A History of the Republican Party Part 3

CHAPTER VII.

COMPROMISE OF 1850.

"That, as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory."

_Wilmot Proviso_, _August_ 8, 1846.

From the campaign of 1844 to the Civil War the slavery question dominated all others in politics, North and South. During this period almost every legislative question was decided with reference to its effect on slavery. Press, Pulpit and Platform felt the baleful influence of its presence, and aspirants to the presidency and to lesser political honors sacrificed principle, conscience, and the support of their friends to obtain the favor of the aggressive and dominating Slave Power. The Democratic Party during this entire period took a bold stand on the question; an anti-slavery wing of the party appeared in the North, but at no time was it successful in changing the party platforms.

The Whig Party, with its strong pro-slavery wing in the South, and with its northern members desirous of party success, omitted entirely any mention of slavery in its platforms, and although the anti-slavery members of the party were outspoken in their private views of slavery, they attended the party conventions and acquiesced in the platforms until 1852, when there was a general desertion of the Whig platform and candidate. The refusal of the Whig Party to make a direct issue of the slavery question doomed it, sooner or later, to dissolution; and although the party was successful in 1840 and in 1848, its disintegration really began after the election of 1840.

To say that the result of the "Log Cabin and Hard Cider" campaign was a bitter disappointment to both Democrats and Whigs is putting it mildly.

The Democrats were deeply chagrined at the defeat of their candidate by a "clap-trap" campaign, and the disappointment of the Whigs came with the death of President Harrison and the succession of Tyler, who played directly into the hands of the Democrats and the Slave Power, bitterly antagonizing the party that elected him.

The Texas question now came up to disturb politics and again bring slavery directly before the people. Texas had gained her independence from Mexico, and had applied, in 1837, to be received into the Union, but the offer was declined by President Van Buren. The tragic death of Mr. Upshur, Secretary of State, on February 28, 1844, and the appointment of Mr. Calhoun to that office, made possible the completion of a long conspiracy to admit Texas, and to further extend the slave area by a war with Mexico. A Treaty of Annexation was immediately prepared (April 12, 1844) and presented to the Senate, but was subsequently rejected. It then became apparent that the South intended to make a political issue of the Texas question, and there was great alarm in the North, for the admission of Texas meant a slave area capable of being divided into five or six slave States. In addition, it meant war with Mexico over disputed boundaries, and the fact that Mexico had not fully recognized the independence of Texas, and the result of that war would unquestionably be the acquisition of more area contiguous to the South.

Mr. Clay and Mr. Van Buren at this time were the only ones prominently mentioned as possibilities for the Whig and Democratic nominations for the presidency; both published letters in which they opposed the annexation of Texas. Mr. Van Buren's letter cost him the Democratic nomination, for when the Convention met at Baltimore on May 27, 1844, he was unable to obtain a sufficient vote under the two-thirds rule, and the South forced the nomination of James K. Polk of Tennessee. This division on the slavery question in a Democratic Convention is of great historical importance as a link in the chain of events which led to the final great political division between the North and South. The Democratic Platform was emphatic in its support of slavery and the condemnation of the Abolitionists; it advocated the annexation of Texas and the occupation of Oregon, and the Democrats went into the campaign with the rallying cry of "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight," in the North--a promise of more free soil--and in the South the "Annexation of Texas."

Mr. Clay's letter had made him stronger than ever with his party and he was nominated unanimously. The Whig Platform, however, was absolutely silent about the Texas question, and there was absolutely no mention of any opposition to slavery; the whole question was totally ignored. Mr.

Clay would have defeated Polk had he not been led into the blunder of writing another letter on the Texas question, in which he largely withdrew from his earlier position; this alienated great numbers of the Northern Whigs and threw thousands of votes to the candidate of the Liberty Party. This party, in a convention at Buffalo the preceding year, had again nominated James G. Birney for President. Its platform was long and elaborate, and contained strong denunciations of slavery and pledged the party to work for its abolition. The Liberty Party polled a total of 62,300 votes, defeating Clay, who lost New York, the pivotal State, with its thirty-six electoral votes, by 5,106, the Liberty Party casting 15,812 votes in that State. Texas annexation followed the election, but the pledge in regard to Oregon was cast aside. "Fifty-four Forty or Fight" was nothing more than a campaign cry, never intended to be followed up, and, in truth, could not have been without a war with England.

With the great Texas victory achieved, the South now turned herself to the acquisition of more territory, and war with Mexico was declared May 11, 1846. The Whig Party in the North was strongly against the Mexican War, and a strong element also expressed itself in the northern Democratic ranks as against it; the opposition became so threatening that, as a new House was to be elected in the Fall of 1846, the Administration decided to end the War, if possible, and Congress was asked to give $2,000,000 to be used in negotiating a Treaty with Mexico, fixing the disputed boundaries. Immediately David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, introduced a Proviso, which had been prepared by Jacob Brinkerhoff, of Ohio (both Democrats, and both afterwards members of the Republican Party), to the effect that slavery should be prohibited in any territory acquired from Mexico. This Proviso carried in the House, but the Senate adjourned its session without coming to a vote on it. The Proviso appeared again often in Congress, but was never adopted; it caused more excited debate between the North and South than anything that had ever been introduced by the anti-slavery element in Congress.

Although defeated, it served to amalgamate the anti-slavery forces, and from that day they rallied around it as representing the fixed and unalterable sentiment of the North; on it the Free-Soil Party entered the Campaign of 1848 and it was the underlying principle in the organization of the Republican Party in 1854. As a counter-balancing action to the Wilmot Proviso, Mr. Calhoun, in February, 1847, introduced in the Senate a long resolution to the effect that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in any territory, and that any attempt to do so would be a violation of const.i.tutional rights and lead to a dissolution of the Union. No vote was ever taken on this resolution, and it was nothing more than a deliberate attempt to force the issue with the North.

The Thirtieth Congress met December 6, 1847, and had among its members Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois, and Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, the former elected as a Whig and the latter as a Democrat; in the Senate Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, took his seat for the first time in that body. Opposition to the war was strong, and it was finally closed by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed February 2, 1848; by its terms vast stretches of new territory were acquired by the United States. This land had been free soil by the Laws of Mexico since 1827, but the South, as a matter of course, expected, and had planned, to make it slave soil, and she was determined to oppose to the utmost any attempt to keep slavery out of this new territory; the North was equally determined that it should remain free. The campaign of 1848 came on with the question undecided. The Democratic Convention nominated Lewis Ca.s.s, of Michigan, and adopted a platform similar to those of 1840 and 1844, but nothing was said about slavery in the new territory. The Whigs nominated Major-General Zachary Taylor, of Louisiana, for President, and Millard Fillmore, of New York, for Vice-President, and their Convention adjourned without adopting any platform at all.

The failure of the two great parties to take up the prohibition of slavery in the new territory was regarded with great indignation by many members of both parties in the North, especially so by the Whigs; in addition, an element of political revenge crept into the situation to help the anti-slavery sentiment. The defeat of Van Buren in the Democratic Convention of '44, and the anti-slavery sentiment in the Democratic Party, had divided it, in New York, into two factions known as "Barnburners" and "Hunkers"; the former being those who were opposed to the extension of the slave area, and were likened to the Dutchman who burned his barn to rid it of rats; and the latter were "Administration Democrats"--"Northern men with Southern principles," who "hankered"

after office. Samuel J. Tilden and Benjamin F. Butler were two of the leading "Barnburner" leaders. When the Democratic National Convention convened in 1848, both "Barnburners" and "Hunkers" applied for admission; the Convention offered to permit the New York vote to be cast between them. This was refused by the "Barnburners," and they withdrew and held an enthusiastic meeting in New York, and soon became known as "Free-Soil Democrats." A National Convention was called to meet at Buffalo, August 9, 1848. The old Liberty Party had already held their Convention in November, 1847, and had nominated John P. Hale, of New Hamps.h.i.+re, for President, but Mr. Hale withdrew and the Liberty Party joined in the new movement and attended the Free-Soil Convention. Mr.

Van Buren was nominated for President, and Charles Francis Adams, of Ma.s.sachusetts, for Vice-President. The Free-Soil Platform was, of course, strongly antagonistic to the Slave Power, and concluded with the stirring words, "We inscribe on our banner, 'Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor and Free Men,' and under it will fight on and fight ever, until a triumphant victory shall reward our exertions."

The Free-Soil Party was the second predecessor of the Republican Party, and it was a curious circ.u.mstance that in this campaign it was to have at its head a man who had been a Democratic President. The Free-Soilers of New York later nominated Senator John A. Dix for Governor, and the split in the Democratic Party in that State was complete, and lost the election for the National ticket. Many Whigs hesitated between Taylor and Van Buren, but Horace Greeley, in the _New York Tribune_, advocated the election of Taylor. The vote in New York, which was again the pivotal State, was: Taylor, 218,603; Ca.s.s, 114,318; Van Buren, 120,510.

The total Free-Soil vote was 291,263. It was a strange and fateful effect that made the Liberty Party in 1844 divide the Whigs and give the victory to the Democrats; and in 1848 the Free-Soil Party, a successor of the Liberty Party, divided the Democrats and gave the Whigs the victory.

The Campaign of '48 a.s.sumes another important aspect, in that Mr.

Lincoln took an active part in it; it fixed his ideas on slavery, and impressed him with the utter hopelessness of reconciling the North and South on this question. Mr. Lincoln had made his debut in the House in December, 1847, with the famous "Spot Resolutions." In the Spring of '48 he urged his Illinois friends to give up Clay and support Gen. Taylor.

He attended the Whig Convention at Philadelphia and was well satisfied with the nominations and the prospects of victory. Late in July he made a strong speech for Taylor on the floor of the House, attracting the attention of the campaign managers to such an extent that he was sent to New England where he delivered a number of speeches, pleading with the New Englanders not to join the Free-Soil movement, but to vote with the Whig Party. Here he saw the strength of the anti-slavery movement, and what he heard made him think deeper on the great question of the hour.

After listening to one of Governor Seward's speeches at Boston, in September, he said, "Governor Seward, I have been thinking about what you said in your speech; I reckon you are right. We have got to deal with this slavery question, and got to give more attention to it than we have been doing." Later in the campaign Mr. Lincoln stumped Illinois for Taylor.

When the Thirty-first Congress convened for its first session, on December 3, 1849, all was confusion and uncertainty in regard to the situation. A great many felt that the crisis had been reached at last, and that nothing but a civil war could result. The South feared that its long cherished plan of more slave territory was to be frustrated, and the anxiety in the North that the territory acquired from Mexico might be made slave was equally great. An event now occurred that brought matters directly to an acute crisis and necessitated a settlement or a war. Gold had been discovered in California early in 1848, and instantly there was a tremendous influx of population, with the result that late in 1849 California was ready for admission into the Union, not as a slave State, as the South fondly hoped, but as free soil. With the convening of Congress came the President's message, and it was a severe blow to the South, for it advocated the admission of California as a free State. The South now indeed saw its plan rapidly weakening. Violent opposition was at once made to the admission of California as disturbing the equal balance between the two sections, and in addition the South complained bitterly of the difficulty of capturing slaves who escaped into the free States. She also complained of the constant agitation of the slave question, and now demanded that the territories should be open to slavery, and a.s.serted that any attempt to enforce the Wilmot Proviso or to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia would lead to an immediate dissolution of the Union.

Such was the acute situation in December, 1849, and the men, scenes and debates which attended the solution of this grave crisis present a remarkable and dramatic picture. All eyes now turned to Mr. Clay, the great Compromisor, then in his seventy-third year. In January, 1850, he began his efforts to bring about what proved to be the last compromise between the North and the South. Four great speeches were delivered on the resolutions introduced by him. Mr. Clay, so feeble that he had to be a.s.sisted up the Capitol steps, spoke early in February. On March 4th Mr.

Calhoun, too weak to speak himself, had his speech, full of antagonism and foreboding, read by a colleague. Three days after Calhoun's speech, Webster delivered his famous "Seventh of March" speech, in which he sacrificed the support of thousands of friends, and demoralized the entire North by condemning the Abolitionists and advocating the pa.s.sage of the Compromise measures. On March 11th Mr. Seward delivered his "Higher Law" speech, denouncing the Compromise. The great triumvirate, Clay, Calhoun and Webster, appeared in this debate for the last time before the American public. Calhoun died on the last day of March. Late in '51 Clay resigned his seat in the Senate and died at Was.h.i.+ngton, June 29, 1852. Webster took the office of Secretary of State, received a few votes in the Whig Convention and refused to support General Scott in the election of 1852, and died broken-hearted October 24, 1852.

The Compromise of 1850, as finally agreed on, provided that Utah and New Mexico should be organized into territories without reference to slavery; California to be admitted as a free State; $10,000,000.00 to be paid Texas for her claim to New Mexico; a new Fugitive Slave Law; and the slave trade to be abolished in the District of Columbia. The compromise was viewed with great indignation by the North, and was in many respects extremely unsatisfactory to the South, who was now certain that her plan of extension of slave area was lost. The political leaders of both parties now argued and pretended that the slavery question was absolutely settled, inasmuch as there was no further territory to be part.i.tioned, and that Clay's Compromise had included all possible phases of the subject. But it was apparent to those who looked beneath the surface that the situation was not settled at all; n.o.body in the North, however, looked for such a startling and rash course as was adopted by the South in 1854, and which resulted, in that year, in the formation of the Republican Party.

CHAPTER VIII.

BIRTH OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

"Resolved, That of all outrages. .h.i.therto perpetrated or attempted upon the North and freedom by the slave leaders, and their natural allies, not one compares in bold and impudent audacity, treachery and meanness with this, the Nebraska Bill, as to the sum of all its villainies it adds the repudiation of a solemn compact, held as sacred as the Const.i.tution itself for a period of thirty-four years."

_Adopted at First Meeting, Ripon, Wis._, _February_ 28, 1854.

The new Fugitive Slave Law (pa.s.sed as a part of the Compromise) was unreasonable and extremely harsh in its terms, and did more than anything else to continue the bitterness between the North and the South. Opposition to it appeared in the North almost immediately after its pa.s.sage, and it was clear that, because of its terms, it would prove to be more of a dead letter than the original law of 1793. The fact of the matter was that the South forced its pa.s.sage in the harshest terms conceivable, with the sinister plan of compelling the North to violate it so that bad faith could be charged; and the North did not hesitate to violate a law so repugnant to const.i.tutional and natural rights and human sympathy. Personal Liberty Laws were pa.s.sed in many Northern States, practically nullifying the Act; and as a result of it, the Underground Railroad, which had been organized about 1839 by the Quakers, did its most effective work. This mysterious organization had a chain of stations, leading from the slave across the free States into Canada, to a.s.sist in the escape of fugitive slaves. Mrs. Stowe, moved by the wrongs and sufferings of the fugitives, published "Uncle Tom's Cabin" in the summer of 1852, and it had a telling effect in creating and solidifying the anti-slavery sentiment in the North.

The campaign of 1852 found the Democrats united; but the Whigs had no promising candidate, and were sorely disorganized, with a stronger anti-slavery element than ever before in its midst. The Democrats nominated Franklin Pierce, of New Hamps.h.i.+re, for President, and their platform contained the following emphatic promise: "The Democratic Party will resist all attempts at renewing in Congress, or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question in whatever shape or color the attempt may be made." The Whig Party nominated General Winfield Scott, of Virginia, for President, and their platform also contained a resolution pledging the party to the Compromise Measures as a settlement in principle and substance of the slavery question. The Free-Soil Party, though it had received little support at the polls, still retained a strong organization, and nominated John P. Hale, of New Hamps.h.i.+re, for President, and George W. Julian, of Indiana, for Vice-President, and denounced both the Whig and Democratic Parties as "hopelessly corrupt and utterly unworthy of confidence." The electoral vote gave Pierce 254 and Scott only 42, but the popular vote was much closer: Pierce, 1,601,474; Scott, 1,386,580; Hale, 156,667.

President Pierce's first message went to Congress December 5, 1853, and he congratulated the country on the settlement of the slavery question; but in the following month, notwithstanding the express promises made in both the party platforms of the preceding election, the event came that stunned the North, and as the realization of its enormity grew, aroused her to the wildest excitement and the most bitter denunciation, finally resulting in direct and emphatic political action in the organization of the Republican Party.

On January 4, 1854, Senator Douglas introduced a Bill organizing the Territory of Nebraska. Twelve days later Senator Dixon, of Kentucky, gave notice that he would move an Amendment, repealing the Missouri Compromise, thereby permitting slavery in the new Territory. Senator Douglas then reported (January 23d) a new Bill, making two territories out of the same territory of the first Bill, the southern part to be called Kansas and the northern part to be called Nebraska, and the Missouri Compromise, "being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850, commonly called Compromise Measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of the Act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof free to form and regulate their domestic inst.i.tutions in their own way." The Bill pa.s.sed the Senate March 3d, but the South was not certain of its success in the House, and final action was postponed until May 24th, and this iniquity became a law on May 30, 1854. While setting forth the doctrine of non-intervention and popular sovereignty the Bill was in effect the forcing of slavery into the Territories, and that this was the plan became practically a.s.sured when it was discovered that throughout the summer and fall of 1853 the people of western Missouri had been deliberately planning to settle in the territory west of them (now called Kansas) and to make it slave soil. The whole plot, as revealed by the legislation to which Douglas gave his support, was to force Kansas into the Union as a slave State, thereby counterbalancing the admission of California, which had destroyed the equilibrium between the two sections.

A storm of indignation swept over the North in the opening months of 1854, gaining in intensity and fury as the baseness of the new scheme of the Slave Power was fully realized. Thousands of letters poured in on Congressmen protesting against the pa.s.sage of the Act, and hundreds of memorials and pet.i.tions were presented to the Senate and the House. The newspapers all over the North, beginning late in January, contained constant articles calling on the people to hold meetings and protest against the Nebraska outrage, and hundreds of these meetings were held in churches, schoolhouses and public halls, and the anti-Nebraska sentiment dominated everything. Douglas received the brunt of all this opprobrium, and was compared to Benedict Arnold. The foreign element was the strongest in opposition to the Nebraska measure, and the German newspapers and the Germans, North and South, were the most emphatic in their denunciation, and the success which the new political party was to have must be attributed largely to them. The Western States, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, were the leaders in the anti-Nebraska movement, and also in the organization of political opposition. The election of 1852 had badly demoralized the Whig Party, and now the Kansas-Nebraska measures swept it away almost entirely in the Western States, but the Eastern States, while condemning the Douglas Bill and adopting resolutions similar to the Republican platforms of the West, were loath to give up their party organization, and the Whig Party continued in several of them until after the election of 1856. During the period between 1852 and 1854 it probably occurred to many in the North, who watched and a.n.a.lyzed the popular sentiment and vote, that the Whig Party would soon be swept away, and that the dissatisfied ma.s.ses of Abolitionists, Free-Soilers, Anti-Nebraska Whigs, Anti-Nebraska Democrats and Know-Nothings must and would unite into a party under a new name with a platform acceptable to the anti-slavery elements in politics. The Douglas Bill demanded political action in the North, but how was a new party to be formed? Who would lead it, and what would be the success of the new movement?

We come now to the organization and first meetings of the Republican Party. Alvan E. Bovay was the founder of the Republican Party. Not only were the name and early principles of the party clearly outlined and decided on in his mind, and talked about by him long before any action was taken by any other person, but he took the first practical steps looking to the dissolution of existing parties, and with patience and much difficult work brought about the first meeting and pointed out clearly and unanswerably the course to be taken.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Alvan E. Bovay, Founder of the Republican Party.]

Mr. Bovay was born in July, 1818, at Adams, New York; graduated from Norwich University, Vermont, and was Professor in several eastern schools and colleges, and later was admitted to the New York bar. In October, 1850, he went West with his family, and settled at Ripon, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin, and soon became the recognized leader of the Whig Party. He studied the political situation carefully, and with his liberal education and the principles of freedom taught by life in the West, he imbibed a hatred for the inst.i.tution of Slavery, and saw clearly that, at least, its extension must be opposed to the utmost. He remained with the Whig Party, "following its banners, fighting its battles faithfully, at the same time praying for its death," as he expressed it in later years. He was fortunate in numbering among his close friends Horace Greeley, the editor of the _New York Tribune_, the greatest exponent of the northern views of slavery. The _Tribune_ in 1854 had a circulation of about 150,000 per week, and therefore wielded a vast influence on public sentiment in the North. In 1852, while the Whig Convention was in session, Mr. Bovay dined with Mr. Greeley in New York City, and the conversation turned to the prospects of General Scott, the Whig nominee. Mr. Bovay predicted his overwhelming defeat, and that the Whig Party would be utterly demoralized in the North, and that it would become necessary to organize a new party out of the debris. He there suggested to Greeley the name "Republican" for the new party, but Greeley received the proposition with little enthusiasm because he not only believed that Scott would be elected but that the Whig Party should not be dissolved. Mr. Bovay says that he advocated the name Republican because it expressed equality--representing the principle of the good of all the people; that it would be attractive to the strong foreign element in the country because of their familiarity with the name in their native lands, and that in addition the name possessed charm and magnetism. After the defeat of General Scott, Mr.

Bovay corresponded with Mr. Greeley often in regard to the political situation. He was fully determined to do his utmost to organize a new party and call it Republican, and he talked over the matter persistently with all his neighbors in the little village of Ripon, and waited for the time to act. That time came with the violent agitation caused by the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and Mr. Bovay achieved the result he had planned so long. After talking over the matter with two friends, Jehdeiah Bowen, a Free-Soil Democrat, and Amos Loper, a call was issued for a ma.s.s meeting to be held in the Congregational church in Ripon, February 28, 1854, with the object of ascertaining the public sentiment. This little frontier village had a small population, and the country around it was spa.r.s.ely settled, but so earnest was the political thought of the time that the meeting was a great success, and the church was crowded with men and women, and even some children, who were attracted by the seriousness of their elders. Deacon William Dunham, of the church, acted as Chairman of this meeting, and there was a full and free discussion of the situation and the best action to be taken. Mr. Bovay pointed out that the only hope of defeating the extension of slavery was to disband the old parties and unite under a new name. Before the meeting had progressed very far the sentiment was practically unanimous. Those who hesitated were overcome by the enthusiasm and logical arguments of the speakers. The name Republican was suggested at this meeting, but no action was taken on it for the reason that this was looked upon as merely a preliminary meeting to be followed by a later one. As the Kansas-Nebraska Bill had not yet pa.s.sed the Senate nothing further could be done at this meeting, and after adopting the following well-worded and prophetic resolutions, the meeting adjourned to await the action of Congress:

"WHEREAS, The Senate of the United States is entertaining, and from present indications is likely to pa.s.s, Bills organizing governments for the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, in which is embodied a clause repealing the Missouri Compromise Act, and so admit into these Territories the slave system with all its evils, and

"WHEREAS, We deem that compact repealable as the Const.i.tution itself; therefore

"_Resolved_, That of all outrages. .h.i.therto perpetrated or attempted upon the North and freedom by the slave leaders and their natural allies, not one compares in bold and impudent audacity, treachery and meanness with this, the Nebraska Bill, as to the sum of all its other villainies it adds the repudiation of a solemn compact, held as sacred as the Const.i.tution itself for a period of thirty-four years;

"_Resolved_, That the northern man who can aid and abet in the commission of so stupendous a crime is none too good to become an accomplice in renewing the African slave trade, the services which, doubtless, will next be required of him by his Southern masters, should the Nebraska treason succeed;

"_Resolved_, That the attempt to withdraw the Missouri Compromise, whether successful or not, admonishes the North to adopt the maxim for all time to come, 'No more Compromises with Slavery';

"_Resolved_, That the pa.s.sage of this Bill, if pa.s.s it should, will be a call to arms of a great Northern Party, such an one as the country has not hitherto seen, composed of Whigs, Democrats and Free-Soilers, every man with a heart in him united under the single banner cry of 'Repeal!

Repeal!'

"_Resolved_, That the small but compact phalanx of true men who oppose the mad scheme upon the broadest principle of humanity, as well as their unflinching efforts to uphold the public faith, deserve not only our applause but our profound esteem;

"_Resolved_, That the heroic att.i.tude of General Houston, amidst a host of degenerate men in the United States Senate, is worthy of honor and applause."

The Senate, as we have already seen, pa.s.sed the Kansas-Nebraska Bill on March 3d. Mr. Bovay and his co-workers lost no time in signing and publis.h.i.+ng the following call for a second meeting:

"A Bill expressly intended to extend and strengthen the inst.i.tution of Slavery has pa.s.sed the Senate by a large majority, many Northern Senators voting for it, and many more sitting in their seats and not voting at all, and it is evidently destined to pa.s.s the House and become a law unless its progress is arrested by a general uprising of the North against it;