Cp*l?0.7l 
 
 c.3 
 
 North Carolina on the eve of secession 
 
Th< 
 
 Howell Collection 
 
 OF HISTORICAL 
 MATERIALS 
 
 Presented by Kay Kyser 
 
 And his Mother 
 
 Emily Royster Howell Kyser 
 
 As a Memorial 
 
 To her Brother 
 
 Edward Vernon Howell 
 
 Dean School of Pharmacy 
 
 i 897-193 i 
 
 * * 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF 
 NORTH CAROLINA 
 )9T0.7I LIBRARY 
 
 c.3 
 
NORTH CAROLINA ON 'THE EVE OF 
 SECESSION 
 
 BY '■« 
 
 % 
 
 WILLIAM K. BOYD 
 
 Reprinted from the Annual. Report of the American Historical Association 
 for 1910, pages 165-177 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 1912 
 
NORTH CAROLINA ON THE EVE OF 
 SECESSION 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM K. BOYD 
 
 Reprinted from the Annual Report of the American Historical Association 
 for 1910, pages 165-177 
 
 ^ 
 
 WASHINGTON" 
 
 1312 
 
X, NORTH CAROLINA ON THE EVE OF SECESSION. 
 
 By WILLIAM K. BOYD, 
 
 Professor of History in Trinity College, Durham, N. C. 
 
 165 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2013 
 
 http://archive.org/details/northcarolinaoneOOboyd 
 
NORTH CAROLINA ON THE EVE OF SECESSION. 
 
 By William K. Boyd. 
 
 In the great drama of 1860-61 North Carolina had no leading 
 part like that of South Carolina or the far South. The last State 
 except one to ratify the Federal Constitution in 1789, it was also the 
 last except one to join the Confederacy. But a study of conditions 
 within its borders on the eve of secession has a value far greater 
 than this relative place in the movement might suggest. In fact, 
 North Carolina illustrates some phases of southern life too often 
 lost sight of in discussions of sectional issues. To what extent these 
 conditions existed elsewhere and their place in the history of secession 
 are worthy of inquiry, for southern society before 1860 did not 
 conform to one type of thought or action. Secession itself was the 
 result of years of conflict on the hustings, in the press, and in economic 
 development. 
 
 The first of the forces which shaped the attitude of North Carolina 
 toward secession was its social structure. In early days the colony 
 was a refuge for men of small means who sought to improve their 
 fortunes, and in 1860 the small planter was still the chief factor in 
 industrial life. 
 
 There was also a distinct lack of unity in feeling or action among 
 the people; rarely indeed did they rally as one man in any common 
 cause. This was due in part to diversity of racial origins, but much 
 more to sectional influences. River courses and natural elevations 
 of the land produced geographical divisions so distinct that inter- 
 course between them was exceedingly difficult, and the cities of 
 South Carolina and Virginia were for years more important com- 
 mercial centers for North Carolina than the towns within the State. 
 This sectionalism of nature had also a political character. Up to 
 1835 the counties east of Raleigh, by virtue of their number, held 
 the balance of power in the legislature, while those to the west had 
 greater resources and grew more rapidly in population. Long after 
 reforms in representation were made the sectional feeling continued 
 and was a potent influence in politics. 
 
 Interacting with sectionalism was the industrial organization. 
 The slave system and its attendant products were never extensively 
 
 167 
 
168 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 developed except in a group of middle eastern counties. In fact, less 
 than 28 per cent of the families in 1860 held slaves, while the average 
 number of slaves held was 9.6. In strong contrast to the slave-owning 
 class were the nonslaveholders. Their industries included, besides agri- 
 culture, two classes of manufacturing: One, factories in which North 
 Carolina ranked next to Virginia and Georgia; the other, domestic 
 arts and hand trades. These latter industries were important 
 because they enabled each plantation or community to be in a large 
 degree economically self-sufficient. The story of the vast number 
 of nonslaveholding whites in the South, their origin, occupations, 
 opinions, and influence, is as yet unwritten. In North Carolina they 
 always had a considerable influence, and by 1860 their protest against 
 certain inequalities produced by the slave system was well under way. 
 Their attitude toward secession has been well stated in the words of 
 Senator Vance: "Seven-tenths of our people owned no slaves at all, 
 and to say the least of it, felt no great and enduring enthusiasm for 
 its [slavery's] preservation, especially when it seemed to them that 
 it was in no danger." 1 
 
 These underlying social conditions — the prevalence of men of 
 moderate means, sectional influences, and the existence of a large 
 nonslaveholding class — were the basis for certain well-defined political 
 characteristics. There was a variety of opinion on every public 
 question, and conservatism was usually nothing more than a failure 
 to unite on one common opinion or program of progress. There was 
 also a prejudice against ideas or movements of alien origin, which 
 along with isolation gave rise to provincialism. 
 
 The attitude toward Federal relations was accordingly strongly 
 particularistic. Expediency rather than patriotism or a national 
 ideal caused the ratification of the Federal Constitution in 1789, and 
 strong States-rights views predominated among all parties and 
 leaders of the early days. Federalism itself was very conservative 
 toward the growth of national powers. Its leaders looked to Madison 
 rather than to Hamilton in organizing the machinery of the central 
 Government. Dissatisfied with the proposed assumption of State 
 debts by the Federal Government, the lower house of the legislature, 
 in 1790, refused to take the oath to support the Constitution which 
 had been prescribed by Congress. In the same year the State 
 court of equity refused to obey a writ of certiorari, calling a case 
 before the Supreme Court of the United States, and the legislature 
 passed a vote of thanks to the judges. 2 Also, the first States-rights 
 opinion emanating from the Supreme Court was that of Iredell, a 
 North Carolina Federalist, in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia. But 
 
 1 Quoted from J. A. Sloan, "North Carolina in the war between the States," 105. 
 2 See H. M. WagstafE, "State rights and political parties in North Carolina" (Johns Hopkins Studies, 
 Series XXIV), 32-33. 
 
 
NOETH CAKOLINA ON THE EVE OF SECESSION. 169 
 
 at the crisis raised by the alien and sedition laws, a fear that the Union 
 was in danger and a desire for conciliation prevailed over any mani- 
 festations of political theories. 1 
 
 The nature of the union was not seriously in question again until 
 the controversy over the tariff and nullification. In 1827 the leg- 
 islature resolved that any increase in the tariff was inexpedient and 
 that "whenever a system is adopted by the General Government 
 which does not equally conserve the interests of all, then the right 
 rests with any State or States to question whether the benefits of 
 ,the union are not more than counterbalanced by its evils." This 
 manifesto against the tariff was of course ineffectual, and by 1830 
 it was evident that South Carolina would attempt nullification. 
 The people at large were unprepared to indorse such a radical measure 
 and censured it in many public meetings. But in the legislature 
 of 1830 a strong States-rights faction dominated the senate and 
 rejected resolutions condemning nullification which had passed the 
 house. Two years later, in 1832, as a compromise, both the tariff 
 and nullification were formally censured by the legislature as uncon- 
 stitutional. 2 This action on nullification is significant for two 
 reasons: First, Nathaniel Macon, for years the leader of the old 
 Jeffersonian Democracy, in a letter to a friend definitely expressed 
 his belief in the right of secession. "I have never believed a State 
 could nullify and stay in the Union," he said, "but have always 
 believed that a State might secede when she pleased, provided she 
 would pay her proportion of the public debt; and this right I have 
 considered the best safeguard to public liberty and to public justice 
 that could be desired." 3 The nullification debates are also interest- 
 ing because those who sympathized with South Carolina in 1832 and 
 lived until 1860 favored secession. 
 
 In strong contrast to the particularistic spirit of the early days 
 were the policies of the Whig party, which controlled the State 
 administration from 1836 to 1850. Nowhere did the old-line Whigs 
 of the South leave a finer record than in North Carolina. Broad, 
 constructive ideas and cooperation with the ideals of other sections 
 of the country characterized their leaders. Public schools and 
 State aid to railways at home, the recharter of the second bank of the 
 United States, internal improvements, and a protective tariff by 
 the Federal Government were typical measures advocated by the 
 party. While there were strong States-rights elements in its mem- 
 bership, its most influential leaders regarded the Federal Constitu- 
 tion as something more than a compact among States — rather as 
 the charter of an indestructible union, by which the American 
 people were to be guided through all time. The rise of this new 
 
 1 Wagstaft op. cit., 36-37. 2 Wagstaff, op. cit., 49-54. * W. E. Dodd, "Life of Macon/' 385. 
 
170 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION". 
 
 party coincided with local sectional conditions. In contrast to the 
 cotton States the Whigs were most popular in the counties where slav- 
 ery and its industries did not predominate; these included the western 
 part of the State, a portion of the central region, and the marshy 
 swamp country along the coast. The reason for this popularity 
 was the Whig program of progress, these sections needing internal 
 improvements by State aid. The strength of the Democrats, on the 
 other hand, lay in those counties where slavery, cotton, and tobacco 
 produced a settled, unchanging economic svstem. It was therefore 
 good policy for each party to choose its candidates in State cam- 
 paigns from the section in which it was numerically the weaker. 
 Thus an eastern Whig was often nominated for governor to oppose 
 a western Democrat. The custom passed over to the slavery de- 
 bates, the proslavery leadership in the legislature being frequently 
 given to a western Democrat. 
 
 Such were the underlying social and political conditions in North 
 Carolina when the national controversy over slavery extension was 
 revived, after the Mexican war. Just at that time the supremacy 
 of the Whigs began to wane. In that decline the slavery issue was 
 an important factor, for it caused a serious division of opinion. 
 In the legislature of 1848-49 W. L. Steele, a Whig from the South 
 Carolina line, introduced resolutions in the lower house to the effect 
 that the Territories belonged to the States; that the General Govern- 
 ment as the agent of the States could make no laws destructive of 
 the equal rights of the States in the Territories; and that to deprive 
 a citizen of his right to emigrate with his slaves would be unconstitu- 
 tional. These were almost identical with resolutions which Calhoun 
 had introduced in the Senate of the United States. 1 They at once 
 aroused much discussion, which extended beyond legislative halls. 
 Mr. Badger, the ablest constitutional lawyer among the Whigs, 
 had previously declared that Congress had full jurisdiction over 
 slavery in the Territories. Mr. Clingman, Whig Congressman from 
 the mountain district, was now appealed to by members of the 
 legislature and replied that the Wilmot proviso was a violation of 
 the Constitution which would justify resistance by all means in the 
 power of the South. 2 In the end the conservative influence was 
 strong enough to force through substitute resolutions, which ad- 
 mitted the main contention, but suggested that the Missouri com- 
 promise line be extended into the Territories acquired from Mexico 
 to settle existing controversies, and deprecated any attempt to 
 dissolve the Union. 3 
 
 i House Journal (North Carolina), Nov. 27; Raleigh Standard, Nov. 27, 1848. 
 
 2 Raleigh Register, Feb. 3, 1849. See also Clingman's letter to Foote, Speeches and Writings of T. L. 
 Clingman, p. 231. 
 a Laws of North Carolina, 1848-49, p. 237. 
 
NORTH CAROLINA ON THE EVE OF SECESSION. 171 
 
 Thus in 1848-49 a cleavage was begun among the Whigs on the 
 subject of slavery. The next year the Democrats carried the State 
 elections on the issue of manhood suffrage in the choice of State 
 senators. On the Democracy lay the duty of shaping the State's 
 policy toward the slavery problem. The compromise of 1850 had 
 just been passed when the legislature met in November. The aboli- 
 tionists of the North were lifting their voices against the fugitive- 
 slave law, while the radicals at the South proposed to repudiate the 
 entire compromise even at the cost of secession. A joint committee on 
 slavery was appointed. Its report advised acquiescence in the com- 
 promise of 1850, but retaliation in the future if slavery in the District 
 of Columbia or the interstate slave trade were restricted, the fugitive- 
 slave law changed, or a slave State refused admission to the Union, 
 and recommended an ad valorem tax on merchandise imported from 
 the nonslaveholding States to offset the agitation against the fugitive- 
 slave law. The minority of the committee recommended a mani- 
 festo defending the right of secession, to be added to these resolutions. 1 
 The center of debate on these reports was the senate,, for there the 
 margin between the Whigs and Democrats was very small. In the 
 end resolves of the minority, looking toward secession, were rejected 
 and those of the majority were considerably revised in .the interest 
 of conservatism. 2 This was due to a division among the Democrats, 
 a sane, sensible group joining with the Whigs to adopt the revised 
 resolutions. 3 As radicalism was checked in the senate the fight in 
 the house was dropped. Thus early was the Democracy, as well as 
 Whiggery, divided iDto radical and conservative factions. 
 
 The right of secession, rejected in the legislature, was presented to 
 the people in the congressional campaigns of 1851. In the third 
 district George W. Caldwell, Democrat, elaborated and defended the 
 right of withdrawal from the Union, while his Whig opponent, 
 Alfred Dockery, went so far as to declare that if South Carolina or 
 even North Carolina should attempt secession he would vote for an 
 appropriation to keep the offending State within the Union. 4 Like- 
 wise, in the eighth district, Edward Stanley tock a similarposition 
 while opposing Thomas Ruffin, a secession Democrat. 5 In the 
 mountain district Clingnian, a Whig with a secession bias, was 
 opposed by B. S. Gaither, a Union Whig, and made conciliatory 
 explanations of his previous radical speeches. The result was that 
 
 i House Docs. 54 and 55 in North Carolina legislature. Doc. of 1850-51. 
 
 2 Standard, Jan. 15, proceedings of the legislature, and Senate doc. 95 in North Carolina Leg Docs, of 
 1850-51. 
 
 3 It is Interesting to note that the leader <rf the conservative Democrats was W. N. Edwards, speaker 
 of the senate, and, in 1861, president of the secession convention. 
 
 * Standard, June 28 and July 5, 1851. 
 
 * Standard, July 16, 1851. 
 
172 AMERICAN" HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION. 
 
 the Whigs, although they had lost the State elections of the previous 
 year, carried five of the nine congressional districts. 1 
 
 Thus secession as a remedy for the South was repudiated in the 
 legislature and rebuked by the people. But a strong, active State- 
 rights minority had appeared during the controversy. Its leaders 
 were ready to insist at all times on the full southern position in regard 
 to slavery and to recommend secession as a right, if not a practical 
 remedy. The story of secession in North Carolina is really the process 
 by which this minority kept its idea before, the public and by which 
 the logic of events reenforced argument until an inevitable choice 
 between the Union or the Confederacy was forced upon the people 
 in 1861. 
 
 The radical spirit next asserted itself during the controversy over 
 the Kansas-Nebraska bill. Equal rights in the Union or independence 
 out of it was the ultimatum of the Raleigh Standard, the leading 
 Democratic journal; but radical resolutions in the legislature of 1854 
 were defeated. 2 In the campaign of 1856, however, the extremists 
 made considerable headway in popular agitation. The Standard 
 declared that the Union could not survive the election of Fremont, 
 and Clingman, who had left the Whig Party in 1852, advised resistance 
 in the case of a Republican victory. 3 To what extent public feeling 
 was aroused is well illustrated by the case of Prof. Benjamin Hedrick, 
 of the State University. A North Carolinian, a graduate of the 
 university, he had studied at Harvard, and had returned to his alma 
 mater as professor of chemistry. His early impressions of the evils 
 of slavery were strengthened by Ins residence in the North. During 
 the presidential campaign he stated, in reply to a direct question, 
 that he expected to vote for Fremont. This information spread 
 from the college community to the newspapers. The Raleigh Stand- 
 ard declared that the schools of the State should be purged of black 
 Republicans. Against advice, Prof. Hedrick published a statement 
 of his antislaver} 7- views. Thereupon the students burned him in 
 effigy, the faculty passed resolutions repudiating the heresy among 
 them, and the executive committee of the trustees met and declared 
 his power of service at an end. As Mr. Hedrick did not resign, and 
 the attacks in the newspapers continued, the executive committee 
 in a second meeting declared his chair vacant. A few days later 
 Prof. Hedrick visited Salisbury to attend an educational convention. 
 His presence became known; a mob collected, burned his effigy 
 before his eyes, and forced him to leave town. 4 
 
 1 The districts carried were the second, third, fourth, eighth, and ninth. 
 
 2 Standard, Nov. 15, 1854; House Journal, 1853-54, pp. 59, 290. 
 s Standard, Oct. 4; Fayetteville Observer, Oct. 18, 1856. 
 
 4 For a biographical sketch of Mr. Hedrick see J. S. Bassett, "Antislavery leaders of North Carolina." 
 (Johns Hopkins Studies, Ser. XVI, no. 6). The documents bearing on his relations with the university 
 may be found in the James Sprunt Historical Publication for Jauuary, 1911. 
 
NORTH CAROLINA ON" THE EVE OF SECESSION. 173 
 
 While the excitement over Prof. Hedrick was at its height, another 
 event atracted the attention of the public. This was the visit of 
 Gov. Wise, of Virginia, and Gov. Adams, of South Carolina, to Raleigh 
 on October 13. Gov. Jenkins, of Georgia, was expected but did not 
 come. The aim of this meeting of governors was officially announced 
 to be a visit to the State fair; but the gentlemen left Raleigh before 
 the fair opened. According to well-established tradition they were 
 invited to North Carolina to consult with Gov. Bragg about plans 
 for action in case Fremont was elected. What agreement, if any, 
 was reached is not known. The irony of history is that Fremont, 
 the persona non grata in all this excitement, had been mentioned as a 
 presidential possibility for the Democracy in 1855 by F. P. Blair, 
 who suggested that a Fremont boom be launched in North Carolina. 1 
 
 Three years later the radical spirit made still greater headway 
 among the people. The John Brown raid at Harpers Ferry aroused 
 a feeling of resistance. The existing military organizations offered 
 their services to Gov. Wise, of Virginia, and new ones were formed. 
 The council of state, the advisory body of the governor, adopted reso- 
 lutions which threatened secession unless slave property was better 
 protected. The radical spirit was active for months after the death 
 of Brown in the arrest of suspected abolitionists, and the inspection 
 of the mails to detect antislavery literature. The use of Helper's 
 " Impending Crisis" in the campaign of 1860 made the book ubiquitous 
 in North Carolina and to own a copy was virtually a political crime. 2 
 
 But slavery and State rights were not the only questions before 
 the Democratic Party from 1850 to 1860, and no discussion of seces- 
 sion would be complete without mention of two issues, primarily 
 domestic, which diverted attention from the national slavery contro- 
 versy. First of these was that of public lands in the West. In 1852 
 Henry Bennett, of New York, introduced into Congress a bill which 
 proposed to distribute the remaining public lands among the States 
 to be used for internal improvements and other local needs. This 
 was a Whig measure, but it appealed to the southern Democrats for 
 two reasons: First, it allowed the slave States to profit by the western 
 expansion of the nation; and second, the proceeds from the lands 
 might be used to reduce the State debts incurred by the construction 
 of railways and other works of progress. Consequently, in the con- 
 gressional election of 1853 the distribution issue was raised in North 
 Carolina by three Democrats who bolted party lines. In the third 
 district Duncan McRae, who announced himself as an independent 
 candidate favoring the measure, was eliminated by an appointment 
 as consul to Paris. Immediately his place was taken by W. F. Leak, 
 who opposed William S. Ashe, the regular Democratic nominee. In 
 
 « Letter of Blair to Bedford Brown, of North Carolina. Papers of the Trinity College Historical Society, 
 Ser. VI, p. 86. 
 2 Standard, passim. 
 
174 AMERICAN HISTORICAL- ASSOCIATION. 
 
 the second district W. C. Loftin adopted distribution and opposed 
 Thomas Rufhn, regular Democrat. In both these districts the regular 
 candidates were elected, but in the seventh district, where a large Whig 
 constituency 7 existed, the division of Democrats (A. W. Venable favor- 
 ing and A. M. Lews opposing distribution), enabled the Whigs to 
 elect Sion H. Rogers. 1 Later, in 1858, distribution became a State- 
 wide problem. Mr. McRae, who had returned from Paris, announced 
 himself as independent candidate for governor on the issue. The 
 Whigs, who had abandoned their party organization in 1856, made no 
 nomination, and the Raleigh Register, their principal organ, advised 
 all Whigs to support McRae in preference to Ellis, the Democratic 
 candidate. Mr. McRae, however, failed to swing the Whig vote, and 
 in his debates with Mr. Ellis he was outgeneraled, and so he was 
 defeated by a large vote. 2 
 
 No sooner was distribution of public lands disposed of than another 
 question threatened the supremacy of the Democratic party. This 
 was the inequality in the revenue system. By the constitution of 
 1835 slaves were taxed as polls only, with the exemption of all under 
 12 and over 50. The unit of the poll tax was the land tax on 300 
 acres. Two inequalities resulted: First, a discrimination against 
 the landholders, for the landed property in 1859 was valued at less 
 than the slave propert} r , but yielded a larger revenue. Thus the 
 men of small means were not encouraged to buy land or increase 
 their real estate. The second discrimination was against the mechan- 
 ics. Their tools and implements were taxed $10 per thousand, while 
 on the mature slave, worth at least SI, 000, the poll tax was only 50 
 cents. Here was an issue winch might arraign the nonslaveholding 
 class against the slave owners. It was raised in 1858 by Moses A. 
 Bledsoe, of Raleigh, who introduced a resolution in the State senate 
 looking to the ad valorem taxation of all property, including land 
 and slaves. The resolution was followed by bills for an amendment 
 to the constitution, but they failed. Defeated in the legislature, Mr. 
 Bledsoe turned to agitation. He organized the Raleigh Working- 
 men's Association, the aim of which was to secure revenue reform. 
 As the strength of the Democracy lay in the large slaveholding coun- 
 ties, there was no hope for ad valorem in the dominant party. But 
 the counties where slavery was not the exclusive basis of industry 
 had always been Whig by tradition. So in 1860 the Whigs revived 
 
 i For details of the campaign see the Raleigh Standard for July and August, 1853. Two newspapers sup- 
 ported the 'ndependent Democrats. These were the Democratic Free Press, of Wilmington, and the North 
 Carolina Statesman, of Raleigh. Edward Cantwell was the editor of the latter, and was perhaps connected 
 with the Wilmington paper. I have not been able to find any copies of either paper. 
 
 2 In the 1858 campaign W. F. Leake announced himself an independent candidate for governor, but 
 withdrew in favor of McRae, Wilmington Journal, Jan. 22, 1S58. McRae's letter announcing his candidacy 
 is given in the Standard, Feb. 3, 1858. During the campaign McRae and Ellis had a personal encounter 
 at Beaufort. An interesting phase of the distribution movement was the argument that it was more impor- 
 tant than the slavery issue, Standard, Jan. 27, 1858. 
 
NORTH CAROLINA ON THE EVE OF SECESSION. 175 
 
 their party organization, adopted the ad valorem issue, and nominated 
 a candidate for governor. The campaign was a vigorous one. The 
 friends of ad valorem had the better of the argument, but two influ- 
 ences defeated them. One was their failure to provide for the exemp- 
 tion of any property, so that the Democrats claimed that tin cups, 
 crockery, and household goods would be taxed in detail, and thus 
 ridiculed the ad valorem issue; the other influence against the Whigs 
 was the strength which the national campaign gave the Democracy. 
 Democratic defeat, it was claimed, would weaken the unity of the 
 South at the time of greatest peril. But the majority of Ellis, the 
 Democratic candidate, in August, 1860, was 10,000 less than in 1858, 
 though the vote polled was unusually large. History should not be 
 made the basis of prophecy of what might have been; nevertheless 
 one can not but see in the ad valorem campaign the beginning of a 
 revolt against slavery as a political and an economic influence, a 
 movement among the people which was contemporary with the 
 radicalism of Helper's "Impending Crisis." 1 
 
 While the issues of public lands and ad valorem were agitating the 
 Democracy, a serious factional cleavage developed. The most effec- 
 tive leader in the party was William W. Holden, editor of the Raleigh 
 Standard. To him more than any other one man was due the su- 
 premacy over the Whigs. But he was a man of the people and had 
 little in common with the more aristocratic leaders of his party. In 
 1858 he was candidate for the nomination for governor. Undoubt- 
 edly he was the choice of the rank and file, but in the party conven- 
 tion he was defeated by John W. Ellis, a representative of the slave- 
 holding aristocracy. Mr. Holden accepted his defeat gracefully. 
 But soon he became a candidate for the United States Senate. Again 
 he was defeated. The bitterness of this personal rivalry spread to 
 the rank and file, and there were intimations of the organization of a 
 new party. The rupture between Mr. Holden and the other leaders 
 had a direct bearing on the secession movement. His rivals were 
 men of extreme States' rights views. He himself had openly defended 
 the doctrine of secession. But from 1858 to 1860 his radicalism 
 became less pronounced, and after the Charleston convention he 
 alhed himself with the conservative members of his party and 
 resisted with all his might the tide of secession. 2 
 
 Thus, on the eve of the presidential election of 1860, the supremacy 
 of the Democratic Party, which had dominated North Carolina for 
 10 years, was threatened by factionalism, by the rise of new issues,, 
 and by the revival of the Whig organization. The presidential 
 campaign emphasized another serious danger to the party's unity 
 namely, the division between the radical States' -rights Democrats, 
 
 1 See "Ad valorem slave taxation in North Carolina" (Papers of the Trinity College Historical Society, 
 series V) and Wagstaff, "State rights and political parties in North Carolina," 109-113.) 
 
 2 See "The Democratic convention of 1858," in Charlotte Observer, May 3, 1908. 
 
176 AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION". 
 
 who were in sympathy with the influences which led to secession, 
 and the Union Democrats, who believed in the constitutional right 
 of secession, but opposed its application. 
 
 The first event which revealed this phase of party crisis was the 
 Democratic convention at Charleston. The North Carolina dele- 
 gation, in which the Union Democrats had a majority, was one of 
 the determining influences in that historic meeting. It was the 
 hope of Mr. Yancey and his followers to win the border States to 
 their program. They therefore gave the chairmanship of the com- 
 mittee on platform to W. W. Avery, a radical States'-Rights Demo- 
 crat of North Carolina. But the Union delegates refused to take 
 any part officially in any of the caucuses held by the cotton States 
 leaders. When the debate on the platform was held the delegation 
 as a whole was in sympathy with neither the northern Democrats nor 
 those of the far South, but favored simply the reaffirmation of the 
 Cincinnati platform of 1856. When it was evident that the minority 
 platform would be adopted, the protest of two North Carolina dele- 
 gates caused the rejection of a clause referring the question of slav- 
 ery in Territories to the Supreme Court. When the report as a 
 whole was finally passed, the North Carolinians refused to follow 
 the cotton States in withdrawing from the convention. This action 
 preserved the party organization, for, if North Carolina had with- 
 drawn, Virginia, Tennessee, and the border States would have fol- 
 lowed, and the Democratic party would have disintegrated. 1 
 
 One result of the Charleston convention was to strengthen the 
 feeling in favor of Douglas in North Carolina. Four of the ten elec- 
 tors expressed themselves favorable to his nomination between the 
 Charleston and the Baltimore conventions, while the Standard was 
 outspoken for him. 2 Mr. Douglas also had personal ties with leading 
 Democrats of the State. 3 But the events at Baltimore checked the 
 Douglas sentiment. All of the North Carolina delegates except three 
 withdrew from the convention, and only one of these took any part 
 in its further work. Still, there was some hope for Douglas. Two of 
 the electors resigned from the Breckinridge ticket and accepted simi- 
 lar positions on the Douglas ticket. There was also a demand, evi- 
 dently by the friends of Douglas, that a party convention be called 
 in the State to decide for whom the electors should vote. 4 The State 
 executive committee met to consider this demand, but decided not 
 to call the convention. 5 Thereupon the Standard proposed that the 
 electors vote for either Breckinridge or Douglas, according to the 
 
 1 Standard, May 9, 1860; for experiences of Mr. Holden at Charleston, see also "Papers of the Trinity 
 College Historical Society," series III, pp. 59-62. 
 
 2 These electors were A. M. Scales, J. R. McLean, Thomas W. Keen, and Ed. G. Haywood. Standard, 
 June 13, 1860 (account of meeting in Rockingham County). 
 
 a Mr. Douglas's wife by his first marriage was Miss Martin, a member of a North Carolina family very 
 prominent in State politics. 
 « Thomas W. Keen and Henry Miller were the electors who resigned, Standard, passim. 
 & Standard, July 11, 1860. 
 
NORTH CAROLINA ON THE EVE OF SECESSION. 177 
 
 chances of either to defeat Lincoln. 1 But as time passed the feeling 
 grew that Breckinridge was the stronger of the two Democratic candi- 
 dates. Thereupon a group of Douglas men called a State convention 
 at Raleigh, put up electors, and started a campaign newspaper. 2 
 Forced to decide between Douglas and Breckinridge, the Standard 
 turned to the latter. The Douglas campaign was ineffective, his vote 
 in the State less than 3,000. 
 
 In contrast to the division and uncertainty among the Democrats 
 was the sense of patriotism among the Whigs. The appeal to the 
 Union and the Constitution struck a responsive chord among the 
 people, and the large Whig vote in the State elections was an en- 
 couragement to all genuine lovers of the Union. The principal fea- 
 ture of the Whig campaign was a series of mass meetings in October. 
 The greatest of these was held in Salisbury. It was attended by 
 delegates from all sections of the State. The number of people in 
 the mammoth procession was 3,600, while the total attendance was 
 estimated at 6,000 or 8,000. The chief address was by Zebulon B. 
 Vance, who held the audience spellbound by his oratory for two 
 hours during a cold, dismal rain. 3 The prevailing sentiment was to 
 rebuke the seceders of the South and the abolitionists of the North, 
 and to rally in one great effort to save the Union and the Constitution. 
 
 As the election approached the motives which shaped the cast of 
 ballots were conflicting. The Whig appeal to the Union and the Con- 
 stitution found a response in the conservatism of the people and was 
 in line with the trend away from sectional issues to domestic problems. 
 On the other hand, to defeat Lincoln seemed imperative to preserve 
 the dignity, if not the rights, of the South; and for this duty Breckin- 
 ridge was undoubtedly the most promising candidate. The results 
 showed a Democratic majority very similar to that in the State elec- 
 tion; but the majority of Breckinridge over both Bell and Douglas 
 was only 848. 4 Since many Union Democrats cast their votes for 
 Breckinridge as the only hope of defeating Lincoln, his small major- 
 ity was really a rebuke to the radical State-rights influences which 
 had nominated him. That rebuke to radicalism was repeated in 
 February, 1861, when in an election for a convention on Federal rela- 
 tions, the people chose a majority of Union delegates and also voted 
 that the convention should not meet. Not until President Lincoln's 
 requisition on the State for troops after the firing on Fort Sumter 
 did secession triumph in North Carolina; and then because the only 
 alternative was that of fighting against the South. 
 
 i Standard, July 18, 1860. 
 
 3 Robert P. Dick was the leader of this movement. The meeting was held on August 30. The cam- 
 paign paper was called The National Democrat. Its editor was Quenten Busbee. 
 a Raleigh Register, Oct. 17, 1860. 
 * Breckinridge, 48,539; Bell, 44,990; Douglas, 2,701. 
 
 98181°— 12 12 
 
■I 
 
 y,^!, 1 ^ OF N.C. AT CHAPEL HILL 
 
 00025336967 
 
 ^9DH 
 
 £Jf| 4 : --Vv , it &2SMK 
 l|nEft$S&' - ' ■ ' • . • ■ .3wra*3 
 
 • •."'.;.:■;' "--- '■• : '■■■••■'•■•■'■■•.. .' 
 
 fflm WSR&t H ■•:■-■.". • 
 
 
 
 This book may be kept out one month unless a recall 
 notice is sent to you. It must be brought to the North 
 Carolina Collection (in Wilson Library) for renewal. 
 
 jte |, -4