Page images
PDF
EPUB

QUESTIONS.

(1) Position of Douglas regarding Jackson's suspension of the right of habeas corpus. (2) Meaning of habeas corpus. (3) What the essential point in his argument? (4) Is the argument good? (5) To what

result would such a doctrine lead?

(1) What view did Douglas take in regard to the justice of the Mexican War? (2) Compare his position with that of Webster; with that of Calhoun. (3) What reasons does he give for his position? (4) Who was Santa Anna? (5) What treaty is here discussed? (6) What charge does he make against the Federalists and the Whigs?

(1) Was Douglas an expansionist? (2) Bring together all his arguments for or against. (3) What territory did he favor annexing? (4) What conditions did he lay down to be applied to annexed territory? (5) Compare his arguments on this point with Webster's, Clay's and Calhoun's. (6) Are their arguments applicable to-day? (7) Are all of Douglas's arguments consistent with each other? (8) Why did he oppose filibustering? (9) How fast did he want territory? (10) How do you think he would wish to treat the Philippines to-day?

(3)

(1) What was Douglas's theory in regard to the control or government of the Territories? (2) Bring together the passages that bear on this subject. What leading principle did he claim was established by the compromise of 1850? (4) How did he propose to apply the principle in 1854? (5) Was Douglas a compromiser? (6) Was he a man of courage?__ (7) Find out what the Chase Amendment was. (8) How did he propose to amend it? (9) How did Douglas expect to remove the slavery question from American politics? (10) How did he feel towards Chase and Sumner?

(1) What were his views in regard to the rights of foreigners? (2) What did he think about religious proscription? (3) What party did he oppose on account of these principles? (4) How did he stand in regard to admitting Kansas as a state under the Lecompton constitution? (5) Why his position? (6) What article in the constitution did he especially condemn? Why? (7) How did he feel toward President Buchanan on this subject? (8) Did he propose to be dictated to? (9) What feeling had he about the Pacific railroads? (10 What did he think of the effects of Lincoln's Divided House doctrine? (11) What is the "Freeport Doctrine"? (12) Were his views in regard to the power of the Mormons in harmony with his other doctrines? (13) How did he regard the African Slave Trade? (14) Compare his views on slavery with those of Sumner. (15) Compare them with Clay's; with Calhoun's.

WILLIAM H. SEWARD

Born in New Jersey, 1801. Graduate of Union College. Settled at Auburn, N. Y. Member of the New York legislature, 1830-1832. Governor of New York, 1838-1842. Senator, 1851-1861. Secretary of state, 1861-1869. "Higher Law" doctrine speech, 1850. "Irrepressible Conflict" speech, 1858. Candidate for nomination for President, 1856, 1860. Trip around the world, 1870-1871. Died, 1872.

12

CHAPTER VIII

WILLIAM H. SEWARD

ERHAPS William H. Seward was the

PERI

greatest among the political opponents of slavery. He ranks with Chase and Douglas. In general, he agreed with the former, and during most of his career he was a strenuous opponent of the latter.

Seward was born in New Jersey, and educated in its academies and at Union College, New York. He graduated at the latter in 1821, ranking as one of its most distinguished scholars. He had been ready to enter the Junior class when he was only fifteen, but on account of his extreme youth he was prevailed upon to enter the Sophomore. He withdrew to teach when nineteen, hence did not graduate till he had reached his twenty-first year.

He was married in 1824, and settled down at Auburn, where he continued to live till his death.

Election of mayors of cities by the people. One of the earliest speeches of Seward, April 22, 1831, was in favor of this democratic principle. In part, he said:

What is the state of the question before the Senate? The provision required by the city of New York is, that the mayor of that city shall be elected by the people..

It is admitted that the office of mayor is one of local interests, duties and responsibilities, and that it is, in

the abstract, right and proper that the mayor should be elected by the people in that city. Why, then, should not this provision, conceded to be abstractly right and proper, be adopted? Is it to be rejected on the ground of distrust of the people? No such distrust is avowed, and I am therefore bound to believe none is indulged.

Again, sir, the tendency of all our principles of government is to democracy; the new Constitution took the appointment from the council of appointment, and conferred it upon the immediate representatives of the people. There is but one more change before you reach absolute democracy; that is the one now pro posed, and conceded to be proper. Are gentlemen afraid that the people, once invested with this power, will come back again and sue us to relieve them from its responsibilities? Such an instance would be anomalous in the history of government.-Seward, Works, Vol. I, pp. 10, 11, 12.

January 10, 1834, he opposed the passage by the legislature of New York of a resolution approving the removal of the deposits from the National Bank, by Jackson, in this language:

The usurpation of the secretary's powers is not the most alarming feature in this unprecedented transaction. It is the defiance of the supervisory power of Congress uttered by the President of the United States. Yes, sir, in this very document, under the President's own hand, we are told that the power of the secretary over these deposits is unqualified, and as the secretary is in all things responsible to the execu tive, it follows that the power of the President over them is also unqualified.

The first of these offences is, that two years ago, in a debate similar to this, I defended the principles of anti-masonry in this house. Now, sir, with all my solicitude to secure the unreserved esteem of my honorable friend, the act of which he complains is precisely that one for which, of all others, I cannot admit his censure to be just. Sir, my honorable friend will recollect that I was then, as I am now, an anti-mason. I was sent here by anti-masons. I am not, as the gentle

« PreviousContinue »