obstructions being removed from California and New Mexico, any one with half an eye could see that the Missouri Compromise would be swept away, and the whole region west of the "Father of the Waters" would become slave territory.

To such concessions there were many Northern Democrats who objected, and some who answered "No! Never!" Just then the Democratic State Convention was called to meet at Montpelier, and the leading Democratic newspaper, published at the State capital, announced that the convention would incorporate the new doctrines into the Democratic platform. The paper spoke as one having authority, declaring that the Wilmot Proviso was a violation of the Federal Constitution.

I was one of the recalcitrant Democrats and a delegate from Burlington to that convention. On the day it met I should complete my twenty-fourth year. I had been practising at the bar somewhat over three years and was (in my own opinion) a much greater constitutional lawyer than I have at any time since been considered by myself or other competent judges. I felt perfectly qualified to discuss the constitutional question involved in the Proviso. The more I examined the authorities the clearer the question seemed, until I arrived at the condition of mind. where I regarded this new demand as a piece of cool impudence on the part of the pro-slavery Democracy.

I found that other delegates to the convention were of the same temper. One of them was Charles D. Kasson, a lawyer of Burlington and an elder brother of John A. Kasson, afterward of Iowa. The elder Kasson was as solid, reliable, and generous a citizen and friend as ever existed. He was removed

by death only a few years later, and his loss was felt not only by the circle of his personal friends, but by the community.

With Kasson I promptly decided that if the convention committed itself in favor of Squatter Sovereignty and against the Wilmot Proviso, we would leave it and raise the standard of FREE SOIL. We corresponded with other delegates and invited them to join us in the revolt. Many of the younger Democrats were, like ourselves, indignant at the new dictation. But when it came to the question of leaving the party they (nearly) "all with one consent began to make excuse." We found only four who where willing to unite in heroic measures. These were Edward D. Barber, of Middlebury, Charles I. Walker and Charles K. Field, of Windham, and A. J. Rowell, of Orleans County. Barber was a greathearted man, full of fun and frolic, but with a soul stirred to its depths by any story of cruelty or oppression. He was a born anti-slavery man. Walker was an able lawyer, who shortly after removed to Detroit, where he soon became the leader of the bar. Field was a lawyer of great natural ability, full of a grim humor and with a tongue as sharp and caustic as that of John Randolph. Rowell was like Zaccheus, little of stature, but great in push and energy. The qualities of the sixth party to the agreement were as may hereafter appear.

The six members referred to had a conference in Montpelier the evening before the convention. We agreed to go into the convention after we had notified the State Committee of our purpose to withdraw if the design of adding the new planks to the platform were persisted in. Possibly because I was the

youngest, to me was assigned the duty of delivering our valedictory and leading the revolt.

We called upon the State Committee in the morning and were treated with contempt. At ten o'clock the convention was called to order. From the temporary and permanent organization and the Committee on Resolutions we were, as we had anticipated, excluded. The last-named committee met in a corner of the hall; the resolutions which had been prepared by authority were immediately reported to the convention. They were anti-Proviso and pro-Squatter Sovereignty in their most objectionable form.

I arose to make my first, my last, and my only speech in a Democratic convention. I began with the statement that the resolutions made the Democratic party of Vermont say that our free republic had not the power to maintain its own freedom; that if it was a violation of the Constitution to preserve the freedom of the territory acquired from Mexico, it was an equal violation of that instrument to exclude slavery from the northwest territory. That I would not venture to question the conclusions of the great constitutional lawyers of the Committee on Resolutions, but I would read a section or two from a law book of some authority which was diametrically opposed to the conclusions of the committee. The book was called Kent's Commentaries, was written by a lawyer of some authority in his day, and I read from it, not to resist the resolutions, but to show in what wholesale and ignorant blunders the committee had detected John Marshall, Story, and James Kent. I then read an extract from a letter of Mr. Madison to another member of the convention that framed the Constitution, thereby showing that the makers of

that instrument did not know what they were about, for they supposed that the absolute control of the territories had been vested in Congress. This satire produced an uneasy feeling in the convention. Throwing it aside, I now, with all the earnestness of which I was master, exclaimed, "You who assert the power of leadership are making it impossible for a Vermonter who respects himself to remain in the Democratic party. Your resolutions prostitute that party to the service of the slave power. Our ancestors fought two states and a kingdom, through cold and poverty and hunger, for almost twenty years, to secure a place where Vermont was the equal of any State in the Federal Union. Your resolutions are unworthy of their descendants. Pass them, and with my associates I leave this hall for the time being and the Democratic party forever, unless it is redeemed from its present vassalage and restored to its former principles and dignity."

When I took my seat there was for some moments an oppressive silence, followed at last by what appeared to be a burst of genuine applause.

But an ancient Democrat, whose mind was impervious to argument, then arose and observed that as "the boy had spoke his piece, we might as well proceed to the business of the convention." No one else spoke. There was a subdued affirmative vote and a sharp "No" from the six to the resolutions. We did not challenge the vote, the chairman declared the resolutions carried, and the opposition party of six walked out of the convention. There was an effort to raise a hiss. It failed, and we took our departure in a profound and unbroken silence.

We crossed the street to the Pavilion Hotel, en

tered the room we had occupied, and closed the door. Barber was requested to take the chair and Rowell to act as secretary. Field arose, saying that he had a motion to make which he had committed to writing. It was brief but comprehensive. "I move," he read, "that we organize a new party to be called the 'FREE SOIL PARTY;' that its platform shall be uncompromising resistance to the extension of slavery or the slave power; that we select a State Committee of five persons; that we establish a weekly newspaper to be published in Burlington and called the Free Soil Courier; that we assess ourselves for money enough to pay for publishing four numbers; that we name its editors; that the first number be issued as early as it can be prepared, and that it contain our address to the people of Vermont."

There was no discussion, for the motion was drawn after our consultation of the previous evening. It was passed at once nem. con., and the first Free Soil party formed in this republic, and out of the loins of which came the most effective political organization witnessed by the nineteenth century-the grand old Republican party-was organized.

Field was then appointed to write the address. Edward A. Stansbury, an active, young anti-slavery Whig, was in the hotel. He was sent for, came, and, after our action was explained, agreed to join us and to become the temporary editor of the Courier. We then subscribed fifty dollars each to the publication fund, and adjourned in time for an early dinner. Before the arrival of the daily stage for Burlington (for Vermont had no railroads then) Field had completed his address to the people. It was read, amended, and adopted. I was named as