The Senate of the 33rd Congress was composed of 36 Democrats, 20 Whigs and 2 Free Soilers. The House was composed of 159 Democrats, 71 Whigs, and 4 Free Soilers, with Franklin Pierce as President of the United States.
I need not narrate the long struggle in both Houses over the bill to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas. It was a direct invitation for a physical struggle between the north and south for the control of these territories, but it finally passed on the 30th of May, 1854.
This act repealed in express terms the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and falsely stated the terms of the compromise of 1850, which, as I have shown, had no reference whatever to the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas. It re-opened, in the most dangerous form, the struggle between freedom and slavery in the western territories, and was the congressional beginning of the contest which culminated in the War of the Rebellion.
It is difficult, at this distance of time, to describe the effect of the act of 1854 upon popular opinion in the northern states. The repeal was met in Ohio by an overwhelming sentiment of opposition. All who voted for the bill were either refused a nomination or were defeated by the people at the polls. Party lines were obliterated. In every congressional district a fusion was formed of Democrats, Whigs and Free Soilers, and candidates for Congress were nominated solely upon the issues made by the Kansas and Nebraska bill.
I had carefully observed the progress of the bill, had read the arguments for and against it, and was strongly convinced that it was the duty of every patriotic citizen to oppose its provisions. The firm resolve was declared by the state convention of Ohio, composed of men of all parties, that the institution of slavery should gain no advantage by this act of perfidy. It was denounced as a violation of a plain specific pledge of the public faith made by acts of Congress in 1820 and in 1850. With this feeling there ran current a conviction that the measure adopted was forced by southern domination, and yielded to by ambitious northern dough- faces anxious to obtain southern support.
Unfortunately the drift of parties was on sectional lines. The whole south had become Democratic, so that a united south, acting in concert with a few members from the north, could control the action of Congress. I believe that a feeling did then prevail with many in the south, that they were superior to men of the north, that one southern man could whip four Yankees, that their institution of slavery naturally produced among the masters, men of superior courage, gentlemen who could command and make others obey. Whether such a feeling did exist or not, it was apparent that the political leaders in the south were, as a rule, men of greater experience, were longer retained in the service of their constituents, and held higher public positions than their associates from the north. Besides, they had in slavery a bond of union that did not tolerate any difference of opinion when its interests were involved. This compact power needed the assistance only of a few scattered members from the north to give it absolute control. But now the south was to meet a different class of opponents. There had been growing all over the north, especially in the minds of religious people, a conviction that slavery was wrong. The literature of the day promoted this tendency. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise aroused the combative feeling of the north until it became general among all parties and sects. Still, the north recognized the legal existence of slavery in the south, and did not propose to interfere with it, and was entirely content to faithfully observe the obligations of the constitution and the laws, including those for the return of fugitive slaves. A smaller, but very noisy body of men and women denounced the constitution as "a covenant with hell and a contract with the devil." A much large number of conservative voters formed themselves into a party called the Free Soil party, who, professing to be restrained within constitutional limits, yet favored the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. They invoked the moral influence and aid of the government for the gradual prohibition of slavery in the states. "Liberty is National, Slavery is Sectional," was their motto.
The strong controlling feeling of the great body of the Whigs and of the Democrats of the north, who opposed the Nebraska and Kansas law was that the law was a violation of existing compromises, designed to extend slavery over free territory, that it ought to be repealed, but, if repeal was impracticable, organized effort should be made to make both territories free states. "Slavery shall gain no advantage over freedom by violating compromises," was the cry of a new party, as yet without a name.
It was on this basis in the summer of 1854, I became a candidate for Congress. Jacob Brinkerhoff and Thomas H. Ford, both residents of Richland county, Ohio, and gentlemen of experience and ability, were also candidates, but we agreed to submit our pretensions to a convention in that county, and I was selected by a very large majority. A district convention was held at Shelby, in July. Mr. James M. Root, for several terms a Member of Congress, was my chief competitor, but I was nominated, chiefly because I had been less connected with old parties and would encounter less prejudice with the discordant element of a new party.
I made a thorough canvass through the district, composed of the counties of Huron, Erie, Richland and Morrow. I visited and spoke in every town and township in the district. William D. Linsley, a Member of the 33rd Congress, was my competitor. He was a farmer, of popular manners, but defective education. When first a candidate a letter of his was published in which he spelled the word "corn" "korne." The Whig newspapers ridiculed him for his faulty spelling, but Democrats, who were offended at this criticism, said they would show the Whigs how to plant corn, and the incident proved a benefit rather than an injury to Lindsley. He had been elected to Congress in 1852 against a popular Whig by a majority of 754. He had voted against the Nebraska bill, but had cast one vote that opened the way to the consideration of that bill, which action was made the subject of criticism. This did not enter as a national element in the canvass. The real issue was whether the Democrats and Free Soilers would vote for a Whig. Among the Free Soilers I was regarded as too conservative on the slavery question. They were not content with the repeal of the offensive provisions of the Nebraska act, but demanded the prohibition of slavery in all the territories and in the District of Columbia. This feeling was very strong in the important county of Huron.
When I spoke in North Fairfield I was interrupted by the distinct question put to me by the pastor of the church in which I spoke, and whose name I do not recall, whether I would vote for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. I knew this was a turning point, but made up my mind to be frank and honest, whatever might be the result. I answered that I would not, that the great issue was the extension of slavery over the territories. I fortified myself by the opinions of John Q. Adams, but what I said fell like a wet blanket on the audience. I understood that afterwards, in a church meeting, the preacher commended my frankness and advised his people to vote for me.