Although John Kelly had been an ardent Hunker, or Cass and Butler man, in 1848, he was now acting with the Soft Shells, having, when the reconciliation took place between the Hunker and Barnburner factions in 1849, followed the leadership of William L. Marcy and Horatio Seymour, the two eminent Hunkers, who became Soft Shells. It was by the Soft Shells he was nominated against Walsh in 1854. The country was roused to a high pitch of excitement by the Kansas imbroglio when he took his seat as a Representative of the city of New York in the Thirty-fourth Congress. For the first time in the history of the government a purely sectional candidate, sustained exclusively by sectional votes, was elected Speaker of the House of Representatives in 1856. This was Nathaniel P. Banks, of Waltham, Massachusetts. The struggle was the most bitter and protracted one that ever took place in the House, beginning when Congress assembled on the first Monday of December, 1855, and continuing from day to day for nine weeks. The contending forces were so evenly balanced, and party spirit ran so high, that it seemed impossible to break the dead-lock. There were three candidates in the field, and the followers of each supported their respective favorites with unflinching resolution. William A. Richardson of Illinois, who had brought in the Kansas-Nebraska bill at the last session, and carried it through successfully, was the caucus nominee of the Democrats; Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts, of the Republicans; and Henry M. Fuller, of Pennsylvania, of the Know-Nothings. It was the beginning of the great sectional conflict, and the ominous mutterings of the storm were now heard in the House of Representatives whose thunder in a few years was to break forth on a hundred battle-fields. There was Joshua R. Giddings, the ancient Abolitionist, who for years like Cassandra in the gates had been uttering prophecies of woe, and now in anticipation of victory was goading the Hotspurs of the South to fury, such as Keitt, and Brooks, and Caskie, and Bowie, and Extra Billy Smith, and Fayette McMullin. There, too, were Humphrey Marshall, Henry Winter Davis, Zollicoffer and Cullen, Know-Nothing birds of evil, shouting their No-Popery cry in the House, like Lord George Gordon in the British Parliament, seventy-five years before. There were Alexander H. Stephens, who on the outbreak of sectionalism left the Whigs forever, and now took sides with the National Democrats, John Kelly, Howell Cobb, James L. Orr, and William A. Richardson, marshalling the forces of the administration, and striving to pluck success from the aggressive and powerful sectionalists. They would have succeeded in electing the Democratic candidate, William Aiken, finally settled upon in place of Messrs. Richardson and Orr, but for the officious intermeddling of a blunderer, who revealed the plans of the Democrats before they were fully matured, and nominated Aiken in a theatrical speech which repelled the two or three wavering votes, only needed to elect him. This was Williamson R. W. Cobb of Alabama. In the homely words of Mr. Stephens, as will be explained more fully a few pages further on, he “plugged the melon before it was ripe.”[23] It was true that Aiken was first nominated by John Kelly in a few tentative words, that attracted several and did not repel any votes. Mr. Kelly made no kite-flying speech, and the anti-Banks Whigs, such as John Scott Harrison, Haven, Cullen and Barclay, who opposed an out-and-out Democrat, were interested in Mr. Kelly’s off-hand manner of presenting William Aiken’s name, and showed a disposition to vote for him as against Banks. Harrison had avowed his intention to do so.[24] But W. R. W. Cobb of Alabama, let the secret out that Aiken was the Democratic dark horse, and the masterly plans of Alexander H. Stephens and John Kelly, just as victory was in reach, were dashed to the ground. An opinion further prevailed among many that one or two Democrats were corruptly bought off.
On the 18th of December, 1855, after nearly two weeks had been spent in a fruitless effort to organize the House, John Letcher of Virginia proposed that all the members should resign, and new elections be held. This proposal was not made seriously, but rather as a protest against the dead-lock. Joshua R. Giddings of Ohio chose to treat the proposition seriously, and on the 18th of December spoke of the Democrats as follows: “These are the gentlemen who propose here to the majority of the House, that we shall resign and go home, if they will. The proposition is unfair. We are endeavoring to organize this House; they are endeavoring to prevent an organization. To illustrate my idea, I will remark that I am reminded of the criminal standing upon the gallows, the rope fastened to the beam over his head and around his neck, the drop on which he stands sustained by a single cord, which the sheriff stands ready with his hatchet to cut. ‘Now,’ says the criminal to the sheriff, ‘if you will resign, I will, and we will go home together, and appeal to the people.’ Let me say to gentlemen, we are each of us now writing our biography with more rapidity than we generally imagine. Gentlemen of the Democratic party, I say again, in your attempt to extend this sectional institution, you have called down the vengeance of the American people upon your heads. The handwriting upon the wall has been seen and read of all men. Your history is written, and your doom is sealed; the sentence is pronounced against you, ‘depart, ye cursed!’ I have already given my views upon Republicanism. They are expressed in the language of that immortal instrument the Declaration of Independence. That is the foundation of my Republicanism, as it is that of a vast majority of the Whigs and Know-Nothings of the North. You, gentlemen of the Democratic party, stand forth here denying this doctrine. You say men are not endowed by their Creator with the inalienable right of liberty. * * * I would to God I could proclaim to every slave in Virginia to-day—You have the right of self-defence, and when the master attempts to exercise the right of dominion over you, slay him as he would slay yourselves!”[25]
Here then the incendiary appeal in favor of a servile insurrection, which John Brown tried to carry out with arms in 1859, was openly made on the floor of Congress in 1855.
That Giddings was either blinded by his fanaticism, or was a dishonest pettifogger, became clearly established a few weeks after he made this seditious speech. On the 18th of January, 1856, the House still being in the wrangle over the Speakership, Mr. Giddings took the floor, and advocated the adoption of the plurality rule. Mr. Banks had the largest number of votes of the several candidates. Giddings, who had bitterly opposed this rule in 1849, now, to help his candidate, as earnestly advocated it.
He said: “We have but one precedent in the history of the Government for our guidance. In 1849 this body found itself in the same condition for three weeks that it now finds itself in during almost seven weeks. There were then, as now, three parties in the House. No one party had sufficient numbers to decide the election. No one party now has sufficient numbers to elect.”
Mr. Jones of Tennessee rose to a question of order.
Mr. Giddings: “I do not blame the gentleman (Mr. Jones) for rising to a question of order. He then stood with the party which established a precedent which shall go down in all time to the condemnation of his party. I mean that under the circumstances, the Democratic party, as a party, in its caucus, speaking by a party organ, then declared the plurality rule to be the proper and only rule which could be adopted for the organization of the House.”
Mr. Howell Cobb, “Mr. Clerk, the gentleman is mistaken.”
Mr. Giddings: “No, sir; I stand upon the record. I have the record before me, and the gentleman must contradict that before he contradicts me. I read from the Congressional Globe. ‘The House had now’ says the record, ‘reached the contingency contemplated in the proposition of Mr. Stanton. It had exhausted the three votings therein provided for, without a result, and had arrived at that point where, in fulfillment of an agreement entered into between the two parties, a Speaker was to be elected by a plurality vote.’ Here, sir, stands the record. Now we stand precisely where we then stood. I do not know the number of times that we, on this side of the House, have endeavored to follow this established precedent that was then adopted. It was adopted by gentlemen on the other side of the House, and under it the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Cobb) himself was exalted to that chair. The Republican party stands ready to carry out that precedent now. The Republicans stand upon the great principle which was avowed by both of the great parties, Whigs and Democrats.”
Mr. Cobb: “I corrected the gentleman in a statement of fact. I rise now for the purpose of putting that statement correctly before the country in connection with his remarks. He stated that the Democratic party had in 1849 adopted the plurality resolution in caucus. The truth is simply this: the plurality rule was adopted in caucus by the Whig party. When it was reported by the Committee of Conference of the two parties to the Democratic caucus, it was rejected there by a decided majority. And, if he desires to stand by the record, there was no man on the floor more violent or more denunciatory of the operation of the plurality rule than the gentleman from Ohio. My recollection is that he offered a substitute for it, which declared that it was wrong in principle, dangerous in its tendency, and ought not to be adopted.”