intended to guard. Mr. Douglas was accordingly declared to be the regular nominee of the Democratic party of the Union,* upon the motion of Mr. Church, of New York, when, according to the report of the proceedings, "The whole body rose to its feet, hats were waved in the air, and many tossed aloft; shouts, screams, and yells, and every boisterous mode of expressing approbation and unanimity, were resorted to."

Senator Fitzpatrick, of Alabama, was then unanimously nominated as the candidate for Vice-President; and the Convention adjourned sine die on the 23d June, the sixth and last day of its session. On the same day, but after the adjournment, Mr. Fitzpatrick declined the nomination, and it was immediately conferred on Mr. Herschel V. Johnson, of Georgia, by the Executive Committee. Thus ended the Douglas Convention.

But another Convention assembled at Baltimore on the same 23d June, styling itself also, and with as little reason, the "National Democratic Convention." It was composed chiefly of the delegates who had just withdrawn from the Douglas Convention, and the original delegates from Alabama and Louisiana. One of their first acts was to abrogate the twothirds rule, as had been done by the Douglas Convention. Both acted under the same necessity, because the preservation of this rule would have prevented a nomination by either. This consideration, instead of causing both to desist and appeal to the people of the States to appoint a new Convention for the salvation of the Democratic party, was totally disregarded.

Mr. Cushing was elected and took the chair as President. In his opening address he said: "Gentlemen of the Convention, we assemble here, delegates to the National Democratic Convention [applause], duly accredited thereto from more than twenty States of the Union [applause], for the purpose of nominating candidates of the Democratic party for the offices of President and Vice-President of the United States, for the purpose of announcing the principles of the party, and for the purpose of continuing and reëstablishing that party upon the firm foundations of the Constitution, the Union, and the coequal rights of the several States."§

*Pages 231-236. † Page 239.

+ Page 241. § Page 243.

Mr. Avery, of North Carolina, who had reported the majority resolutions at Charleston, now reported the same from the committee of this body, and they "were adopted unanimously, amid great applause."

The Convention then proceeded to select their candidates. Mr. Loring, on behalf of the delegates from Massachusetts, who with Mr. Butler had retired from the Douglas Convention, nominated John. C. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, which Mr. Dent, representing the Pennsylvania delegation present, “most heartily seconded." Mr. Ward, from the Alabama delegation, nominated R. M. T. Hunter, of Virginia; Mr. Ewing, from that of Tennessee, nominated Mr. Dickinson, of New York; and Mr. Stevens, from Oregon, nominated General Joseph Lane. Eventually all these names were withdrawn except that of Mr. Breckinridge, and he received the nomination by a unanimous vote. The whole number of votes cast in his favor from twenty States was 103. The vote of Mr. Douglas was considerably greater, but Mr. Breckinridge received a large majority over him from States known to be Democratic.

General Lane was unanimously nominated as the candidate for Vice-President. Thus terminated the Breckinridge Convention.

The 23d of June, 1860, was a dark and gloomy day both for the Democratic party and the Union. It foreboded nothing but evil. There could be no pretence that either candidate had been nominated according to the established rules of the party. Every individual Democrat was, therefore, left at liberty to choose between them. In many localities, especially North, their respective partisans became more violent against each other than against the common foe. No reasonable hope could remain for the election of Mr. Douglas or Mr. Breckinridge. It was morally certain that Mr. Lincoln would be the next President, and this added greatly to his strength. The result was, that of the 303 electoral votes, Mr. Douglas received but 12* (3 from New Jersey, and 9 from Missouri), and Mr. Breckinridge only 72 (3 from Delaware, 8 from Maryland, 10 from North Carolina, 8 from South Carolina, 10 from Georgia, 6

* Congressional Globe, 1860-'61, page 894.

from Louisiana, 7 from Mississippi, 9 from Alabama, 4 from Arkansas, 3 from Florida, and 4 from Texas). Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee cast their 39 votes for John Bell, of Tennessee, of the self-styled Constitutional Union party.

In reviewing the whole, it is clear that the original cause of the disaster was the persistent refusal of the friends of Mr. Douglas to recognize the constitutional rights of the slaveholding States in the Territories, established by the Supreme Court. These rights the Southern States could not yield after the decision, without a sense of self-degradation, and voluntary abandonment of their equality with their sister States, as members of the Union. But were they justified, for this cause, in seceding from the Convention, and pursuing a course so extreme? Far from it. Had they remained at the post of duty, like Virginia and the other border States, it would have been impossible that a candidate so obnoxious to them, on account of his principles, could have been nominated. The final result would probably then have been the nomination of some compromise candidate, which would have preserved the unity and strength of the Democratic organization. Indeed, the withdrawal of these States, under the circumstances, has afforded plausible ground for the belief of many, that this was done with a view to prepare the way for a dissolution of the Union. Although, from the votes and speeches of their delegates, there do not seem to be sufficient grounds for so harsh a judgment, yet it cannot be denied that the act was rash, unwise, and unfortunate.

An entire new generation had now come upon the stage in the South, in the midst of the anti-slavery agitation. The former generation, which had enjoyed the blessings of peace and security under the Constitution and the Union, had passed away. That now existing had grown up and been educated amid assaults upon their rights, and attacks from the North upon the domestic institution inherited from their fathers. Their postoffices had been perverted for the circulation of incendiary pictures and publications intended to excite the slaves to servile insurrection. In the North, the press, State Legislatures, antislavery societies, abolition lecturers, and above all the Christian pulpit, had been persistently employed in denouncing slavery as

a sin, and rendering slaveholders odious. Numerous abolition petitions had been presented to Congress, from session to session, portraying slavery as a grievous sin against God and man. The Fugitive Slave Law enacted by the first Congress, as well as that of 1850, for the security of their property, had been nullified by the Personal Liberty Acts of Northern Legislatures, and by the organized assistance afforded by abolitionists for the escape of their slaves. Wilmot provisos had been interposed to defeat their constitutional rights in the common Territories, and even after these rights had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, its decision had been set at naught not only by the Republican but by the Douglas party. "The irrepressible conflict" of Senator Seward, and the Helper book, both portending the abolition of slavery in the States, had been circulated broadcast among the people. And finally the desperate fanatic, John Brown, inflamed by these teachings, had invaded Virginia; and murdered a number of her peaceful citizens, for the avowed purpose of exciting a servile insurrection; and although he had expiated his crimes on the gallows, his memory was consecrated by the abolitionists, as though he had been a saintly martyr.

In the midst of these perils the South had looked with hope to the action of the Democratic National Convention at Charleston, but in this they had been sadly disappointed. This series of events had inflamed the Southern mind with intense hostility against the North, and enabled the disunion agitators to prepare it for the final catastrophe.

It was not until after the breaking up of the Democratic party at Charleston and Baltimore, that the masses, even in the cotton States, always excepting South Carolina, could be induced to think seriously of seceding from the Union. The border States, with Virginia in the front rank, although much dissatisfied with the course of events at the North, still remained true to the Federal Government.

CHAPTER IV.

The heresy of Secession-Originated in New England-Maintained by Josiah Quincy and the Hartford Convention, by Mr. Rawle and Mr. John Quincy Adams, but opposed by the South-Southern Secession dates from South Carolina Nullification-Its character and history-The Compromise Tariff of 1833-The Nullifiers agitate for Secession-Mr. Calhoun-Mr. Cobb against it—Warnings of the Democratic party-They are treated with contempt-Secession encouraged by the Republicans-The Cotton States led to believe they would be allowed to depart in peace-President Buchanan warned them against this delusion.

THE alleged right of secession, or the right of one or more States to withdraw from the Union, is not a plant of Southern origin. On the contrary, it first sprung up in the North. At an early period after the formation of the Constitution, many influential individuals of New England became dissatisfied with the union between the Northern and Southern States, and were anxious to dissolve it. "This design," according to Mr. John Quincy Adams, "had been formed in the winter of 1803-'4, immediately after and as a consequence of the acquisition of Louisiana." This he disclosed to Mr. Jefferson, in the year 1809. About the same time, to the confidential friends of Mr. Jefferson he "urged that a continuance of the embargo much longer would certainly be met by forcible resistance, supported by the Legislature and probably by the judiciary of the State [Massachusetts]. That to quell that resistance, if force should be resorted to by the Government, it would produce a civil war; and that, in that event, he had no doubt the leaders of the party would secure the coöperation with them of Great Britain. That their object was, and had been for several years, a dissolution of

* Letter of Dec. 30, 1828, in reply to Harrison Grey Otis and others. Appendix to Randall's Life of Jefferson, vol. iii., p. 635. Vide also vol. iii., p. 295.