SITUATION OF THE DEMOCRATS.

279

of congress, the first session of the new presidential term began under by no means happy auspices for the Democrats. They had the power to do whatever they pleased, and yet the question imperatively forced itself upon them, how the danger that that power might not slip through their fingers. as it had slipped through the fingers of the Whigs during Tyler's administration, might be averted.

CHAPTER VI.

THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA BILL. ITS ORIGIN AND

DEVELOPMENT.

Pierce's first annual message (Dec. 5, 1853), was, on the whole, a sober, business-like document, which showed a satisfactory prospect for the future. There was, indeed, no lack of differences of every kind with other powers. Austria was in very bad humor over the Koszta affair.1

1 There is no reason why we should enter here into a minute examination of this interesting international and constitutional episode. Martin Koszta, a Hungarian patriot, who was forbidden to return to his native country under the penalty of death, had, in the manner prescribed by law, declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States. While on a business tour, he was seized at Smyrna, and taken on board an Austrian man-of-war that lay in the harbor. As the efforts of the consul and of the American ambassador in Constantinople, to obtain his liberation were fruitless, Captain Ingraham, who had, in the meantime, come to Smyrna with the war boat St. Louis, took the affair in hand. He declared that he would take Koszta by force if he were not voluntarily given up, within a certain time. Thereupon the Austrians agreed to deliver him to the French consul, and to leave the rest to the governments of the two countries. A claim made by Austria was unconditionally rejected by Marcy in a long note; congress voted Ingraham a sword of honor for his energetic action, and the whole people loudly rejoiced at the lesson which had been given to European "despots." Young America had given the first practical proof that the proud and often provoking announcements which it had sent over the ocean in recent years, were not idle words. All this is very intelligible, but the Americans by no means had international law as undoubtedly on their side as they for the greater part suppose, even to-day, and there are many things in their own history not entirely in harmony with the principles which they set up in the Koszta affair. The question is permissible, too, whether both Ingraham and the president would not have proceeded more gently if they had had to do with England instead of Austria.

PIERCE'S FIRST MESSAGE.

281

The harping with Spain increased constantly, because the latter could not be moved to allow direct negotiations between the American consul in Havana and the captaingeneral of Cuba; with Mexico, boundary controversies had to be settled, and with England an understanding as to the interpretation of the fishery treaty of 1818, had to be reached. But although all these questions might lead to much vexation, they gave no occasion for alarm. Congress was able to give its undivided attention to the tasks of domestic policy which, like the building of a railroad to the Pacific Ocean and the Homestead Law, were preponderantly of an economic nature. Although the Democrats had a majority of 13 in the senate and of 84 in the house of representatives,1 it was very doubtful whether these two principal questions which had been part of the order of the day for years, would now be brought to a decision, as they were not party questions. But there seemed to be all the more reason to think that the session would have a peaceful course, on this account. Long and lively debates were to be expected, but there was no occasion to poison them with the spirit of party. If the Hards and Softs of New York were prevented from dragging their quarrel into these matters, the very apparent craving of the people for rest might be fully satisfied. The president expressed his confidence that this would be the case, and emphatically promised that he would oppose a renewal of the struggle over the slavery question, by all the means at his disposal. This promise, which certainly was

1 Senate: 35 Democrats, 122 Whigs, 5 vacancies; house: 159 Demo- 2 crats, 71 Whigs; 4 Free-Soilers.

2 He said in relation to the compromise: "But notwithstanding differences of opinion and sentiment which then existed in relation to details and specific provisions, the acquiescence of distinguished citizens, whose devotion to the Union can never be doubted, has given renewed vigor to our institutions, and restored a sense of repose and

honestly meant, was received with great approval, and no one suspected that simultaneously with it, the question was brought before congress which was destined to raise a storm the like of which had never before swept over the country.

On the first day of the session (December 5), Dodge, of Iowa, informed the senate that he intended to introduce a bill for the organization of the territory of Nebraska; the two first readings of the bill took place on the 14th of December, and it was referred to the committee on territories. The bill which proposed to organize the entire tract of country west of Missouri and Iowa as far as Utah and Oregon into a territory, under the name of Nebraska, was no novelty, and differed in no essential point from previous territorial bills. As early as 1844, the question had occupied the attention of congress; it occupied it again. in 1845, 1848 and 1853, and from the first it was Douglas who had managed the matter with the impatient energy peculiar to him. His efforts had been almost successful On the 2nd of February, 1853, Richardson, of Illinois, had introduced the bill, in the name of the committee on territories, into the house of representatives, and on the 10th of February, it was adopted by a vote of 98 to 43; 17 southern representatives had voted with the majority, and both the majority and the minority were made up of men belonging to both parties. The only weighty objection made by the opposition was the alleged violation of the stipulated rights of the Indians. On the 17th of February, the bill was recommended by Douglas, the chairman of the committee on territories, without

in the last session.

security to the public mind throughout the confederacy. That this repose is to suffer no shock during my official term, if I have power to avert it, those who placed me here may be assured." Statesman's Manual, III., p. 2038.

THE NEBRASKA BILL.

amendment, to the senate for adoption.

283

As the end of

the session was near at hand, he declined going into an exhaustive defence of the bill, but thought that considering his efforts during eight years and the numerical proportion in the vote of the house, a discussion might be dispensed with, but that the matter should not be left unsettled for the next congress to deal with. His wishes were not complied with, and here, too, the opposition assigned as the reason of their action the fact, that the rights of the Indians were violated by the bill. The bill was laid on the table by a vote of 23 against 17, and the vote was far from being a party vote.

Douglas's chagrin was great, but the majority of the members of congress attached no special importance to the affair, and outside of congress, it was scarcely known that the matter had been discussed at all. So small was the interest taken in it, that two episodes passed entirely unnoticed which were subsequently very uncomfortable to the south and its partisans, because they had been, without any object whatever, brought about by two men from

their own midst.

Only to provoke a laugh, at the expense of Giddings who was a member of the committee on territories, John W. Howe, of Pennsylvania, asked him whether the ordinance of 1787 had not been adopted in the bill, because the committee had allowed itself to be intimidated by the platform of 1852. Giddings quietly answered that the southern boundary of the territory lay north of thirty-six degrees, thirty minutes, and was, therefore, protected forever against slavery by the Missouri compromise; its perpetual prohibition could acquire no greater force by a renewal of it.1 To the further question, whether a later

1 "This law stands perpetually, and I did not think that this act would receive any increased validity by a re-enactment. There I leave