Neither of the two great parties was divided by geographical lines. Both called themselves national parties, but since the extension of slavery was become the vital question of the hour, the Whig party was losing ground to the Free-Soil party, which indeed mostly grew up from the defection of those Whigs who determined henceforth to stand with the opponents of slavery until that question should be settled forever. So while the Whig party was strongest in the free States, it was beginning to go to pieces because it no longer represented the growing feeling against slavery in those States, though it was still led by able statesmen like Daniel Webster, whom the country had always looked to in the past for safe counsel and guidance through all the perils of party strife.
The Democratic party, on the contrary, being most numerous in the slaveholding States, was more firmly united than ever by the agitation about slavery, which their great leader, Calhoun, had told them could only be maintained by being extended, and could only be extended by becoming aggressive.
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS.
Here, then, we have the political situation after the admission of California, in a nutshell. In the South the Democratic party stood solid and defiant in support of slavery extension; in the North it favored popular sovereignty, as defined by Mr. Douglas. The Free-Soil party declared its purpose to oppose the making of any more slave States, and under the lead of Sumner of Massachusetts, Chase of Ohio, and Seward of New York, prepared to make head against its formidable opponents. The Whigs were now looked upon as the party of vacillation, weakness, and compromise. Though in nominal opposition to the Democrats, its leadership was no longer trusted, because it was felt to have surrendered the one principle[1] on which the coming struggle inevitably would turn.
The Democratic party succeeded in electing Franklin Pierce[2] to the Presidency, for the term running from 1853 to 1857.
His administration is chiefly memorable for the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, by which two new Territories were formed of the Louisiana Purchase, and thrown open to settlement. In framing this Act its authors left it to the people to choose for themselves whether they would have slavery or not, as Douglas urged they should; and in order that they might do so, the compromise of 1820 was set aside. This measure was largely the work of Mr. Douglas, who, arguing that the people are sovereigns, viewed a reference of the slavery question back to them, as the only true way of settling the agitation about it. It had a certain fair-play look that won many to its support in the North. In this form Congress passed the Act, May 30, 1854.
To repeal the Missouri Compromise, was held by many at the North and some at the South,[3] to be a violation of the pledge so sacredly made to the whole people, not to admit slavery north of 36° 30´. We shall see what it led to.
Let us look first at the new Territories as the organic Act found them. From the Missouri on the east, they reached to the Rocky Mountains on the west. They contained the most fertile lands of the public domain. The great thoroughfares to Oregon, California, and New Mexico, traversed them in their whole length, so making it clear, even at this early day, that the great movement of the people from east to west must be along the lines of these thoroughfares, strewing its pathway with populous cities and towns as it went.