlled the democratic party, and this party controlled the Union. But the course of events was turning against them. Prior to 1845 an equilibrium between the sections was maintained by admitting as many new southern states as new northern states; but after that time five new northern states were added to the Union, and others were almost ready for application, while there were no new southern states to counterbalance them. From 1820 to 1848 there had been as many senators from the slave states as from the free states. In 1852 the latter had thirty-two senators and the former only thirty. The impossibility of maintaining an equality in the Senate produced an alarm in the south. To this fear of slaveholders there was another cause of doubt as to their continuance in power. The power, energy, and resources of the free states were overmatching the efforts of the south in Kansas; and if Kansas could not be made a slave state, the advocates of slavery saw but three courses to pursue: the cession of Cuba to the Union, as territory for slave states; the acquisition of territory south of Texas as material for the same purpose; or the reopening of the African slave trade. If these attempts should fail, they desired a separation from the free states, and the establishment of an independent government that would secure slavery from all attacks and restrictions.