Political opinion in Massachusetts during the civil war and reconstruction

Front matter

L i;iss L- o I ^

POLITICAL OPINION

IN MASSACHUSETTS DURING CIVIL

Preface

In the following pages no attempt has been made to rewrite the story of the Civil War, nor has there been any effort to narrate the steps of Reconstruction ; that has been ably done from various points of view. This monograph presupposes that such works are very familiar and confines itself, as its title indicates, to the political opinion within a single state during those critical years. Massachusetts is inevitably prominent in the history of that time. She was one of the larger states and had an active aggressive governor; many of her citizens were in positions of national importance. In fact Robert C. Winthrop complained :

I cannot but regret that our state is put forward so prominently. Sumner at the head of Foreign Affairs, Wilson at the head of Military Affairs, Butler commanding one wing, Banks commanding another wing, Adams Minister to London, Burlingame to Pekin, Motley to Vienna, Regiment after Regiment of Massa&c volunteers hurrying to the conflict — all this tends to keep up the idea that this is a Mass(&c) War and provokes increased hostility and exasperation at the South.^

Aside from this political prestige it should be noted that abolitionist propaganda centered in Boston, and that its great leaders and influential sympathizers were citizens of Massachusetts whose activity colored the contemporary opinion of her held by outsiders and has continued to color the memory of her attitude even to the present (1916). Furthermore the eastern part of the state was the home of

1 Winthrop MSS, to Judge Clifford, Aug. 24, 1861. 201] 5

6 PREFACE [202

prominent literary men of the period, and, although the extent of the influence of their presence and opinion on the political situation may be questioned, their general antislavery attitude is well known and together with the abolitionist agitation is best remembered as the opinion of Massachusetts.

By reputation the Bay State has always been Republican. But a majority never expresses the whole political opinion. Besides it is a minority which at times makes itself most felt, as for example, in national affairs, in the Civil War itself. The position and character of a minority is often forgotten; for history records merely the success of the triumphant, and tradition passes on the thoughts of the conspicuous. I purpose here to inquire into the strength of the minority, and the reasons for their opposition and their strength ; to discover who were the spectacular and famous individuals or representatives of both sides; and to ascertain what the majority really thought. In other words, I shall try to present a comprehensive study of the political opinion in Massachusetts during the Civil War and Reconstruction.

The material for the present work has been gathered largely from newspaper files, chiefly those of the Boston and Springfield Public Libraries and the Antiquarian Society at Worcester. Collections of pamphlets and broadsides which are in the rooms of the Massachusetts Historical Sotiety and the State Library ^ were consulted and in addition such private papers as were available. I wish to express my indebtedness to attendants of these libraries, as well as to the librarians of Columbia and Harvard Universities and Smith College, of Peabody Institute in Baltimore, and of the Clarke and the Forbes Libraries in Northampton. I

1 Fuller accounts of this material will be found in appendices ii and iii.

203] PREFACE y

have also received material through personal channels, chiefly in the form of suggestions and reminiscences. I am indebted especially to Mrs. Sarah Hughes of Milton, daughter of John Murray Forbes ; to Professor Henry Greenleaf Pearson of the Institute of Technology; to Dr. Worthington C. Ford and to the late Dr. Samuel A. Green of the Massachusetts Historical Society ; to Mr. Frank B. Sanborn and Colonel N. P. Hallo well, and also to the late Miss Ann Page and neighbors of Danvers, and to residents of Worcester, of the neighborhood of Bridgewater, Plymouth County, and to yet others of the Hadleys.

Finally I owe grateful acknowledgment in particular to Professor John Spencer Bassett of Smith College, who suggested the line of investigation, and to Professor William A. Dunning, who has encouraged the work to its completion.

Edith Ellen Ware.

Northampton, 1916. ''

Contents

rAGE

Introduction , 15

CHAPTER I The Election of i860 The Republican Party

Platform : criticisms, defense 22

Influence of the re-election of Sumner and the John Brown aflFair 25

Nature of Republican anti-slavery sentiment 26

Conventions : delegates to the national convention ; candidate ; state convention 26

The Democratic Party

Charleston convention ; delegates and reports 29

Baltimore convention 30

Douglas's visit to Massachusetts 31

Nominating conventions 31

Breckinridge faction in the minority 32

The Third Party

Origin, composition, strength 33

The Election

Local episodes 36

The vote 37

Result upon public opinion 38

Chapter II

The Period of the Secessions, November 7, i860, to April 15, 1861 General Attitude

Surprise, early indifference, growing concern, condemnation . . 40 Disunionists

Southern sympathizers 43

Abolitionists 44

Anti-war factions 45

Comments of Merriam and Holmes on gradations in opinions. . 46

Hunkers and submissionists 47

205] 9 lO CONTENTS [206

PACB

Compromise policies

Charles Francis Adams in Congress 49

Within the state : Crittenden compromise petitions ; Peace Conference delegates ; revision of Personal Liberty Law 51

Conciliatory spirit supplemented by pecuniary interest and encouraged by confidence in the temporary character of the difficulties 59

Military Preparations

Andrew's measures 6l

Legislative action 62

General popular opposition 63

Persistent Professed Confidence in Adjustment • . 64

CHAPTER III The Defense of the Union

United Sentiment The effect of firing upon Sumter ; of the Sixth regiment episode ;

of letters of marque 67

Comment: of Abolitionists; of Constitutional Unionists, ^. ^.,

Everett ; of Republicans, ^. f,, Andrew and Forbes 69

The critical minority 71

Factions for Compromise Indifferent, neutral, anti-abolitionist, pro-slavery 73

Union a Sacred Trust

"The Union must be preserved " 75

" Let slavery take care of itself " 76

Union meeting ; attempted union of parties yy

The Election of 1861

Democratic convention : platform 78

Republican convention : rejection of emancipation as an issue . 79

The union ticket and reasons for its failure 8l

The one issue. The vote 82

CHAPTER IV Emancipation Purpose of the Chapter 83

Abolitionists an Isolated Group in the Election of i860 83

Hostility toward Abolitionists in the winter of 1861 ; riots of December 3, and December 16, i860, and January 24, 1861 .... 85 Emancipation m 1861

Republican majority determined to "let slavery take care of itself" 90

207] CONTENTS II

rAGB

Contraband ; Fremont 91

Emancipation League 93

Growing sentiment for and 94

Continued protest against emancipation as an issue 95

Problems of 1862 Confiscation ; emancipation with compensation ; emancipation in

the District of Columbia 96

Emancipation and foreign intervention 97

Developing Sentiment for Emancipation 98

The Proclamation

Acquiescence in lOl

Disapproval of : by People's party, the Post, the Irish, the Courier, the AboHtionists 102

Summary

Transformation of opinion, illustrated by representative men . . 106

Restatement of the opinion of Massachusetts on emancipation . 107

CHAPTER V The Rise and Fall of Copperheadism Definition of Copperheadism iio

Criticism of the Administration 1861 and 1862

Divergent opinions in 1861 ill

Effect of the Emancipation Proclamation on the critics 114

People's party 114

Campaign of 1862

Republican convention ; resolutions 116

People's convention : resolutions ; effect of the Emancipation

Proclamation upon the new party 117

Democratic convention : resolutions 118

The vote 119

Copperheadism of 1863 McClellan's visit to Boston ; the counter movement of the New

England Loyal Publication Society, and by the Union Club . 120 Opposition to negro enlistment ; disappears through familiarity

and necessity 126

Draft riots 129

Election of 1863 : vote ; platforms, Republican and Democratic . 132

Politics of 1864

Demands for peace ; Democratic resolutions ; comment 135

Republican convention : resolutions ; abolitionist following . . . 138

The people's confidence in Lincoln 140

12 CONTENTS [208

rAGK

Reception of McClellan's letter ; changed attitude toward compromise 141

The vote 142

Disappearance of Copperheadism

Acquiescence in the election of 1864 142

Tribute to Lincoln 144

Part I

Professor Dunning's Analysis of Reconstruction Theories .... 147 Views of Massachusetts on Reconstruction before 1865

Sumner's theory ; its reception in Massachusetts in 1862 .... 147

Democratic platform of 1863 . . 148

Republican position to 1865 : the indestructibility of the states . . 149

Presidential plan not unquestioned 150

Radicals, supporting Sumner, believed in confiscation as policy

and as punishment 151

Views of Massachusetts on Reconstruction after the Close of the War

Desire to secure in peace the fruits of victory 153

Demand for negro suffrage 154

Republican platform, 1866 156

Democratic opposition to negro suffrage : Democratic platform,

1865 157

Champions of negro suffrage ; campaign for the education of

popular opinion through meetings and publications 157

John A. Andrew's view 159

Necessity of securing the fruits of victory and of protecting the

negro became political capital 160

PART 2 Political Issues to 1876

Republican Claim to the Work of Reconstruction 162

The Response of Massachusetts to the Policy of the "National

Union Convention " of 1866 162

The Impeachment of Johnson

Foreshadowed by Republican resolutions, 1866 165

Resolutions and speeches of the Republican convention of 1867 . 165

Democratic indifference to the issue, 1867 166

General reluctance to take up the issue 167

209] CONTENTS 1 3

FAGK

General satisfaction with acquittal i6q

Election of 1868, a Campaign for Party Permanence 170

Republican Attitude in 1869 and 1870 170

Democratic Demand for State Rights, 1865-1871 ; Acquiescence in

the Amendments 171

The Liberal Republican Movement

Analysis and description of its adherents 172

Supporters of the regular Republican cause 175

Alliance of the Liberal Republicans and the Democrats ; the

Weakness of the movement even in western Massachusetts. . . 177

The vote 177

Attitude of Massachusetts toward the Constitutional Amendments

Thirteenth Amendment 179

Fourteenth Amendment 179

Fifteenth Amendment 181

Local Issues Prominent after 1870 181

Prohibition : the problem ; shifting legislation during 1868-1870 ;

the Prohibition party organized 182

Labor reform : ineffective resolutions of the Democrats for labor reform ; Labor Reform party organized, 1869 ; platform ;

strength 184

Woman Suffrage : before the legislature ; state conventions of

1870 and 1871 ; before party conventions 187

The Republican Party and Local Issues

Attempt to ignore all local issues 188

Butler episode of 1871 189

Butler episode of 1873 194

Republican defeat on the prohibition issue in 1874 195

Fate of the party after 1874 198

Restatement 198

APPENDIXES

Appendix I : Graph Illustrating in Percentages the Votes in

Massachusetts, 1856-1876 To face 201

Appendix II : The Press of Massachusetts during the Sixties . . 201 Appendix III : Bibliographical Note 212

Introduction

The records of anti-slavery agitation incident to the Compromise of 1850, written, for the most part, by the friends or champions of freedom, give the impression that all of Massachusetts, conscious of the crime of American slavery, was determined to be rid of it. This is not the fact of the case. The Free-Soilers were actually in the minority throughout the decade preceding Republican dominance ; but although limited in numbers, they were unlimited in determination and ability. They could not win of themselves, therefore they won by coalition. But win they did, and the success of the minority has given the impression that it was the will of the majority.

The Free-Soil party was organized in the state in 1848. In 1850 it took advantage of the disaffection among the Whigs which followed Webster's " Seventh of March speech ", and joining with the Democrats replaced the dominant Whig party. This coalition failed to win the majority necessary for the choice of governor, but it controlled the legislature in both 185 1 and 1852. And the coalition legislature named a Free-Soiler to uphold antislavery measures in Congress, namely, Charles Sumner for the long-term senatorship, and Henry Wilson for president of the state senate; it elected George S. Boutwell, then a Democrat, for governor and appointed Democrats to the short-term senatorship and the speakership of the legislature. Thus through controlling the coalition the Free- Soilers put forward men who continued to lead and to personify the extreme anti-slavery factions of the state. But 211] 15 such a coalition could not last ; the presidential campaign of 1852 clearly defined party principles, and the Kansas- Nebraska bill of 1854 ended all compromise.

In consequence of this definition of parties the Whigs came into power once more, in' 1853. They had polled a plurality of the popular vote during the years of the coalition, but had failed to elect their candidate for governor because a majority was necessary. After 1854 they failed to have either a majority or a plurality. The clearly defined issue which put an end to the coalition of 185 1 and 1852 was also dividing the Whig party. In the heightening contest with the Southern advocates of slavery, those following the leadership of Webster believed any compromise was justifiable which would preserve the Union; Rufus Choate, for example, argued that to return a few fugitives was better than to sacrifice multitudes in civil strife. Representative leaders of the Whig party were willing if need be to submit to the complete nationalization of slavery as the lesser of the two cvils.^ Many " Conscience Whigs ", however, in distinction from " Cotton Whigs ", were unwilling to yield everything tO' one idea. This controversy ended in the weakening and final breaking-up of the Whig party.

The episode of the " Know-Nothings " occurring at this juncture, superficially diverted attention from the paramount issue. This party arose in protest against the multitude of immigrants, Irish Catholic in particular, that had recently come to Massachusetts. The increase in the percentage of illiterates, dependents and criminals from this element of the population was out of all proportion to their numbers, and contributed much to the burdens of the substantial people of the state. Moreover, the number of foreigners eager for activity in politics alarmed the people generally lest, subject to

1 Cf, €. F. Adams, Life of C. F. Adams, ch. iv : The " Boston Whig."

213] INTRODUCTION ly

the will of a foreign potentate, these strangers should subvert America's civil and religious liberties. Consequently the secret organizations against the invaders grew apace, and, combined in the general organization of the American party,^ they soon nominated and elected their candidates to public office. On the slavery c[uestion the new party professed a neutral stand. This, since it was what the Democrats were contending for, satisfied those among them who desired to join the anti-foreign crusade. Neutrality on the slavery question appealed especially to the Whigs also, since they were at odds among themselves upon that issue. Accordingly analysis of the vote of 1853 and 1854 seems to indicate that something like 55 per cent of the Whigs and 62 per cent of the Democrats deserted their old allegiance and that yy per cent of the Free-Soilers merged themselves into the new party.' The Know-Nothings swept the state. But here again the Free-Soilers were manipulating politics, here again they were using coalition. It was necessary to the cause of the Free-Soilers to break down the old parties. They therefore joined the new party in order to defeat the old. But they did more: they used the new mechanism to serve their cause. Henry Wilson, in retrospect, said of the party that

hundreds of thousands who cared less for its avowed principles and purposes than for the higher claims of justice and humanity, and had little faith in its permanency, were willing to use its machinery to disrupt the Whig and Democratic parties in the coniident hope that, out of the disorganized

1 The nickname " Know-Nothing " is used interchangeably with American.

* G. H. Haynes, " A Know-Nothing Legislature," in American Historical Association, Report, i8g6, p. 180. The composition and work of this legislature is admirably analyzed in this article.

masses, there would come a great political party antagonistic to the dominating influences of the Slave Power.^

This is undoubtedly what resulted. The Know-Nothing members of the legislature were inexperienced and the Free- Soilers among them directed its work to their ends. Henry Wilson was elected senator; seven out of eleven congressmen, nominally Know-Nothing, were Free-Soilers, and all were understood to be anti-slavery in sympathy. Free-Soil sentiment was also shown in the passage of the Personal Liberty Bill and in an address to the governor demanding the removal of Judge Loring who, as United States commissioner, had rendered a decision obnoxious to Massachusetts anti-slavery sentiment. The only real Know- Nothing legislation was the proposal of an amendment to the state constitution restricting office-holding to native born and the franchise to residents of twenty-one years."

The year of the Know-Nothing landslide ( 1854) also witnessed the ineffectual effort to organize a Republican party. The Whigs, in control in 1853, still held the hope of continued power, and added an anti-slavery plank to their platform. The Know-Nothing candidate, a former conservative Whig, was said to be anti-slavery ; the Free-Soil party satisfied the more extreme champions of freedom. All the parties excepting the pronounced Democrats were thus opposed to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise; yet only one party, the Free-Soil, was willing to place that question above all else, and slavery in the territories could not therefore be made an issue. The people generally, in fact, were not yet ready to join a party dominated by Free-Soilers, as the organizing Republican party appeared to be.^ The contest consequently

' Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, vol. ii, p. 49.

* This amendment was defeated in the next legislature.

* Wilson, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 414.

215] INTRODUCTION I^

was between the Whigs and the Know-Nothings. And the Know-Nothing party, victorious in its first campaign, gained momentum enough to reelect its governor in 1855.

The landslide that buried the old parties was itself soon turned aside. At the national convention in Philadelphia in 1855 the Know-Nothing party divided on its declaration of principles. The committee on resolutions reported, fourteen to thirteen, that congress ought not to prohibit slavery in any territory or in the District of Columbia, and that it had no power to exclude any state from admission to the Union because its constitution recognized slavery. The minority demanded a restoration of the Missouri Compromise line, or, failing that, refusal on the part of Congress to admit any state formed out of the Kansas-Nebraska territories which tolerated slavery. The debate continued for three days. The Northern delegates were well satisfied with all planks but the one on slavery. On that point the Know-Nothings as a national party were rent in twain. Anti-slavery sentiment had always been strong in the Know- Nothing party in the North, and when the party was shorn of its secrecy during and after the convention of 1855 and when it was forced into an open statement of its principles, the slavery question came to the fore. In Massachusetts the disintegrating American party took the same position on the slavery question as the newly organizing Republican party, and for the year, 1855, maintained itself in power.

The Republican party, organized in 1855, was under the leadership of Samuel Bowles, E. Rockwood Hoar, Richard Henry Dana, Jr., Charles Francis Adams, George S. Boutwell and Henry L. Dawes. A conference committee of all parties was held and a state convention was called to meet in Worcester, September 20, 1855. There Nathaniel P. Banks,, (coalition Democrat of 185 1) presided and Richard H. Dana, Jr., (Free-Soiler) was chairman of the platform committee. The nomination for governor was a subject of much debate. The alliance of the Americans depended upon the nomination of Gardner; the party in power was not willing to resign to a new party. The Republicans, however, nominated their own candidate, Julius Rockwell. Rockwell and Beach (the Democratic nominee) represented the two sides of the great question. But the Americans had accepted the anti-slavery issue, thus preventing deflection to the new party, and Gardner, backed by the organization and prestige of the previous year's victory, was elected. Thus for the second time the new Republican party failed : in 1854 to organize, in 1855 to elect its candidate.

In the presidential year 1856 the Americans still held to their organization. But since a large proportion of them did not differ from the Republicans on the main issue, the new party used coalition as had the Free-Soilers on former occasions. Desiring to obtain united support for Fremont, the Republicans agreed to put up no' candidate against Gardner, the representative of American dominance in the state. The American party, however, was not yet merely an anti-slavery party; there were some who still adhered to the original tenets, but were opposed to Fremont. They therefore organized as Fillmore-Americans. In the election Massachusetts voted for a Republican president and a Fremont- American governor.

But the union of Republican and American parties on the main issue permanently weakened the latter as an independent party, and in 1857 the Fremont Americans joined with the Republicans in electing Nathaniel P. Banks and a Republican legislature. The national problem of slavery in the territories had usurped the place of all other interests, and the national party founded on that issue alone had diverted attention from all other causes. Banks and the Republican legislature were retained in power.

217] INTRODUCTION 21

The Whigs made no nominations after 1856, the American party grew smaller and smaller, disappearing in i860. And the Free-Soilers, having failed utterly to grow, again exercised their influence in coalition : they became merged in the more moderate Republican party.

In i860, therefore, the Democratic party was the lone party left, from those of the previous decade, tO' oppose the Republicans. Having broken with the Free-Soilers in 1853 and having championed popular sovereignty and non-interference with slavery in the territories, it had, like the Republican party, drawn unto itself members of the other groups who had deserted minor causes for the paramount issue.

Consequently our point of departure for the discussion of the Political Opinion in Massachusetts during the Civil War and Reconstruction is an analysis of the parties and votes in the campaign of i860.

CHAPTER I The Election of i860

On January 25, i860, Henry Wilson, in the United States Senate, made a long and carefully prepared speech, which was an enunciation of the purposes and principles of the Republican party in , the campaign about to begin. Throwing aside the doctrines of the extreme Abolitionists, he was content to rest the issue of the campaign on the question of the exclusion of slavery from the territories. It was the object of the party, he said,

to preserve the vast territorial possessions of the Republic from " the direful effects " of this " dreadful calamity " which " has preyed upon the vitals of the Union ", by applying to, and engraving upon, those territorial possessions these words, " slavery shall be and is forever prohibited " ; words which came from the pen of Jefferson, were embodied in the Ordinance of 1787, and stamped on every foot of the virgin sods of the Northwest.^

This was commended as a " full, free and frank declaration of the principles and purposes of the North," - and it was echoed, in a somewhat softer tone, by the platform of the Massachusetts Republicans. That instnmient

^ Cong. Globe, 36 cong., i sess., p. 571.

' Springfield Republican, Jan. 26, i860. Throughout the year various newspapers continually referred to this speech as the standard of the party.

22 [218

219] -^^^ ELECTION OF ISGO 23

was written with a view of winning the conservative vote. While it surrendered nothing of the principle that the territories be devoted to free labor, it declared that it did not contemplate the overthrow of slavery, nor ask the suffrage of the people that it might oppress or wrong any section, South or North ; but it declared that the Republican party was a union party, standing on the principles of the fathers, who made freedom national and slavery sectional, and that those men were sectional who stood for or against slavery in the abstract/

This principle of free territory swept so many of the anti-slavery champions into the Republican party that the conservative phraseology of the platform did not avert a storm of denunciation from the opponents of the party. The Republicans, said the opposition papers, were not entitled to be known as unionists. Had their allies not long preached, "No Union with Slaveholders"? Had not the arch-abolitionist announced that " the Constitution was a Covenant with Death and an Agreement with Hell " ? Republicanism, the Democratic press dogmatically declared, was nothing but open and undisguised abolitionism. They quoted Sumner's speech, of June 4, i860, on the " Barbarism of Slavery ", as the standard of the party; they claimed, also, that Republican leaders had aided John Brown, and they made capital of John A. Andrew's remark, " John Brown hiwiself was right ". Thus they tried to make the issue union or abolition, knowing that such an issue would mean defeat to the Republicans, for Massachusetts, however anti-slavery, was not abolitionist in sentiment. -

^ Boston Advertiser, Aug. 30, i860; Worcester Spy, Aug. 31, i860.

^ Fuller discussion of Massachusetts' attitude toward the abolition of slavery will be found, infra, ch. iv. The Boston Post, Apr. 9, 1869, acknowledged the Abolitionists to be in the minority, but claimed 'that by intellectual force they controlled the majority.

The Republican press, in point of fact, made emphatic protests against all imputation of abolitionism; even the most strongly anti-slavery paper, the Atlas and Bce,^ declared angrily :

No man knows better than the editor of the Post, that the opinions entertained of old by Jews and Samaritans were not more wide apart than are the opinions held at the present time by the Republicans and the Garrisonian Abolitionists. The Republicans believe the Constitution of the United States to be an Antislavery document, and they bind themselves by their actions at the polls and by their oaths of office, and by the entire tenure of their political lives, to support and maintain it. The Garrisonian Abolitionists, on the other hand, believe the Constitution to be a proslavery document, and the Union to be a curse — and therefore they will not support the one and labor to destroy the other. They are non-voting men, and they will not accept office under the Constitution. Now then, we ask, can a man be a Republican, and at the same time a Garrisonian Abolitionist ?

Moreover the distinction was emphasized by William Lloyd Garrison's Fourth-of-July speech:

The Republican party means to do nothing, can do nothing, for the abolition of slavery in the slave states. . . . The Republican party stands on a level with the Fugitive Slave Law. It has cursed all opposition to it . . . And shall I vote that men who buy and sell and steal their fellow Creatures shall have political power put into their hands? . . . No . . . I am for meddling with slavery everywhere ... in order to effect its eternal overthrow. . . . Excelsior! will be my cry ..." No Union with slave holders ! " Down with this

^ A characterization of Massachusetts newspapers for this period will be found in appendix ii. The newspapers referred to in the footnotes may be understood to be Boston publications unless otherwise designated.

22 1 ] THE ELECTION OF I860 25

slaveholding government ! Let this " covenant with death and agreement with hell " be annulled! ^

Two events had, undoubtedly, given substance to Democratic accusations; namely, the support given to Sumner in 1856, and the raid of John Brown, friend of many Massachusetts Republicans. The truth of the matter, however, in the first instance, is that the reelection of Sumner in 1856 was due less to his anti-slavery ideals than to a feeling of personal loyalty to a representative from Massachusetts who had received injury while serving his state. In the second instance, the John Brown affair was proved, in course of time, by a Senate report," not to have been the will of the Republican party per se. Moreover it occurred long enough before the election for sober judgment in Massachusetts to correct charges ^ and to remove suspicions of possible guilt of Republicans in general, whatever share some individuals may have had in furnishing John Brown

' Liberator, July 20, i860.

' This was the " Report of the Select Committee of the Senate appointed to inquire into the late invasion and seizure of the pubhc property at Harper's Ferry," Senate Reports, 35 cong., i sess., vol. ii, no. 278. The committee was appointed at the instance of James M. Mason, of Virginia. Globe, 36 cong., i sess., pp. i and 52.

^Advertiser, Feb. 24, i860: "The excitement about John Brown's invasion was out of proportion to the original occurrence and could not have arisen from it except by constant insistence from a partisan press." Ibid., June 19, i860: "If it had occurred a few months earlier it might have borne heavily upon the elections. But a poHtical cry of this kind cannot last twelve months." Yet these statements are not true concerning the formation of the national party platforms. There, as Professor Fite states {Campaign of i860, p. 32), the John Brown affair " forced the political parties of the country to assume extreme positions and declare extreme principles." This difference in effect upon national and state opinion is possible because the nominating conventions met in the spring, many weeks nearer the Harper's Ferry episode.

with funds, and it therefore proved useless as political capital. The Democratic accusations had greater effect within the South, especially in fostering the general opinion that a widespread abolition sentiment existed in Massachusetts in i860.

But the real character of that anti-slavery sentiment which did exist was probably best expressed by the conservative Republican in its defense against Democratic misrepresentation. It explained at length that while the Republican party had no intention of interfering with the institution of slavery within the states, the party in Virginia might organize for emancipation of the slaves in Virginia; " But," it declared emphatically, " it is not legitimate to organize a Republican party in Massachusetts for the overthrow of slavery in Virginia. The United States cannot do it." It added that the only means the North could use was moral suasion.^