II.

A WORK OF PREPARATION.

The Situation in Michigan in 1854-The Breaking Down of Old Party Lines Strong Anti-Slavery Sentiment in the State-The Underground Railway Line-Correspondence of Whig Editors-An Important Preliminary Meeting-Statements from Some of the Leaders-Free Democratic Mass Convention-It Nominates a Ticket and Makes Overtures for a Union-Rousing Anti-Nebraska Meetings-Valuable Work by Whig and Free Democratic Editors -Encouragement From the Early Elections-A Long Step Towards Union-Strong Resolutions and a Rousing Call.

In spite of the fact that the State had generally given Democratic majorities up to the time when the slavery question became the paramount issue in politics, a majority of Michigan people were opposed to the policy of that party on this supreme question. Their State was part of the great Northwest Territory, over which the Ordinance of 1787 spread the mantle of perpetual freedom. Their history and traditions were in full accord with the principles of this fundamental law. As the Eastern border of the State was on the frontier, it became part of the great highway that led the fugitive slave to Canada and freedom, and along that highway, at Kalamazoo, Adrian, Detroit and other places, were stations of the "underground railway," where fleeing slaves had been assisted on their way, and where they had aroused the deepest sympathies of those who met them. Some of these men had been arrested and fined for violation of the Fugitive Slave Law. They were, at this time, as thoroughly aroused as the people of almost any other Northern State, at the repeated aggressions of the slave power.

The difficulty, when the feeling that grew out of the KansasNebraska controversy was at its height, was in a lack of concentration. A large majority of the Whigs shared in the feeling, but were attached in affection and sentiment to their party and wished to preserve its

integrity and its name. There was another party, made up mainly of Abolitionists and of those old Democrats whose Anti-Slavery sentiments were so strong that they could not follow their old organization into the Southern fold. The men of this party were, in contemporaneous records, variously called Free Soilers, Free Democrats and Free Soil Democrats. In the election of 1852 they had given Isaac P. Christiancy 5,850 votes for Governor, while the Whigs gave Zachariah Chandler 34,660, and the Democrats gave Robert McClelland 42,798. This was a clear majority for the Democrats over the other two parties combined.

Subsequent events, however, had changed that, and in 1854, there was no doubt that a majority of voters in the State were not only opposed to the extension of slavery into any new Territory, but were also in favor of obliterating some of the Compromise Measures that had, two years earlier, been accepted as a settlement of the whole controversy. The difficulty was in combining all the Anti-Slavery elements into one coherent whole. The Whigs themselves were not entirely united in sentiment upon this subject. There were, in truth, two factions among them, the Seward Whigs, as they were called and as they rather liked to call themselves in Michigan, and the Silver Gray Whigs, as they were first called in New York and subsequently in other states. The former were in full sympathy with the rising tide of Anti-Slavery sentiment. The latter were conservative on the subject, but neither was ready to disband its organization. They certainly had no idea of being absorbed by the Free Democrats, nor had the latter any purpose of losing their party identity.

But the work of preparation for the breaking down of these party lines had long before been commenced. Charles V. De Land, one of those who was active in this preliminary work, recently made this brief statement in reference to it: "The movement began soon after the crushing defeat of the Whigs in 1852, by correspondence between the leading Whig editors of the Northern states. I was at that time editor of the Jackson Citizen, and distinctly remember the circular letters of the National Intelligencer, Albany Journal and other leading papers, asking the expression of all Whig editors as to the situation, and what the future policy of the party should be. These circulars induced some of the leading Whig editors of Michigan to hold a conference at Jackson in February, 1854, of which Henry Barns, of Detroit, was Chairman, and the writer was Secretary. The Free Soil party had called a convention for the 22d of February to nominate a

State ticket. The Kansas-Nebraska bill, the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and other radical pro-slavery legislation was pending in Congress. Already the people of the Northern states were holding mass meetings, denouncing and remonstrating against the proposed legislation. The editors adopted a policy looking to the consolidation of all the Anti-Slavery extension elements into a new party. Henry Barns, of the Detroit Tribune; George A. Fitch, of the Kalamazoo Telegraph, and Z. B. Knight, of the Pontiac Gazette, were appointed a Committee to attend the Free Soil State Convention, and submit the proposition to the leaders of that party. A conference was held on the evening of the 21st, at the office of Austin Blair, and among the Free Soil leaders present I remember Kinsley S. Bingham, Hovey K. Clarke, Isaac P. Christiancy and William T. Howell. The Free Soilers thought it best to go on and hold their convention and to nominate a ticket, but agreed to name a joint committee, with authority to call a mass convention later, and if a union of the kind proposed was feasible, to withdraw their State ticket and join the new organization.”

Of a later phase of the movement Henry Wilson, in his "Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America," said: "Immediately on the passage of the Nebraska bill, Joseph Warren, editor of the Detroit Tribune, entered upon a course of measures that resulted in bringing the Whig and Free Soil parties together, not by a mere coalition of the two, but by a fusion of the elements of which the two were composed. In his own language he took ground in favor of disbanding the Whig and Free Soil parties, and of the organization of a new party composed of all the opponents of slavery extension.' Among the first steps taken toward the accomplishment of this vitally important object, was the withdrawal of the Free Soil ticket."

In reference to the same movement, Joseph Warren himself wrote, twenty-five years later: "Though the repeal of the Compromise between freedom and slavery, which for nearly thirty-five years had been looked upon as an inviolable compact, created widespread and intense excitement, the members of the Whig party, it was feared, were not prepared to abandon their own organization, and be absorbed in the Free Soil party. Being impressed with the conviction that such a sentiment existed to a sufficient extent to render the success of the Free Soil ticket doubtful, even if it should be formally adopted (as he felt it should not be) by a Whig convention, the writer of this brief sketch, then editor and part owner of the Detroit Tribune, initiated, through its columns, a movement on the part of the Anti-Slavery peo

. He,

ple of the State, which resulted in the Jackson mass convention, and in the organization and christening of the Republican party. through the columns of the Tribune, took immediate and very decided ground in favor of formally disbanding both the Whig and Free Soil parties of the State, and of the organization by mass convention, of a new party, composed of all the opponents of slavery extension of whatever name. This course, it is due to himself to state, he took upon his own responsibility, being so thoroughly convinced that it was right and would triumph, that he advised not even with his immediate political friends as to the wisdom of the step." The time here referred to was that immediately following the final passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill in May, and for the next two months Mr. Warren's paper was undoubtedly the most conspicuous, as it was one of the ablest, and certainly the most vigorous, among newspaper advocates of the movement. But it would not be just to ascribe to any one man the credit either for the initiative or the progress of the movement. It was too broad and the feeling was too deep to be credited to any one individual. It was an inspiration that came alike to hundreds of earnest men engaged in editorial work and in other avenues of public life.

The call for a mass convention of the Free Democracy was issued January 12, 1854, and was signed by U. Tracy Howe, Hovey K. Clarke, Silas M. Holmes, S. A. Baker, S. B. Thayer, Samuel P. Mead, Samuel Zug, J. W. Childs and Erastus Hussey, State Central Committee. Between the call and the time of the convention an address was issued to the people of the country by Senators Salmon P. Chase and Charles Sumner, and Representatives Joshua R. Giddings, Edward Wade, Gerritt Smith and Alexander DeWitt, condemning the Kansas-Nebraska bill as "a gross violation of a sacred pledge, a criminal betrayal of precious rights, a part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from a vast unoccupied region immigrants from the old world, and free laborers from our own states, and convert it to a dreary region of despotism, inhabited by masters and slaves." The various arguments or excuses which had been offered for the bill were examined, their fallacious character was shown, and an eloquent appeal was made to the Anti-Slavery sentiment of the North. This address was given a wide circulation in Michigan and added to the intensity of feeling. which found expression in various County Conventions of the Free Democracy, and at numerous Anti-Nebraska meetings which were not limited to that party.

The most notable of the latter was held in Detroit February 18, in response to a call which contained the following among other wellknown names: Zachariah Chandler, Jacob M. Howard, Oliver Newberry, George B. Pease, William B. Wesson, Baker & Conover, Fred. Morley, John S. Jenness, Lyman Baldwin, Francis Raymond, Silas M. Holmes, John Owen, Frederick Buhl, James A. Van Dyke, Samuel Zug, Robert W. King, Daniel Scotten, William A. Butler, Richmond & Backus, Henry P. Baldwin, A. C. McGraw, D. Bethune Duffield, Thomas A. Parker, Seymour Finney, Alexander H. Dey, George Kirby, Joseph Warren, Jacob S. Farrand and A. J. Brow. Major Jonathan Kearsley was President of the meeting, Shubael Conant, Henry Chipman and C. C. Trowbridge were among the Vice-Presidents, and speeches were made by Major Kearsley, James A. Van Dyke, Zachariah Chandler, Samuel Barstow and D. Bethune Duffield. Strong Anti-Slavery resolutions were adopted, but they did not commit the meeting in any way to an abandonment of old party lines. The people were not yet ready for that and it is probable that if such a proposition had been made at the time it would have been voted down.

In fact, the proposition had, as yet, hardly come into serious consideration as a practical matter, and the Convention which was held at Jackson four days later, February 22, 1854, was held as a Convention solely of the Free Democratic party. It was called to order by Hovey K. Clarke as Chairman of the State Central Committee, and organized with DeWitt C. Leach as temporary Chairman. Subsequently William T. Howell, of Hillsdale, was chosen President, with one Vice-President from each Judicial district.

The Committee on Resolutions was an exceptionally strong one, consisting of Hovey K. Clarke, Fernando C. Beaman, Kinsley S. Bingham, F. Hussey, Nathan Power, D. C. Leach and L. Moore. Its report, as prepared by Hovey K. Clarke, and slightly amended by the Convention, proclaimed, in a preamble, attachment to the Union, pledged support to the Constitution, announced a policy with reference to certain matters of State interest, and contained the following resolutions upon questions of National importance:

1. That we regard the institution of domestic slavery, which exists in some of the states of the Union, not only as a foe to the domestic tranquillity and the welfare of such states, but as subversive of the plainest principles of justice and the manifest destroyer of the blessings of liberty. As an institution, we are compelled to denounce and abhor it. Yet we concede that in the states where it exists it is politi