CHAPTER V.

THE POLITICIAN.

THE best evidence of genuine popular liberty is the existence of political parties. They are in fact the organized expression of opinion permissible only in a state of freedom. Some years ago the Sultan of Turkey called to Constantinople a kind of States-General. He made elaborate preparations for the sessions. Representative of nobody, the members met by his iradé or decree. Within ten days they began to talk; in the third week differences of opinion were developed; about the end of the first month he sent them all home. It did not consist with his government that a subject should think aloud. He was more than the majority in the empire. He could afford to tolerate but one speaker and one party-himself.

English history long ago established that, though the utmost freedom may prevail, a political party cannot be manufactured, like a barrel, a loom or a boat. American history confirms the experience, and more-we now know that such a party cannot succeed upon a question of morals purely and singly. The party must be a necessity of

(247)

politics, which are as distinguishable from morals as the first letter of the alphabet is distinguishable from the last. This is not saying that there should not be good morals in politics; it is saying that political parties are the natural output of political conditions.

All the great parties known to American history prove this-the Federal, the Democratic, the Whig, the Republican, all prove it. In their days almost numberless organizations in opposition to them singly and collectively have been attempted; such, amongst others, were the Anti-Whiskey party, that culminated in the administration of Washington, the Anti-Federation party, which fell to pieces in the Hartford Convention, the AntiMasonic party, the American party, the Know Nothing party. Each died, and died early, in instances because there was but the beveled edge of a plank for them to live upon; more plainly, because there was no necessity for them.

Probably the very finest illustration of the philosophy of the origin of political parties in the United States is furnished by the Republican party. The idea is very common that it was a graft upon the stalk of the Whig party. Few things are more untrue. Let us see.

On the 8th day of August, 1846, one David Wilmot, member of Congress from Pennsylvania, moved a proviso to a pending bill, affirming it "an express and fundamental condition to the

acquisition of any territory from Mexico, that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist therein."

This was the entering wedge between the North and the South. Both the Democratic and Whig parties opposed it in their national conventions, and of that opposition the Whig party died effectually and forever. The Democratic party survived because both parties in the South united against the proviso. The "Solid South" of to-day is absolutely referable to that union. On the other hand, the North divided upon the issue. There the slavery question became the sole question. Should the Territories be Free or Slave? Such was its form. Men opposed to the extension of slavery-Barnburners, Anti-slavery Whigs and Democrats, Abolitionists-refused to trust the Whig leaders longer. General Taylor was elected; but his tomb is the tomb of his party. His inaugural recommendation that California be admitted with her free Constitution had not enough of saving grace in it. The South grew more solid than ever. Compromises only intensified the dispute. In 1852 out of a total of 296 electors General Scott, the Whig candidate for the Presidency, received but 42. The triumph of the Democracy meant the extension of slavery. There was but one resort to stop the consummation of the crime-a New Party-and straightway all differences were smothered. A fusion

took place, out of which—out of the necessity of the hour, the necessity of saving the Territories to Freedom-the Republican party was born.

It is fair to observe next that, contrary to a growing idea, the Republican party did not propose the abolition of slavery, in the sense of interference with it in the States of which it was then an existing institution. With a just appreciation of the necessity calling them to organize, the delegates of the first nominating convention, held at Philadelphia June 17, 1856, Colonel Henry S. Lane, of Indiana, presiding, resolved, "that, as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no person should be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it, for the purpose of establishing slavery in any Territory of the United States, by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence and extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislature, of any individual or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained."

They also resolved, "That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign power over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that, in the exercise of this power, it

is both the right and the duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism-Polygamy and Slavery."

That Abolitionists took part in the Philadelphia convention is undeniable, but that the party then and there representatively assembled was an Abolition party is equally untrue. Its design was the prevention of Slavery in the Territories, not its abolition in the States already Slave.

The Second National Republican Convention for nomination assembled at Chicago, Ill., May 16, 1860. The party had by that time advanced from its experimental condition, wherefore the first clause of its platform-"That the history of the nation, during the last four years, has fully established the propriety and necessity of the organization and perpetuation of the Republican party; and that the causes which called it into existence are permanent in their nature, and now, more than ever before, demand its peaceful and constitutional triumph."

In those four years a new necessity for the Republican party had arisen. The Democratic party hastened in 1846 to maintain the Southern assertion that the Territories belonged to all the States, and that by virtue of that right owners of slaves from the slave States had a constitutional right to remove with their slaves to the Territories, and be protected in the enjoyment of their property therein. This declaration of principle