"My country, 'tis of thee!" / Or, the United States of America; past, present and future. A philosophic view of American history and of our present status, to be seen in the Columbian exhibition.

by Willis Fletcher Johnson

In 1835 an event took place which was destined ultimately to be of great interest to the United States. This was the revolution in Texas, then a province of Central America. A Declaration of Independence was made on the 2d of March, 1836; on March 6th the famous massacre of the Alamo occurred, and two weeks later the battle of San Jacinto, in which the Mexican forces were beaten, and the President, Santa Anna, taken prisoner. As a condition to his release the Mexican troops left the country, and hostilities ceased. The independence of Texas was soon acknowledged by the United States and Europe, and in 1845, at its own request, the new republic became a State of the American Union. Mexico, which had never acknowledged the independence of Texas, resented the action of the United States, and the following year collisions took place between the two countries on the Rio Grande. Two very deadly conflicts, one at Palo Alto and the other at Resaca de la Palma, could only result in a declaration of war on the part of our government. The army, under General Taylor, proceeded at once to Palo Alto, where the Mexicans were defeated on the 8th of May. In September Taylor took Monterey. Another army under General Kearney had succeeded in occupying New Mexico, and after establishing a civil government, marched on to California to the assistance of Commodore Stockton and Captain Fremont. The war ended with victory for the Americans in September of the next year. It had been an unbroken series of successes for the United States. The treaty of peace was signed on the 2d of February, 1848; under its provisions Upper California and New Mexico were surrendered by Mexico, which in turn was granted all its conquered territory, with fifteen million dollars.

The same year that witnessed our accession of California proved the existence of gold in great abundance throughout a vast region of country, and in a few months’ time thousands of treasure seekers were already at work washing fortunes out of the sands. The history of the “Gold Rush” to California in the autumn of 1848 and all during the next few years is one of unique and most absorbing interest. The scenes to which it gave rise are unparalleled in the story of any other country, unless we except Australia. A short period served to exhaust the “placer” minings of California and more expensive methods had to be resorted to. The hydraulic process was invented in 1852; quartz mining also came into vogue. Rich silver deposits were discovered in Colorado and Nevada, and although the era of individual fortune hunting was past, an immense amount of wealth still remained in the rocks of the new country, and emigration proceeded with unexampled energy. Not only was the Pacific Slope found rich in gold, but in forests, and above all in agricultural facilities. With all these inducements on the coast, came the discovery of the wealth in the intervening prairie lands, and the great West began to fill up, until in forty-three years it has become the home of the boldest and most promising population within the United States’ limits. State after State has been admitted, railroads and telegraphs have been built across the continent, and an immense and flourishing domain has been added to the nation.

The next phase of American history which, in a recital of only the important events of national growth, must claim attention, is the development of Abolitionism. The slavery question was not buried after the passage of the Missouri Compromise Bill, as its supporters had promised and believed. The doctrine of abolition was first openly advocated by William Lloyd Garrison in his newspaper, The Liberator, issued January 1st, 1831. Anti-Slavery societies were formed soon afterward, but they met with such violent opposition in the North that they were forced to cease their meetings. The political strength of the idea was not manifested until 1844, when the candidate of the “Liberty” party made Polk President of the United States. It was, however, the close of the Mexican War and the subsequent large addition of property that brought the question into prominence before Congress. In the discussion of the treaty of Mexico, David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, proposed to add to the appropriation bill the clause that slavery should be prohibited in any territory which might be acquired as a consequence of the war. Although the “Wilmot Proviso” was rejected, it was received with warmest approbation throughout the North.

The Anti-Slavery faction, organized in 1848, under the name of “the Free Soil Party,” and in the ensuing election returned its candidate, Martin Van Buren, to the Presidency, sent Salmon P. Chase and Charles Sumner to the Senate, and a large number of its friends to the House of Representatives. The rapid settlement of the West added to the complication. California and Oregon in their territorial organization excluded slavery, and the former applied for admission as a State on an Anti-Slavery basis. A fierce debate followed in Congress, the Southern representatives insisting on the organization of California, Oregon, Utah, and New Mexico without slavery restrictions. The Free Soil party demanded, not only the admission of California, but the organization of the other territories with slavery absolutely prohibited. The dispute ended in a compromise, proposed by Henry Clay, in which California was admitted as a free State, no restriction enforced in Utah or New Mexico, and slavery prohibited in the District of Columbia, and provisions made for the return of fugitive slaves from all Northern States. The compromise was so agreeable to the majority of the people that for a time the Anti-Slavery agitation was greatly decreased.

In 1855 the Free Soil party was absorbed into the Republican party, destined to attain such power in later days. It was the clause relating to fugitive slaves which renewed the abolition sentiment in the North. For years previous to this time escaped slaves had found plenty of friends among the Northerners to help them to Canada, and in time the organization for aid and secretion of fugitive blacks became more complete, and very few slaves who succeeded in crossing the border line were ever recovered by their masters. Massachusetts even passed a law to secure fugitive slaves trial by jury, and Pennsylvania passed a law against kidnapping. A decision was finally made in the Supreme Court which gave to the owners of a slave the right to recapture him without process of law, but this availed little against the growing sentiment against all slavery. In 1850 a Fugitive Slave law was passed which was so unjust in its measures that it left little hindrance to the kidnapping of free negroes to be held as slaves in the South. This law aroused the greatest indignation, and backed up the Abolitionists with a crowd of ardent sympathizers, where previously they had been regarded as wild radicals. In December, 1853, the Territory of Nebraska was proposed for organization. An amendment to the bill was offered which should abrogate the Missouri Compromise and permit the citizens of the Southern States to take and hold their slaves within any of the new Territories or States. The bill was reported back from the committee, modified to propose the formation of two territories, Kansas and Nebraska. At the end of a contest lasting four months, the bill was carried, with the measure which had been in existence for thirty-five years nullified and the whole territory from the Mississippi River to the Rocky Mountains thrown open to slavery. In 1857 the South gained a new victory when the Missouri Compromise was declared unconstitutional in the highest tribunal in the land. The Abolition party was now very greatly strengthened in the North, and before the slavery agitation, all other questions of public policy were subordinate. A re-organization of parties became necessary; the Democrats divided into two sections, and the Free Soilers and a section of the Democrats and the old Whigs fused to form the Republican party.

The first hostilities resulting in bloodshed appeared in Kansas. An organized effort had been made by the anti-slavery societies of the North to secure Kansas by colonizing her with Abolitionists. Missouri made a corresponding effort to secure it to slavery, but rather by violence than colonization. An armed band of two hundred and fifty Missourians marched upon the new town of Lawrence and ordered its settlers to leave the territory. The settlers refused, and their assailants retired; but this battle of words was followed by a series of more serious assaults. An election for a Territorial legislature was ordered in 1855. The slave-holders of Missouri and Arkansas entered the Territory in large bands, took possession of the polls, and, driving the actual settlers away, cast their votes for the Pro-Slavery candidates. This fraudulent operation was ignored by Congress, and the proceedings of the Pro-Slavery legislature were indorsed. But the Free State settlers were too many to be dealt with thus, and in 1859 they held another convention, elected their candidates, and adopted a new Constitution, in which slavery was prohibited.

These violent methods of legislation were carried to Congress, where, in 1856, Charles Sumner was brutally assaulted by Preston S. Brooks, of South Carolina, after the delivery of the speech on “The Crime Against Kansas” by the former. This occurrence added to the bitterness of party spirit, and had its share in arousing the fanatical outbreak of John Brown at Harper’s Ferry. On the approach of the elections of 1860 the hot-headed leaders of Southern politics, rather than accept the moderate views of the Northern section of their party, chose to divide their ranks, thus insuring the election of a Northern candidate. When the Republicans nominated Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois, whose record on the question was embraced in one sentence of a recent speech, “I believe this government cannot permanently endure half slave and half free,” the issue was for the first time clearly defined in a political contest. For ten years the threat of secession had been openly made in Congress, whenever any Pro-Slavery measure was strongly opposed, but now it became more than a threat; it was a menace. Lincoln must have been elected, even if the issue had been less vital, and his successful candidacy was rather desired than dreaded in the South. Secession had been determined upon in South Carolina, and the “fire-eaters” of the South were delighted at what they deemed a direct provocation.

In December, 1860, South Carolina passed an ordinance of secession, and set up an independent government. Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana followed; the Northern range of slave States waited until war had actually broken out.

The Southern element still had possession of Congress, and there was no fear of interference until after Lincoln’s inauguration; the seizure of the United States forts and arsenals in the seceding States was therefore accomplished without opposition.

It was not until April that any decisive action was taken by the new administration. Even the fact that a convention had been held at Montgomery, Alabama, a Constitution adopted, and a President elected of the Confederated Southern States had received no active opposition; but when Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor was beleaguered by a Confederate force, preparations were made to relieve it at once, thus deciding the question of war. Early in April a fleet sailed southward and took possession of the fort. As soon as it became known in Charleston, hostilities were determined upon unless Major Anderson, the Federal commander, at once evacuated the fort. He refused, and on the 12th day of April, 1861, at the hour of five A.M., the first gun was fired which announced the beginning of the greatest civil war in history.