even directed their thoughts toward rock gold, they would probably have
considered it highly improbable that any explorer should be able to
extract the metal without an amount of preparation which he would hardly
undertake upon the security of a bare license. But, as it happened,
Doctor Kerr had not even a license when he discovered the gold, though
he took one out as soon as possible afterward. To strengthen its
position, the Government seized the gold in the hands of a firm of
shippers who were about to send it to England; but, on the firm's
representation, it was released, security being given for the payment of
a royalty of 10 per cent, if the Crown should see fit to demand it.

Early in August, 1851, the Governor announced that, for the future,
licenses would be held to cover only alluvial gold, and that for rock
gold found on Crown land the Government would demand a royalty of 10 per
cent., half that amount if the working was on private land. A fortnight
later the Government undertook the escort of gold from the diggings to
Sydney, thereby adding considerably to the Crown revenue and at the same
time obtaining additional power over the gold districts. By the end of
August, gold to the value of seventy thousand pounds had been exported
from the colony. But these figures were soon eclipsed by those which
followed.

The news of the gold discoveries near Bathurst had soon spread through
the Australian colonies. The more adventurous of the colonists started
at once for the diggings. Others, often encouraged by their governments,
who foresaw a constant drain of population in favor of the gold colony,
endeavored to find gold within their own limits. Rumors of discoveries
were constantly arising. Gold was found at Echuca in South Australia, in
the Fingal district of Tasmania, and in the Curumandel ranges of New
Zealand. But none of these discoveries could compare for a moment with
those which took place within the newly constituted colony of Victoria.
Even so early as August, 1851, gold had been worked at a place called
"Deep Creek" (or "Anderson's Creek"), not far from Melbourne, but this
was soon abandoned in favor of the diggings at Clunes, on the headwaters
of the streams which flow north from the great dividing range to the
Murray River. A month later, these again were temporarily deserted in
favor of the rich Buninyong district, just south of the range, whose
chief centre was Ballarat. Finally, at the beginning of October, 1851,
the wonderful finds at Mount Alexander, a spur of the Macedon range to
the north of Melbourne, were eclipsing all previous discoveries.

Before the end of the year the export of gold from Victoria alone had
very nearly reached half a million in value. In two years the population
of the Victorian gold-fields almost equalled the whole population of the
colony at the close of 1850. Most of the diggers lived in tents, and had
absolutely no interest in the colony beyond the mere hope of profit from
the diggings. If a more profitable field had opened elsewhere, they
would have left at once. By the end of the year 1851 the probable area
of future discoveries was pretty well recognized. The gold-fields, with
few exceptions, were found to lie on one side or the other of the
eastern Cordillera or chain of mountains which, beginning with Mount
Elliot in Northern Queensland, follows the coast with remarkable
precision till it reaches Port Phillip Bay. But all the more northerly
part of this chain was unexplored in 1851, and of course there was room
for almost any development within such wide limits.

Warned by events in New South Wales, the governments of the other
Australian colonies had made preparations for the crisis. Western
Australia was too remote to be much affected; and her newly arrived
supply of convict labor rendered her contented. But South Australia and
Tasmania suffered severely from the drain of population, which set in
toward the diggings.

In South Australia, the effect was in some districts almost as if a
pestilence had swept away the men, leaving the women and children
untouched. Some of the emigrants really deserted their families, but the
bulk were honorable men, and remittances of gold soon began to find
their way to Adelaide for distribution among relatives in the colony.

After the comparative failure of the gold-diggings in South Australia,
the Government had wisely set itself to secure some part of the
prosperity of the gold discoveries for its colony by establishing both
land and river traffic routes. In these efforts it was highly
successful. Many South Australians made handsome fortunes by sending
provisions to the Buninyong and Mount Alexander districts, and the new
steamers on the Murray proved a source of profit to the colony which
lasted until the development of the railroad system. Unfortunately, this
prosperity could hardly be realized at the time, owing to the great
scarcity of coined money in the colony. In 1851 the privilege of coining
was still jealously monopolized by the mint in London; while the rapid
expansion of business in the latter part of that year had rendered the
supply of coin in Australia totally inadequate to the demand.

Very soon after the discoveries, Governor Fitzroy had sent home a
memorial from the Legislative Council at Sydney, praying for the
establishment of a branch mint in that city, and similar applications
soon followed from the other colonies. On March 22, 1853, a Treasury
minute sanctioned the applications, and colonial mints were shortly
afterward established by order in council. But in the mean while the
South Australians had got over their difficulty by passing a colonial
act authorizing the issue by the Colonial Government of gold ingots, of
slightly higher intrinsic value than the coins they were supposed to
represent, stamped with an authentic mark. These ingots were not made
legal tender, and the only object of the government mark was to
guarantee quality and weight. But they were generally accepted in
official and commercial transactions, they tided over the crisis of
scarcity, and the Home Government, though with due official caution,
approved the action of Governor Young.

In Tasmania, the main difficulty arose from the drain of emigrants. In
August, 1851, Sir William Denison wrote home urging the transportation
of more convicts or "probationers," on the ground that there would be a
great demand for foodstuffs by the neighboring colonies, while the
supply of agricultural laborers would be shorter than ever. Both
Tasmania and South Australia united in deciding upon the continuance of
the system by which free emigrants were sent out at the expense of the
land fund of each colony, notwithstanding that such emigrants would
probably leave for Victoria immediately after their arrival. Of the
existence of this contingency there could be little doubt. On January
16, 1852, the Governor of Tasmania wrote: "I have a number of men who
have come back from Mount Alexander after an absence from this colony of
not more than eight weeks, with gold to the value of one hundred twenty
pounds to one thousand pounds." During the five months which followed
the writing of this letter, four thousand persons (most of them
wage-earners in the prime of life) left Tasmania for Victoria. As the
whole population of Tasmania was at this time only about fifty thousand,
the matter was serious. Nevertheless, Tasmania tided safely over the
difficulties of the gold period, and even was able to help her sorely
tried sister.

For it was upon the newly established Government at Melbourne that the
strain of the new era most severely fell. The Government at Sydney was
an old and tried institution, with traditions of more than half a
century, and a staff of experienced officials under an exceptionally
able chief. When Hargraves made his discoveries in 1851, the population
of the mother-colony was nearly a quarter of a million, exclusive of the
Port Phillip district, and such a population meant a government
organization of corresponding magnitude. Moreover, the people of New
South Wales had always, from circumstances, been accustomed to much
governmental control, and did not resent it; while Victoria had been
started as a colony whose people were too prosperous and contented to
require more than a minimum of guidance. When the gold discoveries
suddenly drew into the colony, not merely the most turbulent characters
of Australia, but the crews of deserted ships and the general
offscourings of the civilized world, and when, overcome by the
contagion, the government officials threw up their posts, one and all,
and started for the diggings, it became evident that the
Lieutenant-Governor had his hands full. Even so early as November, 1851,
he began to anticipate trouble from the preemptive clauses of the Crown
Lands Leasing Act of 1847, by which the squatters had a right to
purchase land in the neighborhood of the gold-fields. The claims of the
squatters barred the way, and the squatters themselves looked with small
favor upon a class of men whom they regarded as troublesome intruders,
and whose proceedings rendered it almost impossible for the pastoralists
to procure sufficient labor to carry on their operations. The squatters
chose to overlook two important facts; viz., that they had themselves
originally acquired their position precisely as the digger acquired his,
and that the presence of the digger, if it raised the price of labor,
also enormously increased the prices of the squatter's produce.

But more immediate financial troubles began to press upon the
Government. It had been necessary, not merely to add largely to the
number of the official staff--to provide additional police,
commissioners, magistrates, customs officers, etc.--but also to increase
their pay in some proportion to the greatly increased cost of living.
Even with an increase in their salaries of 50 or 100 per cent, the
subordinate officials would not stay. The sight of the reckless and
prosperous diggers who came down to Melbourne to spend the Christmas of
1851, and who flung their gold about recklessly, was too much for the
feelings of the civilians. They deserted in troops.

On January 12, 1852, Lieutenant-Governor Latrobe wrote: "The police in
town and country have almost entirely abandoned duty," and he begged of
the Secretary of State to send military aid. In May, 1852, Sir John
Pakington replied, promising six companies of the Fifty-ninth Regiment
from China, but subsequently decided to send a whole regiment direct
from England. A man-of-war was also to be stationed in Australian
waters. A still more welcome assistance came in the early part of the
year from the Governor of Tasmania, who sent, at Latrobe's earnest
request, a body of two hundred pensioners, who had been serving as
convict guards, and who might be expected to resist those temptations
which, if yielded to, would result in the loss of their pensions. But
all this assistance meant money, and the Government soon fell into sore
straits.

It is true that at first the revenue rose substantially. Comparing the
income for the quarters ending December 31, 1850, and December 31, 1851,
respectively, we find, on general account, an increase of eleven
thousand pounds, or about 30 per cent., and, on the Territorial account,
or Land Fund, an increase of seventy-three thousand pounds, about 100
per cent. Three months later the increase was about 200 per cent. on the
general revenue, while the Territorial revenue was about the same. But
the latter fact may be accounted for by the transferrence of the fees
for gold licenses to the general revenue. It is more important, however,
to notice that, though the revenue was rising, expenses were increasing
still faster. Not only had the staff to be doubled, or trebled, at a
very large increase of pay, but government contracts for public
buildings, printing, stores, fittings, and other necessaries could be
placed, if at all, only at extravagantly high prices. "No tenders can be
obtained for supplies of boots and shoes; orders have been sent to
neighboring colonies for them. Old furniture sells at about 75 per cent.
advance on the former prices of new; scarcely any mechanics will work."
Latrobe estimated the deficit in the revenue of the year 1853 as nearly
four hundred thousand pounds, notwithstanding that he reckoned the whole
gold revenue of six hundred thousand pounds as available for general
expenses.

In his anxiety the Lieutenant-Governor had at first (December, 1851)
proposed to double the license fee of thirty shillings a month; but the
proposal had provoked such a storm of opposition that he withdrew it.
The revenue from licenses was the source of much contention. The
Government alleged that it was not taxation, but rent, of Crown lands,
and at first devoted it exclusively to the service of the gold-fields.
The diggers denounced it as taxation without representation; and the
Legislative Council, almost necessarily in opposition to the Government
while the latter was administered by nominees of the Colonial Office,
refused to make up deficiencies out of the general revenue. Thus the
Lieutenant-Governor was placed between two fires. If he enforced the
license fees he angered what was rapidly becoming the largest part of
the population; if he relinquished them, he left himself without means
to carry on the government of the gold-fields.

From this dilemma he was saved by the receipt of a general permission
from the Colonial Office, toward the close of 1852, to deal with the
gold revenue in the same manner as ordinary revenue. By placing this
fund at the disposal of the Colonial Legislature, the Home Government
not only removed a great grievance and relieved the hands of the
Lieutenant-Governor from the shackles previously laid upon them by the
Colonial Office, but it took a substantial step toward the end that was
now acknowledged on all sides to be the ultimate outcome of the new
discoveries; viz., the introduction of responsible government. The same
despatch contained a still more important concession, authorizing the
Lieutenant-Governor to devote the remaining part of the land
revenue--viz., that arising from sales and pastoral licenses--"to the
purposes rendered urgent by the present crisis." As this fund was
jealously reserved by the existing constitutions of the Australian
colonies, and devoted, under the provisions of the Crown Land Sales Act,
exclusively to the purposes of emigration and public works, it will be
seen that the Colonial Office took a strong step in sanctioning its
diversion. But it must be observed that the expenditure of this
additional fund was placed exclusively in the hands of the
Lieutenant-Governor and his Executive Council, acting independently of
the Colonial Legislature.

With this assistance, the Lieutenant-Governor struggled on amid
increasing difficulties till the spring of the year 1853. By this time
the agitation against the license fee had reached an alarming height,
for the first successes of the new discoveries had passed away, and,
although the export of gold continued to increase, it was by no means at
its former rate nor in proportion to the increase of population. At the
beginning of September, 1853, there were said to be nearly seventy
thousand persons living at the Victorian gold-fields, and many of these,
in all probability, earned very little more than mechanics employed in
settled work. Hence there was a fair ground for an orderly agitation
against the amount of the fee; but, unfortunately, the diggers preferred
violent measures. There was some excuse for them. They were not
represented in the Legislative Council, for they had sprung into
existence as a body since the passing of the Act of 1850, and, though a
measure had been introduced with a view to giving them the franchise, it
had not yet received the assent of the Home Government. In the mean
time, therefore, they could not, through their representatives in the
Council, effectively criticise either the existing law or its
administration. With regard to the latter, there was obviously room for
complaint, for the immense increase of business had compelled the
Government to appoint an inferior class of officials, and some of these,
at least, succumbed to the strong temptations of their positions.

At the beginning of August, 1853, a petition had been presented by the
Bendigo diggers, in which they urged the reduction of the license fee
and the grant of representation to the diggers. The Lieutenant-Governor
returned a pacific reply, but the delegates in charge of the petition
were evidently bent on arousing strong feelings, and they held meetings
in Melbourne which went the extreme length permissible to loyal
subjects. Still, the Lieutenant-Governor shrank from strong measures,
and endeavored to remove one ground of complaint by appointing, as a
nominee member of the Legislative Council, a gentleman who was believed
to possess the confidence of the diggers. The nomination was at once
repudiated by the delegates of the latter, and at the end of August an
organized attempt was made to resist the renewal of licenses on the old
terms. Hundreds of diggers pledged themselves to pay no more than a
third of the sum previously demanded, and those who were inclined to
yield to the Government's demands were warned that the agitators would
not "be responsible for their safety" if they remained at the diggings.
The license system had by this time extended, beyond the diggers, to the
storekeepers and other tradesmen at the gold-fields, who were making
enormous profits out of the diggers, and these, for the most part,
unhesitatingly complied with the demands of the agitators, willing
rather to pay the fines for breach of the government regulations than to
offend their customers. A daring attack on a private escort of gold near
Bendigo, which occurred about this time, showed that the colony was on
the verge of civil war.

Just at this moment an event occurred which rendered it impossible for
the Government to maintain its position unimpaired with the scanty
forces at its disposal. In the middle of September, 1853, the total
abolition of the license fee was seriously proposed in the Legislative
Council of New South Wales. The news flew like wildfire to Victoria,
where the diggers had hitherto looked upon the colonial legislatures--in
which, it will be remembered, they were not yet represented--as their
natural enemies. It seemed to them now that they had everything in their
own hands, and it became clearly impossible for the Government, in the
existing temper of the diggers, to exact the full amount of the license
fee. A proclamation, hastily published with a view to allay excitement,
by an unfortunate omission in the printed copies led the public to
believe that the total abolition of the license system was contemplated
by the Victorian Government. A select committee of the Legislative
Council reported unfavorably upon the system. The Government made the
best of a bad bargain, and accepted a fee of forty shillings for the
three months ending November 30, 1853; and, on the following day, the
Legislative Council passed a new Gold-fields Act, which greatly reduced
the fees for diggers' licenses, while it substantially increased those
demanded for permission to open stores at the gold-fields. It also
provided for the grant of leases of auriferous lands, at a royalty of
not less than 5 per cent., and gave legal sanction to the customs
regarding the "claims" of diggers, which had gradually grown up to
regulate the rival interests of neighboring miners. Offences against the
act were to be decided upon by the magistrates; but the accused might
demand a court of at least two members, and there was to be an appeal to
General Sessions.

These measures were partly successful in restoring order, but it was
obvious that the gold-fields contained men who were averse to a
peaceable settlement. Notwithstanding that the number of the elective
members of the Legislative Council was more than once increased; that,
with the full consent of the Home Government, a bill was being prepared
for the introduction of responsible government; and that the material
condition of the diggers was being rapidly improved, the
Lieutenant-Governor had, in January, 1854, to report the formation of a
"diggers' congress," which obviously had for its object the supersession
of the ordinary government.

Latrobe retired from office in May of the same year, and one of the
first points noticed by his successor, Sir Charles Hotham, was the
existence of an agitation against the Chinese at the Bendigo diggings.
Notwithstanding the enthusiastic character of his reception in his
progress through the gold-fields in September, the new Governor soon had
to face serious disturbances.

The events of the next few months formed a crisis in the history, not
only of Victoria, but of Australia. Naturally there is much dispute
concerning them, and, as the following account is taken chiefly from Sir
Charles Hotham's reports, it is possible that the acts of his opponents
may not obtain strict justice. But it is admitted on all sides that Sir
Charles acted with the most perfect good faith; and the accounts given
by the insurgents are far too contradictory and prejudiced to receive
much credit.

On the night of October 16, 1854, a miner named Scobie was murdered, or
at least killed, at the Eureka Hotel, near Ballarat. The Eureka Hotel
was a place of no good repute, kept by a man named Bentley, who, as well
as his wife, was (it is said) an ex-convict from Tasmania. Suspicion
fell upon the couple, and they, with a second man (named Farrell), were
arrested by the magistrates, but almost immediately released for alleged
default of evidence. The dismissal of the charge excited a storm of
indignation in the camp, and a body of diggers at once proceeded to
wreck the hotel and lynch the accused. In the latter object they,
fortunately, did not succeed, and so rendered themselves liable only to
charges of riot and arson, instead of the more serious charge of murder.
Four of the ringleaders were, through the prompt measures of Sir Charles
Hotham, shortly afterward arrested, and committed for trial. But the
accusations of partiality against the officials were too strong to be
resisted, and a board of inquiry hastily instituted by the Governor
disclosed the ugly facts that Dewes, the magistrate who presided at the
hearing of the charge against the Bentleys, had been in the habit of
borrowing money from residents, and that Sergeant-Major Milne, of the
police force, had been guilty of receiving bribes. The officials
implicated were at once dismissed, and the Bentleys and Farrell
rearrested and convicted. But the Governor very properly declined to
release the arrested rioters, who, shortly before Christmas, 1854, were
convicted and sentenced to short terms of imprisonment.

Meanwhile, more disturbances had occurred. Though a commission upon the
general condition of the gold-fields was holding its inquiries, in
November many diggers again refused to pay the reduced license fees,
and, on the 30th of the month, a serious riot took place. The military
were called out, the Riot Act was read, and there was some shooting.
Eight captures were made, but the lesson had not been severe enough, and
a state of open war ensued. The diggers intrenched themselves in a
fortified camp known as the "Eureka Stockade," openly drilled their
forces in the presence of the authorities, and levied horses and rations
from unwilling miners in the name of a "commander-in-chief." At the same
time they issued a long political manifesto, which, while it did not
avowedly disclaim allegiance to the Crown, contained proposals to which
no regularly constituted government could ever have assented.

The Governor at once ordered all the available military force to
Ballarat; but, before reinforcements arrived, the coolness and
promptitude of Captain Thomas--the officer in command of the troops on
the Ballarat gold-field when the riot of November 30th took place--had
nipped the insurrection in the bud. Captain Thomas saw that, while the
Eureka Stockade threatened to become a serious obstacle to the
Government if its completion were allowed, in its uncompleted state it
was really a source of weakness to the insurgents. By collecting their
forces in one spot, and thus rendering them more exposed to a crushing
attack, and by drawing off the men who threatened the government camp,
it really left the commander of the troops free to act with decision.
Accordingly, Captain Thomas at once determined to attack the position.
Assembling his forces (somewhat fewer than two hundred men) at three
o'clock on the morning of December 3d, he moved toward the stockade.

At about one hundred fifty yards from the intrenchments he was perceived
by the scouts of the insurgents, who promptly fired on the advancing
troops. Thomas himself, Pasley (his aide-de-camp), Rede (the resident
commissioner), and Racket (the stipendiary magistrate), all of whom were
present at the attack, positively assert that the insurgents fired
before a shot was discharged by the troops. Upon this reception Captain
Thomas gave the order to fire, and the intrenchments were carried with a
rush after about ten minutes of sharp fighting. Captain Wise was fatally
wounded, and three privates were killed outright; one officer and eleven
privates were wounded. Of the insurgents, about thirty were known to
have been killed, and many more wounded. Nearly one hundred twenty
prisoners were taken. The effect of the victory was, so far as local
disturbances were concerned, instantaneous. Even before the
reinforcements under General Nickle appeared, all resistance to the
authorities had died away; and, though the Governor at once proclaimed a
state of martial law, he was able to recall the proclamation in less
than a week.

In other districts of the colony the effect was, for a while, doubtful.
The extreme reluctance of Englishmen to admit the necessity for military
interference by the Government told strongly in favor of the rioters.
There was some danger that Melbourne and Geelong, left almost entirely
unprotected by the concentration of troops and police at Ballarat, would
be taken possession of by rioters from the country districts, and Sir
Charles Hotham made hasty application to Sir William Denison, the
Governor of Tasmania, for military assistance. Very soon, however, the
feelings of orderly citizens asserted themselves. Special constables
were sworn in at Melbourne and Geelong, marines from two men-of-war
stationed at Port Phillip guarded the prisons and the powder stores,
wealthy men volunteered to serve as mounted police, and the arrival of
the Ninety-ninth Regiment from Tasmania on December 10th dealt a final
blow to the hopes of the insurgents. Even before this event, all the
respectable classes in the community had rallied round the Governor, and
he felt himself in a position to defy further outbreaks.

But the ugliest feature of the whole affair was yet to be revealed. Out
of the large number of prisoners taken at the capture of the stockade,
only thirteen were committed for trial, the magistrates being instructed
to commit only when the evidence was of the clearest nature. It being
considered impossible to obtain an impartial trial by a local jury, the
prisoners were brought down to Melbourne, and, after various delays, the
charges were proceeded with on February 20, 1855. A Boston negro, named
John Joseph, and a reporter for the Ballarat _Times_, named Manning,
were first tried. The latter may have been merely led away by
professional ardor in the pursuit of "copy," though the fact that he had
been openly drilled and instructed in the use of a pike by the
insurgents would seem to show that his zeal was somewhat excessive.

In the case of Joseph, the evidence was overwhelming; he had actually
been seen to fire upon the troops, and he was captured in a tent which
had been used as a guard-room by the insurgents. No counter-evidence was
offered, the prisoners' counsel relying entirely on the alleged absence
of treasonable intention. Nevertheless both prisoners were speedily
acquitted, and, although the Government wisely withdrew the remaining
cases for the time, subsequent trials produced similar results.
Ultimately, however, the difficulties of the situation were allayed by
the reforms introduced on the recommendation of the commission appointed
to consider the whole subject of the gold-fields. This body presented,
on March 27, 1855, an extremely able report, in which it recommended the
abolition of the license fee and the substitution therefor of a "miners'
right" or Crown permission, lasting for a year, and granted for a
nominal fee of one pound, to occupy for mining purposes a specific piece
of Crown land. The deficiency in revenue anticipated from the abolition
of license fees was to be met by the imposition of an export duty upon
gold at the rate of a half-crown an ounce.

The commission strongly recommended the granting of the political
franchise to holders of "miners' rights," and the provision of liberal
facilities for the acquisition of land by the miners. It also advocated
the simplification of the existing complex system of government in the
mining districts, whereby commissioners, police authorities,
commissariat officials, and magistrates all worked independently of each
other, and suggested the substitution therefor of experienced "wardens"
at the head of elective boards, who should not only dispose, with the
aid of skilled assessors, of disputes specially connected with mining
operations, but who should have power to issue by-laws adapted to the
special requirements of each district.

These recommendations were for the most part carried out by legislation
of the same year (1855), and, before his lamented death in December,
1855, Sir Charles Hotham had the happiness being able to report to the
Home Government the almost perfect tranquillity of the gold-fields.
Moreover, the revenue had not suffered by the substitution of the export
duty for the license fees; but the collector of customs was of opinion
that the result of the change had been to throw the entire burden of the
tax upon the importers of the colony instead of upon the mining
population. The Government was not, however, disposed to concern itself
with considerations of abstract justice so long as it could collect a
sufficient revenue without serious opposition.




(1854) THE RISE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, Abraham Lincoln


The election of 1852 virtually destroyed the Whig party, and Franklin
Pierce, the candidate of the Democratic party, was elected by great
majorities. If the Whig party had perished because it had no distinct
position upon the one overshadowing question of the day, so neither did
the new President comprehend the nature and condition of that issue. In
his first message he complacently congratulated the country that the
slavery question had been settled peacefully and forever by the
compromise measures of 1850. He little knew how ineffective were those
compromises; he never dreamed that it was a question that no compromise
could settle permanently, and probably had no conception of the new
force that was to be given to it during his own term of office. Stephen
A. Douglas, an acknowledged aspirant to the Presidency, being Chairman
of the Senate Committee on Territories, introduced and carried through
Congress a measure called the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, which, in providing
for the admission of those Territories as States, embodied his doctrine
of "Popular Sovereignty" in that it permitted the inhabitants to
determine by popular vote whether they should come into the Union as
free States or as slave States, and abolished the Missouri Compromise,
which for thirty-four years had forbidden the acquisition of any slave
territory north of the parallel of 36 deg. 30'.

The abrogation of this compromise, which had been looked upon as a
sacred compact, convinced a majority of the Northern people that the
system of slavery was filled with the spirit of aggressiveness and
determined to spread itself into all the Territories. Consequently there
arose for the first time a powerful anti-slavery party, which, while
denying that it had any purpose of meddling with that institution in the
States where it already existed, declared that it should never be
extended into any more of the national domain. At the same time this was
a stronger party in favor of the protective tariff than had ever before
existed. This organization, which gave itself the name "Republican
party," came into existence in 1854, the same year in which Senator
Douglas's bill abrogated the Missouri Compromise. There are several
claimants for the honor of first proposing it; but as a fact, it sprang
into existence with virtual simultaneousness in several of the Northern
States. If there was a priority, it was in Massachusetts, where Robert
Carter acted as Secretary of the Convention and wrote the resolutions.
Two years later this party entered the Presidential contest with John C.
Fremont as its candidate. It cast an enormous vote, but was not
successful, mainly for the reason that the short-lived American (or
Know-Nothing) party was then at its best, and had its own ticket, headed
by Millard Fillmore. Four years later still, it nominated and elected
Abraham Lincoln as President, and the clearest argument for its
existence that ever has been put forth is in Lincoln's first speech in
his famous debate with Senator Douglas, which was delivered in
Springfield, Illinois, June 17, 1858. The full text of that speech
follows herewith.

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we
could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the
fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and
confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the
operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but
has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a
crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against
itself cannot stand." I believe this Government cannot endure
permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be
dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will
cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.
Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it,
and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is
in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it
forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well
as new, North as well as South.

Have we no tendency to the latter condition? Let anyone who doubts,
carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination--piece
of machinery, so to speak--compounded of the Nebraska doctrine and the
Dred Scott decision. Let him consider, not only what work the machinery
is adapted to do, and how well adapted, but also let him study the
history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he
can, to trace the evidences of design, and concert of action, among its
chief architects, from the beginning.

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the
States by State constitutions, and from most of the national territory
by Congressional prohibition. Four days later commenced the struggle
which ended in repealing that Congressional prohibition. This opened all
the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained. But,
so far, Congress only had acted, and an indorsement by the people, real
or apparent, was indispensable to save the point already gained, and
give chance for more.

This necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as
well as might be, in the notable argument of "squatter sovereignty,"
otherwise called "sacred right of self-government," which latter phrase,
though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so
perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if
any _one_ man choose to enslave _another_, no _third_ man shall be
allowed to object. That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska Bill
itself, in the language which follows: "It being the true intent and
meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or
State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof
perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their
own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Then
opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "squatter sovereignty"
and "sacred right of self-government." "But," said opposition members,
"let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the
Territory may exclude slavery." "Not we," said the friends of the
measure; and down they voted the amendment.

While the Nebraska Bill was passing through Congress, a _law case,_
involving the question of a negro's freedom, by reason of his owner
having voluntarily taken him first into a free State, and then into a
Territory covered by the Congressional prohibition, and held him as a
slave for a long time in each, was passing through the United States
Circuit Court for the District of Missouri; and both Nebraska Bill and
lawsuit were brought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854. The
negro's name was "Dred Scott," which name now designates the decision
finally made in the case. Before the then next Presidential election,
the law case came to and was argued in the Supreme Court of the United
States; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election.
Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the
Senate, requested the leading advocate of the Nebraska Bill to state
_his opinion_ whether the people of a Territory can constitutionally
exclude slavery from their limits; and the latter answers, "That is a
question for the Supreme Court."

The election came. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it
was, secured. That was the second point gained. The indorsement,
however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred
thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and
satisfactory. The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as
impressively as possible echoed back upon the people the weight and
authority of the indorsement. The Supreme Court met again, did not
announce their decision, but ordered a reargument. The Presidential
inauguration came, and still no decision of the court; but the incoming
President, in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted the people to
abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be. Then, in a few
days, came the decision.

The reputed author of the Nebraska Bill finds an early occasion to make
a speech at this capital indorsing the Dred Scott decision, and
vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. The new President, too,
seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to indorse and strongly
construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any
different view had ever been entertained!

At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of
the Nebraska Bill, on the mere question of _fact_, whether the Lecompton
Constitution was or was not in any just sense made by the people of
Kansas; and in that quarrel the latter declares that all he wants is a
fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted
_down_ or voted _up_. I do not understand his declaration, that he cares
not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by him
other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the
public mind--the principle for which he declares he has suffered so
much, and is ready to suffer to the end. And well may he cling to that
principle! If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That
principle is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine.
Under the Dred Scott decision "squatter sovereignty" squatted out of
existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding; like the mould at
the foundry, served through one blast, and fell back into loose sand;
helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late
joint struggle with the Republicans, against the Lecompton Constitution,
involves nothing of the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was
made on a point--the right of a people to make their own
constitution--upon which he and the Republicans have never differed.

The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with
Senator Douglas's "care not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery,
in its present state of advancement. This was the third point gained.
The points of that machinery are:

Firstly. That no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no
descendant of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any State, in the
sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States.
This point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible
event, of the benefit of that provision of the United States
Constitution which declares that "The citizens of each State shall be
entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several
States."

Secondly. That, "subject to the Constitution of the United States,"
neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude slavery from
any United States Territory. This point is made in order that individual
men may fill up the Territories with slaves, without danger of losing
them as property, and thus to enhance the chances of permanency to the
institution through all the future.

Thirdly. That whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free
State makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts
will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave
State the negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made,
not to be pressed immediately; but, if acquiesced in for a while, and
apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the
logical conclusion that what Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with
Dred Scott in the free State of Illinois, every other master may
lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or
in any other free State.

Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska
doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion,
at least Northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted
down or voted up. This shows exactly where we now are, and partially,
also, whither we are tending.

It will throw additional light on the latter to go back and run the mind
over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will
now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were
transpiring. The people were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only
to the Constitution." What the Constitution had to do with it outsiders
could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche
for the Dred Scott decision to come in afterward, and declare the
perfect freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all. Why was the
amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people, voted down?
Plainly enough now, the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for
the Dred Scott decision. Why was the court decision held up? Why even a
Senator's individual opinion withheld, till after the Presidential
election? Plainly enough now, the speaking out then would have damaged
the perfectly free argument upon which the election was to be carried.
Why the outgoing President's felicitation on the indorsement? Why the
delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President's advance exhortation
in favor of the decision? These things look like the cautious patting
and petting of a spirited horse preparatory to mounting him, when it is
dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty
after-indorsement of the decision by the President and others?

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the
result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different
portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and
places and by different workmen--Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James,
for instance--and when we see these timbers joined together, and see
they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and
mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the
different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a
piece too many or too few--not omitting even scaffolding--or, if a
single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted
and prepared yet to bring such piece in--in such a case we find it
impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James
all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a
common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.

It should not be overlooked that by the Nebraska Bill the people of a
_State_ as well as Territory were to be left "perfectly free," "subject
only to the Constitution." Why mention a State? They were legislating
for Territories, and not for or about States. Certainly the people of a
State are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United
States; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely Territorial
law? Why are the people of a Territory and the people of a State therein
lumped together, and their relation to the Constitution therein treated
as being precisely the same? While the opinion of the court, by Chief
Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of all
the concurring judges expressly declare that the Constitution of the
United States neither permits Congress nor a Territorial Legislature to
exclude slavery from any United States Territory, they all omit to
declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a State, or the
people of a State, to exclude it. _Possibly_, this is a mere omission;
but who can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get into
the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a State to
exclude slavery from their limits, just as Chase and Mace sought to get
such declaration, in behalf of the people of a Territory, into the
Nebraska Bill--I ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been
voted down in the one case as it had been in the other?

The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over
slavery, is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using
the precise idea, and almost the language, too, of the Nebraska Act. On
one occasion, his exact language is, "Except in cases where the power is
restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the
State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction."