FOOTNOTES:

[2] Parkman's "Jesuits in North America."

[3] This is Parkman's picture in "The Conspiracy of Pontiac."

CHAPTER V.
THE COMMENCEMENT OF POLITICAL ACTIVITY—RECORD AS AN ANTI-SLAVERY WHIG.

The conspicuous figure in Michigan politics, when Zachariah Chandler landed at Detroit and for twenty-five years afterward, was Lewis Cass. He was a man of ability and many accomplishments, irreproachable in private life, and with a claim upon the enduring gratitude of the people of the Northwest for his large share in the founding of mighty States about the shores of the great lakes. He came to Michigan with military distinction, and had added to his laurels civic honors as a territorial ruler, as a skilful negotiator with the Indians, and as an intrepid explorer. General Cass was a warm political and personal friend of Andrew Jackson, and his influence made Michigan a strongly Democratic territory and State. In 1831 he had been appointed Secretary of War in President Jackson's cabinet, and in 1836 he was sent to Paris as the United States Minister at the court of Louis Phillippe. The courage, vigor and skill of his attack upon the "Quintuple Treaty," which embodied Great Britain's theories on the then delicate topic of the right of search on the high seas, and which was defeated by the refusal of France to ratify the preliminary negotiations, made his ambassadorship an event in European diplomacy, and gave him a national reputation on this continent. His return to Detroit in 1843 was attended by unusual popular demonstrations at every important point in his Westward journey. In 1845 Michigan sent him to the Senate, and in 1848 the Democracy nominated him as its candidate for the presidency. That a man who thus made a new commonwealth influential in national politics should call about him a strong following and mould public sentiment at his own home was natural, and the State of Lewis Cass was long regarded as staunchly Democratic. His party held control for years of the main avenues of political preferment, and not a few young men of parts and ambition who came to Michigan as Whigs were led into the ranks of the Democracy by the fact that it was the only organization which had honors and offices to bestow.

General Cass was a courtly gentleman, dignified in manners, who, with a natural boldness of character which never lost wholly its power of self-assertion, gradually became ultra-conservative in his Democracy. Originally he had anti-slavery tendencies, but the Southern drift of his party, which became apparent about the time of his return from France, carried him with it, and he grew to be one of the most assiduous originators and supporters of the series of compromises which so long defeated justice and encouraged the aggressions of the slave power. The result was that in time the hammer of his personal influence in Michigan was broken on the anvil of New England ideas, while his name became the symbol of "hunkerism" in the Northwest; but in December, 1860, his octogenarian patriotism flamed up in the presence of armed treason and executive imbecility, and he branded the administration of James Buchanan as it deserved by indignantly resigning the portfolio of the department of state. No political contrast could well be more vivid than that between Lewis Cass and the man who succeeded him in the Senate, and replaced him in the political leadership of Michigan, representing a greater State, a nobler political cause, and instead of the make-shifts of compromise ideas which are to-day embodied in the fabric of American civilization.

Zachariah Chandler's father was originally a Federalist, and then a Whig. The son brought with him to Detroit Whig sympathies and anti-slavery convictions, but no predisposition to political activity. For many years he refused to divert his energies from his mercantile pursuits, and took no share in party contests, except such as would be natural in the case of any enterprising citizen with a lively interest in public questions. He was known as a staunch Whig, and he thoroughly identified himself with that party when in both Michigan and the Union its victories seemed accidental, and its defeats certain. Between 1837 and 1848 his name frequently appears among the officers of Whig meetings, or as a member of the election day vigilance committees of his party, and (very rarely) as a ward delegate to Whig conventions. He was a regular contributor to the campaign fund, and he did his share of work at the polls. At that time the labors of election day were not those of persuasion merely. Partisan feeling was bitter, and in the population of the growing frontier city, there was a strong ruffianly element, which was as a rule Democratic in its sympathies. In close contests mobs sometimes gathered about the voting places, and sought by jostling and occasional assaults to keep away from the ballot-boxes the more timid or fastidious of the Whigs. On these occasions Mr. Chandler was among the men of strong frames, sinewy arms, and pugnacity of spirit, who furnished the Whig muscle to defeat this variety of "Loco-foco trick." He and Alanson Sheley (now a well-known Detroit merchant) were, with a few others of like strength and stature, the Whig body-guard who forced a way for voters through the dense crowd, and interposed for the rescue of the threatened. There is no lack of amusing anecdotes of this species of service rendered by Mr. Chandler to the Whig party; and it was at times attended by serious danger. In later years he credited Mr. Sheley with having saved his life in one of these election disturbances, and frequently recalled reminiscences of the muscular exploits of those days. It was not until Mr. Chandler was a Whig of nearly twenty years' standing, that he became that party's candidate for any office, or that he actively interested himself in its committee work and practical management. He cast a void vote for Harrison in 1836, before Michigan had been formally admitted; he attended the monster meetings and sang campaign songs in the log cabins of 1840, and gave then a valid vote to Harrison; he denounced Tyler's political treason, and in 1844 cheered for Clay and Frelinghuysen; he opposed General Cass in 1848, and at that time delivered his maiden speech, in support of "Zach." Taylor; but it was not until 1851 that he manifested any especial taste for or skill in politics, or that he allowed his name to be used as a candidate for position.

The Whigs of Michigan were as a rule of New England extraction, and the masses of the party were always staunchly anti-slavery in sentiment. They charged General Cass's denunciation of the "Quintuple Treaty" to a disposition to seek Southern approval by indirectly shielding the slave trade: they opposed the annexation of Texas, applauded the Wilmot Proviso, and were restive under Southern aggression and slaveholding arrogance at the capital. The few Congressmen whom they were able to elect voted uniformly for free institutions and against the extension of human bondage. Michigan's first Whig Senator, Augustus S. Porter, while still new in his seat, opposed alone Calhoun's resolutions in "the Enterprise case" (a vessel employed in the coastwise slave trade had touched at Port Hamilton in the British West Indies, and some negro chattels who formed part of her cargo had taken advantage of English law to assert their manhood and freedom), and cast a solitary vote to lay them upon the table. Of this act Joshua R. Giddings wrote: "Seeing that eminent Senators around him interposed no objection to the passage of the resolutions, Mr. Porter, obeying the dictates of his own judgment and conscience, heroically met the overwhelming influence arrayed against him, and showed the most cogent reasons for rejecting the resolutions, by exhibiting the absurdity of the attempt to induce the British government to acknowledge the laws of slavery and the slave trade to exist and be enforced within her ports." Both Mr. Porter and William Woodbridge voted against the resolution for the annexation of Texas. In the House of the Twenty-seventh Congress Jacob M. Howard acted with the friends of freedom on questions involving that issue, and in the Thirtieth Congress William Sprague, the second Whig Representative, was openly classified as a Free Soiler. In 1849 the Whigs and Free Soilers united to support Flavius J. Littlejohn for Governor, and the Whigs of Michigan as a whole were a body of intelligent and conscientious anti-slavery men, and made their political weight felt on the side of free institutions.

Mr. Chandler was from his boyhood radical in his opposition to human bondage, and for a time hoped that the Whig party of the North could be used to effectually resist the conspiracy of the slave power against the territories. His anti-slavery activity preceded his appearance in politics. Detroit was an important terminus of the "Underground Railroad," that mysterious organization which so skilfully and quietly transported colored fugitives from the Ohio to Canadian soil, and Mr. Chandler, while still absorbed in business, was a frequent and liberal contributor to the fund for its operating expenses. He manifested an especial interest in the Crosswhite case, which, played a conspicuous part in the fugitive slave law agitation preceding the compromises of 1850. Adam Crosswhite was the mulatto son of a slave mother who was owned by his father, a white farmer in Bourbon county, Kentucky. While a boy he was given as a servant to his half-sister, a Miss Crosswhite, who married a slave-dealer named Stone. Her husband subsequently sold her brother for $200, and Crosswhite ultimately became the chattel of a Kentucky planter named Giltner living in Carroll county. When he had reached the age of forty-four and had become the father of four children, he learned that his master was planning to sell a portion of his family. The parental instinct drove this man to a step which he had not taken through any desire for personal freedom, and he determined upon flight. He succeeded in getting his entire family across the Ohio in a skiff, and into the hands of the "Underground Railway" managers in Indiana. There was a vigorous pursuit, and at Newport the fugitives were nearly captured, but Quaker shrewdness concealed and protected them, and after weeks of stirring adventure, during which the father and mother were compelled to separate, they reached Michigan, and became the occupants of a little cabin in the eastern part of the present city of Marshall. They were quiet and industrious citizens, and by thrift and unremitting labor commenced making payments on their homestead. In time the history of the fugitives became known to their neighbors, and finally some one with the genuine spirit of the slave-driver sent to Kentucky information concerning their hiding-place. In December, 1846, Francis Troutman came to Marshall, ostensibly as a young lawyer in search of business, but in fact as Giltner's representative in identifying his fugitive slaves and planning their recapture. He did his work well, through artifice and with the help of aid which he hired at Marshall, but did not succeed in perfectly concealing his plans. Crosswhite received warning of the impending danger, and both armed himself and arranged with sympathizing friends for prompt assistance. The abduction was finally attempted early on the morning of Jan. 27, 1847. Troutman was assisted by David Giltner, Franklin Ford, and John S. Lee, all Kentuckians, and the four men were well armed. Crosswhite saw their approach, and succeeded in giving the alarm, but before his friends commenced to assemble the Kentuckians broke in the door of his cabin and informed the negroes that they must go at once before a magistrate where it was proposed to prove the fact of their escape from slavery. While the preparation of the children for the winter's ride to the justice's office was in progress, a crowd, at first largely composed of colored men but soon including many whites, gathered about the cabin, and promptly made the fact apparent that they were in no mood to permit the proposed restoration of human property to its Kentucky owners. The courage of the slave-hunters did not prove equal to the occasion, and finally Troutman resorted to argument. He harangued the jeering crowd on the sanctity of the fugitive slave law and the legality of Giltner's claim, even offering as proof of his law-abiding spirit not to take back to slavery a child born to the Crosswhites since their escape. The response to this proposition to do exact justice by separating an infant from its mother may be imagined, and in the end the Kentuckians abandoned their attempt. Crosswhite had meanwhile complained against them for trespass, and they were then arrested, convicted and fined $100. Money was also at once raised in Marshall by which the negroes were sent to Detroit and thence to Canada. While the excitement was at its hight some of the prominent citizens of Marshall joined the crowd, and endeavored to restrain them from violence and to convince the slave-hunters of the folly of attempting to defy the aroused indignation of the community; they were careful, however, to avoid any violation of the law. Troutman met their remonstrances by a demand for their names. One of them replied, "Charles T. Gorham; write it in capital letters." The answer of another was, "Oliver Cromwell Comstock, Jr.; take it in full so that my father may not be held responsible for what I do." Troutman also obtained the name of Jarvis Hurd, these three being well-known residents of Marshall and gentlemen of pecuniary responsibility. Nothing further took place at the time, and in a few days the Kentuckians returned to their State, which was soon aflame with wrath at this "Northern outrage." Public meetings were held to denounce the "abolition rioters," the most exaggerated accounts of the Marshall release were circulated and believed, the event received Congressional attention, and finally the State of Kentucky made an appropriation for the prosecution of all who were concerned in the escape of the Crosswhite family. Troutman returned to Michigan in the summer of 1847, and brought an action to recover the value of the rescued slaves, in the United States Circuit Court, against a large number of defendants; the case as tried, however, was practically a prosecution of Messrs. Gorham, Comstock, and Hurd. The Kentuckians retained a large array of counsel, including John Norvell, the veteran Democratic leader, while the defense was represented by Theodore Romeyn, Wells & Cook, and Hovey K. Clarke, with Halmer H. Emmons (subsequently United States Circuit Judge) and James F. Joy as counsel. Gerrit Smith also came from New York to argue the constitutional question involved, but the defendants' attorneys did not deem it prudent in a jury trial at that time to ally themselves with so radical an abolitionist. The case was taken up before Justice John MacLean, in 1848, and attracted national attention. The first trial took place in the June term and resulted in a disagreement of the jury. A second trial followed in November and December of the same year and ended in a verdict for the plaintiffs of $1,926 and costs; the expenses of defending the suits had also imposed heavy pecuniary burdens upon the Marshall gentlemen. Mr. Gorham was then a Democrat, and found among his party friends a strong feeling that it was important at that time and in so conspicuous a case that Michigan should manifest a disposition to rigidly enforce the fugitive slave law, as these were the years when General Cass's presidential aspirations culminated, and when it was essential that his hold upon Southern confidence should be preserved. There was no lack of private expressions of Democratic sympathy with the defendants, and assurances were given that they should not be left to meet alone the heavy expenses involved, but among the Democratic leaders there was an unmistakable wish that the prosecution should be vigorously pushed for the sake of its political effect, and this secret pressure had a powerful influence. This case interested Mr. Chandler from the outset, and he watched every development closely. Early in the proceedings he met Mr. Gorham, with whom his acquaintance was then but slight, and said to him, "I am satisfied from what I have seen and learned that this case is being manipulated in the interest of the Democratic party, and that you are to be sacrificed to appease the slave power of the South, so that Cass may not be damaged by the result. Offer no compromise; fight them through to the end; I will stand by you, and see that you do not suffer." He was as good as his word, gave and helped to raise money for the defense, and attended the trial to the close. Mr. Gorham, who received no Democratic aid of importance, became one of his firmest and most intimate friends, and when Mr. Chandler was appointed Secretary of the Interior Mr. Gorham (who had then served five years as United States Minister at The Hague) became the Assistant Secretary of that department. Of the same period of Mr. Chandler's life this characteristic anecdote is told: John Sumner, one of his Jackson customers, passed Sunday as his guest in Detroit, and at church listened with him to a sermon of pro-slavery flavor, followed by a prayer by a visiting clergyman in which the Divine blessing was earnestly invoked upon the down-trodden and the oppressed. At the conclusion of the services Mr. Chandler stepped to the foot of the pulpit, sought an introduction to the utterer of the prayer, and said: "Thank you for that prayer! It was all that I have heard this morning that was worth hearing." Throughout the days of Mr. Chandler's earnest attachment to the Whig party, his anti-slavery feeling was pronounced.

In 1848 Mr. Chandler fleshed his political broadsword with one or more speeches in behalf of General Taylor. He had been an occasional participant in the debates of the Young Men's Society, the training-school for not a few of Detroit's eminent men, but in that year for the first time he addressed a miscellaneous audience on public questions. His earlier speeches showed the strength of the man, and despite some ruggedness were effective. In the State election of 1849 Mr. Chandler took no active part. In 1850 he was one of the Wayne county delegates to the Whig State convention, which met at Jackson on the 18th of September, and nominated a ticket headed by George Martin, of Kent, for Secretary of State; the following campaign was a local one, arousing but little interest, and in it Mr. Chandler did not prominently share. On February 19, 1851, the Whigs of Detroit held a convention to select a city ticket for the charter election in March, and after one informal ballot Mr. Chandler was unanimously nominated by them for Mayor. This event marks the commencement of his career as a popular, shrewd, and successful political leader. The Democratic candidate for the Mayoralty was Gen. John R. Williams, a native and one of the foremost citizens of Detroit, the president of the Michigan constitutional convention of 1835, and the senior officer of the State militia. He had been the first Mayor of the city, and had held that place for six terms, and was a man of practical ability, the owner of a large estate, and popular with the people. His personal strength made him a formidable candidate, and his defeat not easy of accomplishment. Mr. Chandler's answer to the delegation who waited upon him with the question, "Will you run on the Whig ticket against John R. Williams?" was, "I will and I will beat him too," and he put all his energy into the campaign which followed. The Whig convention by resolution presented his name to the people of Detroit as that of "a man identified with its improvements, prominent in its welfare, and interested in its prosperity," and in the Whig journals he was warmly commended as "known to every man, woman, and child in the city as a man of strict integrity, active and industrious business habits, of great liberality of views, both in person and sentiment, and of the purest moral character; eminently popular and affable in his habits of intercourse with his fellow-citizens, his extensive business operations have brought him in daily contact with all, through a long course of years." His election was also urged on the ground that he was the only candidate "known to be in favor of extending the various enterprises of sewerage, pure water, pavements and sidewalks, just as fast as the needs of a young city shall require," and because his "course in his own business, and in relation to the public interest, has been an energetic, discreet and efficient prosecution of everything upon which he has laid his hands." During this canvass Mr. Chandler gave what is believed to be the only lecture of his life, and its marked success undoubtedly helped him at the ballot-box. It was delivered before the Young Men's Society upon February 25, 1851, its theme being "The Element of Success in Character." The newspaper report of it was as follows:

The theme chosen by Mr. Chandler. "The Element of Success in Character," though much worn, was most successfully treated. Intending only to discourse from his own observations and experience, his views were as philosophical as they were practical. Therein was the charm and takingness of the lecture. Without rhetorical flourish the composition was excellent, severe in its simplicity and directness, nevertheless abounding in beauty. For originality, aptness of quotation and illustration, and felicitous use of language, it ranks with the choicest productions before the society. In his own person he furnished the very best illustration and proof of success. Such a lecture from any one would do good, but how much greater its influence when enforced by the living example the lecturer himself affords of the truths of his teaching.

Mr. Chandler organized his first political battle with characteristic thoroughness and system, visited every ward, called upon the voters, and made a remarkable personal canvass. The result was that when the ballots were counted it was found that he had carried every precinct in Detroit and had defeated his opponent by 349 majority in a total vote of less than 3,500. He led by nearly 400 the average vote of his ticket, and the Democrats elected at the same time a large proportion of their candidates. The victory was celebrated by a Whig serenade, at which the Mayor-elect made a modest and brief speech of thanks. This manifestation of personal strength and political skill at once attracted State attention, and it became the source of new Whig hope.

Mr. Chandler's term as Mayor continued for one year, but was devoid of especial incident, although even now some interest will be felt in this official letter to Kossuth, which the Hungarian patriot answered with a note of regretful declination:

Detroit, January 10, 1852.
To his Excellency Louis Kossuth:

Dear Sir: By resolution of the Common Council, it becomes my pleasing duty to invite you to visit the city of Detroit and partake of its hospitalities. Much as we esteem you personally, highly as we appreciate your public and private worth, it is not to these alone that we do homage, but to the great principles which you advocate. We hail you as the champion of republicanism in Europe, as God's instrument in arousing throughout the world a hatred of despotism, as a man who has sacrificed his all, and offers his life upon the altar of liberty, as a teacher of "even bayonets to think." We, sir, have not been disinterested spectators of your glorious struggle for Hungarian independence. We watched with most intense interest the commencement and progress of that sanguinary conflict. When we saw the people rising in their might, the nobleman and citizen vieing with each other in devotion to their country's cause, emulous in sufferings and sacrifices, under such a leader, we felt that victory must crown your exertions; and when we saw the elements of Despotism uniting to crush this (to them) detested spirit of Freedom, when we saw the temporary triumphs of your oppressors, we felt that all was not lost—that the Almighty Ruler of the Universe would neither leave nor forsake you in your low estate, that the days of despotism were numbered.

Again would I invite you to visit Detroit and partake of its hospitalities. Again would I assure you of our deep sympathy for your down-trodden country, and I hazard nothing by the assertion that that sympathy will manifest itself in a tangible form. Whether our government will act in your behalf as a government, is not for me to say; whether it would be proper for it to do so, is not for me to discuss at this time. But that you have the deep sympathy of our entire population is manifest to all.

With great respect, I have the honor to be your obedient servant,

ZACHARIAH CHANDLER,
Mayor of the City of Detroit.

At the conclusion of Mr. Chandler's term as Mayor the Common Council of Detroit, by unanimous vote, spread upon its records this resolution:

Resolved by the Common Council of the City of Detroit, That in retiring from the office of chief magistrate of this city the Hon. Zachariah Chandler, by his urbanity, fidelity and zeal in the discharge of his official duties for the past year, merits the admiration and respect of the Council, and that in retiring to private life he carries with him our cordial wishes for his happiness and prosperity.

In November, 1852, occurred Michigan's first general election under the constitution of 1850. The Democratic candidate for Governor was Robert McClelland, who had already held that office during the preceding short term. General Cass alone surpassed this gentleman in personal strength with his party in the State. Mr. McClelland was an upright and able man, who had served with distinction in Congress, and had held many important offices in Michigan; he subsequently became Secretary of the Interior in the cabinet of President Pierce. While a member of the House of Representatives he had assisted in drafting the original Wilmot Proviso, but he had grown conservative with his party, and in 1852 came before the people as a warm champion of the compromises of 1850. Personally he was a man of some reserve, but affable with acquaintances and respected everywhere. He was renominated enthusiastically and with every prospect of an easy re-election. With the single exception of William Woodbridge, who was borne into office on the Whig tidal-wave of 1839 and 1840, Michigan had chosen an unbroken line of Democratic Governors. At the first election after its admission to the Union, Stevens T. Mason had a majority of 237 in a total poll of 22,299. The term for which Governor Woodbridge was chosen (he resigned to take a seat in the Senate) was followed by six successive Democratic victories. John S. Barry was elected in 1841 with 5,326 majority over his Whig competitor, Philo C. Fuller, and two years later he defeated Dr. Zina Pitcher by 6,493 votes. Alpheus Felch in 1845 had 3,807 majority over Stephen Vickery, Whig, and in 1847 Epaphroditus Ransom was chosen over James M. Edmunds by 5,649 votes. In 1849 John S. Barry was again elected, defeating Flavius J. Littlejohn, Whig and Free Soiler, by 4,297 votes in a total poll of 51,377. In 1851, which was the last election under the old constitution, Robert McClelland led Townsend E. Gidley 6,926 votes. The Liberty party, as a distinct organization, also existed six years in Michigan, beginning in 1841 with 1,214 votes and ending in 1847 with 2,585. Thus from 1841 to 1852 not only did the Democrats control Michigan but at every State election had a clear majority over all shades of opposition.

In 1852 the chronic difficulties of the Whig situation in Michigan were aggravated by the fact that the Baltimore convention which nominated Scott and Graham had condemned that anti-slavery sentiment of the party, which gave it all its virility in the West. The greater portion of the Northern Whigs with Mr. Greeley supported the ticket and "spat upon the platform," but some of them abandoned old party affiliations and joined the Free Soil Democrats, who put up Hale and Julian as their national candidates and in Michigan nominated a full State ticket headed by Isaac P. Christiancy. The Whig State convention of 1852 met at Marshall on July 1, and was called to order by Henry T. Backus as chairman of the State Central Committee, and presided over by Cyrus Lovell of Ionia. In the preliminary consultations Mr. Chandler's was the name chiefly urged for the head of the ticket, on account of his acquaintance throughout the State and the political strength and capacity he had shown as a candidate in Detroit. This is an extract from the official record of the convention:

On motion of W. A. Howard of Detroit a ballot was taken for Governor and was announced by the tellers as follows:

Z. Chandler, 76
H. G. Wells, 7
G. A. Coe, 2
H. R. Williams, 1
J. R. Williams, 1
George R. Pomeroy, 2

On motion of Mr. DeLand of Jackson a formal ballot was had as follows:

Z. Chandler, 95
H. G. Wells, 2
J. R. Williams, 1
Blank, 1

Mr. Chandler was not present and inquiry was made if it was known whether he would accept the nomination. Mr. Wm. A. Howard of Detroit, chairman of the delegation from that city, said on the part of that delegation that he had seen Mr. Chandler previous to leaving Detroit, and Mr. Chandler had said to him that he was not a candidate for any of the offices under consideration, that he preferred working in the ranks, but that should the convention see fit to nominate him he was with them.

Z. Chandler,76
H. G. Wells,7
G. A. Coe,2
H. R. Williams,1
J. R. Williams,1
George R. Pomeroy,2
Z. Chandler,95
H. G. Wells,2
J. R. Williams,1
Blank,1

Fac-simile of One of the State Tickets Of Michigan in 1852.

The result was hailed with hearty cheering, and Mr. Chandler soon formally accepted this nomination and commenced a most energetic personal canvass of the State. The Temperance party made up a ticket in that year from the Democratic and Whig candidates, and Mr. Chandler was also retained as its nominee for Governor, but this action was without practical importance in the campaign or at the polls. During the fall of 1852 the Whig nominee for Governor labored unremittingly. He visited all the leading towns in the State, and spoke constantly from the middle of September until the week before election. The list of his appointments included Jonesville, Coldwater, Constantine, Cassopolis, Howell, Lansing, Eaton Rapids, Hastings, Allegan, Grand Rapids, Ionia, DeWitt, Corunna, Flint, Saginaw, Lapeer, Almont, Romeo, Mt. Clemens, Ann Arbor, Jackson, Marshall, Battle Creek, St. Clair, and Detroit. His addresses were vigorous, entertaining and telling, and while he neither then nor afterward sought for the polished sentence or rounded period, he showed that capacity for plainness and force of reasoning and for hard-hitting which ultimately made his oratory so characteristic and effective. In this series of speeches he dealt largely with the national questions of Protection and Internal Improvements, and also with the business aspects of the State administration. His friends laid especial stress upon his strength as "a business man of energy, integrity and success," and urged his election because he bore "the reputation, well earned by a long course of business experience, of being a keen and shrewd business man of the highest moral tone," and because he was "endowed with remarkable business talent," and had been "identified with the growth and interests of the State." Mr. Chandler was also helped in this contest by his mercantile friendships throughout Michigan, and by the natural pleasure with which his fellow merchants saw one of their own guild fighting his way to political distinction along the paths so largely occupied by men of professional callings. As part of the organization of this canvass he mailed large quantities of gummed "slips" bearing his name to acquaintances in all parts of the State, and this is believed to be the first instance in which this now common weapon of political warfare was used in the Northwest. The Democrats found themselves compelled by this unprecedentedly vigorous attack to put forth most strenuous efforts, and General Cass labored assiduously to prevent the loss of his own State. So pronounced did the opposition of the veteran Democratic leader to the head of the Whig ticket become, that Mr. Chandler laughingly said to friends by way of comment upon it, "I am afraid that it will take General Cass's Senatorial seat to balance the account between us."

But the national tide was then overwhelmingly against the Whigs, and Southern distrust of General Scott and Northern wrath at the circumstances of his nomination brought that party to the Waterloo defeat from which it never recovered. Michigan cast 41,842 votes for Pierce, 33,859 for Scott, and 7,237 for Hale. Mr. Chandler received 34,660 votes for Governor against 42,798 for McClelland, and 5,850 for Christiancy. He thus received 801 more votes than Scott; he also led the entire Whig State ticket by from 500 to 4,000 votes, and received over 11,000 more votes than had ever been given to any Whig candidate for Governor. He had made a resolute fight, and again strikingly manifested his personal strength with the people and his political ability.

In the Michigan Legislature of 1853, which was chosen at the same State election, the Democrats had a majority on joint ballot of forty-eight, and the Whig minority included but seven Senators and twenty-one Representatives. The term of Alpheus Felch as United States Senator expired on March 3, 1853, and Charles E. Stuart was chosen as his successor. The Whigs gave expression to their high estimate of the value of Mr. Chandler's services in the preceding campaign by complimenting him with their united vote for the Senate, and the footings of the Legislative ballot for that office were:

SENATE.HOUSE.
C. E. Stuart,27C. E. Stuart,49
Z. Chandler,7Z. Chandler,21
H. K. Clarke,1

This was the last important political action of the Whig party of Michigan. Before another State election its formal dissolution had been pronounced, and the great body of its members had gathered around the cradle of infant Republicanism.

CHAPTER VI.
THE FORMATION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

The darkest hour for the anti-slavery cause preceded the dawn of 1854. The compromises of 1850 had closed that long series of so-called bargains, by which the South had forced surrender after surrender from the North in the vain hope of preserving by such artificial devices its traditional preponderance in the government, so constantly threatened by the rapid development of the free States and the marvelous settlement of free territory. Behind the Louisiana purchase from Bonaparte was slavery's demand for new States to reinforce its political strength. Florida was bought from Spain for the same reasons. The Missouri compromise of 1820 involved the admission of a new slave State to the Union, and the organization of Arkansas as a slave territory; it was the work of the advocates of slavery extension, and was practically a surrender of free territory to bondage, the only consideration being the exclusion of slavery from soil on which (judging from all the experience of American settlement up to that time) it could not be established nor maintained. The annexation of Texas had been forced to add to the Union an enormous expanse of slave territory, capable, it was hoped, of early division into several slave States. The Mexican War was a peculiarly Southern scheme, having as its real aim the conquest of an empire which was to include human bondage among its established institutions. The futile plans for the annexation of Cuba came from the same prolific source, and were inspired by the same need of forcing the expansion of the political power of the slave South to prevent its being outstripped by the magnificent growth of the free North. But the forces of nature prove more potent than human devices, and the last speech of John C. Calhoun (read for him in the Senate on March 4, 1850,) showed how clearly this fact had impressed itself on the ablest and acutest of the Southern statesmen. That farewell address sketched minutely the history and condition of the steadily-growing disparity between the North and the South, declared in effect that the South with its institutions could not permit Northern ascendancy, demanded from the North constitutional amendments "which would restore to the South in substance the power she possessed of protecting herself before the equilibrium between the sections was destroyed," added that on no other basis could the South safely remain in the Union, and said that, if this demand was refused, "we would be blind not to perceive that your real objects are power and aggrandizement, and infatuated not to act accordingly." To this candid avowal of the Southern programme (ten years later it became evident that Mr. Calhoun had stated then the slave power's ultimatum) the answer was the final surrender of 1850. The compromise measures of that year pledged the United States to the subdivision of Texas into new (slave) States, organized Utah and New Mexico without any prohibition of slavery within their boundaries, forbade the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and set the odious machinery of the Fugitive Slave law in operation throughout the North. The consideration Freedom received for these concessions was the admission of California to the Union (it was evident that nothing but invasion and conquest could ever make it a slave State) and the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, amounting to a removal of the auction blocks of slave dealers from the shadow of the Capitol to the narrow streets of decaying Alexandria.

The opiate of compromise sufficed to keep still dormant the conscience of the North, and the national acquiescence in this adjustment was emphatic. The Whig and the Democratic parties in 1852 both formally accepted in their platforms the legislation of 1850 as a decisive and just settlement of the slavery question, and they polled almost 3,000,000 votes, while for the Free Soil ticket, representing hostility to slavery extension and to pro-slavery compromises, but 155,000 votes were cast. The victory of the Democrats, who embodied in much the fullest degree the spirit of concession to Southern demands, was an overwhelming one. They carried 27 out of the 31 States, and had 254 electoral votes out of 296, with a clear popular majority over the entire opposition. In the Senate they had 14 majority out of a membership of 62, and in the House a majority of 84 in a total membership of 234. The condition of public sentiment then is thus described by the most accurate and graphic historian of that era:

Whatever theoretic or practical objections may be justly made to the compromise of 1850, there can be no doubt that it was accepted and ratified by a great majority of the American people, whether in the North or in the South. They were intent on business—then remarkably prosperous—on planting, building, trading and getting gain—and they hailed with general joy the announcement that all the differences between the diverse "sections" had been adjusted and settled. The terms of settlement were, to that majority, of quite subordinate consequence; they wanted peace and prosperity, and were no wise inclined to cut each other's throats and burn each other's houses in a quarrel concerning (as they regarded it) only the status of negroes. The compromise had taken no money from their pockets; it had imposed upon them no pecuniary burdens; it had exposed them to no personal and palpable dangers; it had rather repelled the gaunt spectre of civil war and disunion (habitually conjured up when slavery had a point to carry), and increased the facilities for making money, while opening a boundless vista of national greatness, security and internal harmony. Especially by the trading class, and the great majority of the dwellers in seaboard cities, was this view cherished with intense, intolerant vehemence.... Whatever else the election of 1852 might have meant, there was no doubt that the popular verdict was against "slavery agitation" and in favor of maintaining the compromises of 1850.... The finances were healthy and the public credit unimpaired. Industry and trade were signally prosperous. The tariff had ceased to be a theme of partisan or sectional strife. The immense yield of gold in California during the four preceding years had stimulated enterprise and quickened the energies of labor, and its volume as yet showed no signs of diminution. And though the Fugitive Slave law was still denounced, and occasionally resisted by abolitionists in the free States, while disunionists still plotted in secret and more openly prepared in Southern commercial conventions (having for their ostensible object the establishment of a general exchange of the great Southern staples directly from their own harbors with the principal European marts, instead of circuitously by way of New York and other Northern Atlantic ports) there was still a goodly majority in the South, with a still larger in the North and Northwest, in favor of maintaining the Union and preserving the greatest practical measure of cordiality and fraternity between the free and slave States, substantially on the basis of the compromise of 1850.

This was the blackest chapter in the history of the agitation for Freedom on this continent. The era seemed to have been at last reached of national surrender to slavery's demands, and of the purchase of peace by the abandonment of (with the promise never to resume) resistance to "the sum of all villainies." John Quincy Adams had said that up to his day "the preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of slavery" had ever been "the animating spirit" of the American government. Daniel Webster had bitterly declared in 1848 that there was no North in American politics, and that the South absolutely controlled the government. Certainly, in 1853, the surface of the political situation fully justified the indignant words of Gerrit Smith: "Were this government despotic and her religion heathen, there might be some hope of republicanizing her politics and Christianizing her religion; but now that she has turned into darkness the greatest of all political lights and the greatest of all religious lights, what hope is left for her?"

It was at this juncture, when its triumph appeared to be complete, that slavery fatally overreached itself. The Missouri compromise of 1820, which forever prohibited slavery in all of the original Louisiana territory north of 36 degrees, 30 minutes of north latitude, had remained unquestioned upon the statute books for a generation. The South had received the full benefits of its share of that bargain, which added Arkansas and Missouri to the ranks of the slave States. In the interminable discussions of 1850 there had been no suggestion that the compromise measures of that year were intended to either disturb or supersede the Missouri compact, and the first message of Franklin Pierce congratulated the country on the sense of repose and security in the public mind which the compromise measures had restored, and added the pledge, "this repose is to suffer no shock during my official term, if I have power to avert it." Before two months had elapsed, the North heard with astonishment and indignation the doctrine laid down in Congress by the representatives of the slave power that the Missouri compromise had been abrogated by the measures of 1850, and that the vast domain between the Missouri and the Rocky Mountains, rich in all material and political possibilities, was open to slaveholding settlement. A few days more passed, and it was discovered that this claim was receiving the powerful support of the administration, and that it would also be championed by Stephen A. Douglas, with his formidable energy, personal influence, and rare skill in debate, as a step towards the vindication of his dogma of "Popular Sovereignty." Of the memorable four months' struggle over this issue, the following is a sketch in outline:

Soon after the Thirty-third Congress assembled, in December, 1853, Senator A. C. Dodge, of Iowa, introduced a bill to organize the Territory of Nebraska out of the magnificent region between Missouri and Iowa and the Rocky Mountains. It was referred to the Committee on Territories, and was reported back by Senator Douglas with amendments, none of which, however, proposed to repeal the prohibition of slavery included in the Missouri compromise. Upon this, Senator Archibald Dixon, of Kentucky, a Whig who declared that on the question of slavery he knew no Whiggery and no Democracy, but was a pro-slavery man, gave notice that he should offer an amendment, providing that the act of 1820 should not be so construed as to apply to the territory contemplated by this act, nor to any other territory of the United States. Senator Douglas thereupon had the bill recommitted, and subsequently reported in an entirely different form, creating two territories, Kansas and Nebraska, instead of one, and including the provision that all questions pertaining to slavery in the territories and in the new States to be formed therefrom should be left to the action of the people thereof through their appropriate representatives, and that the provisions of the constitution and laws of the United States in respect to fugitives from service should be carried into faithful execution in all the organized territories the same as in the States. This was, equally with Senator Dixon's proposition, a direct violation of the provision of the Missouri compromise, which was in these words (Section 8): "That in all that territory ceded by France to the United States under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36 degrees and 30 minutes of north latitude, not included within the limits of the State contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than as the punishment of crime, shall be and is hereby forever prohibited." In the last report, however, the pill was sugar-coated with Mr. Douglas's catch-word of "Popular Sovereignty."

The territory which the Kansas-Nebraska bill was intended to organize was included in this quoted prohibition. That bill as introduced, in the section that provided for the election of a delegate to Congress from Kansas, had the stipulation:

That the constitution and all laws of the United States, which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within said territory as elsewhere in the United States.

To this the amended bill added the following reservation:

Except the section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measure, and is declared inoperative.

A similar provision with a like reservation was added to the section providing for the election of a delegate from Nebraska. A prolonged and brilliant debate followed in the Senate, and finally in place of the original reservation the following was adopted, on motion of Senator Stephen A. Douglas, by a vote of 35 to 10:

Except the section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which, being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and territories, as recognized by the legislation in 1850 (commonly called the compromise measure), is hereby declared inoperative and void, it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the United States.

Senator Chase then moved to add to the above the following:

Under which the people of the territory, through their appropriate representatives, may, if they see fit, prohibit the existence of slavery therein.

This amendment was voted down, yeas 10, nays 36, the Senate thus declaring its understanding that the people of the new territories should not be allowed to prohibit slavery previous to their admission as a State. The bill passed on the morning of March 4th, by a vote of 37 to 14. In the House a separate bill had been introduced, but when it came up for consideration the Senate bill was substituted for it—by a parliamentary trick its opponents were prevented from offering amendments—and the bill was passed, yeas 113, nays 100. It went back to the Senate, in form as an original measure, but in effect the Senate bill, and on May 26 was finally passed by that body and was approved by President Pierce on May 30. The debate had been a memorable one; for the friends of Liberty, while they resisted to the last the surrender of what had been once bought for Freedom, joyfully recognized the fact that this act would in its logic make every compromise repealable, and thus kill in the womb all future political bargainings. Benjamin F. Wade said in the Senate that "the violation of the plighted faith of the nation would precipitate a conflict between liberty and slavery; and that, in such a conflict, it will not be liberty that will die in the nineteenth century. You may call me an Abolitionist if you will; I care little for that, for if an undying hatred to slavery constitutes an Abolitionist, I am that Abolitionist. If man's determination at all times and at all hazards, to the last extremity, to resist the extension of slavery, or any other tyranny, constitutes an Abolitionist, I before God believe myself to be that Abolitionist." William H. Seward said: "You are setting an example which abrogates all compromises.... It has been no proposition of mine to abrogate them now; but the proposition has come from another quarter—from an adverse one. It is about to prevail. The shifting sands of compromise are passing from under my feet, and they are now, without agency of my own, taking hold again on the rock of the constitution. It shall be no fault of mine if they do not remain firm." Charles Sumner closed his protest against this removal of "the landmarks of freedom" by declaring the measure to be "at once the worst and best bill on which Congress ever acted—the worst inasmuch as it is a present victory for slavery, and the best bill because it prepares the way for the 'All hail hereafter,' when slavery must disappear. Sorrowfully I bend before the wrong you are about to perpetrate. Joyfully I welcome all the promises of the future."

The response of the North to the abrogation of the Missouri compromise justified these predictions. To this overthrow of a solemn compact for the purpose of opening a vast empire to attempts at slave colonization, men of every shade of anti-slavery conviction made answer by eagerly seeking ways of uniting in effective resistance to such a crime against civilization. Amid an excitement, which grew profounder as the contest progressed, and which was fed by the press, the pulpit, and the lyceum, and was organized by public meetings, the demand became daily stronger for political action on the basis of uncompromising hostility to the aggressions of the slave power. Before the Kansas-Nebraska controversy was finished the Whig party had ceased to exist, the Democracy had become a pro-slavery organization, the era of compromise had passed away, and the young giant of Republicanism stood on the threshold of the territories commanding slavery to stand back. This vast and far-reaching political revolution was accomplished through the wholesale sacrifice of cherished ties by the friends of free institutions and through their hearty union in the new party of Freedom. The State in which this fusion of anti-slavery opinion into Republicanism was first accomplished was Michigan, and the Republican party as a distinct organization was born and christened under the oaks of Jackson on the 6th of July, 1854. Political opinion in that State was peculiarly ripe for this step. Its Whigs were with but rare exceptions staunch anti-slavery men. Even Senator Cass's great influence had failed to keep all the Democrats submissive to pro-slavery compromises. The Free Soilers were strong in character and several thousands in number. Thus when the opportunity came for decisive action it found the men ready.

The Free Democrats of Michigan, encouraged by the increase in their vote in 1852, and responding to an appeal of the "Independent Democrats in Congress" (signed by Salmon P. Chase, Charles Sumner, Joshua R. Giddings, Gerrit Smith, Edward Wade, and Alexander De Witt) for popular resistance to the attack on the Missouri compact, held the first political convention of 1854 in that State. It met in Jackson, on February 22d, under a call issued at Detroit on January 12, and signed by U. Tracy Howe, Hovey K. Clarke, Samuel Zug, Silas M. Holmes, S. A. Baker, S. B. Thayer, S. P. Mead, J. W. Childs, and Erastus Hussey, forming the state central committee of that party. The convention was called to order by Hovey K. Clarke, and it organized with Wm. T. Howell of Hillsdale as president. The committee on resolutions consisted of Hovey K. Clarke, Fernando C. Beaman, Kinsley S. Bingham, E. Hussey, Nathan Power, D. C. Leach, and L. Moore, and a committee of twenty-four was appointed to nominate a State ticket. The committee on resolutions reported a platform prepared by Hovey K. Clarke, declaring freedom national and slavery sectional, and denouncing the attempt to repeal the Missouri compromise as an infamous outrage upon justice, humanity and good faith. The nominating committee submitted this list of candidates for the State offices:

Governor—Kinsley S. Bingham.
Lieutenant-Governor—Nathan Pierce.
Secretary of State—Lovell Moore.
State Treasurer—Silas M. Holmes.
Auditor-General—Philotus Hayden.
Attorney-General—Hovey K. Clarke.
Commissioner of Land Office—Seymour B. Treadwell.
Superintendent of Public Instruction—Elijah H. Pilcher.
Member of Board of Education—Isaac P. Christiancy.

Kinsley S. Bingham was a pioneer farmer of Central Michigan, one of the very best representatives of his influential class, and a man of sterling sense, strong convictions, and excellent abilities. He had served with honor in the State Legislature, and had as a Democratic Congressman sustained alone in his State delegation the Wilmot Proviso. His nomination was in itself the strongest possible appeal to the anti-slavery Democrats of the State. The ticket also had upon it the names of gentlemen who had in the past acted with the Whigs. The convention ratified the reports of its committees, and after listening to a few speeches adjourned. It was a significant fact that two of the speakers were conspicuous Whigs, Henry Barns of the Detroit Tribune, and Halmer H. Emmons; Mr. Emmons was especially emphatic in his expression of the hope that before the day of election "all the friends of freedom would be able to stand upon a common platform against the party and platform of the slave propagandists."

Cotemporaneously with this organized action of the Free Soilers, but outside of it and of all party lines, there were held many public meetings throughout Michigan to denounce the Kansas-Nebraska act. Some of these were county conventions in form, and others were local mass-meetings. One of the latter took place at Detroit on the 18th of February; Zachariah Chandler was among the many prominent citizens who signed its call, and was one of the five speakers from its platform (the others were Jonathan Kearsley, Samuel Barstow, James A. Van Dyke, and D. Bethune Duffield). The tone of all the speeches was wholesomely defiant, and this was also true of the resolutions adopted which were reported by a committee consisting of Samuel Barstow, Jacob M. Howard, Joseph Warren, James M. Edmunds, and Henry H. Le Roy. The effect of this demonstration in the metropolis of the State upon public opinion was marked, and it and like non-partisan action did much to pave the way for the fusion of July. Powerful contributions to the same movement came also from the strong and growing current of sentiment in that direction throughout the entire North, and from the significant results of many of the spring elections. Both New Hampshire and Connecticut elected anti-administration candidates in March and April, and in Michigan anti-slavery coalitions were successful in quite a number of municipal contests, notably in the important city of Grand Rapids which chose Wilder D. Foster mayor on that issue.

Throughout the spring of 1854 many private conferences (Mr. Chandler sharing in them) were held in Michigan among representative men of the Whigs, Free Soilers, and Anti-Nebraska Democrats to discuss the feasibility of union and consider plans for its accomplishment. The early action of the Free Soilers was in fact a practical obstacle in the way. That party represented but a small element of the anti-slavery sentiment of Michigan, and neither the sincerity of its purpose, nor its tender of the olive branch by placing Whig names on its State ticket, nor the soundness of its platform on the slavery question could counterbalance the many reasons why the Whigs would not surrender a time-honored organization and march bodily into the camp of what they had always regarded as a faction of impracticables. There was also much in the State situation to encourage Whig hope, for the party there was almost solidly anti-slavery and certain to profit by the weakening of the enemy through the revolt of the Anti-Nebraska Democrats. But there was a vigor of principle and an intelligence of sentiment in the Whig party of Michigan which encouraged the belief that it would not subordinate essentials to a name, and that it would assent to an anti-slavery union under conditions not involving any seeming self-degradation. In fact it was called upon to make the only real sacrifice involved in the desired coalition. The Free Soilers were powerless, and had nothing to lose and everything to gain in the new movement; the Anti-Nebraska Democrats were condemned by, and without influence in, their own party; but the Whigs were strong in numbers, and were asked to surrender a historic name, honorable traditions and reviving hope for a doubtful experiment. But that the hour demanded precisely this act of self-denial was clear, and men of resolution and principle grappled with the problem of making it possible. Altogether the most important work in that direction was done by Joseph Warren, editor of the Detroit Tribune, then an influential Whig paper, which began the publication in its columns of a series of vigorous and well-considered articles advocating the organization of a new party composed of all the opponents of slavery extension. This policy accorded with the drift of public opinion, and, involving as it did the disbanding of both the Whig and Free Soil organizations, avoided any appearance of surrender and humiliation. Public and private discussion made its wisdom plainer, and the proof of its feasibility was followed by steps for its accomplishment. An indispensable preliminary was the withdrawal of the "Free Democrat" ticket, as this would remove the chief stumbling-block in the path of the anti-slavery Whigs. Mr. Warren, whose personal labors at this juncture were of the utmost value, writes with reference to the spirit with which the Free Soil leaders met the demand for this step:

One of the first and chiefest obstacles to be overcome in order to ensure the co-operation of all the opponents of slavery extension in the movement looking to the organization of a new party, was to induce the Free Soilers to consent to the withdrawal of their ticket from the field, thus placing themselves on the same footing as the Whigs (who as yet had made no nominations), free from all entangling alliances and in a position to act in a way likely to prove most effectual. But formidable as this obstacle seemed to be in the beginning, it was promptly removed through the wisely directed and patriotic efforts of the prominent leaders of the party. Such men as Hovey K. Clarke, Silas M. Holmes, Kinsley S. Bingham, Seymour Treadwell, all on the Free Soil ticket, F. C. Beaman, S. P. Mead, I. P. Christiancy, W. W. Murphy, Whitney Jones, U. Tracy Howe, Jacob S. Farrand, Rev. S. A. Baker, proprietor, and Rev. Jabez Fox, editor of the Detroit Free Democrat, were especially active and influential in preparing the way for this necessary preliminary step.

This readiness of the Free Soil leaders to make the sacrifices required on their part bore prompt fruit. The Kansas-Nebraska bill was passed by the House on the 22d of May, and three days after a stirring call was issued for a mass convention of the Free Democrats of Michigan at Kalamazoo on June 21st. The village of Kalamazoo had long been a center of anti-slavery sentiment, and the agitation against the pending bill had been especially vigorous there and in the surrounding counties. The call was full of fiery denunciation of the slavery propagandists, and its vigor and vim showed how thoroughly the people were aroused. The convention itself, owing to bad weather and other inauspicious circumstances, was not a large one, but its character and action were significant and important. Among those in attendance were four of the candidates on the "Free Democrat" ticket, including Kinsley S. Bingham. M. A. McNaughton was made president, and Hovey K. Clarke, from the committee for that purpose, reported a series of resolutions reviewing the disgraceful proceedings of the session of Congress, denouncing the Kansas-Nebraska bill as the crowning act of a series of aggressions by which slavery had become the great national interest of the country, and appealing to the virtue of the people "to declare in an unmistakable tone their will that slavery aggression upon their rights shall go no further, that there shall be no compromise with slavery, that there shall be no more slave States, that there shall be no slave territory, that the Fugitive Slave law shall be repealed, that the abominations of slavery shall no longer be perpetrated under the sanctions of the federal constitution, and that they will make their will effective by driving from every place of official power the public servants who have so shamelessly betrayed their trust, and by putting in their places men who are honest and capable, men who will be faithful to the constitution and the great claims of humanity." A final resolution directed the appointment of a committee of sixteen, two from each judicial district, to consult with others for the organization of a new party animated and guided by the principles expressed in the resolutions, and it empowered that committee, in case of the establishment of an "efficient organization" of such a character, to surrender the "distinctive organization" of the "Free Democrats" and withdraw the State ticket nominated on the 22d of February. This action, reached after a vigorous discussion, cleared the way for the coalition.

A few days before the meeting of the Kalamazoo convention, but after its probable course had become apparent, a call had appeared in the columns of the Detroit Tribune (it was copied, after the Kalamazoo action, by the Detroit Free Democrat also) for a mass-meeting at Jackson, on July 6, of all the opponents of slavery extension. This was signed by several thousand leading citizens of Michigan, in all parts of the State, including Zachariah Chandler, Jacob M. Howard, H. P. Baldwin, H. K. Clarke, Franklin Moore, John Owen, Jacob S. Farrand, Shubael Conant, J. J. Bagley, E. B. Ward, R. W. King, James Burns, Charles M. Croswell, Allen Potter, Austin Blair, Isaac P. Christiancy, Chas. T. Gorham, and others. The signatures filled two newspaper columns in close type, and it was announced on the last day that several hundred names had been received too late for publication. The text of this document was as follows:

TO THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN.

A great wrong has been perpetrated. The slave power of this country has triumphed. Liberty is trampled under foot. The Missouri compromise, a solemn compact, entered into by our fathers, has been violated, and a vast territory dedicated to freedom has been opened to slavery.

This act, so unjust to the North, has been perpetrated under circumstances which deepen its perfidy. An administration placed in power by Northern votes has brought to bear all the resources of executive corruption in its support.

Northern Senators and Representatives, in the face of the overwhelming public sentiment of the North, expressed in the proceedings of public meetings and solemn remonstrances, without a single petition in its favor on their table, and not daring to submit this great question to the people, have yielded to the seductions of executive patronage, and, Judas-like, betrayed the cause of liberty; while the South, inspired by a dominant and grasping ambition, has, without distinction of party, and with a unanimity almost entire, deliberately trampled under foot the solemn compact entered into in the midst of a crisis threatening to the peace of the Union, sanctioned by the greatest names of our history, and the binding force of which has, for a period of more than thirty years, been recognized and declared by numerous acts of legislation. Such an outrage upon liberty, such a violation of plighted faith, cannot be submitted to. This great wrong must be righted, or there is no longer a North in the councils of the nation. The extension of slavery, under the folds of the American flag, is a stigma upon liberty. The indefinite increase of slave representation in Congress is destructive to that equality between freemen which is essential to the permanency of the Union.

The safety of the Union—the rights of the North—the interests of free labor—the destiny of a vast territory and its untold millions for all coming time—and finally, the high aspirations of humanity for universal freedom, all are involved in the issue forced upon the country by the slave power and its plastic Northern tools.

In view, therefore, of the recent action of Congress upon this subject, and the evident designs of the slave power to attempt still further aggressions upon freedom—we invite all our fellow citizens, without reference to former political associations, who think that the time has arrived for a union at the North to protect liberty from being overthrown and down-trodden, to assemble in mass convention on Thursday, the 6th of July next, at 4 o'clock, P. M., at Jackson, there to take such measures as shall be thought best to concentrate the popular sentiment of this State against the aggression of the slave power.

The response to this appeal was the gathering at Jackson, on a bright mid-summer day, of hundreds of influential men from all parts of Michigan, representing every shade of anti-slavery feeling, and thoroughly alive to the importance of the occasion and the difficulty of the task projected. The convention far outstripped in numbers the preparations for its accommodation, and, after filling to excess the largest hall in the town, it adjourned to meet in a beautiful oak grove, situated between the village and the county race-course, on a tract of land then known as "Morgan's Forty." The growth of Jackson has since covered this historic ground with buildings, and the spacious grove has dwindled to a few scattered oaks shading the city's busy streets. A rude platform erected for speakers was appropriated by the officers of the convention, and about it thronged a mass of earnest men, the vanguard of the Republican host. In a body so incongruous and unwieldy, confused purposes, discordant views, and conflicting interests were unavoidable, but the universal fervor of the fusion sentiment formed a broad foundation for harmonious action, and the convention did not lack for shrewd and sagacious political managers with the skill to direct earnest effort into practical channels. Such differences of opinion as there were on questions of policy and as to candidates exhausted themselves in private conferences and secret committee deliberations, and the convention itself did its business with promptness, without discord, and amid a genuine enthusiasm.

Its temporary chairman was the Hon. Levi Baxter, of Jonesville, a pioneer settler of Southern Michigan, and the founder of a family of marked prominence in that State. He was well known as the master spirit of many important business enterprises, had been a Whig and then a Free Soiler, and had been elected to the State Senate by a local coalition of both those parties in his own county. After a brief address by Mr. Baxter, Jeremiah Van Renselaer was chosen temporary secretary, and this committee on permanent organization was appointed: Samuel Barstow, C. H. Van Cleeck, Isaac P. Christiancy, G. W. Burchard, Lovell Moore, James W. Hill, Henry W. Lord, and Newell Avery. While they were deliberating, the convention adjourned to the oak grove, and there listened to brief speeches until a permanent organization was effected with the following gentlemen as officers of the first Republican State convention ever held:

President—David S. Walbridge, of Kalamazoo.

Vice-Presidents—F. C. Beaman, Oliver Johnson, Rudolph Diepenbeck, Thomas Curtis, C. T. Gorham, Pliny Power, Emanuel Mann, Charles Draper, George Winslow, Norman Little, John McKinney, W. W. Murphy.

Secretaries—J. Van Renselaer, J. F. Conover, A. B. Turner.

Mr. Walbridge was a prominent merchant of Central Michigan, and an exceedingly active and earnest Whig. He had already served several terms in the Legislature and was afterward a Republican Congressman for four years from Michigan. His selection as president of the convention was a wise recognition of the important Whig element in its membership. The great throng next separated into representatives of the four congressional districts, and chose the following committee on resolutions: Jacob M. Howard, Austin Blair, Donald McIntyre, John Hilsendegen, Charles Noble, Alfred R. Metcalf, John W. Turner, Levi Baxter, Marsh Giddings, E. Hussey, A. Williams, John McKinney, Chas. Draper, M. L. Higgins, J. E. Simmonds, Z. B. Knight. The chairmanship of this important committee naturally fell to Jacob M. Howard, of Detroit, a lawyer of eminence and rare powers, the first Whig Congressman from Michigan, and a man of deservedly high reputation for intellectual vigor and personal integrity. He was afterward for nine years a Republican Senator, and at Washington earned national distinction as the author of the Thirteenth Amendment and by much able and laborious public service. Mr. Howard had prepared a draft of a platform in advance of the convention, and the committee met to consider it under a clump of trees on the outskirts of the grove (at the present intersection of Franklin and Second streets in the city of Jackson). No material modifications were made in the document, which was adopted substantially as written by Mr. Howard, except that Austin Blair proposed to add two resolutions relating to State affairs purely. As to the expediency of this action there was some difference of opinion, and finally Mr. Blair submitted his propositions as a minority report, and the convention adopted and thus added them to the main platform. Over the resolution formally christening the new party "Republican," there was no especial discussion. There had already been suggestions made throughout the country that, for the new organization evidently about to be born, it might be expedient to revive "the name of that wise conservative party, whose aim and purpose were the welfare of the whole Union and the stainless honor of the American name."[4] The history of this resolution in the Howard platform has been thus given with undoubted correctness by Mr. Joseph Warren in a published letter: "The honor of having named and christened the party the writer has always claimed and now insists belongs jointly to Jacob M. Howard, Horace Greeley and himself. Soon after the writer began to advocate, through the columns of the Tribune, the organization of all opponents of slavery into a single party, Horace Greeley voluntarily opened a correspondence with him in regard to this movement, in which he frankly communicated his views and gave him many valuable suggestions as to the wisest course to be pursued. This correspondence was necessarily very short, as it began and ended in June, it being only five weeks from the repeal of the compromise, May 30, to the Jackson convention. In his last letter, received only a day or two before it was to assemble, Mr. Greeley suggested to him 'Republican,' according to his recollection, but, as Mr. Howard contended, 'Democrat-Republican,' as an appropriate name for the proposed new party. But this is of comparatively little consequence. The material fact is, that this meeting the writer's cordial approval, he gave Mr. Greeley's letter containing the suggestions to Mr. Howard on the day of the convention, after he had been appointed chairman of the committee on resolutions, and strongly advised its adoption. This was done and the platform adopted."

While the committee on resolutions was absent, the convention was addressed by Zachariah Chandler, Kinsley S. Bingham, and a number of others. No complete record was made of Mr. Chandler's remarks upon this occasion, but the report of the convention in the Detroit Free Democrat, prepared by its secretary, contains this: "We would say in parenthesis that an allusion most generously made by Mr. Chandler to Mr. Bingham drew from the crowd three rousing cheers for the latter gentleman." The Jackson Citizen also gave the following reference to Mr. Chandler's remarks: "When in the course of his speech he gave a brief history of the Wilmot Proviso in Michigan, alluding to the anti-slavery resolutions passed by a Democratic State convention in 1849, and the resolutions of instructions to our Senators and Representatives in Congress by the Legislature on the same subject, and then exclaimed that 'not one of our Representatives had ever been honest enough to carry them out except Kinsley S. Bingham, a spark of enthusiasm fired the crowd, the shout of approbation ran through the vast assembly, and, if any doubt had previously existed as to who should be the man, that doubt was then removed." These addresses were followed by the report of the committee on resolutions, which was read by Mr. Howard amid frequent outbursts of applause, and was as follows:

The freemen of Michigan, assembled in convention in pursuance of a spontaneous call, emanating from various parts of the State, to consider upon the measures which duty demands of us, as citizens of a free State, to take in reference to the late acts of Congress on the subject of slavery and its anticipated further extension, do

Resolve, That the institution of slavery except in punishment of crime is a great moral, social and political evil; that it was so regarded by the fathers of the republic, the founders and best friends of the Union, by the heroes and sages of the Revolution who contemplated and intended its gradual and peaceful extinction as an element hostile to the liberties for which they toiled; that its history in the United States, the experience of men best acquainted with its workings, the dispassionate confession of those who are interested in it; its tendency to relax the vigor of industry and enterprise inherited in the white man; the very surface of the earth where it subsists; the vices and immoralities which are its natural growth; the stringent police, often wanting in humanity and revolting to the sentiments of every generous heart, which it demands; the danger it has already wrought and the future danger which it portends to the security of the Union and our constitutional liberties—all incontestably prove it to lie such evil. Surely that institution is not to be strengthened and encouraged against which Washington, the calmest and wisest of our nation, bore unequivocal testimony; as to which Jefferson, filled with a love of liberty, exclaimed: "Can the liberties of a nation be ever thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that their liberties are the gift of God; that they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble, for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; that, considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events; that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take sides with us in such a contest!" And as to which another eminent patriot in Virginia, on the close of the Revolution, also exclaimed: "Had we turned our eyes inwardly when we supplicated the Father of Mercies to aid the injured and oppressed, when we invoked the Author of Righteousness to attest the purity of our motives and the justice of our cause, and implored the God of battles to aid our exertions in its defense, should we not have stood more self-convicted than the contrite publican?" We believe these sentiments to be as true now as they were then.

Resolved, That slavery is a violation of the rights of man as man; that the law of nature, which is the law of liberty, gives to no man rights superior to those of another; that God and nature have secured to each individual the inalienable right of equality, any violation of which must be the result of superior force; and that slavery therefore is a perpetual war upon its victims; that whether we regard the institution as first originating in captures made in war, or the subjection of the debtor as the slave of his creditor, or the forcible seizure and sale of children by their parents or subjects by their king, and whether it be viewed in this country as a "necessary evil" or otherwise, we find it to be, like imprisonment for debt, but a relic of barbarism as well as an element of weakness in the midst of the State, inviting the attack of external enemies, and a ceaseless cause of internal apprehension and alarm. Such are the lessons taught us, not only by the histories of other commonwealths, but by that of our own beloved country.

Resolved, That the history of the formation of the constitution, and particularly the enactment of the ordinance of July 13, 1787, prohibiting slavery north of the Ohio, abundantly shows it to have been the purpose of our fathers not to promote but to prevent the spread of slavery. And we, reverencing their memories and cherishing free republican faith as our richest inheritance, which we vow, at whatever expense, to defend, thus publicly proclaim our determination to oppose by all the powerful and honorable means in our power, now and henceforth, all attempts, direct or indirect, to extend slavery in this country, or to permit it to extend into any region or locality in which it does not now exist by positive law, or to admit new slave States into the Union.

Resolved, That the constitution of the United States gives to Congress full and complete power for the municipal government of the territories thereof, a power which from its nature cannot be either alienated or abdicated without yielding up to the territory an absolute political independence, which involves an absurdity. That the exercise of this power necessarily looks to the formation of States to be admitted into the Union; and on the question whether they shall be admitted as free or slave States Congress has a right to adopt such prudential and preventive measures as the principles of liberty and the interests of the whole country require. That this question is one of the gravest importance to the free States, inasmuch as the constitution itself creates an inequality in the apportionment of representatives, greatly to the detriment of the free and to the advantage of the slave States. This question, so vital to the interests of the free States (but which we are told by certain political doctors of modern times is to be treated with utter indifference) is one which we hold it to be our right to discuss; which we hold it the duty of Congress in every instance to determine in unequivocal language, and in a manner to prevent the spread of slavery and the increase of such unequal representation. In short, we claim that the North is a party to the new bargain, and is entitled to have a voice and influence in settling its terms. And in view of the ambitious designs of the slave power, we regard the man or the party who would forego this right, as untrue to the honor and interest of the North and unworthy of its support.

Resolved, That the repeal of the "Missouri Compromise," contained in the recent act of Congress for the creation of the territories of Nebraska and Kansas, thus admitting slavery into a region till then sealed against it by law, equal in extent to the thirteen old States, is an act unprecedented in the history of the country, and one which must engage the earnest and serious attention of every Northern man. And as Northern freemen, independent of all former parties, we here hold this measure up to the public execration, for the following reasons:

That it is a plain departure from the policy of the fathers of the republic in regard to slavery, and a wanton and dangerous frustration of their purposes and their hopes.

That it actually admits and was intended to admit slavery into said territories, and thus (to use the words applied by Judge Tucker, of Virginia, to the fathers of that commonwealth) "sows the seeds of an evil which like a leprosy hath descended upon their posterity with accumulated rancor, visiting the sins of the fathers upon succeeding generations." That it was sprung upon the country stealthily and by surprise, without necessity, without petition, and without previous discussion, thus violating the cardinal principle of republican government, which requires all legislation to accord with the opinions and sentiments of the people.

That on the part of the South it is an open and undisguised breach of faith, as contracted between the North and South in the settlement of the Missouri question in 1820, by which the tranquillity of the two sections was restored; a compromise binding upon all honorable men.

That it is also an open violation of the compromise of 1850, by which, for the sake of peace, and to calm the distempered pulse of certain enemies of the Union at the South, the North accepted and acquiesced in the odious "fugitive slave law" of that year.

That it is also an undisguised and unmanly contempt of the pledge given to the country by the present dominant party at their national convention in 1852, not to "agitate the subject of slavery in or out of Congress," being the same convention that nominated Franklin Pierce to the Presidency.

That it is greatly injurious to the free States, and to the Territories themselves, tending to retard the settlement and to prevent the improvement of the country by means of free labor, and to discourage foreign immigrants resorting thither for their homes.

THE FIRST REPUBLICAN STATE CONVENTION.

"Under the Oaks," Jackson, Mich., July 6, 1854.

That one of its principal aims is to give to the slave States such a decided and practical preponderance in all the measures of government as shall reduce the North, with all her industry, wealth and enterprise, to be the mere province of a few slaveholding oligarchs of the South—a condition too shameful to be contemplated.

Because, as openly avowed by its Southern friends, it is intended as an entering wedge to the still further augmentation of the slave power by the acquisition of the other Territories, cursed with the same "leprosy."

Resolved, That the obnoxious measure to which we have alluded ought to be repealed, and a provision substituted for it, prohibiting slavery in said Territories, and each of them.

Resolved, That after this gross breach of faith and wanton affront to us as Northern men, we hold ourselves absolved from all "compromises" (except those expressed in the constitution) for the protection of slavery and slave-owners; that we now demand measures of protection and immunity for ourselves; and among them we demand the repeal of the fugitive slave law, and an act to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.

Resolved, That we notice without dismay certain popular indications by slaveholders on the frontier of said Territories of a purpose on their part to prevent by violence the settlement of the country by non-slaveholding men. To the latter we say: Be of good cheer, persevere in the right, remember the Republican motto, "The North will defend you."

Resolved, That postponing and suspending all differences with regard to political economy or administrative policy, in view of the imminent danger that Kansas and Nebraska will be grasped by slavery, and a thousand miles of slave soil be thus interposed between the free States of the Atlantic and those of the Pacific, we will act cordially and faithfully in unison to avert and repeal this gigantic wrong and shame.

Resolved, That in view of the necessity of battling for the first principles of republican government, and against the schemes of an aristocracy, the most revolting and oppressive with which the earth was ever cursed, or man debased, we will co-operate and be known as Republicans until the contest be terminated.

Resolved, That we earnestly recommend the calling of a general convention of the free States, and such of the slaveholding States, or portions thereof, as may desire to be there represented, with a view to the adoption of other more extended and effectual measures in resistance to the encroachments of slavery; and that a committee of five persons be appointed to correspond and co-operate with our friends in other States on the subject.

Resolved, That in relation to the domestic affairs of the State we urge a more economical administration of the government and a more rigid accountability of the public officers: a speedy payment of the balance of the public debt, and the lessening of the amount of taxation: a careful preservation of the primary school and university funds, and their diligent application to the great objects for which they were created; and also further legislation to prevent the unnecessary or imprudent sale of the lands belonging to the State.

Resolved, That in our opinion the commercial wants of Michigan require the enactment of a general railroad law, which, while it shall secure the investment and encourage the enterprise of stockholders, shall also guard and protect the rights of the public and of individuals, and that the preparation of such a measure requires the first talents of the State.

The resolutions were adopted almost unanimously, and thereupon Isaac P. Christiancy, as chairman of the committee of sixteen appointed by the Kalamazoo convention, came forward and announced the absolute abandonment of the State ticket and organization of the Free Democracy—an act which was greeted with loud and prolonged applause. A committee of ninety, consisting of three from each Senatorial district in the State, and including the names of Jacob M. Howard, Moses Wisner, Charles M. Croswell, Fernando C. Beaman, and Chas. T. Gorham, was next appointed to nominate a State ticket, and the convention adjourned until evening. At that session, which was held in one of the village halls, a State central committee was chosen, and the committee on nominations reported the following ticket which was unanimously endorsed by the convention, this closing its formal proceedings:

Governor—Kinsley S. Bingham, of Livingston.
Lieutenant-Governor—George A. Coe, of Branch.
Secretary of State—John McKinney, of Van Buren.
State Treasurer—Silas M. Holmes, of Wayne.
Attorney-General—Jacob M. Howard, of Wayne.
Auditor-General—Whitney Jones, of Ingham.
Commissioner of Land Office—Seymour B. Treadwell, of Jackson.
Superintendent of Public Instruction—Ira Mayhew, of Monroe.
Member Board of Education—John R. Kellogg, of Allegan.
(To fill vacancy)—Hiram L. Miller, of Saginaw.

The response of the anti-slavery masses to the action of the convention was prompt and cordial. Some of the more earnest and enthusiastic Whigs who had hoped that the Northern wing of their party could be transformed into an efficient champion of slavery restriction—Mr. Chandler had shared in this feeling—at first doubted the wisdom of what had been done. They found themselves called upon to make large sacrifices of cherished traditions and ties, and felt that their representation upon the fusion State ticket was not in due proportion to the number of votes they would be expected to contribute to its election. But this not unnatural feeling of early disappointment had but a brief existence among the Whigs of strong anti-slavery convictions. As the good faith of the movement, the spontaneous character of the popular uprising, and the possibility of accomplishing anti-slavery union throughout the North became clear, they laid aside all hesitation and joined with sincere ardor in the work of Republican organization. Before the close of the summer of 1854 the strong leaders and the intelligent rank and file of the Michigan Whigs had accepted the new fellowship, and the action of the Jackson convention received their hearty acquiescence and loyal support. Mr. Chandler rendered valuable service in the following campaign as an organizer of Republicanism throughout Michigan, and put into this work enough of his characteristic vigor to earn from the Democratic papers the title of the "traveling agent" of the "new Abolition party."

There was still among the Whigs a small conservative minority who, chiefly through the inspiration of pro-slavery sentiment and under the leadership of the Detroit Advertiser, made a desperate effort to prevent the abandonment of their party organization. They procured the signing of a circular addressed to the Whig committee asking that a State convention should be held, and in compliance with this request a call was issued for a convention to meet at Marshall on October 4. When it assembled it was found that the great majority of its delegates favored union with the Republicans. They controlled its proceedings throughout, and put in the chair Rufus Hosmer who was then the head of the new Republican State central committee, elected a State central committee composed of ardent fusionists, defeated the schemes for the nomination of a ticket, and issued an address urging the Whigs of Michigan to unite in this campaign with all other opponents of the spread of slavery. This decisive action made the Michigan election of 1854 a contest between Republicanism and the Democracy (which held its convention at Detroit on September 14, and placed John S. Barry at the head of its State ticket).

The local result of the Jackson convention was a permanent political revolution. In November the Republicans elected their entire State ticket (giving Mr. Bingham 43,652 votes to 38,675 for Mr. Barry), three of the four Congressmen, and a Legislature with an overwhelming majority in both branches against the Kansas-Nebraska policy. The Republican ascendancy thus established in Michigan has never been impaired. That party has been victorious in every State election since 1854; and of the Governors since chosen every one who was at that time a resident of the State (Henry H. Crapo did not settle in Michigan until 1856) was a member of the Jackson convention. Michigan has also since sent only Republicans to the Senate; every one of them except Thomas W. Ferry (who had barely attained his majority in 1854) was a prominent actor in the scenes "under the oaks." It has sent seventy-six Republicans and only seven Democrats to the House of Representatives, and the Republicans have controlled both branches of every Legislature since 1854. Iowa is the only State which can point to a similar record of uninterrupted Republican victory. In Vermont the Democrats have been uniformly defeated, but the opposition ticket in 1854 was not called Republican. Of the States which have been admitted since 1854, three (Kansas, Nebraska and Minnesota) have been steadfastly Republican, but Michigan surpasses them in the duration, while she equals them in the quality, of her fidelity to the party of Freedom. Each of the other Northern States has at least once chosen an anti-Republican Governor, while Michigan (with Iowa) has been uniformly Republican.

The claim that Michigan was the first State to organize and name the Republican party cannot be successfully disputed.[5] The convention "under the oaks" of Jackson ante-dates by a week or more all similar bodies. The first Republican convention in Wisconsin was held at Madison on July 13, 1854. Its call was issued (July 9) after a number of Anti-Nebraska meetings had been held in different parts of the State, and invited "all men opposed to the repeal of the Missouri compromise and the extension of the slave power" to take part. This convention adopted the following as one of its resolutions:

Resolved, That we accept the issue forced upon us by the slave power, and in defense of Freedom, will co-operate and be known as Republicans.

The Anti-Nebraska men of Massachusetts met in convention on July 19 of the same year, and organized the Republican party in that State by adopting the following resolution:

Resolved, That in co-operation with the friends of Freedom in sister States, we hereby form the Republican party of Massachusetts.

But the Republicans did not carry Massachusetts that year, the Anti-Nebraska vote being cast almost solidly for the successful Know-Nothing ticket. In Vermont, on July 13, 1854, a mass convention was held of persons "in favor of resisting, by all constitutional means, the usurpations of the propagandists of slavery." Among the resolutions there adopted was one which closed with these words: "We propose and respectfully recommend to the friends of Freedom in other States to co-operate and be known as Republicans." A State ticket was nominated, but, the State committees of the various parties being empowered "to fill vacancies," a fusion ticket was afterward placed in the field, voted for and elected under the name of Fusion. On the same day a convention was held in Columbus, O., which organized a canvass which swept that State at the fall elections; during this campaign most of the Anti-Nebraska candidates called themselves Republicans, and the party formally adopted that name at the State convention in 1855 which nominated Salmon P. Chase for Governor. It will be seen that the Jackson convention preceded all these kindred gatherings. To this statement may be profitably added the testimony of Henry Wilson, who, after thoroughly investigating the whole subject of the origin of Republicanism, wrote:[6]

But whatever suggestions others may have made, or whatever action may have been taken elsewhere, to Michigan belongs the honor of being the first State to form and christen the Republican party. More than three months before the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill the Free Soil convention had adopted a mixed ticket, made up of Free-Soilers and Whigs, in order that there might be a combination of the anti-slavery elements of the State. 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. This having been effected, a call for a mass convention was issued signed by more than 10,000 names. The convention met on the 6th day of July, and was largely attended.

A platform drawn by the Hon. Jacob M. Howard, afterward United States Senator from Michigan, was adopted, not only opposing the extension of slavery, but declaring in favor of its abolition in the District of Columbia. The report also proposed the name of "Republican" for the new party, which was adopted by the convention. Kinsley S. Bingham was nominated for Governor, and was triumphantly elected; and Michigan, thus early to enter the ranks of the Republican party, has remained steadfast to its then publicly-avowed principles and faith.

It is true that the Michigan convention of July 6, 1854, was only one development of a vast national agitation. The forces that gave it being were at work throughout the continent. Like movements were on foot in every Northern State. Kindred bodies met in the same month to take the same action. But to the men who gathered on that mid-summer day in the oak grove at Jackson belongs the honor of being the first to comprehend a great opportunity; they were wise enough to improve all its possibilities, and there founded and named the party of the future.