THE CHARLESTON CONVENTION.
It was an unfortunate time for the meeting of the Democratic National
Convention. The hope that the party which had so often brought harmony
from discord could unite upon the soil of an extreme Southern State was
destined to be broken. The body met in Charleston on April 23, 1860. The
place was worthy of the assemblage. For the first time in the party
history, its convention had met south of Cincinnati or Baltimore.
Redolent with the beauties of spring and the tint of historic interest,
Charleston, with its memories of Moultrie, inspired feelings of
patriotic pride. If it suggested the obstruction of Calhoun, it recalled
the Revolutionary glory of Marion and Rutledge, and the bold challenge
of Hayne to Webster, that if there be one State in the Union which could
challenge comparison with any other for a uniform, ardent, and zealous
devotion to the Union, that State was South Carolina.
It was a memorable meeting. The convention was presided over by Caleb
Cushing of Massachusetts, the devoted friend of Daniel Webster, and
Attorney-General under Franklin Pierce. In its ranks were Henry B. Payne
of Ohio, Benjamin F. Butler of Massachusetts, and James A. Bayard of
Delaware. These men were towers of strength in the North. They were the
men to whom Robert Toombs had appealed in the Senate, when he turned
from his fiery imprecation and, lowering his great voice, declared, with
tenderness and pride, "I have no word of invocation to those who stand
to-day in the ranks of Northern Democracy, but to remember and emulate
their past history. From the beginning of this controversy they have
stood firmly by the Constitution. No body of men in the world's history
ever exhibited higher or nobler devotion to principle under such adverse
circumstances.... Amid the opprobrious epithets, the gibes and jeers of
the enemies of the Constitution; worse than this, amid words of distrust
and reproach even from men of the South, these great-hearted patriots
have marched steadily in the path of duty.... The union of all these
elements may yet secure to our country peace and safety. But if this
cannot be done, safety and peace are incompatible in the Union. Amid
treachery and desertion at home, and injustice from without, amid
disaster and defeat, they have risen superior to fortune, and stand
to-day with their banners all tattered and soiled in the humble service
of the whole country. No matter what fortune may betide us in the
future, while life lasts, I have a hand that will succor and a heart
ready to embrace the humblest soldier of this noble band."
At that time there were thirty-three States in the Union. The committee
on platform consisted of one from each State. The delegates from
California and Oregon, voting with the South, gave them seventeen votes
in committee. The resolutions were quickly framed, with the exception of
the one on slavery. Here was the deadlock. The majority plank declared
that the right to settle in the Territories with slaves "was not to be
destroyed nor impaired by Territorial legislation." The minority
proposed once more to leave the question to the Supreme Court. The
compromise was not accepted. The two reports came before the convention,
and, the Douglas men being in the majority on the floor, the minority,
or squatter-sovereignty report, was adopted by a vote of 165 to 138.
Here came the crisis. The delegates from Alabama, Mississippi, Florida,
Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas, and a part of Delaware, withdrew from the
convention. Hon. William L. Yancey of Alabama led this movement. He was
a man of courage and decision, with unrivaled powers of oratory. He had
been a member of Congress, and his influence in the South was large. So
far back as June 15, 1858, he had written a famous letter to James M.
Slaughter that "no national party can save us; no sectional party can
ever do it; but if we would do as our fathers did, organize committees
of safety all over the cotton States--and it is only to them that we can
hope for any effectual movement--we shall fire the Southern heart,
instruct the Southern mind, give courage to each other, and, by one
concerted action, we can precipitate the cotton States into a
revolution." This was called the "Scarlet Letter," and was widely
scattered and read.
The seceding delegates organized a second assemblage over which the Hon.
James A. Bayard presided. The Douglas men were left in control of the
first convention, but could not secure the two-thirds vote necessary for
his nomination. More than fifty ballots were taken, the full strength of
the Illinois candidate being 152. On the 3d of May the convention
adjourned to meet in Baltimore on the 18th of June, when it was hoped a
spirit of compromise might be inspired by the seriousness of the
situation.
On the night of the break in that body Mr. Yancey made a speech in
Charleston, when in prophetic words he declared, "Perhaps even now the
pen of the historian is nibbed to inscribe the history of a new
revolution."
The seceding delegates called for a convention to be held in Richmond,
Va., on the second Monday in June.
When the seven States had withdrawn from the convention, the Georgia
delegation was split up. A majority left the convention, a small
minority remained. This action created great excitement in Georgia. The
Democratic executive committee called a State convention to meet in
Milledgeville on June 4. A committee of prominent citizens, headed by
Hon. J. J. Gresham of Macon, addressed letters to public men asking
their views in this alarming situation. Howell Cobb indorsed the
seceders; he was opposed to Douglas. Alexander H. Stephens thought
Georgia should appoint delegates to the Baltimore convention, withdraw
the demand for a new plank in the Cincinnati platform, abide by the
doctrine of non-intervention, and nominate a good man for President. "If
we must quarrel with the North," said he, "let us base it on the
aggressive acts of our enemies and not on the supposed shortcomings of
our friends."
Hon. Robert Toombs did not come South during the Charleston convention.
He watched from his post in the Senate the great struggle between the
Democratic factions. On May 10, he wrote, in reply to the letter of the
Macon committee:
Perhaps the time may not have come for the attainment of
the full measure of our constitutional rights; it may not
have been prudent on the part of the representatives of the
seventeen States to have sanctioned and presented as much
truth on the slavery issue as is contained in what is
commonly called the majority platform; but when it was thus
sanctioned, approved, and presented to the convention, it
was well to stand by and defend it, especially against the
platform of the minority. The seceding delegates did this
with manly firmness, and I approve their action.
Mr. Toombs advised, however, that the seceding delegates ought to meet
with the convention at Baltimore and endeavor to obtain such a
satisfactory adjustment of difficulties as could be secured. "This
course requires no sacrifice of principles." This plan had been proposed
by the delegates from New York to the delegates from the Southern
States. "The proposed Richmond convention, if it shall be found
necessary to hold it," he said, "can be held after, as well as before
the Baltimore convention, and I think with clearer lights for its
guidance."
"It is sometimes wise," said Mr. Toombs, "to accept a part of our just
rights, if we can have the residue unimpaired and uncompromised, but
nothing can justify a voluntary surrender of principle, indispensable to
the safety and honor of the State.
"It is true we are surrounded with danger, but I do not concur in the
opinion that the danger to the Union is even one of our greatest perils.
The greatest danger, to-day, is that the Union will survive the
Constitution. The body of your enemies in the North, who hate the
Constitution, and daily trample it under their feet, profess an ardent
attachment to the Union, and I doubt not, feel such attachment for a
Union unrestrained by a Constitution. Do not mistake your real danger!
The Union has more friends than you have, and will last, at least, as
long as its continuance will be compatible with your safety."
Prior to the reassembling of the Democratic convention, the resolutions
introduced by the Hon. Jefferson Davis, containing the Southern
exposition of principles, came up in the Senate. Mr. Toombs had opposed
the policy of introducing those resolutions, but as they were then
before the country, he said they should be met. He ridiculed the idea of
popular sovereignty. He declared that Congress should protect slavery in
the Territories. The Federal Government, he claimed, did protect its
citizens, native and naturalized, at home and abroad, everywhere except
on the soil of our own territory, acquired by common blood and treasure.
This speech of Senator Toombs marked an epoch in his career. It
separated him entirely from Stephen A. Douglas, to whom he had been
closely allied, in spite, as he said, of Douglas having wandered after
strange gods. Douglas absented himself from the Senate when Toombs
spoke. For the first time in twenty years, Toombs and Stephens took
divergent paths. They were called in Georgia the "Siamese twins." From
the election of Harrison to the Democratic split in 1860, they had been
personal friends and firm political allies. Mr. Stephens was for Douglas
and the Union; Mr. Toombs feared lest "the Union survive the
Constitution."
The Democratic party in Georgia met on June 4, and parted on the lines
of the Charleston division. The Union element in Georgia was led by
Herschel V. Johnson, a man of power and influence. He had been Governor
of the State, was a man of learning, profound in thought and candid in
expression. His wife was a niece of President Polk. His state papers
were models of clear and classical expression. Governor Johnson was,
however, better fitted for the bench or the Cabinet than for a public
leader.
Both wings of the Georgia convention appointed delegates to the
Baltimore convention. That body admitted the delegation which had
seceded from the Charleston convention. As the seceding delegates from
the other States were rejected, the Georgia delegates refused to go in.
Missouri was the only Southern State which was represented entirely in
the body, composed of 190 delegates. Massachusetts withdrew and Caleb
Cushing resigned the chair. Stephen A. Douglas was nominated for
President of the United States. Governor Fitzpatrick of Alabama declined
the vice presidency, and Herschel V. Johnson of Georgia was chosen for
vice president. The seceders immediately organized a national
convention, Mr. Cushing presiding. It was composed of 210 delegates. The
majority or anti-Douglas platform of the Charleston convention was
adopted. John C. Breckenridge of Kentucky was nominated for President,
and Joseph C. Lane of Oregon for vice president. Mr. Breckenridge was at
that time vice president of the United States, and Mr. Lane was a
senator. Meanwhile, a Constitutional Union party had been formed in
Georgia, and had elected delegates to a convention of that party in
Baltimore. This body nominated for President and vice president, John
Bell of Tennessee and Edward Everett of Massachusetts. Mr. Bell had been
United States Senator at the time of the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska
bill, in 1854, and had been arraigned by Mr. Toombs for opposing the
party policy. He was one of the thirteen who voted against it in the
Senate.
The contest in Georgia waged with much vigor. Robert Toombs supported
Breckenridge. He was a delegate to the Democratic State convention which
put out a Breckenridge and Lane electoral ticket. He cut out the
business of that convention, and declared that the Constitution and
equality of the States was the only bond of everlasting union. Mr.
Stephens headed the Douglas ticket. Senator Douglas himself came to
Georgia and spoke during the campaign. The Bell and Everett ticket was
championed by Benjamin H. Hill. The vote in Georgia was: Breckenridge,
51,893; Douglas, 11,580; Bell, 42,855.
Of these three Georgians, so strikingly arrayed against each other in
this critical campaign, Mr. Vincent, a gifted Texan, thus wrote with
dramatic power: "Hill, Stephens, Toombs--all eloquent, all imbued with
the same lofty patriotism. They differed widely in their methods; their
opinions were irreconcilable, their policies often diametrically
opposite. Hill was quick, powerful, but unpersistent; Stephens, slow,
forcible and compromising; Toombs, instantaneous, overwhelming, and
unyielding. Hill carried the crowd with a whirlwind of eloquence;
Stephens first convinced, then moved them with accelerating force;
Toombs swept them with a hurricane of thought and magnetic example.
Hill's eloquence was in flights, always rising and finally sublime;
Stephens' was argumentative with an elegant smoothness, often flowing in
sweeping, majestic waves; Toombs' was an engulfing stream of impetuous
force, with the roar of thunder. Hill was receptive, elastic, and full
of the future; Stephens was philosophical, adaptable, and full of the
past; Toombs was inexhaustible, original, inflexible, and full of the
now. It was Hill's special forte to close a campaign; Stephens' to
manage it; Toombs' to originate it. In politics as in war, he sought,
with the suddenness of an electric flash, to combat, vanquish, and slay.
Hill's eloquence exceeded his judgment; Stephens' judgment was superior
to his oratorical power; in Toombs these were equipollent. Hill
considered expediency; Stephens, policy; Toombs, principle always; Hill
would perhaps flatter, Stephens temporize, Toombs neither--never. At
times Hill would resort to the arts of the dialectician; Stephens would
quibble over the niceties of construction; Toombs relied on the
impregnability of his position, the depth of his thought, the vigor of
his reasoning. Hill discussed with opponents; Stephens debated with
them; Toombs ignored them. Hill refuted and vanquished his adversaries;
Stephens persuaded and led them; Toombs magnetized them, and they
followed him. Their enemies said that Hill was treacherous in politics;
Stephens selfishly ambitious; and that Toombs loaned like a prince and
collected like a Shylock.
"In those days Georgia did not put pygmies on pedestals. Hill will be
remembered by his 'Notes on the Situation'; Stephens by his 'War between
the States'; Toombs had no circumstantial superiority. He is immortal,
as the people are eternal."