more was said in debate of the tranquillizing character of the
measure. But its most influential supporters from the South,
becoming inflamed and irritated by the fierce invectives with
which the measure was assailed, both within and out of Congress,
became, in their turn, reckless (apparently at least) of all
consequences, and seemed only bent on victory--on obtaining a
triumph by passing the bill! It was in vain that they were
admonished that they were adding largely to the abolition faction
at the North; that they were increasing the free-soil element of
political power in that section. They admitted no distinction
between Abolitionists and Free-Soilers, and denounced all at the
North who opposed the bill as Abolitionists and foes to the South.
Some gentlemen declared that the screams of the Abolitionists were
music to their ears. It was idle to warn men in such a tempest of
passion, that, instead of sowing the seeds of peace, as they had
promised, they were sowing dragons' teeth, that would spring up
armed men. So intense did the feeling become on the subject, that
some southern members of Congress, who had gone into the support
of the bill on the idea that the Missouri restriction act was a
violation of the treaty with France, and who would not have
listened for a moment to the admission of aliens to the right of
suffrage in the territories, lost sight of these views under the
influence of the furor that was gotten up among the friends as
well as the opponents of the measure; and they became even more
determined champions of the bill when these grounds of their
original adhesion were entirely swept away--one by the rejection
of the Clayton amendment, and the other by the Badger
proviso--than they were at the outset.
"There were, however, a few of the supporters of the bill who to
the last contended that the intemperate demonstrations of
opposition at the North were but the ebullitions of temporary
excitement, which would subside as soon as the equitable and just
principles of the bill should be exhibited in their practical
operation in Kansas. On what flimsy grounds that delusion was
indulged, and how soon and under what circumstances it vanished, I
need not recount. The recollection of every patriot must still be
painfully impressed with them. It is enough to say, that soon
after these principles were put in operation in Kansas, disorder,
anarchy, and civil war, ensued in rapid succession. It required
the strong arm of the government of the United States and the
interposition of the military force to sustain the territorial
government; and even now, after the lapse of four years, we still
find that the presence of a military force is necessary to
maintain peace. So much for the effect of that measure on Kansas
and the country. How has it been in Congress? Need I ask that
question? Has not the subject of slavery in the territory been the
absorbing subject of our thoughts and discussions at every session
of Congress since the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act? And as
for the character and temper of the debates upon this subject,
have they not, in asperity and fierceness, far exceeded those of
any antecedent period of our history?
* * * * *
"I now ask the attention of the Senate to the effect of the
experiment of localizing slavery agitation in the territories,
made in 1854, in changing the complexion of parties both in
Congress and in the country. In the Congress which passed the
Kansas-Nebraska bill, we have seen that there was at the
commencement of the session, in December, 1853, a Democratic
majority of eighty-four in the House of Representatives, and only
four Free-Soilers, and in the Senate a like number--so small, yet
so distinct in their principles, that neither of the two great
parties then known to the country knew well how to arrange them on
committee.
"MR. HALE.--You left them off.
"MR. BELL.--The Whigs were afraid to touch them. Mr. Chase was a
Democrat, and was so recognized by his brethren in the Senate, and
was taken care of by them in arranging the committees; yet he was
one of the gentlemen whom I have designated as Free-Soilers. Now,
let us see what was the effect of the Kansas-Nebraska act on the
elections which ensued in the fall of 1854, just on the heels of
the adoption of that measure. One hundred and seven Free-Soilers
were returned to the House of Representatives, and the Democratic
party, instead of having a majority of eighty-four in that House,
found itself in a minority of seventy-six; and in the Senate the
number of Free-Soilers was increased to thirteen. Such was the
complexion of the two houses of Congress in the 33d Congress,
which assembled in December, 1855. Now, we find in the Senate
twenty Free-Soilers. How many more they may have in the next
Congress, will depend upon the disposition we make of the question
_now before the Senate_. I call upon the senator from Georgia to
say whether he will have that number limited or not. Does he want
a sufficient number to prevent the ratification of any future
treaty of acquisition? How long will it be before we have that
number, if the southern Democracy persist in their present course?
They would seem to be deeply interested in adding to the power of
the Republican party.
"I consider that the most fearful and portentous of all the
results of the Kansas-Nebraska act was to create, to build up a
great sectional party. My friend from Ohio, who sits near me, [Mr.
Wade] must allow me to say, that I regard his party as a sectional
one.
"MR. WADE.--Is not the other side a sectional party?
"MR. BELL.--So far as they are confined to the South they are, but
they say that they lap over.
"MR. WADE.--Lap over further South still.
"MR. BELL.--I consider that no more ominous and threatening cloud
can darken the political horizon at any time. How formidable this
party has already become, may be well illustrated by the fact that
its representative candidate, Mr. Fremont, was only beaten in the
last Presidential election by the most desperate efforts; and I
feel warranted in saying, that but for the imminent prospect of
his success, which shone out near the close of the canvass, Mr.
Buchanan would not have attained his present high position."
From these extracts the reader will readily perceive the position of
Mr. Bell upon the great political question of the day.
JOHN P. HALE.
John P. Hale comes of good old New England stock. His ancestors were
the men who founded those New England institutions which are alike the
glory of that section of the country and the whole nation. The
grandfather of Mr. Hale--Samuel Hale--was a lawyer of ability and
success, and he educated his son John--father of the present Mr.
Hale--to the same profession. The father of Mr. Hale married a Miss
O'Brien, daughter of Capt. Jeremiah O'Brien. Of this ancestor Mr. Hale
is justly proud. The following true story is told of his gallantry at
the beginning of the Revolutionary War:
"When the news of the struggle with the mother country reached
Machias, in Maine (then a province of Massachusetts), on the 9th
of May, 1775, an armed British schooner, the Margaretta, was lying
in port, with two sloops under her convoy, loading with lumber in
behalf of the king's government. An attempt was made to capture
the officers of the Margaretta while they were at church, but they
escaped on board, weighed anchor, and dropped down the river. On
the 11th, a party of thirty-five volunteers was hastily collected,
and, taking one of the lumber sloops, they made sail. The
Margaretta, on observing their appearance, weighed and crowded
sail, to avoid a conflict; the sloop proved to be a better sailor.
As she approached, the schooner opened a fire with four light guns
and fourteen swivels, to which the sloop replied with musketry,
and soon the Americans boarded and captured the Margaretta. The
loss of life in this affair was not very large, though twenty men
on both sides are said to have been killed and wounded. It was the
first blow struck on the water in the Revolutionary struggle, and
it was characterized by a long chase, a bloody struggle, and a
triumph.
"There was originally no commander in the sloop, but previously to
engaging the Margaretta, Jeremiah O'Brien was selected for that
station. Transferring the armament to a sloop, he engaged
separately, and captured two English cruisers sent out from
Halifax expressly to take him, and carried their crews as
prisoners to Watertown, where the provincial Legislature of
Massachusetts was assembled. His gallantry was so generally
admired, that he was appointed a captain in the marine of the
colony, and afterward distinguished himself as a continental
officer. Two of his brothers, uncles of Mrs. John P. Hale, senior,
were also noted for their nautical bravery."
Mr. Hale, the subject of this sketch, was born on the 31st of March,
1806, at Rochester, New Hampshire. When a boy he, like most New
England boys, attended the common district school of his neighborhood.
When he grew up to be a young man, he was sent to Phillips Academy, at
Exeter, where the well-known Dr. Abbott also educated Daniel Webster,
Edward Everett, Lewis Cass and other distinguished men. In September,
1823, Mr. Hale entered Bowdoin College, and graduated with high honors
in 1827. Among his associates in college were Hawthorne, Longfellow,
Franklin Pierce, Prof. Stone, and S. S. Prentiss. In 1828, Mr. Hale
selected his home, the town of Dover, where he now resides. There he
went to study law in the office of D. M. Christie. He was admitted to
the bar in 1830, and in 1834 his clients had become so numerous that
he was obliged to take a partner. He was never so distinguished as a
law-_student_, as for his popular argument with a jury. His forte was
then, as now, in appealing directly to the hearts of men. By common
sense, humor, pathos and sarcasm he won his cause. Mr. Hale was, we
presume, a little more inclined to politics than to law, and if we may
judge at all from his looks to-day, he was never over-fond of severe
application, mental or physical, to labor.
In 1832, Mr. Hale was elected to represent Dover in the New Hampshire
Legislature, and was a staunch Democrat. In 1834, General Jackson
appointed him U.S. Attorney for the district of New Hampshire, an
office which he filled creditably to himself. Mr. Van Buren continued
him in this office, and he filled it till John Tyler removed him. This
was a turning point in his history. He fell back to his old practice
of the law; but in 1843, he was nominated and elected to Congress, to
take his seat in the House of Representatives. A struggle was at that
time beginning between the North and the South, and Mr. Hale,
apparently to his certain defeat and humiliation, for New Hampshire
was then overwhelmingly Democratic, took side with the North and
freedom. He was renominated for Congress, but soon afterward he had
the courage to come out in a letter denouncing the annexation of
Texas. This, as a matter of course, brought down upon him the enmity
of his old companions. The State Democratic Committee called a new
convention in his district, set his nomination aside, and nominated
John Woodbury in his place. It was at this juncture that Mr. Hale
showed his nerve, and it is said that his spirited wife sustained him
through the campaign with a courage and spirit second only to his own.
Suffice it to say, that after an arduous campaign, Mr. Hale triumphed
so far as to prevent his competitor from being elected. A majority was
required to elect, and no candidate could get that majority. The next
year Mr. Hale was sent again to the State Legislature to represent the
town of Dover, and he was chosen Speaker of the House of
Representatives. He presided so fairly and won so much upon the
members, that before the adjournment took place, the Legislature
elected Mr. Hale to represent the State, in part, for six years in the
United States Senate! This was a great triumph. The man who had been
set aside for his faithfulness to his own convictions of right, by
party managers, was taken up by the State at large, and sent to
represent New Hampshire in the Senate of the United States. His new
position was an extraordinary one. He was about to take his seat in
the Senate backed by no party, utterly alone, sent there for his
individual merits, and not to advance the interests of any party.
A writer not agreeing or sympathizing with Mr. Hale in his peculiar
anti-slavery views, speaks of this period of Mr. Hale's history in the
following language:
"When Mr. Hale took his seat he was almost alone, and had to combat,
single-handed, the political 'giants in those days.' Sometimes he was
met with labored arguments, then subjected to bitter reproaches; at
times those who were but 'his peers' would affect almost to ignore his
presence, and again they would mercilessly denounce him as advocating
doctrines dangerous to the liberties of the Republic. But the senator
from New Hampshire was not to be intimidated or diverted from what he
considered to be his duty. Adopting the _guerrilla_ tactics, he
manfully held his ground, and with felicitous humor, pungent retort,
or keen sarcasm, made an impression upon the phalanx against which he
had to contend. So high were his aims, and so conciliating were his
manners, that before the close of his senatorial term, Mr. Hale had
beaten down the barriers of prejudice, and fairly conquered sectional
discourtesy. He was thus not only the standard-bearer, but the pioneer
of the North in the Senate."
In 1853, the Democracy were in the ascendency in New Hampshire, and
Mr. Atherton took Mr. Hale's seat in the Senate. Mr. Hale was
persuaded at this time to locate himself in the city of New York, to
practise his profession. Luckily, he did not give up his house at
Dover, his family remaining there, and he paying his poll tax there.
In 1855, he was again elected to serve New Hampshire for an unexpired
term; and in 1859, was reelected for another whole term of six years.
The same writer from whom we have just quoted, remarks further:
"Senator Hale is especially attentive to his constituents, and never
neglects their interests for practice in the Supreme Court or other
private business. He is, nevertheless, ever ready to address public
assemblages on subjects in which he takes an interest. The sailors
will never forget his efforts in procuring an abolition of flogging in
the United States navy, in commemoration of which they presented him
with a gold medal.
"From the commencement of Senator Hale's career up to the present
time, he has been the untiring advocate of whatever he viewed as
powerful for good, as calculated to meliorate the condition of man, or
as likely to advance the general interests of the American Union,
without prejudice to the rights of the section which he represents. He
has ever firmly refused to bow before counterfeited images, or to
scramble for place in the arena of party, but he has never declined to
assume whatever burden of duty his friends counselled him to bear.
"In person, Senator Hale is burly, bluff-looking, with a clear eye,
and a hearty grasp of the hand for his friends. His colloquial powers
are of a splendid order, and he is a rare humorist, genial, sunshiny
and kindly. He laughs with the foibles and shortcomings of the
world--not at them; and his laugh is pure and silvery. Married in
early life to Miss Lucy H. Lambert, of Berwick, Maine (a lady who
combines rare attainments of mind, beauties of character, and personal
charms), he has ever found his highest happiness in his own domestic
circle, which is now graced by two accomplished daughters, just
budding into womanhood. An evening spent with this estimable family is
an event to be remembered with pleasure."
Mr. Hale has long been a favorite in the Senate with men of all
parties. Whenever it is known beforehand that he is going to speak--no
matter what the subject may be--he is sure to gather a crowded
audience. He is one of the most popular men in the country, for his
satire has never a spice of cruelty in it. His jolly humor,
everlasting good nature, and natural love of fair play, make him
friends wherever he is, no matter if he be among his bitterest
southern enemies.
To gain any idea of the change which has taken place in the Senate
since Mr. Hale took his seat in it, we must remember that then he
stood up _alone_ the champion of anti-slavery--unless we make an
exception in favor of Mr. Seward--while now more than twenty
Republican senators sit with him on the "opposition benches." To get a
faint idea of the condition of the Senate when Mr. Hale entered it,
let us go back to the 20th of April, 1845. The famous Drayton and
Soyers slave case had just occurred, and Dr. Bailey and his paper, the
"National Era," had been at the mercy of a mob for three days. Mr.
Hale introduced into the Senate a bill relating to riots and unlawful
assemblages in the District of Columbia. We will abridge the debate
which ensued:
Mr. Foote, of Miss., made a very long speech on the general subject of
slavery, and especially slavery in the District of Columbia. The
attempt to legislate indirectly--that is, to sustain freedom of
discussion in the District--against slavery, was an outrage upon the
rights of the South. If any man gives countenance to this bill, he
said, I pronounce him to be no gentleman--he would, upon temptation,
be guilty of highway robbery on any of the roads of the Union. He
charged that the abduction of the Drayton-Soyer slaves was instigated
or countenanced by a member of the United States Senate--meaning Mr.
Hale. This bill is intended to cover negro-robbery. The New Hampshire
senator is endeavoring to get up civil war and insurrection. Let him
go South. Let him visit the good State of Mississippi. I invite him
there, and will tell him beforehand, in all honesty, _that he could
not go ten miles into the interior before he would grace one of the
tallest trees of the forest, with a rope around his neck, and if
necessary_, I should myself assist in the operation!
MR. HALE.--I did not anticipate this discussion, yet I do not regret
it. Before proceeding further, let me say that the statement that I
have given the slightest countenance to the recent "kidnapping of
slaves is false."
MR. FOOTE.--It had been stated so to me and I believed it. I am glad
to hear the senator say he had no connection with the movement--some
of his brethren doubtless had.
MR. HALE.--The sneer of the gentleman does not affect me. While I am
up, let me call the attention of the Senate to a man, who I am proud
to call my friend, the editor of the "National Era." Mr. Hale read a
card of Dr. Bailey's in the "Intelligencer," declaring his entire
ignorance of the abduction of the slaves till they were returned.
MR. CALHOUN.--Does he make denunciation of the robbery?
MR. HALE.--He had quite enough to do in defending himself, and it was
no part of his duty to denounce others.
MR. CALHOUN.--I understand that.
Mr. Hale went on to refer to Mr. Foote's invitation of hanging in
Mississippi, and would, in return for the hospitality, invite the
senator to come to New Hampshire to discuss this whole subject, and he
would there promise him protection and rights. He defended his bill as
containing simply the plainest provisions of the common law; yet the
South Carolina senator was shocked at his temerity.
MR. BUTLER.--Will the senator vote for a bill, properly drawn,
inflicting punishment on persons inveigling slaves from the District
of Columbia?
MR. HALE.--Certainly not; and why? Because I do not believe slavery
should exist here.
MR. CALHOUN.--He wishes to arm the robbers and disarm the people of
the district.... I will take this occasion to say, that I would just
as soon argue with a maniac from Bedlam as with the senator from New
Hampshire.
Mr. Hale went on calmly to reply to all these personalities by
defending his bill. Mr. Foote again got the floor, and began to defend
his threat of assassination. He never deplored the death of such men.
The senator from New Hampshire will never be a victim. He is one of
those gusty declaimers--a windy speaker--a----
MR. CRITTENDEN.--I call the gentleman to order--and Mr. Foote was
called to order by the presiding officer.
Later in the day, Mr. Douglas rose and congratulated Mr. Hale on the
triumph he had achieved. The debate would give him ten thousand votes.
He could never have represented a State on that floor but for such
southern speeches as they had just listened to, breathing a fanaticism
as wild and reckless as that of the senator from New Hampshire.
MR. CALHOUN.--Does the gentleman pretend to call me and those who act
with me fanatics? We are only defending ourselves. The Illinois
senator partially apologized. Mr. Foote was restive, however, and said
that he must repeat his conviction, that any man who utters in the
South the sentiments of the New Hampshire senator, will meet with
death upon the scaffold--and deserves it.
MR. DOUGLAS.--I must again congratulate the senator from New Hampshire
upon the accession of five thousand more votes! and he is on for
honors? Who can believe that _now_ walks into the United States
Senate, that such things could have been within so few years?
It would be easy to fill this volume with extracts from exciting and
interesting debates in the Senate, in which Mr. Hale participated, but
we have room only for a few paragraphs, to show his style and manner.
Jan. 19 and 21, 1857, Mr. Hale delivered one of his longest and ablest
senatorial speeches upon Kansas and the Supreme Court. We subjoin a
few extracts:
"I aver here that the object of the Nebraska bill was to break
down the barrier which separated free territory from slave
territory; to let slavery into Kansas, and make another slave
state, legally and peacefully if you could, but a slave state
anyhow. I gather that from the history of the times, from the
character of the bill, from the measure, the great measure, the
only measure of any consequence in the bill, which was the repeal
of the Missouri restriction.
* * * * *
"I say, then, sir, that the rule by which to judge of the intent,
the object, the purpose of an act, is to see what the act is
calculated to do, what its natural tendency is, what will in all
human probability be the effect. Before the passage of the
Kansas-Nebraska act, there stood upon your statute-book a law by
which slavery was prohibited from going into any territory north
of 36 deg. 30'. The validity and constitutionality of that law had
been recognized by repeated decisions of the courts of the several
States. If I am not mistaken, I have a memorandum by me, showing
that it had been recognized by the Supreme Court of the State of
Louisiana. So far as I know, the constitutionality of that
enactment was unquestioned, and the country had reposed in peace
for more than a generation under its operation. By and by,
however, it was discovered to be unconstitutional, and it was
broken down. The instant it was broken down, slavery went into
Kansas; but still, gentlemen tell us they did not intend to let
slavery in; that was not the object. Let me illustrate this.
Suppose a farmer has a rich field, and a pasture adjoining,
separated by a stonewall which his fathers had erected there
thirty years before. The wall keeps out the cattle in the pasture,
who are exceedingly anxious to get into the field. Some modern
reformer thinks that moral suasion will keep them in the pasture,
even if the wall should be taken down, and he proceeds to take it
down. The result is, that the cattle go right in; the experiment
fails. The philosopher says; 'Do not blame me; that was not my
intention; but it is true, the effect has followed.' I retort upon
him; 'You knew the effect would follow; and, knowing that it would
follow, you intended that it should follow.'
* * * * *
"This brings me to another part of my subject, in answer to a
question which the honorable senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas)
propounded, when he asked if he was to be read out of the party
for a difference on this point. I have great regard for the
sagacity of that honorable senator, but I confess it was a little
shaken when he asked that question; is a man to be read out of the
party for departing from the President on this great cardinal
point? Why, sir, he asks, is a man who differs from the President
on the Pacific railroad to go out of the party? Oh no, he may
stay. If he differs on Central America, very good; take the first
seat if you please. You may differ with the President on anything
and everything but one, and that is this sentiment, which I shall
read; Mr. Buchanan shall speak his own creed. On the 19th of
August 1842, in the Senate, Mr. Buchanan used this language:
"'I might here repeat what I have said on a former occasion'--(you
see it was so important he must repeat it)--'that all
Christendom'--(mark the words)--'is leagued against the South upon
this question of domestic slavery.'