THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTHERN CONSPIRACY--THE ELECTION OF ABRAHAM
LINCOLN.
Mr. Chandler became a Senator of the United States at the time when
the Southern followers of John C. Calhoun had determined that the
preservation of slavery was impossible without disunion, and had
commenced preparations for that desperate measure of defense. The heavy
vote given to Fremont in the North, the failure of the attempt to plant
slavery in Kansas, the widening schism in the Democracy itself on
the issue of slavery-extension, and the certainty that the census of
1860 would greatly increase the voting power in Congress of the North
and Northwest--all made it plain that the South could not reinforce
its waning strength with new slave States. Its leaders saw that the
alternative before them was a systematic repression of slavery pointing
toward its ultimate extinction, or the creation of a new government
pretending to be a republic but "with its foundations laid, its
corner-stone resting upon, the great truth that the negro is not equal
to the white man, that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is
his natural and normal condition."[8] Every civilized instinct urged
them to assent to peaceful and gradual emancipation, but they chose the
alternative of disunion from a belief that in no other way could the
political ascendancy so long enjoyed by the ruling classes of the South
be maintained. The administration of James Buchanan was their period
of preparation. Whatever of needed assistance his sympathy failed to
supply was furnished by his imbecility of purpose. In his Cabinet and
in federal offices throughout the South active disunionists plotted
and labored to make all things ready for rebellion and unready for
its suppression. Chronic compromisers, Northern believers in slavery,
and State Rights theorists were their useful allies. In Congress they
threatened and bullied, and month by month made the demands of slavery
more arrogant and exacting, scheming to kindle the war spirit of the
South and to widen the breach between the sections, until they could
offer to the North the ultimatum of abject surrender to the slave
power or disunion and civil strife. The representatives of the North
at Washington met these early developments of treason in various
moods; there was no lack among them of those who were inclined to
submit; there were many who disbelieved in the reality of the purpose
underlying Southern vaporing and bluster, and this class included
earnest and able Republicans; but there were also some who did not
doubt that the slave power would try secession before accepting defeat,
and who, yielding not one inch of the right to menaces, proposed to
treat disunion, whether threatened or attempted, as treason and to
denounce and resist it as such.
Early in his Senatorial career Mr. Chandler became convinced that
the purpose of rebellion was a well-defined one at the South, that
preparations to make it successful were in active progress, and that
the longer the crisis was delayed the more difficult would be the
task of its suppression. Between 1857 and 1861 his comments to his
intimate friends on the outlook were exceedingly gloomy, and he often
declared that he saw no possible escape from war. If the government
was to be maintained on the basis on which it was founded and was
not to be revolutionized in the interest of slavery, he believed
that an armed conflict with the men who had determined to change its
character was inevitable. He did not underestimate their ambition,
their desperateness of purpose, or their readiness for violence.
But neither in public nor in private did he quail before them in any
degree, and his only plan of action was the simple, straightforward and
characteristic one of meeting their threats with defiance and their
treason with all the force required for its punishment. In a time of
vacillation, feebleness and moral cowardice, and while he was still
new in the Senate and hampered by his own inexperience and the usages
of that body, what he did say and all his acts and influence were
important contributions to that invigorating of Northern sentiment
which the times so greatly demanded and which alone made possible the
national uprising of 1861.
As a matter of record, the first time Zachariah Chandler's voice
was heard in the Senate chamber, he asked that "Cornelius O'Flynn
have leave to withdraw his memorial and papers from the files of the
Senate." The first caucus he attended was that in which the Republican
minority decided to make a vigorous protest against the unfairness
of its treatment in the appointment of the Senate committees of the
Thirty-fifth Congress. In his first speech he added, on the floor
of the Senate, to the protest of his party an equally vigorous
remonstrance against the complete ignoring of the commercial importance
of the Northwest in the selection of members of the Committee on
Commerce. In his second speech (on the proposition to increase the
army) he said in significant language: "If they will show to me that
they require a force in Utah to put down rebellion I will vote for it,
I care not whether it be one regiment or one hundred regiments." His
first prepared address in the Senate was delivered on the 12th day
of March, 1858, and had as its theme that most reckless of the slave
power's efforts at self-extension, the attempt to force upon Kansas
what was known as the Lecompton constitution.
This was a pro-slavery instrument, framed by a constitutional
convention elected and controlled by Border-Ruffians, apparently
ratified at an election whose managers allowed no one to vote against
it but only to vote for it with slavery or for it without slavery (even
the "without" was fraudulent, because property in slaves already in
Kansas was in any event guaranteed until 1864), and overwhelmingly
rejected at the only election which in any degree fairly represented
the opinions of the genuine settlers of the territory. Mr. Chandler's
speech on this topic, the absorbing one of that day, was prepared with
much care and delivered from manuscript. Portions of it were read to
Senators Cameron, Wade and Hamlin before it was uttered. While it was
spoken with the impulsive manner that generally characterized his
speeches, it was the result of long deliberation and of such careful
study of phraseology as was necessary to make it explicit and forcible.
It was listened to by a large audience. Mr. Chandler had in private
conversation spoken with much vigor of the duty of the Republican party
in case the Lecompton constitution of Kansas was accepted and the new
State admitted under that instrument, and his remarks had been freely
quoted. His reputation for radicalism of opinion and plainness of
speech had also reached Washington, and there was a general interest
felt in his first prepared address. He began speaking about fifteen
minutes after the Senate was called to order (in the chamber now
occupied by the Supreme Court) and held the floor for nearly three
hours. The spectators included many members of the House, among them
John Sherman, since Senator and Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander
H. Stephens, afterward Vice-President of the Confederacy, and John A.
Logan, now well-known as both soldier and Senator. The address was
one of power and was attended by marked effect.[9] It contained this
description of the fate of three Michigan emigrants to Kansas:
Men have been hunted down by sheriffs and by _posses_ from other
States, by border-ruffians--everywhere under the color of law. Sir,
the State of Michigan has over a thousand of her people in Kansas
to-day. Three of her citizens, and many other good men, have been
murdered in cold blood. Two of them, Barbour and Brown, I know
were as good men as can be found on the face of the earth. The
other--Gay--was Mr. Pierce's Land Agent for the territory. He was a
Nebraska pro-slavery Democrat. He was met one day, with his son, on
the road, and asked whether he was for Free-State or pro-slavery.
He had become a little Free-Statish in his views, and, not dreaming
of danger, he said: "I am a Free-State man," and he was shot down,
and his son, in attempting to defend his father, received a bullet
in his hip, and is now a cripple in Michigan. I speak with some
feeling. My own constituents, my own people, have been brutally
murdered, and I should be recreant to my trust if I did not speak
with feeling on this subject. I know the men from Michigan who are
in Kansas to be as good men as can be found within these United
States, and when any one says the emigrants from Michigan to the
territory of Kansas are picked from the purlieus of cities I tell
him he knows nothing about the subject and that it is not true.
They are as good men as the State of Michigan produces; they are
honest and brave; they know their rights and, knowing, dare defend
them.
But those parts of the speech which most thoroughly stirred his hearers
and fell with unaccustomed force on ears which rarely heard such
defiant tones, were these:
I cannot permit this bill to pass without protest. It was conceived
and executed in fraud.... It is one of the series of aggressions on
the part of the slave power which, if permitted to be consummated,
must end in the subversion of the constitution and the Union.... It
strikes a death-blow at State sovereignty and popular rights....
When Missouri applied for admission as a slave State ... the North
objected. They declared it was agreed to that no more slave States
should be admitted into the Union.... Agitation ran high. The South
then as now threatened a dissolution of the Union. The North then
as now denied her power to dissolve it.... During this excitement
the hearts of brave men quailed.... A new compromise was made....
As a part of this compromise slavery was forever prohibited north
of 36° 30'.... The compromise was acquiesced in.... Peace again
reigned through the land, ... and this peace continued until the
discovery of the new doctrine of popular sovereignty.... This is
called a new compromise.... We are told we must accept it because
the Union is in danger.... But that set of people who have been
in labor and suffering and trial for so long a time on account of
the Union have passed off the stage. In their places are men who
love this glorious Union and love it as it was made by the fathers;
men who will not whine "danger to the Union," but brave men who
will fight for this Union to the death.... The old women of the
North who have been in the habit of crying out "the Union is in
danger" have passed off the stage. They are dead. Their places will
never be supplied, but in their stead we have a race of men who
are devoted to this Union and devoted to it as Jefferson and the
fathers made it and bequeathed it to us.
Any aggression upon the constitution has been submitted to by the
race who have gone off the stage. They were ready to compromise any
principle, any thing. The men of the present day are a different
race. They will compromise nothing; they are Union-loving men; they
love all portions of the Union; and they will sacrifice anything
but principle to save it. They will, however, make no sacrifice of
principle. Never! Never! No more compromises will ever be submitted
to to save the Union! If it is worth saving, it will be saved; but
if you sap and undermine its foundations it must topple. It will be
the legitimate result of your own action. The only way that we ever
shall save this Union and make it as permanent as the everlasting
hills will be by restoring it to the original foundations upon
which the fathers placed it....
The people of Kansas are almost unanimously opposed to this
constitution; yet you propose to force it upon them without their
consent. It cannot be done. The government has not bayonets enough
to force a constitution upon the necks of any unwilling people....
It is our purpose to avoid the shedding of blood upon the soil of
the United States by civil war. While I will not charge on the
supporters of the Lecompton constitution the purpose, in civil
war, of shedding blood upon the soil of the United States, I do
charge that they, and they alone, will be responsible for every
drop of blood that may be shed in consequence of the adoption of
that constitution. I trust in God civil war will never come; but
if it should come, upon their heads, and theirs alone, will rest
the responsibility of every drop that may flow. I trust in God that
this question will never be pushed to that extremity, for I would
have less respect for the people of Kansas than I now have if I
supposed they would tamely submit to have a constitution thrust
down their throats without authority of law, and against law,
without making resistance. I would disown them as the descendants
of the men who fought our revolutionary battles if I did not think
they would resist any illegal attempts to force a constitution upon
them.
A speech of such vigor of opinion was not without marked effect. There
was a disposition among the less radical Republicans to rate it as
imprudent, and there were some attempts at rebuking Mr. Chandler for
being so outspoken. He received these criticisms good-humoredly, but
felt confident of his position and constantly defended it. The effect
of his demonstration on the Democratic side was marked; the new Senator
from Michigan surprised his political opponents by the directness and
force of his attack, but won from them the respect always accorded
to boldness and candor. Mr. Chandler also showed spirit on little as
well as great occasions. In the latter part of the following April,
the Democrats attempted to coerce the Republicans into voting upon the
same bill for the admission of Kansas. Without any ill-temper, but with
no lack of earnestness, Mr. Chandler arose, and said: "I understand
gentlemen on the other side to say that no adjournment shall take place
until this question is disposed of. If that is their determination I
can assure them that no adjournment will take place until the 7th of
June. When I say that no adjournment will take place until that time,
I mean what I say. I propose to take a recess until 9 o'clock, and I
advise gentlemen to bid farewell to their families for thirty days at
least."
In 1858 fuel was added to the anti-slavery flame by the Dred Scott
decision, in which the majority of the Judges of the Supreme Court
affirmed, that as a matter of history the negroes at the time of the
formation of the constitution "had no rights which the white man was
bound to respect," that as a principle of law neither emancipated
slaves nor the emancipated descendants of slaves were entitled to
claim the rights and privileges which the constitution provides for
and secures to citizens of the United States, and that under a correct
constitutional construction acts excluding slavery from the territories
were without validity. This utterance was rendered especially obnoxious
by the fact that the court, while leaving Dred Scott in slavery on the
ground that the United States tribunals had no jurisdiction in his
case, practically asserted jurisdiction for the purpose of deciding
(outside of the real issues of the trial as limited by its own
finding) that Congress could not exclude slavery from the territories.
In reference to this decision Mr. Chandler said in the Senate on the
17th of February, 1859:
What did General Jackson do when the Supreme Court declared the
United States Bank constitutional? Did he bow in deference to
the opinion of the court? No, ... he said he would construe the
constitution for himself, that he was sworn to do it. I shall do
the same thing. I have sworn to support the Constitution of the
United States, and I have sworn to support it as the fathers made
it and not as the Supreme Court have altered it. And I never will
swear allegiance to that.
In October, 1859, "Old John Brown" made his memorable attempt to
liberate the enslaved negroes of the South by the descent upon Harper's
Ferry. The rashness of his unaided attack on a giant wrong is protected
from ridicule by a heroism worthy of Thermopylæ and by a death which
Sidney's last hours did not surpass in moral grandeur. Mr. Chandler,
with deep respect for Brown's motives and the unique simplicity of
his character, was earnest in condemnation of his methods and of the
utter foolhardiness of his effort. Congress was not in session when
Brown seized Harper's Ferry and convulsed Virginia with fright, and Mr.
Chandler was not in Washington. When Congress did meet in December,
Brown had just been hanged, and the excitement was still feverish. A
Senate committee, consisting of Mason of Virginia, Jefferson Davis,
Fitch of Indiana, Democrats, and Collamer and Doolittle, Republicans,
was at once appointed to investigate the raid, and while the resolution
providing for it was under consideration Mr. Chandler made one of his
telling speeches. In it he thus ridiculed "the reign of terror" at the
South:
Senators ask us why we have no sympathy with Virginia in this
instance. Sir, we do not understand this case at all. What are the
facts? Seventeen white men and five unwilling negroes surround
and capture a town of 2,000 people, with a United States armory,
any quantity of arms and ammunition, and with 300 men employed in
it--as I am informed, employed in it under a civil officer--and
hold it for two days. These I understand to be the facts, and you
ask, Why have we not sympathy? We do not understand any such case
as that. The Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Brown) asks, What would
we say if North Carolina and Virginia were to attack the armory at
Springfield? I do not know what is the population of Springfield,
but I will guarantee if any seventeen or twenty-two of the Generals
... of the States of Virginia and North Carolina were to attack
Springfield, if there was not a man within five miles of there, the
women would bind them in thirty minutes and would not ask sympathy
and the matter would not be deemed of sufficient importance to ask
for a committee of investigation on the part of the corporation.
Why, sir, Governor Wise compared the people of Harper's Ferry to
sheep, as the public press state. That is a libel on the sheep. For
I never saw a flock of fifty or a hundred sheep in my life that had
not a belligerent ram among them. We do not understand any such
panic as this. If seventeen or one hundred men were to attack a
town of the size of Harper's Ferry anywhere throughout the region
with which I am acquainted, they would simply be put in jail in
thirty minutes, and then they would be tried for their crimes and
they would be punished and there would be no row made about it.
The pointed passage of the speech was the one in which he thanked a
Southern Governor for demonstrating so conspicuously that treason was a
crime punishable by death. He said,
I am in favor of the resolution because the first execution for
treason that has ever occurred in the United States has just taken
place. John Brown has been executed as a traitor in the State of
Virginia, and I want it to go upon the records of the Senate in
the most solemn manner to be held up as a warning to traitors,
come they from the North, South, East or West. Dare to raise your
impious hands against this government, its constitution and its
laws--and you hang!... Threats have been made year after year for
the last thirty years, that if certain events happen this Union
will be dissolved. It is no small matter to dissolve this Union.
It means a bloody revolution or it means a halter. It means the
successful overturn of this government or it means the fate of John
Brown, and I want that to go solemnly on the record of this Senate!
These were the speeches of a man untried in public life and still in
the early years of his first Congressional term. The Senate which
he thus addressed listened also to Charles Sumner's magnificent
philippics--blows "struck with the club of Hercules entwined with
flowers," to the philosophic eloquence of Seward in his moral prime, to
Wade's sturdy fearlessness of speech, to the wit of Hale, and to the
vigorous oratory of Fessenden. But no man measured more accurately
than Zachariah Chandler the political forces of that day, no man
branded the hatching treason with his blunt precision and homely power,
and no man asserted with more boldness the courage and the purpose
of the North. In that hour resolute words were useful in themselves;
but the lapse of twenty years has shown that Mr. Chandler was then as
clear-sighted as he was intrepid in spirit and plain in speech.
This unsparing denunciation of treason to plotting traitors was not
without personal peril. Mr. Chandler became a Senator at a time when
the South had unleashed its brutality at Washington and regarded
resistance to its demands as justifying violence and insult. Horace
Greeley, while visiting Washington, was assaulted and injured in the
Capitol grounds by Rust of Arkansas, on account of some criticisms
in the _Tribune_ on Congressional action. Preston Brooks committed
(on the 22d of May, 1856) his assault on Charles Sumner in the Senate
chamber, a crime which was publicly upheld by Toombs, Slidell, Davis
and other Southern leaders, and which led South Carolina to unanimously
re-elect the ruffian to the House when he resigned after the adoption
of a vote of censure. Henry Wilson's denunciation of this attack upon
his colleague as "brutal, murderous, and cowardly" was followed by a
challenge from Brooks, to which he responded by arming himself and
by a note declaring that while he repudiated the duelling code he
"religiously believed in the right of self-defense in the broadest
sense." John Woodruff, a Connecticut Representative, having stigmatized
Brooks's act as a "mean achievement of cowardice," was tendered a
duelling challenge which he declined to receive. Anson Burlingame
pursued another course. Of the assault on the Massachusetts Senator,
he said: "I denounce it in the name of the constitution it violates. I
denounce it in the name of the sovereignty of Massachusetts, which was
stricken down by the blow. I denounce it in the name of humanity. I
denounce it in the name of civilization, which it outraged. I denounce
it in the name of that fair play which bullies and prize-fighters
respect." To this the response was a challenge from Brooks, which
Mr. Burlingame accepted, and, selecting Canada as the spot for the
meeting, had the satisfaction of seeing the representative of South
Carolina chivalry refuse to abide by the code he had himself invoked.
William McKee Dunn, of Indiana, was challenged by Rust, of Arkansas,
for words spoken in the House, and, naming "rifles at sixty paces" as
the weapons, learned that such was not the "satisfaction" desired by
Southern "gentlemen." Owen Lovejoy denounced the crimes of slavery
in front of the Speaker's desk in the House, with the fists of angry
Southerners shaking in his face, and amid their yells and threats.
Potter, of Wisconsin, cooled off the hot blood of Roger A. Pryor by
accepting his duelling challenge and selecting bowie-knives as the
weapons. Amid all this there was much chronic servility among Northern
members to Southern insolence, which gave pungent force to Thaddeus
Stevens's sarcasm (uttered during the prolonged contest over the
Speakership of the Thirty-sixth Congress) that he could not blame the
South for trying intimidation, for they had "tried it fifty times and
fifty times, and had always found weak and recreant tremblers in the
North." Mr. Chandler entered the Senate with the firm resolution that
he would not be bullied, that he would not submit to bluster, and that
if occasion came he would fight without hesitation. His decision did
not spring from love of quarrel or mere passion, but was the fruit
of mature reflection and was based upon a clear purpose. He saw that
the Southerners in Congress vapored and threatened for effect; that
they believed that Northern men would not fight, and that they would
be permitted to offer unlimited insults without arousing resentment.
The public sentiment of the North was against duelling or fisticuffs,
and the Southerners supposed--and sincerely--that this was the result
of cowardice and not of conscience. This condition of opinion was of
decided assistance to the conspirators who were plotting disunion at
the South, and the stigma of pusillanimity was the source of no little
practical weakness with the North. Under these circumstances Mr.
Chandler fully determined--as did Mr. Wade, Mr. Hamlin, Mr. Cameron,
and one or two other Senators--that if occasion offered, so that
justice should be clearly upon his side, he would fight. This was a
deliberate purpose, not reached through any admiration for fighting
men, nor through belief in force as a method of argument, but from
a conviction that the moral effect of such a demonstration of the
personal courage of Northern representatives would be of service to the
nation. Mr. Chandler knew himself to be physically capable of meeting
almost any assailant; he prepared himself for a collision by muscular
exercise and the practice of marksmanship, and, while he did not seek,
he made no effort to avoid, an encounter.
On February 5, 1858, there was a personal altercation in the House of
Representatives between Galusha A. Grow, of Pennsylvania, afterward
Speaker, and Lawrence M. Keitt, of South Carolina, who was killed in
battle, during the rebellion, at the head of a Confederate brigade.
Mr. Harris of Illinois, an Anti-Nebraska Democrat, had offered a
resolution for the appointment of a committee to ascertain by an
investigation whether the Lecompton constitution was the work in any
just sense of the people of Kansas. Coming from such a source, the
resolution would have received a majority of votes in the House,
but its opponents resorted to parliamentary stratagem to prevent
its passage, "filibustering" for several hours. Amid the attending
excitement there was a very heated colloquy between Grow and Keitt,
which ended in blows on both sides, Keitt being the first to strike.
Grow resisted, and a general melee followed which was participated
in by many members. The affair was afterward adjusted, and both
apologized to the House but without apologizing to each other. This
occurrence impressed Mr. Chandler deeply, and, as soon as he heard of
it, he went to the Hall of Representatives, and assured Mr. Grow of
his approval and his readiness to render any desired aid. It was the
first outbreak of the kind which came within his personal observation,
and confirmed him in his belief that it was the duty of the Northern
minority to resist all encroachments upon their personal and official
rights. Not long afterward a colloquy occurred in the Senate between
Simon Cameron and Senator Green of Missouri, in which the lie was
given, and only the prompt interference of Vice-President Breckenridge,
who was in the chair, prevented a personal altercation. The Democrats
were insisting upon a vote upon the bill to admit Kansas under the
Lecompton constitution, while the Republicans were endeavoring to
secure longer time for debate. It was about 4 o'clock in the morning
when the offensive words were exchanged. Vice-President Breckenridge
at once rapped with his gavel, and commanded both Green and Cameron
to take their seats. After order had been restored, Senator Green
continued his remarks, and, referring to Cameron, said: "I will not
use a harsh word now; it will be out of order. But if I get out of
this Senate chamber I shall use a harsh word in his (Cameron's) teeth,
for there no rule of order will correct me.... As to any question of
veracity between that Senator and myself, in five minutes after the
Senate adjourns we can settle it." Mr. Cameron's reply was: "I desire
to say, if these remarks are intended as a threat, they have no effect
upon me." The debate was continued at length, but a small group of
Senators was soon after seen in earnest conference in a cloak-room. It
was composed of Senators Chandler, Cameron, Wade and Broderick, and
the result of the consultation was, that by the advice of his friends
Mr. Cameron armed himself, and prepared for self-defense in case he
was attacked by Green. The Senate remained in continuous session for
over eighteen hours, and for some time after the quarrel. Meanwhile Mr.
Green's passion cooled, and the expected collision did not take place
(explanations were ultimately made by both in the Senate chamber). But
when the Senate adjourned, Mr. Chandler accompanied Mr. Cameron to his
lodgings, as a measure of precaution. Out of this affair grew a formal
agreement between Mr. Chandler, Mr. Cameron and Mr. Wade, which was
reduced to writing, and sealed with the understanding that its contents
should not be made public until after the death of all the signers. His
copy of this historic document is still among Mr. Chandlers papers,
but it will not be made public while Mr. Cameron lives. Of its purport
one,[10] who knew intimately the men and the circumstances and motives
of this act, has written:
The assaults of the violent Southern leaders upon some of
the ablest and purest Republicans in the Senate, known to be
non-combatants, finally became unbearable to some of the less
scrupulous Republicans, until, in the midst of one of the most
denunciatory tirades of one of the fire-eaters, there was noticed
a little group of the lately-admitted Republicans in a side
consultation on the floor of the Senate. Precisely what was said in
consultation is not known to the writer, nor is it likely that it
will transpire during the lifetime of either of the three gentlemen
engaged. It is, however, known that the group was composed of
Senators Wade, Cameron, and Chandler; that it was agreed between
them substantially that the business of insulting Republican
Senators on the floor of the Senate had gone far enough, and that
it must cease; and further, that, in case of any renewed insolence
to any other Republican Senator of the character which had been
practiced, it should be the duty of one of the three to take up the
quarrel and make it his own to the full extent of the code--to the
death if it need be. The compact was not only made, but signed and
sealed, and remains sealed to this day. Its import, however, became
known, and the demeanor of the Southern fire-eaters, though still
violent and disloyal, soon after became courteous personally toward
Republican Senators.
They did, however, feel around a little to ascertain whether the
whisperings as to the fighting Senators could be relied on. They
had a scheme to assault Senator Chandler in the street, but a
little inquiry as to his strength and skill led to its sudden
abandonment. A blustering Southerner took offense at the remarks
of Senator Wade, who had said in relation to an assertion made by
him, that such a statement would only come from a liar or a coward.
Of course this could not be borne by the high-toned cavalier, and
his friend, or agent, or servitor called on Senator Wade, not with
a formal challenge, but to ascertain how Wade would probably act
in the event of a challenge. As soon as Wade pierced the diplomacy
of the agent so far as to become aware of his purpose, he told him
to tell the old coward that he dare not fight. This was not quite
satisfactory. The agent or spy seemed anxious to know what kind of
weapons Wade would choose in case of a contest. On learning this,
Wade said, "rifles at twenty paces, with a white paper the size of
a dollar pinned over the heart of each combatant; and tell him, if
I do not hit the one on his breast at the first shot, he may fire
at me all day."
These inquiries seemed to cure all further desire on the part of
the chivalry for personal combats. Threats, however, continued to
be made of street assaults and caning, generally pointing to the
more prominent of the non-combatants in the Republican ranks.
Certain of the Republicans went thoroughly armed all the time,
and these, for weeks together, took turns in walking with their
non-belligerent colleagues to and from the Capitol, to protect them
from personal assault.
The decided practical value of Mr. Chandler's bearing at that time
and of his known determination to maintain his official and personal
rights at all physical hazards cannot be doubted. It made itself
felt among his associates on both sides of the Senate chamber, and
earned for him early recognition at Washington as a bold and staunch
leader of his party. Personal influence was the natural outgrowth
of positive qualities so fearlessly displayed, and he became a man
whose opinions were sought and whose energy in execution was prized
by his fellow-Senators. A close personal intimacy with Mr. Wade, Mr.
Hamlin and Mr. Cameron sprang up at this time, and general agreement
of opinion on public questions led them into concerted action as
representatives of the more "radical" element. Much of their work was
beneath the surface and is not a matter of record, but the results of
their efforts at that crisis to infuse vigor by all possible means into
the lifeless national sentiment of the North and to prepare the people
for the coming struggle were important and durable.
Mr. Chandler was heard with interest during the sessions of 1858-59-60
on other questions than those connected with the conflict over slavery.
His speech (on Feb. 17, 1859) in opposition to the bill appropriating
$30,000,000 to "facilitate the acquisition of Cuba by negotiation"
attracted some attention. Its scope and tenor will appear from this
extract:
This is a most extraordinary proposition to be presented to the
Congress of the United States at this time. With a Treasury
bankrupt, and the government borrowing money to pay its expenses,
and no efficient remedy proposed for that state of things; with
your great national works in the Northwest going to decay, and
no money to repair them; without harbors of refuge for your
commerce, and no money to construct them; with a national debt of
$70,000,000, which is increasing, in a time of profound peace,
at the rate of $30,000,000 per annum--the Senate of the United
States is startled by a proposition to borrow $30,000,000. And
for what, sir? To pay just claims against the government, which
have been long deferred? No, sir; you have no money for any
such purpose as that. Is it to repair your national works on
the Northwestern lakes, to repair your harbors, to rebuild your
light-houses? No, sir; you have no money for that. Is it to build
a railroad to the Pacific, connecting the Eastern and Western
slopes of this Continent by bands of iron, and open up the vast
interior of the Continent to settlement? No, sir; you say that
is unconstitutional. What, then, do you propose to do with this
$30,000,000? Is it to purchase the island of Cuba? No, sir; for
you are already advised in advance that Spain will not sell the
island; more, sir, you are advised in advance that she will take a
proposition for its purchase as a national insult, to be rejected
with scorn and contempt. The action of her Cortes and of her
government, on the reception of the President's message, proves
this beyond all controversy. What, then, do you propose to do with
this $30,000,000?... It is a great corruption fund for bribery and
for bribery only.... But let us admit for the sake of argument
that this proposition is brought forward in good faith and will be
successfully terminated. What do any of the Northwestern States
gain by the purchase of this island of Cuba? I know something of
Cuba, something of its soil, something of the climate, something of
its people, their manners and customs, something of their religion
and something of their crimes. I spent a winter in the interior
of the island of Cuba a few years since and can, therefore, speak
from personal knowledge.... Much of the soil of the island is rich
and exceedingly productive, but it is in no way comparable to the
prairies and bottom lands of the great West. You can go into almost
any of your territories and select an equal number of acres and
you will have a more valuable State than you can possibly make out
of Cuba.... You propose to pay $200,000,000 for the island, $10 an
acre for every acre of land on it.... You are selling infinitely
better lands, and have millions upon millions of acres of them, at
$1.25 per acre. You propose to pay $200,000,000--nearly $200 a head
for every man, woman and child, including negroes, on the island.
And for what? For the right to govern one million of the refuse of
the earth.
During this same period Mr. Chandler was very active in helping on the
work of Republican organization throughout the country. In the campaign
of 1858 in Michigan, he spoke repeatedly in the larger towns of that
State, great audiences gathering to hear him, and answering with
growing enthusiasm his vigorous attacks on the administration and its
master, the slave power. The result was that Moses Wisner, Republican,
was elected Governor by a vote of 65,202 to 56,067 for Charles E.
Stuart, Democrat. The Republicans also carried every Congressional
district (William A. Howard obtained his seat after a contest with
George B. Cooper) and had a large majority in both branches of the
Legislature. That body, on meeting in January, 1859, elected Kinsley
S. Bingham to the Senate, and Michigan has always since that year been
represented in the upper branch of Congress by two Republicans. Charles
E. Stuart, whom Mr. Bingham succeeded, was a man of ability who had
manfully refused to support the Lecompton outrage, and with Stephen A.
Douglas and David C. Broderick had been classed as an Anti-Nebraska
Democrat. Mr. Bingham was a thorough Republican, and during his brief
Senatorial term (he died in October, 1861,) stood side by side with his
colleague on all political questions.
In the Presidential campaign of 1860 Mr. Chandler labored with untiring
zeal to secure Mr. Lincoln's election. Early in the fall he spoke with
marked effect in the State of New York. Throughout August, September,
and October he addressed a series of great mass-meetings at different
points in Michigan (at Hillsdale 8,000 people gathered to hear him,
at Cassopolis 10,000, at Paw Paw 5,000, and at Kalamazoo 20,000).
In October he visited Illinois, speaking at Mr. Lincoln's home
(Springfield) on the 17th of that month.[11] His last speech in that
campaign was made in the Republican wigwam at Detroit on November 1,
and was alive with the spirit of victory and the firm purpose to secure
its rewards. On the day of election his State answered his appeals with
an increased Republican majority, giving Lincoln 88,480 votes to 65,057
for Douglas, 805 for Breckenridge, and 405 for Bell.
FOOTNOTES:
[8] Speech of Alexander H. Stephens at Savannah on March 21, 1861,
after his election to the rebel Vice-Presidency.
[9] Of this speech the New York _Courier and Enquirer_ said: "The
speech of Mr. Chandler on the 12th places him among the first debaters
of the country. No more unanswerable exposition of the usurpation in
Kansas has been made." The Chicago _Tribune_ said: "Mr. Chandler made
his first formal speech in the Senate to-day. That body paid him the
compliment of unwavering attention through the whole of his able and
effective speech. The passage in which he described the murder of
Brown, Barbour and Gay ... excited the sympathies and passions of his
audience to a pitch rarely observed in parliamentary debate."
[10] The Hon. James M. Edmunds, for many years Commissioner of the Land
Office, and afterward postmaster of the Senate and of Washington City.
[11] The Springfield _Journal_ of October 18 said: "Senator Chandler,
of Michigan, made yesterday one of the best speeches to which our
citizens have had the pleasure of listening during the campaign.... The
meeting was a magnificent one and the greatest enthusiasm prevailed."