Wilmot proviso maintained that Congress had the power, and it was its duty, to prohibit slavery in the Territories by a "fundamental and unalterable" provision, to be passed for that purpose. The representatives of the slaveholding States, in a body, resisted the claim as an arbitrary attempt to deprive those States of their just rights in the common territory; as an assumption of power subversive of the principles of the federal compact, because destroying the equal privileges of citizens of the different States; while those of more ultra views contended that the constitution itself authorized the extension of slavery into the Territories where it did not exist before, on their coming to the possession of the United States, and that Congress had no power over it except to afford it protection. The resolutions of Mr. Dickinson proposed to leave it to the people of the Territories, when they should be in circumstances to act, to form their own domestic institutions, subject only to such restrictions as the constitution imposed; and he advocated the doctrine involved, as being in accordance with the letter and spirit of the constitution, and the broader principle of self-government on which republican institutions have their foundation. He held that if adopted as the settled rule of action and faithfully carried out, it would remove an element of vexation and strife which was every day growing more dangerous; leave to the slaveholding States all they had any right to claim, and give the decision of the question, in each case, to the people who were to be immediately affected thereby, and who would eventually have the absolute power to determine it, whatever Congress might attempt under the high-sounding but absurd notion of establishing "fundamental and unalterable" legislative enactments. His position was

briefly and pointedly stated by him in the Senate, while the compromise measures of 1850 were under consideration, as follows:

"Now, sir, I wish to say, once for all, that it is not my intention, either

directly or indirectly to favor, by voice or vote, the extension of slavery or the restriction of slavery in the Territories, by Congress, or any interference with the subject whatever. Nor am I influenced in this conclusion by the local laws of the Territory in question, either natural or artificial- the laws of nature or the laws of man; and for all the purposes of present action, I will not inquire what they are in either respect. I will stand upon the true principles of nonintervention, in the broadest possible sense; for non-intervention's sake; to uphold the fundamental principles of freedom, and for no other reason; and will leave the people of the Territories and of the States to such rights and privileges as are theirs, under the constitution and laws of the United States, without addition to or diminution from such rights by the action of Congress."

But in all his endeavors for moderation, conciliation and good understanding, he never lost sight of the real character of slavery, nor spoke of it, though in general avoiding to make it the subject of unnecessary and irritating remarks, otherwise than as a social, moral and political evil; one which he hoped and believed might in time peacefully disappear. His arguments upon the subject had regard solely to its acquired constitutional and legal status. In his speech on the bill before the Senate, to establish a government for California, in February 1849, he said: "I have never favored the institution of slavery nor its extension, either immediately or remotely." * * "My habits, thoughts, feelings, education, instincts, nay my very prejudices are against slavery; but I would not interfere in what is no concern of mine, to obtain a greater evil good." This was his uniform expression in regard to the abstract question, and the existence of the institution in the States, as well in the Senate, in the presence of slave-holding party associates, as elsewhere. His effort throughout was to get rid of it as a national question;-to remove from the halls of legislation, the political arena, and the hearts and minds of the people the cause and excuse for so much bitterness, irritation and recrimination; to bring back the subject to the position where the constitution placed it; trusting for the amelioration of the system and its final eradication, under Providence and the progress of Christian civilization, to the people

and no

upon whom the responsibility directly rested; and who, if left to the calm contemplation of their own position, it was believed, would feel the force and augmenting influence of the world's opinion, and themselves effect modifications against which, if pressed as the views of individuals or parties in the other States, through the machinery of the general government, they would stand persistently upon the defensive.

Such, briefly, were his position, action, opinions and motives, as shown by his public record in the Senate, throughout the great slavery contest of 1848-50. And who, in the light of events, will not say that the cause of patriotism and humanity, -of peace, prosperity and progress would have been subserved by a faithful endeavor to realize the results intended by the policy he labored so efficiently to inaugurate? He did not approve of the premature and unnecessary opening of the question by the Kansas-Nebraska propositions, and especially by the introduction therein of the repeal of the Missouri compromise. His own employment and advocacy of the doctrine of popular sovereignty had been to allay and not to excite agitation.

But he had a far different ordeal from that of the Senate to encounter, and was called to defend himself and maintain his positions on a field of more rugged aspect; a challenge he did not decline. The "free soil" schism in the Democratic party, had its centre and its most active organization and operations in New York. On the failure of the Baltimore Convention of 1848 to nominate Mr. Van Buren again for the Presidency, the leaders of the movement met at Utica and adopted the Wilmot proviso, which the Convention had rejected, as their "corner stone," and soon after joined forces with the anti-slavery party, at the Buffalo Convention, and put Mr. Van Buren in nomination in opposition to the Democratic candidate. They denounced popular sovereignty as a surrender of the Territories to the slave power, and its advocates as dough-faces," and "slavery propagandists." Mr. Dickinson,

as the recognized leader of the National Democracy in the State, received a liberal share of invective and denunciation. The contest became bitter and its effects have continued to be visible in the politics of the State, in a greater or less degree, to the present time. The division of the Democratic vote of New York defeated General Cass and threw the government into the hands of the Whig party, by the election of General Taylor to the Presidency; and the movement by which it was accomplished, inaugurated a course of political demoralization in the State which has borne bitter fruits to the Nation. While the more consistent of those who engaged in it, being antislavery from principle, went over permanently to the opposition, the prominent and responsible leaders, though maintaining for a time their hostile organization and reaffirming the doctrines upon which they ostensibly separated from the National Democracy, soon again claimed recognition from the party and the right to exercise control in its affairs; and various "unions," having for their objects the success of candidates, parcelled out between the two organizations, were from time to time formed with them, but generally without satisfactory results. They continued for some years, in local and State politics, to stickle over slavery in the Territories, but actually supported the Democratic candidate for the presidency in 1852, upon a popular sovereignty platform; supported Mr. Buchanan in 1856 upon a similar platform, and finally in the presidential campaign of 1860, as the special advocates of Mr. Douglas, the author of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and the proposer of the repeal of the Missouri compromise, became the champions of the doctrine in its most ultra form.

Thus was the course of Mr. Dickinson upon this vexed question as amply vindicated by those who most vehemently assailed it, as it was approved by the great body of the people. It should be added that he opposed reunion, for the mere pur pose of securing the spoils of office, with those who went off

from the Democratic party, just so long as they asserted distinctive principles; and he took occasion, as will be seen by those who shall peruse the subsequent pages of this volume, in his specches and letters, called out by current events, fully to mark his sense of their position, as well as to define his own. Another thing is worthy of mention and remembrance in connection with the free soil controversy. Though the probability of results was not used as an argument in its favor by the advocates of popular sovereignty, not a foot of the vast territories, which its opponents declared would be surrendered to slavery by its adoption, ever became slaveholding under its full operation.

When a course of demagogism, folly, party dishonesty, official imbecility, and sectional madness, culminating in rebellion and treason without the shadow of justification or excuse, had plunged the country in civil war,—the slaveholders mainly becoming rebels in arms,-nearly every slaveholding State entering into a hostile, spurious confederacy, founded for its leading idea upon perpetual slavery, and, in every capacity in which as individuals or commonwealths they could act, having repudiated the constitution and authority of the Union, thrown off its protection, and in the face of the world appealed to the chances of war, he held from the first that they brought their property in slaves-the institution of slavery-being their chief source of labor and means of supply, especially and clearly within the scope of the war power of the government; that it thus became the right and duty of the President, as the commander-in-chief of the army and navy, to deal with slaves and slavery as with any other element of material strength to the enemy; to make such practical use in regard to them of the powers of his high office, within the rules of civilized warfare, as should most effectually weaken and paralyze the rebellion, strengthen the cause of the Union, and tend to restore the power of the government over the people of the revolted