mitted to each other. Naturally a bold man, his isolated position contributed to strengthen this characteristic by rendering him little likely to yield to those restraints which often compel men of family to expediencies. For the same reason he was reliable and immovable. His ambition was

great and laudable; and the position he attained sufficiently indicates the strong will which could triumph over a community largely fashioned of the elements which were combined in himself. He was born in Washington city, of poor Irish parents; his father, a stone-cutter, worked on the Capitol, which was to echo in a tribute to his memorya gallant rebuke to the "mudsill" doctrine of the South. He removed to New York, worked at his trade, mixed in politics successfully, but was defeated for a seat in Congress, and departed for the Pacific shores, declaring he would come back a Senator. He did; and no more appropriate record can be raised to him than that expressed by himself in the following passage, which it is difficult to characterize, exhibiting as it does a fine tribute to the working classes, while displaying the unhealed wounds of early ambition in their ranks; and the deep retrospective feelings of a disappointed man, blended with the triumphant, almost imperious air of one who after great labor had defiantly organized success. It occurs in his very able speech against the Kansas-Lecompton Constitution, and in reply to the "mudsill" speech of Senator Hammond already alluded to:

“I, sir, am glad that the Senator has spoken thus. It may have the effect of arousing in the working-men that spirit which has been lying dormant for centuries. It may also have the effect of arousing the two hundred thousand men with pure white skins in South Carolina, who are now degraded and despised by thirty thousand aristocratic slaveholders. It may teach them to demand what is the power

"Link'd with success, assumed and kept with skill,
That moulds another's weakness to its will;
Wields with their hands, but, still to them unknown,
Makes even their mightiest deeds appear his own?'

"I suppose, sir, the Senator from South Carolina did not intend to be personal in his remarks, to any of his peers upon this floor. If I had thought so, I would have noticed them at the time. I am, sir, with one exception, the youngest in years of the Senators upon this floor. It is not long since I served an apprenticeship of five years at one of the most laborious mechanical trades pursued by man-a trade that from its nature devotes its follower to thought, but debars him from conversation. I would not have alluded to this, if it were not for the remarks of the Senator from South Carolina; and the thousands who know that I am the son of an artisan and have been a mechanic, would feel disappointed in me if I did not reply to him. I am not proud of this. I am sorry it is true. I would that I could have enjoyed the pleasures of life in my boyhood's days, but they were denied to me. I say this with pain. I have not the admiration for the men of the class from whence I sprung that might be expected; they submit too tamely to oppression, and are too prone to neglect their rights and duties as citizens. But, sir, the class of society to whose toil I was born, under our form of government, will control the destinies of this nation. If I were inclined to forget my connection with them, or to deny that I sprung from them, this Chamber would not be the place in which I could do either. While I hold a scat here, I have but to look at the beautiful capitals adorning the pilasters that support this roof, to be reminded of my father's talent, and to see his handiwork.

"I left the scenes of my youth and manhood for the 'far West,' because I was tired of the struggles and the jealousies of men of my class, who could not understand why one of their fellows should seek to elevate his condition above the common level. I made my new abode among strangers where labor is honored. I had left without regret; there remained no tie of blood to bind me to any being in existence. If I fell in the struggle for reputation and fortune there was no relative on earth to mourn my fall. The people of California elevated me to the highest office within their gift. My election was not the result of an accident. For years I had to struggle, often seeing the goal of my ambition within my reach; it was again and again taken from me by the aid of men of my own class. I had not only them to contend with, but almost the entire partisan press of my State was subsidized by Government money and patronage to oppose my election. I sincerely hope, sir, the time will come when such speeches as that from the Senator from South Carolina, will be considered a lesson to the laborers of the nation."*

Speech of March 22, 1858.

Broderick might well feel proud of his success. The great opposition he had overcome but added to his natural independence. He held similar views as Johnson regarding the assumption of cliques to read men who declined to follow their dictation out of the Democratic party. Hence he soon was in an attitude of defiance to Mr. Buchanan and his rulers; while his colleague from California, Mr. Gwin, was a ready and reckless co-operator with the dominant Southern conspirators. To the latter, Broderick became very obnoxious, while he won the steady respect of the wisest and best statesmen of all parties in the Chamber-men such as Douglas, Crittenden and Seward. His death was the sensation of the day; and its announcement in Congress elicited more than usual feeling and eloquence. The proceedings in both Houses were in striking contrast to the usual routine of such occasions. Mr. John B. Haskin, who had been his schoolmate, spoke of the integrity and earnestness of his youth. Mr. Sickles illustrated his energy by describing him as “a man of no recreation," while Senator Seward, regarding the extension of our empire as the great national event of the day, thus indicated his place in history. "He who shall write its history will find materials copious and fruitful of influence upon the integrity of the American Union and the destiny of the American people. He will altogether fail, however, if he does not succeed in raising Houston, Rusk and Broderick to the rank among organizers of our States which the world. has assigned to Winthrop and Villiers, Raleigh and Penn, Baltimore and Oglethorpe, as well as in placing Taylor and Scott and Worth and Quitman as Generals, by the side of Washington and Greene and Marion. Impartiality will require him to testify that Broderick, more vigorously and

*In the Senate, Haun of California, Crittenden, Seward, Foster of Connecticut, Foote of Vermont, Wade of Ohio, and Toombs; and in the House, Burch of California, Haskin and Sickles of New York, Hickman of Pennsylvania, Burlingame of Massachusetts, Isaac N. Morris of Illinois, and Stout of Oregon, delivered biographical or eulogistic addresses.

resolutely than any of his predecessors, overcame accidents and circumstances which opposed his success. Neither birth, nor fortune, nor education, nor training, nor patronage, nor association, nor prestige of any kind favored ambition in his case." Alluding to the settlement of California and the tumultuous element which flocked thither, Senator Seward said: "We asked how and when shall this political chaos be reduced into the solid substance of a civil State? Even while we were yet asking these questions, we saw that State rise up before us in just proportions, firm, vigorous, strong and free, complete in the fullest material and moral sufficency, and, at the same time, loyal and faithful to the Fedcral Union. The hand that principally shaped it was that of David C. Broderick."*

Congressional Globe, First Session, Thirty-sixth Congress, Feb. 13, 1860.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE SLAVERY QUESTION.

JOHNSON'S Position on the Slavery Question - Tolerant, not Radical - Prosition in 1842-1849 Representation on a Slave Basis - Grounds of Suport to the Compromise Measures - Not a Believer in Compromises - Right and Virtue always Suffer by Compromising with Wrong and Vice- "Consrvatism" the Plea of Despots - Did not sing Peans to the Union - Did not Believe it in Danger On Union Saviors and Saving-Judged others by Himself - His Position in Contrast with some Northern Democrats - His Idea of John C. Calhoun A Sectarian not a Nationalist - Johnson's name presented to the Charleston-Baltimore Convention for the Presidency - Voted for through Thirty-six Ballotings - Letter of Withdrawal.

ON the Slavery question, Senator Johnson held to the dogmas as then received by the party with which he gener ally acted, but it was not an institution superior to all others, or on which he would sacrifice the integrity of the Republic. While never regarding the institution as permanent, he, as a Southern-born man, has uniformly sustained it. In his own words he then believed that slavery had its foundation and would find its perpetuity alone in the Union, and the Union its continuance in a non-interference with it. A review of his political life abundantly demonstrates his recognition of it as an existing institution. But while this is true, the support he yielded to it was not such as at all times to meet the approval of ultra and extreme Southern men. More than once his independent action was exposed to their censure, and to the charge of entertaining anti-slavery sentiments. As early as 1842, on a proposition to divide the