Part 8 (1/2)
Among the causes contributing to the current bitterness was the a.s.sault made upon Charles Sumner, senator from Ma.s.sachusetts, by Preston S.
Brooks, a representative from South Carolina. This happened in May, 1856, while Mr. Sumner was sitting at his desk, after the Senate had adjourned. Mr. Brooks took exception to some remarks printed in Mr.
Sumner's speech, ent.i.tled ”The Crime against Kansas.” In this speech, the senator had referred, in rather caustic terms, to Senator Butler of South Carolina. The latter was a kinsman of Mr. Brooks. The weapon used by Mr. Brooks was a gutta-percha cane, and Senator Sumner, who was a large, powerful man, in his effort to rise from his seat, forced his desk from its hinges and fell heavily to the floor. The a.s.sault created an immense sensation. It was a.s.sociated in the heated minds at the North with the ”slavery aggressions of the South.” At the South, it was generally excused as the resentment of an impetuous young man to an insult offered an elderly kinsman. Northern men denounced the a.s.sault in unmeasured terms on the floor of the House and Senate. The affair led to several challenges between the representatives of both sections.
Congressman Brooks resigned his seat, but was immediately reelected.
When Senator Sumner made his statement of the attack, he said that, after he was taken from the floor, he saw his a.s.sailant standing between Senator Douglas and Senator Toombs. This led to the a.s.sertion by some parties that the attack was premeditated, and that the senator from Illinois and the senator from Georgia, who were strong political antagonists of Mr. Sumner, were aiding and abetting it. Both senators denied this from their places.
The political activity was not confined to the North. There was a large element in Georgia which disapproved of the Kansas-Nebraska bill as an unwise concession on the part of the South. This cla.s.s, combined with the American party, presented an active front against the party led by Senator Toombs. No contest was ever waged more vigorously in Georgia.
New blood and new issues were infused into the fight. Mr. Toombs was at the maximum of his greatness. He took redoubled interest in the campaign in that the legislature to be chosen in 1857 was to elect his successor to the Senate, and because the principles in this national contest were taking shape for a State campaign the following year.
CHAPTER XIII.
”ON THE STUMP” IN GEORGIA.
Among the young men on the stump that year was Benjamin H. Hill. He had come up from the plow-handles in Jasper County. Working his way to an education, he had graduated at the State University in 1845, with the first honors of his cla.s.s. He was at this time barely more than thirty years of age, but he had won distinction at the bar and served his county in the State Senate. He was known for his aggressive, ringing eloquence, and a clear, searching style which had made him something more than local reputation. It was understood that he was the choice of the American party for Governor, and it was a.s.sumed that he would win his spurs in the national campaign. He did not hesitate to go into the thickest of the fight. He challenged Toombs and Stephens in their strongholds; on the 22d of October meeting Mr. Stephens at his stamping-ground in Lexington, Oglethorpe County, and the next day confronting Mr. Toombs at his home in Was.h.i.+ngton, Ga. There was a charm in the very audacity of this young Georgian. The man who would beard ”the Douglas in his hall” was a curiosity to the people, for since the leaders.h.i.+p of Toombs was established in 1844, no one, probably, had a.s.sumed to cross swords with him before his home people. The fact that young Hill had rather frustrated Mr. Stephens, in their first meeting, gave him fresh impetus for his clash with Toombs. People flocked to Was.h.i.+ngton by thousands. A large part of the audience which had cheered Ben Hill in Oglethorpe followed him to Wilkes.
The speaking took place in Andrews' Grove, a n.o.ble cl.u.s.ter of oaks near the town, and by breakfast-time the place was filled with carriages and wagons. The red hills leading to Was.h.i.+ngton were alive with farmers and their wives and children, wheeling into the grove to hear the n.o.ble veteran and the brilliant young stranger debate upon current topics. Old and young men were there, and babies in arms. It was before the days of a universal press. People took their politics from the stump. They were trained in the great object-lessons of public life. The humble farmer knew all about the Missouri Compromise and the Nebraska bill. What they had learned was thorough. Every man was a politician.
Ben Hill opened the discussion. He had the advantage of being a new and untried man, while Toombs and Stephens had spread their records upon the pages of hundreds of speeches. In those days of compromises and new departures, it was easy for a quick, bright fellow to make capital out of the apparent inconsistencies of public men. Hill was a master of repartee. He pictured Toombs' change from Whig to Democrat. He made a daring onslaught upon Toombs. Hill's b.u.mp of reverence was not large, and the way he handled this great statesman was a surprise. He did not hesitate to call him ”Bobuel,” and to try to convict him out of his own mouth of error.
Toombs sat back with his fine features lit with scorn. His facial expression was a rare part of his strength. He seemed to repel with his look the impudence of this fearless young statesman. Hill saw the effect of his own audacity, and ”plied his blows like wintry rain.” A keen observer of this dramatic by-play declares that the pose of these two men reminded him of Landseer's picture of ”Dignity and Impudence.”
Hill declared that Toombs had been in Congress, ”sleeping over our rights.” Toombs retorted, ”I have been protecting your rights and your children's rights in spite of yourselves.”
Hill charged that Toombs had tried to dodge the issues of this campaign.
Toombs, when he answered this part, cried out to the people impetuously: ”Did I dodge the question, when in the presence of two thousand people, in the City of Augusta, and as I was about to travel in foreign lands, I denounced the secret midnight organization which was being fastened upon the freemen of the South? An organization whose chief measure was to prescribe a religious test in this land of liberty, and raise up a barrier to the entrance of the sons of the Old World, whose gallant sires aided us in achieving our independence?
”Did I dodge, when, just before putting my foot on s.h.i.+pboard, I wrote a letter to my beloved South, warning them against this insidious organization creeping into their midst, piloted by dark lanterns to midnight lodges? Did I dodge, when, hearing, as I traveled, that this deadly order had taken hold and fastened its fangs in my State, I suspended my travels and took the first s.h.i.+p that bore me back to my native sh.o.r.es, and, raised my cry against these revolutionary measures?
”Did I dodge, when, as soon as landing in Georgia, I traveled all night and spoke all next day against these blighting measures? If this be called dodging, I admit that I dodged, and the gentleman can make the most of it.”
Mr. Hill declared that the Kansas-Nebraska bill embodied the principles of ”squatter sovereignty” and alien suffrage. The bill was not identical with the Utah and New Mexico bill, as Toombs and Stephens had alleged.
The restrictive provisions of the Utah bill would prohibit this Territorial Legislature from excluding slavery. It could not do that until it became a State, while the Kansas bill allowed a majority of the actual residents to determine whether slavery should or should not exist, even prior to its admission as a State. He denounced the Kansas bill as a cheat, a swindle, and a surrender of our dearest rights. As to the National Convention, Mr. Hill declared that the South may have framed the platform, but the North secured the candidate. Mr. Hill, relative to territorial questions, recognized the right of native born and naturalized citizens of the United States, permanently residing in any Territory, to frame a const.i.tution and laws and to regulate their social and domestic affairs in their own way. The American party proposed to extend the term required for naturalization and to bar the foreigners from holding office. Mr. Hill had strong sympathizers in the extreme Southern Rights' men, who were on hand in abundance.
Mr. Toombs replied with great dignity and warmth. He said that the Nebraska bill was a reiteration of the true intent of the compromise measures of 1850; that whoever opposed the Kansas bill was opposed to the South. It was a touchstone for fixing party affiliations. It only carried out the Georgia platform protesting against Congressional prohibition of slavery in the Territories. He paid high tribute to Douglas as a patriot and friend to the South. ”Whoever condemned Douglas needed watching himself.” Mr. Toombs charged that the representatives of the Know-nothing party had voted for the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and now claimed ignorance of its provisions. He denied that either he or Mr. Stephens had declared that the Kansas bill was identical with the Utah bill. Mr. Hill insisted that they had said so. Affirmance and denial became heated, and talk of holding each other ”personally responsible” was indulged in, but pretty soon the debate went back into the political grooves. Mr. Toombs denied that the bill was a ”Pandora's box of evil,” or that its pa.s.sage was violative of the good faith of the South. This part of his argument, of course, was directed to meet Northern criticism. ”The North,” Mr. Toombs said, ”had tried, by the Wilmot Proviso, to legislate the South out of the right of equal enjoyment of the Territories. The South had endeavored to take the question of these rights out of Congress, to establish the doctrine of non-intervention.” This doctrine triumphed in 1850 and, despite the a.s.sertion of his opponent, was reaffirmed in the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
This Act of 1854 was the great measure of justice and equality to the South.
Mr. Toombs ridiculed the a.s.sertion of Millard Fillmore that the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was a violation of a sacred compact.
”Fillmore,” said Mr. Toombs, ”is an amiable, clever sort of fellow, not to be trusted upon the great questions now before the country. He had withheld action upon the compromise measures of 1850 until his attorney-general told him that he must sign them.”
Someone reminded Toombs that he had supported Fillmore for vice president in 1848. He replied, ”Yes, and I said then, that if Fillmore was at the head of the ticket, I would not support it.” Several persons in the audience declared that they had heard him say it. ”I am glad to know,” said he, ”that, since my opponents address you people as if you had no sense, you, at least, have shown that you have memories.”
Turning to the crowd who had cheered the opposition speaker, Mr. Toombs said: ”For those of you who have yelled so long and l.u.s.tily, when your dearest rights were a.s.sailed, I can but feel the profoundest commiseration. Should you continue in your wild strife against the experience of the past, I look to a kind Providence and to wise men to protect you from yourselves.”
In regard to aliens in America, Mr. Toombs said: ”I go for giving them all--the oppressed of all nations--a place of refuge, and say even to the paupers and criminals; 'We will forgive you for the past and try you for the future.' You may start in your railroad and go to Memphis, and then, follow the setting sun day by day, and week by week, until you find him setting in the Pacific Ocean, and all the time you are pa.s.sing over fertile lands where industry and thrift may meet appropriate rewards, and the blessings of liberty and peace find a resting-place in the bosom of freedom.”