stitution "peaceably to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances," viz., their own grievances. Slavery was no new thing, but the existence of slavery as an institution recognized by the Constitution, and the right of property in slaves as recognized in the Constitution, is not a grievance under the Constitution to the people of Vermont. "The oppressed subject has a right to petition Government for the redress of grievances." But the existence of slavery in the District of Columbia is not a grievance to the people of Vermont; but the abolition of slavery, in opposition to the wishes of slaveholders in the District of Columbia, would be a grievance to them. In the early days of the Republic, the existence of slavery in the South was not thought of as a "grievance."

6. That a petition for a general object like that is impertinent, inasmuch as Congress is better acquainted with the subject than the men, women, and children, who have never been in the District. Such a petition implies that Congress will not attend to its duties without admonition.

c. That the arguments used against slavery in the District of Columbia are covertly or openly intended to operate against slavery elsewhere; and that the abolition of slavery in the District would be the entering wedge to the abolition of slavery in the States, as soon as Congress could get the power, by altering the Constitution.

d. That the arguments or denunciations against slavery have the effect to create prejudice against slaveholders and slaveholding States.

e. That some of these petitions contain falsehoods, and slanders, and insulting statements, concerning slaveholders, and are therefore adapted to produce a spirit of disunion.

f. That some of the petitions were got up in order to place certain members of Congress in the awkward position of presenting petitions to which they were opposed.

4. At the first presentation of these petitions in Congress, the general sentiment in both Houses was opposed to them, as was the sentiment of the great Northern community Abolitionists were regarded with distrust or abhorrence. But in time antislavery sentiments so far prevailed, that candidates found an appeal to sectional feelings an effectual way to secure an elec

tion. And after they had secured an election by such an appeal, they felt themselves obliged to carry out in Congress the principles upon which they were elected.

5. In Congress, there was a great diversity of opinion as to what course should be taken with those petitions:

a. Some of the petitions were received and reported on adversely without producing any beneficial effect, or lessening the number of petitions.-See Mr. Rives' speech, Dec. 1837.

b. Some of them were received and laid on the table.

c. Some of them were disposed of by a motion to lay the question of reception on the table.

None of these modes satisfied the anti-slavery views of the Northern delegations in Congress; and many even of the members who were opposed to the prayer of the petitioners, were disposed to complain that the right of petition was restricted by the latter course.

6. In February, Mr. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, who, like some others in or out of the House, was disposed to magnify the right of petition above some other rights, presented a petition from some ladies in Fredericksburg, Virginia," of whom Mr. PATTON, member from that place, declared that he believed all of them to be free negroes of a bad character. Mr. ADAMS also tendered a petition from twenty-two persons, who declared themselves to be slaves. And (June, 1838) he referred to his tendering such a petition. This act of his was severely condemned by individuals in the House. He escaped a vote of censure which was threatened. But the House voted "That slaves do not possess the right.of petition, secured to the people of the United States by the Constitution." the Constitution." The vote was 162 in the affirmative and 18 in the negative.

7. A portion of the multitude of petitions offered during the Administration of Mr. VAN BUREN, were got up at the instigation of members of Congress, who for one reason and another took pleasure in presenting them. It was supposed that Mr. ADAMS, under the influence of a deep resentment against the South, took a pleasure in presenting petitions for objects for which he himself would not vote.

While the abolitionists were thus spreading their arguments and denunciations against slavery before the representatives of

the nation at Washington, and also before the State Legislatures at the North, they were sending incendiary publications through the Southern States by mail and otherwise. As these publications sprang from bitter sectional feelings at the North, so they created bitter sectional feelings at the South. President JACKSON, in his message, Dec. 1835, thus introduced the subject to the notice of Congress: "I must also invite your attention to the painful excitement produced in the South, by attempts to circulate through the mails inflammatory appeals addressed to the passions of the slaves, in prints and in various publications calculated to stimulate them to insurrection, and to produce all the horrors of a civil war."

The effect of these petitions signed by hundreds of thousands of petitioners was disastrous in producing a bitter sectional spirit throughout the country.

In justice to the North it ought to be added, that some of the ablest and best men in that section were utterly opposed to the movement, as wrong in the end aimed at, wrong in the means used, and wrong in the spirit with which it was conducted. And some of them took the ground that they were wrong as a violation of the principles of international law which ought to control the several States in their relations to each other as sovereignties.

There were those who felt that the abolition societies in the several States ought to be suppressed by State authority. They had the same opinion of them which General WASHINGTON expressed concerning the self-constituted societies in 1794. They considered their influence upon the country through their lectures and publications as malign.

CHAPTER XI

GENERAL WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON AND JOHN TYLER.

MARCH 4, 1841-MARCH 4, 1845.

GENERAL HARRISON was elected by the Whig party, and by the votes of Northern States. There was a wide-spread enthusiasm in his favor, created, it was said, to some extent, by log cabins, coon-skins, hard cider, and the influence of banks. Sox strong were the party feelings, that sectional considerations were, for the time, ignored. Both General HARRISON and Mr. TYLER were natives of Virginia. On the death of the former, about a month after his inauguration, the latter constitutionally became President.

During his administration, sectional differences of opinion manifested themselves both in Congress and in the country at large. The bankrupt bill, an increase of the tariff, the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands, the establishment of a national bank, the repeal of the sub-treasury, were generally favored by Northern members and opposed by Southern.

ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.

But the principal source of sectional feeling during the administration of President TYLER, was the annexation of Texas, of which he was strongly in favor. Texas had belonged to the United States from 1803, when Louisiana was ceded, until 1819, when, by a great political mistake, it was dismembered from the United States, and attached to Mexico. The people of Texas were in favor of annexation. It would add to the strength of the United States, and give them, with some exceptions, the monopoly of the cotton trade of the world. It would help to

keep the slave States on an equality with the non-slave States. It would prevent the existence of a dangerous rival on our borders, who might make treaties with Great Britain to our injury. Mr. ADAMS, when President, aided by Mr. CLAY, Secretary of State, in 1825, and then again in 1827, endeavored to secure the annexation of Texas. General JACKSON, aided by Mr. VAN BUREN, Secretary of State, in 1829; and again in 1833, aided by his Secretary of State, Mr. LIVINGSTON; and again in 1835, aided by his Secretary of State, Mr. FORSYTH, endeavored to secure the annexation of Texas. For this purpose he offered five millions of dollars. It would be of great commercial advantage to the Union, which otherwise a foreign nation would enjoy. The sentiment of the country, taken as a whole, was in favor of annexation.

In opposition, it was asserted that the measure was unconstitutional; that it would involve the country in war with Mexico; that it would increase the slave population of the country. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS declared in substance that, if Texas were free from slavery, and the consent of Mexico were obtained, he would vote for the annexation.

So high did sectional feeling rise while the question was pending, that, in some of the Southern States, the motto was "Texas or disunion; " while, in some of the Northern States, tens of thousands of names were affixed to petitions against the measure. In Massachusetts, so strong was the opposition, that the Senate passed a resolution censuring their Senators in Congress, Messrs. BATES and CHOATE. Indeed, the spirit manifested in that State came up to the measure of the spirit of disunion on the purchase and admission of Louisiana.

The annexation of Texas was a measure properly belonging to Mr. TYLER's administration, though it was not completed until Mr. POLK was in the Presidential chair, December 16, 1845. The final vote in the Senate was 31 in favor, 14 against; and in the House, 141 in favor and 56 against.

On February 5, 1844, Mr. BEARDSLEY, of New York, presented a petition from sundry citizens of New York, praying for an amendment to the Constitution, so as to effect the abolition of slavery in the Southern States. Mr. ADAMS presented the resolutions of the Legislature of Massachusetts, "asking for an amendment to the Constitution, so as to exclude that portion of