The road to Council Bluffs from Des Moines was over a high rolling prairie with scarcely any inhabitants. The village of Omaha, opposite Council Bluffs, contained but a few frame houses of little value. The settlement of Iowa and Nebraska after this period is almost marvelous. Iowa now (1895), contains over 2,000,000 and Nebraska over 1,200,000 people. The twelve states composing the north central division of the United States contained 5,403,595 inhabitants in 1850, and now number over 24,000,000, or more than quadruple the number in 1850, and more than the entire population of the United States in that year. I have frequently visited these states since, and am not surprised at their wonderful growth. I believe there is no portion of the earth's surface of equal area which is susceptible of a larger population than that portion of the United States lying north of the Ohio River, and between the Alleghany Mountains and the Missouri River.
CHAPTER V. EARLY DAYS IN CONGRESS. My First Speech in the House—Struggle for the Possession of Kansas —Appointed as a Member of the Kansas Investigating Committee—The Invasion of March 30, 1855—Exciting Scenes in the Second District of Kansas—Similar Violence in Other Territorial Districts—Return and Report of the Committee—No Relief Afforded the People of Kansas —Men of Distinction in the 34th Congress—Long Intimacy with Schuyler Colfax.
In 1854 the Whig party had disappeared from the roll of parties in the United States. It was a bad name for a good party. English in its origin, it had no significance in American politics. The word "Democratic," as applied to the opposing party, was equally a misnomer. The word "Democracy," from which it is derived, means a government of the people, but the controlling power of the Democratic party resided in the southern states, where a large portion of the people were slaves, and the ruling class were slaveholders, and the name was not applicable to such a people. The Republican party then represented the progressive tendency of the age, the development of the country, the opposition to slavery and the preservation of the Union. It was about to engage in a political contest for the administration of the government. It was in the minority in the Senate, and had but a bare plurality in the House. It had to contest with an adverse Executive and Supreme Court, with a well-organized party in possession of all the patronage of the government, in absolute control of the slaveholding states, and supported by strong minorities in each of the free states.
This was the condition of parties when the 34th Congress met in the old halls of the Senate and House of Representatives on the 3rd of December, 1855. The Senate was composed of 43 Democrats and 17 Republicans. There were four vacancies. The House was composed of 97 Republicans, 82 Democrats, and 45 classed as Third Party men, mostly as Americans. Eight Members were absent, and not yet classified. An unusual proportion of the Members were new in public life, the result of the revolution of parties caused by the Nebraska bill. The Senate was already organized with Mr. Bright, of Indiana, as president pro tempore.
The first duty of the House was to elect a speaker, a majority of the Members present being necessary to a choice. The balloting for speaker continued until February 2, 1856, when Nathaniel P. Banks was elected under the plurality rule. During these two months the House was without a speaker, and also without rules except the general principles of parliamentary law. The clerk of the last House of Representatives presided. Innumerable speeches were made, some of them very long, but many brief ones were made by the new Members who took the occasion to air their oratory. Timothy Day, one of my colleagues, a cynical bachelor and proprietor of the Cincinnati "Commercial," who sat by my side, was constantly employed in writing for his paper. When a new voice was heard he would put his hand to his ear, listen awhile and then, turning impatiently to his writing, would say to me: "Another dead cock in the pit." This cynical suppression of a new Member rather alarmed me, but on the 9th of January, as appears from the "Globe," I ventured to make a few remarks. When I sat down I turned to Mr. Day and said: "Another dead cock in the pit." He relieved me by saying: "Not quite so bad as that." The first speech I made in the House contained my political creed at the time. I here insert a paragraph or two:
"I desire to say a few words; and I would preface them with the remark, that I do not intend, while I have a seat in this House, to occupy much of its time in speaking. But I wish to state now why I have voted, and shall continue to vote, for Mr. Banks. I care not whether he is a member of the American party or not. I have been informed that he is, and I believe that he is. But I repeat I care not to what party he belongs. I understood him to take this position,—that the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was an act of great dishonor, and that under no circumstances whatever will he—if he have the power—allow the institution of human slavery to derive any benefit from that repeal. That is my position. I have been a Whig, but I will yield all party preferences, and will act in concert with men of all parties and opinions who will steadily aid in preserving our western territories for free labor; and I say now, that I never will vote for a man for speaker of this house, unless he convinces me, by his conduct and by his voice, that he never will, if he has the power to prevent it, allow the institution of slavery to derive any advantage from repealing the compromise of 1820.
"I believe Mr. Banks will be true to that principle, and, therefore, I vote for him without regard to his previous political associations, or to his adherence to the American party. I vote for him simply because he has had the manliness to say here, that, having the power, he will resist the encroachments of slavery, even by opposing the admission of any slave state that may be formed out of the territory north and west of Missouri."
Notwithstanding the promise I made not to occupy much of the time of the House in speaking, and the cynicism of my friend Day, I did partake frequently in the debate on the organization of the House. I became involved in a contest with Mr. Dunn, of Indiana, who had steadily refused to vote for Mr. Banks for speaker, to which I deemed proper to refer. He said he was not to be deterred from performing his duty, as he understood it, by the criticisms of the "neophyte" from Ohio. I replied at considerable length and with some feeling. In my reply I repeated my position in respect to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, declaring: "If the repeal was wrong all northern and southern men alike ought to help to reinstate that restriction. Nothing less than that will satisfy the country; and if it is not done, as it probably will not be, we will maintain our position of resisting the admission of Kansas as a slave state, under all possible circumstances."
Later on in the debate I declared:
"I am no Abolitionist in the sense in which the term is used; I have always been a conservative Whig. I was willing to stand by the compromises of 1820 and 1850; but, when our Whig brethren of the south allow this administration to lead them off from their principles, when they abandon the position which Henry Clay would have taken, forget his name and achievements, and decline any longer to carry his banner—they lose all their claims on me. And I say now, that until this wrong is righted, until Kansas is admitted as a free state, I cannot act in party association with them. Whenever that question is settled rightly I will have no disposition to disturb the harmony which ought to exist between the north and south. I do not propose to continue agitation; I only appear here to demand justice,—to demand compliance with compromises fully agreed upon and declared by law. I ask no more, and I will submit to no less."