so much of that Senator's language as seemed to imply that men who labored with their hands and for a stipulated price were therefore slaves. Such statements and such doctrines were not only false in themselves, but were calculated to do infinite mischief in the South, where the number of slaveholders was small in comparison with the free white and non-slaveholding population. Though it was true that the number of slaveholders did not represent all who were directly interested in the maintenance of slavery, it was also true that such invidious comments on manual labor tended to engender opposition to slavery itself.

The speech of Hammond alluded to, was that in which he characterized the working classes, whose requisites were "vigor, docility, fidelity," as "constituting the very mudsill of society and political government;" and in which he still further drew a comparison between the "slaves" of the North and South. In replying to the Senator from South Carolina who had given voice to the controlling Southern element, that which subsequently carried their un-republican views into open treason and war against the Republic, Johnson found it necessary to fall back on his individual character as a man, as considered in opposition to what might be his prospects as a politician residing in the South. The fact that he deemed such a course proper may well indicate the wide breach between him and the "aristocracy of property." Before dwelling on the "impolicy of the invidious remarks made in reference to a portion of the population of the United States," he said: "Mr. President, so far as I am concerned, I feel that I can afford to speak what are my sentiments. I am no aspirant for any thing on the face of God Almighty's earth! I have reached the summit of my ambition. The acme of all my hopes has been attained; and I would not give the position I occupy here to-day for any other in the United States. Hence, I say, I can afford to speak what I believe to be true."

This was a terrible rebuke to the Southern subjection to the "institution," which prevented individual independence, and linked all in the rule or ruin policy then so violently maturing. Well might Johnson glory in his position that day-a position won by honest integrity, in opposition to just such principles of aristocratic feudalism as those enunciated by C. C. Clay and Hammond. Well might he stand up to defend the people from whom he sprung; who had confided in his faith and placed their honor where they knew it would not be sullied, in his keeping. He used the same argument with Hammond as with Clay, as to giving the people something to attach them to the soil, to make them " men of property;" and in reply to the question of the former "to define a slave," said:

"What we understand to be a slave in the South, is a man who is held during his natural life subject to, and under the control of, a master. The necessities of life, and the various positions in which a man may be placed, operated upon by avarice, gain or ambition may cause him to labor; but that does not make him a slave. How many men are there in society who go out and work with their own hands, who reap in the field and mow in a meadow; who hoe corn, who work in the shops? Are they slaves? If we were to go back and follow out this idea, that every operative and laborer is a slave, we should find that we have had a great many distinguished slaves since the world commenced. Socrates, who first conceived the idea of the immortality of the soul, Pagan as he was, labored with his own hands; yes, wielded the chisel and the mallet, giving polish and finish to the stone: he afterward turned to be a fashioner and constructor of the mind. Paul, the great expounder himself, was a tent-maker, and worked with his bands; was he a slave? Archimedes, who declared that if he had a place on which to rest the fulcrum, with the power of his lever he could move the world; was he a slave ?" Looking

at the South, he asked if every man there not a slaveholder, was to be denominated a slave because he labored? "The argument," he said, "cuts at both ends of the line." There were operatives in the South; there were laborers there, and mechanics there. He asked, "Were they slaves ?"

To show the impolicy as well as the untruth of applying such a phrase to the people of the South, he introduced some statistics from the census exhibiting the number of slaves, slave-owners and operatives in the leading States. "In the State of South Carolina there were twenty-five thousand slave-owners, and more than sixty-eight thousand operatives, showing that the large proportion of that State worked with their hands. Were they slaves? Were all slaves who did not own slaves ?" These facts and queries created nervous and vindictive feelings inside, and much comment outside of the Senate. In it Mason of Virginia could not help charging the Senator from Tennessee with doing what Senators on the other side of the Chamber had done before; which was tantamount to calling him " an Abolitionist." Outside of the Senate, this episode in the speech attracted not less attention and notice than the subject which formed. the body of it. In addition to the intrinsic force of the manly refutation of the un-American doctrines avowed by Hammond and others, the trepidation of the Southern leaders on the application of their views to their own section, attracted a vivid interest.

Returning to the main question under consideration, and concluding this great speech, Senator Johnson said, were the Homestead bill passed into a law, all he desired was the honor and credit of having been one of the American Congress who consummated a great scheme to elevate our race and to make our institutions more permanent.

A week later, again reminding Senators of the passage of the bill twice in the House, he implored the action of the Senate.

"Let us vote directly on it," he said, "and let the country understand what we intend to do after having had it under consideration so long. I would almost venture-yet I will not dare to do it-to make a single appeal in behalf of the homeless thousands in the United States, to take up and pass this measure, and grant what they have long demanded-grant what they have appealed to you for again and again !"

But the aristocratic phalanx was too strongly knit together at the time. One of the Senators alluded to would not believe that public opinion was in favor of the measure, and even supposing that it was, boldly avowed he did not think it was the duty of the Senate or the House to reflect public opinion. He thought it the duty of Congress not to run after, but to lead and create public opinion; yet one of the succeeding arguments against the bill used by this illogical and vindictive person showed why it ought to be logically supported. Explaining that when Senator Seward of New York introduced the bill in 1850 into the Chamber, it received but two votes, he declared that the present agitation arose from the efforts in Congress since, and asked, "Now, sir, whence did this cry for land originate? Not among the people, but among their representatives. The public voice we hear is a mere echo of the voice that was first raised in this body, or in the other end of the Capitol." The Senator, by this admission, fell into his own trap, and showed that if public opinion had not led Congress on the question, certainly Congress must have led and created public opinion. It is to be remembered in this connection, and, as exhibiting a wanton opposition to the consideration of the Homestead bill, that this Senator, and others of his class, voted for it on its final passage.

CHAPTER V.

HOMESTEAD BILL-CONTINUED.

1860.

THIRTY-SIXTH Congress-Johnson's Speech

Denies that the Homestead Measure has any Connection with Slavery or Anti-Slavery - A Virginian Senator receives Light from a "Black Republican" - Johnson won't follow the New Lights of the Old Dominion - Precedents for the Homestead Policy Law under Washington Later Laws Senator Mason's Action Now and Then - A "Sleepless Sentinel" and his Duties - Senator Pugh's Unanswerable Speech - Revival of Mason's Record - Shall Virginia Rebuke any other State Tennessee can Take Care of Herself - Compliment from Douglas - Voters on the Bill-Committees of Conference Report Passed by Two-thirds of both Houses - President Buchanan Vetoes the Bill The Veto Sustained - Unjust Reason for the Veto and its Sustainment Davis Sustains the Veto - Pugh and Harlan Denounce it as a Quibble The Wisdom and Grandeur of the Homestead Measure-Historical Lessons from Land Laws - Powers of Congress to Give Land Away— Brougham on Feudal Aristocracy - Bacon on the Growth of "Nobility and Gentlemen."

IN the First Session of the Thirty-sixth Congress, April 11, 1860, after introducing from the Committee on Public Lands another form of Homestead bill, Senator Johnson delivered an exceedingly able and telling speech, mainly in reply to Senator Mason of Virginia, touching that Senator's action, and the declarations of others with him, connecting the measure under discussion with the Slavery issue and the Republican party. The speech is historical and demonstrative in an eminent degree, and also affords a good specimen of Senator Johnson's clearness and force as a debater. For these reasons-and as much for its manner as