Cg t3, ^0

DE

"I give the/0 JSodAj:
far tie fanfidiBg ef a. CoUegi in- this Cebny'^

Gift of
The Yale Club of Boston
IQliT

V7V

jtx^ ilu.^y^^ Ai'^s iX^

Ley

^^^ '^MZ^'^<£r?

^&Lj:0^-^::> <y^^<J

A REMINISCENCE

OF

THE FREE-SOIL MOVEMENT

IN

NEW HAMPSHIRE,

1845.

By JOHN L. HAYES, LL.D.

CAMBRIDGE:
JOHN WILSON AND SON,
SEntbetsttB i^ress.
1885.

Cg ^3,-^0

NEW HAMPSHIRE. 1845.
God bless New Hampshire ! — from her granite peaks
Once more the voice of Stark and Langdon speaks.
The long-bound vassal of the exulting South
For very shame her self-forged chain has broken, —
Torn the black seal of slavery from her mouth,
And in the clear tones of her old time spoken !
Oh, all undreamed-of, all unhoped-for changes ! —
The tyrant's ally proves his sternest foe ;
To all his biddings, from her mountain ranges.
New Hampshire thunders an indignant No !
Who is it now despairs ? Oh, faint of heart,
Look upward to those Northern mountains cold.
Flouted by Freedom's victor-flag unrolled.
And gather strength to bear a manlier part !
All is not lost. The angel of God's blessing
Encamps with Freedom on the field of fight ;
Still to her banner, day by day, are pressing,
Unlooked-for allies, striking for the right !
Courage, then, Northern hearts ! — Be firm, be true :
What one brave State hath done, can ye not also do ?
John Gkeenleaf Whittiek.

A REMINISCENCE OF
THE FREE-SOIL MOYEMENT
IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, 1845.

INTEODUCTOEY NOTE.
The object of this paper is to detail some of the circum
stances which won from Mr. Whittier his noble tribute to
New Hampshire in 1845. The paper is published at the re
quest of friends who will pardon the egotism inseparable
from such a narrative, and who will appreciate that my mo
tive in this publication is not so much to show the part
taken by myself in the events referred to, as to do honor to
a State associated with my earliest professional and political
labors, and more than all with the chief source of my do
mestic felicity.
An article which appeared in the " Exeter News-Letter " of
the 14th of November, 1879, referring to the origin of the
Free-Soil party in New Hampshire, led to a consultation
between my friend and old political co-laborer, Amos Tuck,
and myself, which resulted in the letter re-published in this
paper. The letter was prepared jointly by Mr. Tuck and
myself, and before publication received his careful revision
and approbation. My last interview with him, in Boston,
on the day before his death, related to the publication of
this letter. It appeared in the "Exeter News-Letter" of
Dec. 12, 1879, on the day of his funeral.
Many of the circumstances referred to in this letter were
doubtless familiar to Mr. Whittier, who resided near the

6
border of New Hampshire, and whom I remember to have
met at some of our political meetings in 1845. The testi
mony of Mr. Whittier, therefore, comes from personal par
ticipation, as well as from his deep sympathy, in the move
ment which has an immortal record in his verse.
That the account given in the letter of the early Free-Soil
movement in New Hampshire is accepted in that State, is
shown by the following extract from a memorial discourse
on Mr. Tuck, delivered by Eev. George E. Street at Exeter,
N. H., Jan. 11, 1880. Eeferring to the question of the
annexation of Texas and the extension of slavery, Mr. Street

" This great issue brings us to the most significant chapter in Mr.
Tuck's life. A full generation has since passed away ; and it is not
easy for any, except the fathers among us, to understand the politi
cal status of that time. Let me briefly outline a few facts, there
fore, that we may get more clearly the historical surroundings amid
which our subject lived aiid acted. Put yourselves back to the
year 1844, — the last of President Tyler's administration. It was
before the rise of a distinctively antislavery party in the country,
when the Southern States were dominant at the Capitol, and only
here and there an Abolitionist could be found in the North. In
New Hampshire the leading political party for nearly twenty years
had but echoed the wishes and sentiments of this ruling power in
Congress. There had been no breaking out from that party, until
one of its most popular representatives at Washington, John P.
Hale, boldly dissented from the proposal of President Tyler to annex
Texas as a slaveholding State, which would increase the already
overpowering influence of the South in the national councils. Al
though the scheme of annexation was not primarily devised by the
Democratic party, but was rather a personal one of the President,
and some prominent Democratic Congressmen denounced it, yet
•Mr. Hale soon found that his position was not approved at home,
and that his continued opposition to the annexation scheme would
prove his death-warrant. But he persisted, although a candidate
for re-election, in the course he had taken, and was accordingly
dropped from the ticket, in the next convention of his party, by a
unanimous vote.

" It was this injustice to a brave man who had gallantly stood by
his convictions which fired some of the younger men of the party,
and among them Mr. Tuck. As yet, however, they were isolated,
and had not met to confer together. Soon after the nomination of
Mr. Hale's successor, the chairman of the State Central Committee,
and the distributor of Executive patronage, Franklin Pierce, made
a tour of the southern counties of the State to bring all party-men
into accord with that act of the convention. ' We must throw
overboard Mr. Hale,' was his argument, ' or we shall lose favor
with Southern men.' This was the burden of his appeal to party-
men in Portsmouth : this, when he came to Exeter, was the motive
by which he carried his party here. One man stoutly refused to
go with them : it was the young lawyer, Amos Tuck. He insisted
that if John P. Hale was to be expelled from his party on account of
his opposition to slavery, he was ready to be expelled likewise. To
which Mr. Pierce replied, that he had met in his travels over the
State only one other man who had talked in that way, and that was
John L. Hayes, of Portsmouth.
" A meeting of these two men (both lawyers) who thus thought
alike soon followed : it was at the session of the February term of
court in this town, in 1845, when it was agreed between them to
call a convention of independent men in their party to support
Mr. Hale. In the jury-room of the old court-house that call was
written, and duplicates made and sent out for signers. This and
the neighboring towns were immediately canvassed. Mr. N. Porter
Cram, lately deceased, and his brother Joseph, were among the first
seen, and the first to sign. Between two and three hundred other
names were added. And when the convention assembled a few
days after, on Washington's birthday, in this place, despite almost
impassable roads, a most spirited meeting was held. Among others
who came into the movement was Prof. J. G. Hoyt, of the Acad
emy, a man of magnetic presence and speech. An organization was
then and there effected, which gathered power, through personal and
printed appeals to the people, to make itself formidable enough, by
the election in March, to defeat Mr. Hale's opponent ; and ultimately,
with the Legislature itself, not only to replace Mr. Hale in Con
gress, but to raise him to the United States Senate for the long
term. Why have I given this political incident such prominence

8
here ? For two reasons : the first is because of its historic impor
tance. In that little body of resolute men, gathered, I think, in the
vestry of the old First Church of this town, was the first crystallized
opposition to the extension of the slaveholders' rule in the land, —
the nucleus of that great party which, ten years afterwards, became
national, and has made history so rapidly. It was fitting that here
in Exeter, where on the 23d of May, 1775, the Colonial Legislature
anticipated the Bill of Rights, which on the 4th of July, 1776, be
came ' The Declaration by Thirteen States of their independence,'
the keynote of liberty should again be sounded in advance, to the
rest of the nation."
I have given as an appendix to my letter the speech
partially delivered by me at Portsmouth in defence of Mr.
Hale, before the " call " was issued, referred to as " the first
printed speech or protest in the movement which revolution
ized the State." The speech is reproduced, not for any
ability that is claimed for it, but as a part of the history
of the time, and particularly as it is illustrative of the fact
that the first spontaneous sentiment of tho whole Demo
cratic party of tho North was resistance to the annexation
of Texas as a measure of slavery extension.
The heliotype plate of the call is from a photograph of
the only copy extant, a broadside of about eighteen by twelve
inches in dimensions, as it hangs in my library, the em
blematical frame having been carved by my hand. After I
had commenced to carve the seal of New Hampshire and
the broken chain, my attention was for the first time called
to Mr. Whittier's lines : —
"The long-bound vassal of the exulting South
For very shame her self -forged chain hath broken."
No one who reads the call can fail to see that it em
bodies all that is distinctive of the Free-Soil, and its suc
cessor, the Eepublican, party. The signatures to the call
show that the signers were without exception of old New
England stock ; and it will be seen that two thirds of the

9
signers bear scriptural Christian names, indicating Puritan
descent, and the remote source of the sentiment which
evoked the call.
The manner in which this document was preserved, and
the use to which it was applied, may not be witliout interest.
Mr. Tuck, having been invited to attend a reunion of the
" Free-Soilers of 1848 " at Downer Landing, Hingham,
Mass., on Aug. 9, 1877, bethought him of the call above re
ferred to, a copy of which he had learned had been preserved
by an old and unconverted Democratic farmer residing in
Hampton, N. H. The avowed object of the latter in pre
serving the call was to keep a damning record of apostasy
to the Democratic party iu one of his neighbors who had
signed the call. But the vindictive farmer had unconsciously
preserved for over forty years a roll of honor of two hundred
and sixty-three liberty-loving Democrats of New Hampshire,
whose names I may hope will be still longer kept in remem
brance by this record. Mr. Tuck having gained possession of
the document took it with him to the meeting at Downer
Landing, where he exhibited it in a speech in which he con
troverted the claim made by the presiding officer of the meet
ing, Mr. Charles Francis Adams, that the Free-Soil party
of this country originated in Massachusetts in 1848.
I fully concede that there is no such high merit in priority
as is often claimed by the early actors in great movements.
A contemporaneity of discovery in science and of thought
in intellectual or moral progress throughout the world is
a characteristic of scientific and moral evolution, — as if
many and widely separated minds were simultaneously moved
by the same wave of advancing thought. All that is
claimed in this paper is that the wave of sentiment moving
to the political resistance of slavery, and to the final " up
rising of a great people " in its advance, first touched New
Hampshire soil, led to the first political defeat of the slave
power in the North, placed the first antislavery Senator in
the Senate of the United States and the first antislavery
2

10
Democrat in the National House of Eepresentatives, aud
gave hope, conducing to the final triumph, that "what one
brave State hath done," others might " also do." Is it not a
pardonable pride to have been in the skirmish-line of a vic-
jtorious army ?
The Pree-Soilers of New Hampshire have never made
claims which would derogate from the liigher honor which
belongs to tho older Abolitionists, whose best fruits were the
Free-Soil and the Eepublican party, into which the former
expanded. The Abolitionists were our leaders, — in my own
case Dr. Pollen and Amos A. Phelps, two of the earliest and
most eminent, who preceded Phillips and were contemporary
with Garrison. The policy of the Abolitionists was a with
drawal from all political action, and its only, though mighty,
work was moral agitation. The policy of the Free-Soilers
was the resistance of slavery extension by positive political
action. It was the opportunity less than the merit of New
Hampshire to be the first to make antislavery views success
ful by political measures. It was not the inspiration of Abo
litionism alone, it was also the better element of a true de
mocracy, kept alive by the party professing its name in spite
of party error, which caused the first telling blows to slavery
to come from " the long-bound vassal of the exulting South "
the Democratic party of the North.

THE FREE-SOIL PARTY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE.
Cambkidge, Mass , Not. 25, 1879.
Editor " Exbtek News-Letteb."
I HAVE read with interest, in your issue of November 14th,
your obituary notice of my friend the late N. P. Cram, Esq.,
of Hampton Falls. I feel it incumbent upon me, however, to
call your attention to one sentence in that notice, which I
cannot permit to go before the public without correction.
It is the following: "Hon. George G. Fogg and John L.

11
Hayes, Esq., were the founders of the Free-Soil party." If,
as I suspect, this imperfect statement is due to a typograph
ical error, it none the less requires correction. I cannot
rightfully claim tho high honor which you intended to con
fer upon me ; and I am confident that my esteemed friend,
Hon. George G. Fogg, if his present state of health allowed,
would join me in the same statement as to himself. I have
the satisfaction of remembering, however, that I had such
connection with the original movement which began in New
Hampshire in 1844-45, under the name of " Independent
Democracy," spread into Massachusetts and elsewhere in
1846, and in 1848, at the Buffalo Convention, took the
name of " Free-Soil Party," that it is not wholly unaccount
able that you should have assigned me a prominent position
in the great work.
I know no better way to make the desired correction than
to state, as concisely as can be done with accuracy, the
facts regarding the inauguration of the Independent De
mocracy of New Hampshire.
Up to March, 1845, the Democratic party of New Hamp
shire had maintained uninterrupted control of the State,
from the close of John Quincy Adams's administration in
1829. Its power was politically absolute. Under Isaac
Hill, and subsequently under Franklin Pierce, the party put
up and put down whomsoever it pleased. I was a mem
ber of that party, coming into New Hampshire from the
State of Maine in 1835, to practise law in Portsmouth,
where I resided afterwards, until I left New Hampshire in
1848 to conduct a manufacturing enterprise in my native
State. My inherited sympathies, and whatever political
ambition I had, were with the Democracy. But as I be
came active in the party, and began to concern myself
responsibly with its profession and practices, I became dis
satisfied, as did many other young men, with the controlling
influences which always kept the action of the party in New
Hampshire in the line of the wishes of the Southern leaders

12
at Washington. When Mr. Van Buren was defrauded of
the nomination for the Presidency in 1844, on account of
his opposition to the annexation of Texas, and Mr. Polk was
nominated on account of his favoring that scheme, the
Democratic newspapers and politicians of the North were
obliged to eat the antislavery words they had been utter
ing previous to the nomination. I early resolved that I
would not follow their example, but would adhere to the
antislavery sentiments which I had imbibed mainly from
the eminent Dr. Pollen, with whom I was intimate while a
student at the Harvard Law School. No pubhc demonstra
tion was contemplated, although I knew that many mem
bers of the party entertained the same strong bias with
myself against the change which immediately took place in
the tone of the party organs.
An event, however, soon occurred, which compelled em
phatic decision, if not public demonstration. On the 7th
of January, 1845, Mr. Hale wrote his well-known letter to
the Democratic electors of New Hampshire, in which he
declared his refusal to vote for the annexation of Texas.
He was a member of Congress, and had been nominated for
re-election. He unfortunately stipulated in his letter to his
constituents as follows : —
" If you shall think differently from me on this subject, and
should therefore deem it expedient to select another person to
effectuate your purpose in Congress, no person in the State will
bow more submissively to your will than myself."
The Democratic leaders at once prepared to take Mr. Hale
at his word. Armed with letters from Charles G. Atherton
and Levi Woodbury, then at Washington, stating that the
Democratic party in New Hampshire would lose its posi
tion with Southern men if Mr. Hale should be re-elected,
Franklin Pierce, chairman of the State Central Committee,
started on a tour of observation in the State, professedly
to get the opinions of leading party men, but really to fur-

13
nish opinion to them, so as to make sure of Mr. Hale's
expulsion from the party at a State convention to be called
at Concord. After a circuitous journey through Belknap
and Strafford Counties, he arrived in due time at Ports
mouth. Either because I had been chairman of the Young
Men's Democratic Association in that place, or because of our
intimate official relations, — Mr. Pierce being United States
District Attorney, and I being Clerk of the United States
Courts, — -I was the first person to whom he opened his views.
To Mr. Pierce's declaration, — to use his exact words, —
" We must throw Hale overboard," I replied, " If you do,
you will break up the Democratic party in New Hampshire."
The result was, that I did not attend the conference with
other Democrats who unanimously acquiesced to the propo
sition for a convention and the nomination of a new man.
Mr. Pierce left Portsmouth for Exeter, and the next I
heard of his progress was through a letter received from
Amos Tuck, stating that Mr. Pierce had called together a
company of Democrats in Exeter, made statements to them
similar to those made in Portsmouth, that the Exeter Dem
ocrats followed Mr. Pierce, but that Mr. Tuck had abso
lutely refused. Mr. Tuck said that he had told Mr. Pierce
that if Mr. Hale was to be expelled from the party on ac
count of his opposition to slavery, he was himself ready
to be expelled likewise ; and that Mr. Pierce replied that
he had met in his travels in the State only one other man
who had talked to him in that way, and that was John L.
Hayes, of Portsmouth. This letter led to a mutual under
standing between Mr. Tuck and myself; and the identity of
our views caused the closest fellowship and co-operation in
our political action until I left the State in 1848, and to
close friendship ever since.
A convention was called at Concord, and Mr. Hale's
name was withdrawn, and John Woodbury nominated in
his stead by an almost unanimous vote. In February fol
lowing, Mr. Tuck and I met at the session of the court in

14
Exeter, and at once took measures to call a meeting of In
dependent Democrats (a name fixed upon by us) in favor
of Mr. Hale, to assemble in Exeter on the 22d day of Feb
ruary, 1845. I have now iu my possession the original
of the call for that meeting, drawn in my own hand. It
was written in a jury-room of the Old Court House, Mr.
Tuck and myself only being present, — one or two others,
who were not ready to sever their party ties, having retired.
A number of copies of that call were made by us, and we
agreed to send them out privately, to be circulated as ex
tensively as possible before the alarm was given and the
party power exercised to deter people from signing. Mr.
N. P. Cram and his brother, Joseph Cram, were among
the first seen by us, and warmly indorsed the course pro
posed. One or both of them visited several towns, worked
themselves and set others to work, and soon the papers
came back with two hundred and sixty-three names, in all,
attached. The call for the meeting was then printed as a
handbill, with all the names attached, and stuck up through
out the country.
At the time appointed, the 22d of February, the roads
were nearly impassable ; yet a meeting was held, respec
table in numbers and unparalleled in spirit, at which
speeches were made by Prof. J. G. Hoyt of Exeter, John
Dow of Epping,^ Austin Cass of Candia, by Mr. Tuck, my
self, and others, and an organization effected. An address
to the people of New Hampshire, and resolutions, were
adopted, and after the meeting extensively circulated, as far
as they could be without a press at our service.
On the 7th of February, 1845, I had attempted to deliver
before a Democratic caucus in Portsmouth, completely fiU-

1 Of those present at that meeting, no one impressed me so much as
John Dow, of Epping, whom I met for the first time. His age, his high
standing in the Democratic party and the community, his simple but digni
fied manners, his wise counsels and fervid patriotism, gave him an influence
second to that of no other in the southern section of the State.

15
ing Jefferson Hall, called to take action on Mr. Hale's
course, an elaborately prepared speech in his defence, but
was unable to proceed on account of the outbursts of con
demnation prompted by the party leaders. I printed the
speech the next day in a pamphlet form, at my own ex
pense. This was the first printed speech or protest in the
movement which revolutionized the State, with the excep
tion of the letter of Mr. Hale ; and I may be permitted to
say that Henry Wilson expressed to me, personally, his
regret that he had not mentioned this circumstance' in his
work, " The Eise and Fall of the Slave Power in America."
Large numbers of this speech were sent out prior to the
annual meeting in March. Mr. Tuck, in reply to an attack
of the " Patriot," had published a letter of defence, also
before the annual meeting. These were nearly all the
documents circulated.
Mr. Hale felt bound by the stipulation of his letter, and
gave us no aid. In fact, he had no confidence in defeating
Mr. Woodbury, and had made arrangements to go to New
York, into tho practice of law, in connection with Theodore
Sedgwick, — hiring an office on Broadway for this purpose.
He nobly atoned for this temporary despondency by a ca
reer in the Senate which exalted his State as much as the
old Democratic subserviency to slavery had degraded it.
The election came ; Mr. Woodbury was defeated, to the
surprise of everybody except the few who had better appre
ciated the " sober second thought " of the people of New
Hampshire. This was the first chapter in the work of emancipating
New Hampshire from proslavery Democracy, and the most
important chapter, — the first, I believe, in the great work
of making antislavery views triumphant in political action
throughout the country. In 1848, when Massachusetts or
ganized, and the " Barn-burners " of New York fell into
lino, the movement took the name of " Free-Soil Party,"
and nominated a national ticket at Buffalo. But the

16
beginning was in New Hampshire, when the backbone of
Democracy was wrenched, if not broken, in 1845.
Justice should be done to some others. In March, 1845,
the necessity of a newspaper organ was felt, if the fight
was to go on. Mr. N. D. Wetmore, of Eochester, N. H,
a well-to-do manufacturer, who had taken the deepest inter
est in the movement to sustain Mr. Hale, had a brother in
Manchester, a printer by trade, and he generously offered to
commence the publication of a paper if he could be promised
support in maintaining it. This support was promised, es
pecially in the editorial line, by Mr. Tuck, Professor Hoyt,
and myself. A name was agreed upon, and, on the 1st day
of May, 1845, the first number of " The Independent Demo
crat " was issued at Manchester, with the name of Eobert C.
Wetmore as publisher, the name of no editor being given.
The first page of the first number contained Mr. Hale's letter
of Jan. 7, 1845, Mr. Tuck's letter to the editors of " Tlie
New Hampshire Patriot," dated March 30, 1845, and the
most servile resolutions in obedience to the slave power
ever passed by any free State, entitled, "Eesolutions passed
by the Legislature of New Hampshire, December Session,
1844, in favor of annexation of Texas." The next issue,
of March 8, contained my speech attempted to be delivered
at Portsmouth. "The Independent Democrat" continued
to be published by Mr. Wetmore at Manchester until the
3d of July, 1845, when it was transferred to Concord.
The paper bore the name of E. C. Wetmore, publisher,
without the name of any editor, until Feb. 5, 1846, when
George G. Fogg's name appeared. In the number of the
paper preceding, Mr. Wetmore announced that he had
secured the services of G. G. Fogg, Esq., of Gilmanton,
who would thereafter have the sole editorial management,
and stated that for some time previous Mr. Fogg had fur
nished a large part of the editorial matter. At what time
Mr. Fogg began to write for the paper I am unable to say,
and what time he joined the ludependent organization ;

17
though doubtless it was at an early period. After his
assumption of the editorial management of the paper, Mr.
Fogg rendered most important and effective service, as
everybody knows, up to the time he left his position in
1861 ; and his appointment at that time as United States
Minister to Switzerland was universally recognized as a
well-merited distinction.^
I may add that the movement in New Hampshire had
an immediate influence upon adjoining States, and was
recognized in Maine, where I resided in 1848-49, by my
nomination to Congress by the Free-Soil party of the dis
trict in which I lived.
My own estimate of my own comparative merits in this
movement, in which all the actors "builded better than
they knew," — and I refer to myself in this communication
mainly that I may do justice to my principal associate, —
may be shown by the following incident. After the defeat
of Mr. Woodbury, aud the determination to elect Mr. Hale
to the Senate, some of my friends in the movement sug
gested to me that my name should be used as a candidate
for Congress. I unhesitatingly declined, declaring that
this honor belonged pre-eminently to Mr. Tuck, not only
for his services aud talents, but his organizing power ; and
events have proved that, next to defending Mr. Hale, I
rendered the best service to the cause in supporting your
distinguished fellow-townsman.
John L. Hates.

1 To the names of the early actors should be added that of John Langdon
Carleton, who was a leading speaker and writer in the cause in the upper
part of the State. Reviewing my letter, as I do, on Commencement week,
and fresh from hearing the proud but justifiable congratulations of Harvard,
I cannot refrain from referring to the fact that four of the most prominent
young men in the movement. Tuck, Eogg, Carleton, and the writer, — if I
may be permitted to include myself, — were graduates of New Hampshire's
venerable seat of learning, Dartmouth College. Mr. Chase, whose first
laurels were won as a Free-Soiler, represented Dartmouth in Ohio.
3

18

REMARKS
Made at a Democratic Meeting in Portsmouth, on the "th of February,
1845, in Defence of the Course of John P. Hale, Member of Congress
from New Hampshire, in Relation to the Annexation of Texas.
BY JOHN L. HAYES.
To THE Democratic Citizens of Portsmouth, — The following re
marks, which were made, or intended to be made, at the late Democratic
meeting in this town, called to express the opinions of the party in relation
to the course of Mr. Hale on the annexation of Texas, are submitted to you
in this form for the simple reason that I was prevented from giving them
in full at the meeting referred to. I am fully aware that the very few
whose senseless clamor deprived me of my " liberty of speech " were not
countenanced by the public sentiment of the meeting, and I would express
my cordial thanks to the chairman of the meeting, and to the great portion
of the citizens present, for the anxiety which they expressed to give me a
courteous and candid hearing. John L. Hates.
Fellow-Citizens, — We are assembled here this evening
to pass judgment upon the political course of one of our
representatives. We are to declare whether John P. Hale,
by the course which he has taken as a member of Congress
in relation to the present scheme of the annexation of Texas,
has violated the will of the people of New Hampshire and
the principles of the Democratic party. As one of the con
stituents of Mr. Hale, I deem it my right and duty openly
to express my views as to his conduct and opinions. And
as this and similar meetings will be understood to declare
the public opinion of the people of New Hampshire and of
the Democratic party, as one of the People and as a member
of the Democratic party, I wish my voice to be heard, as
declaring sentiments which I believe are extensively cher
ished though perhaps not publicly proclaimed. Although I
may have formed conclusions differing from those which
many of you have thought, and I trust conscientiously, the
interests of the party require you to form, I believe that I
shall only express what were the first free spontaneous feel
ings of tho whole people of New Hampshire upon reading

19
the letter of Mr. Hale, and which have only been checked
by considerations of party expediency. I shall trust in your
candor and honesty as truth-loving men, and in your per
sonal kindness to a fellow-citizen who can have no selfish
object in addressing you, for a patient hearing.
In the first place I shall attempt to prove to you, fellow-
citizens, that Mr. Hale, by the course he has taken in rela
tion to the annexation of Texas, has not disobeyed the will
of the people of New Hampshire, or violated the principles
of the Democratic party of this State.
It is said that the people of this State by giving their vote
for Mr. Polk in the late election, deliberately expressed their
opinion in relation to the present scheme of annexation. I
wholly deny that this scheme was sanctioned by that elec
tion. The general question of annexation was not a prom
inent issue in New Hampshire. In this section of the State
at least it was not urged with any earnestness ; there was
a general indifference upon the subject. When first pre
sented, the question had much of the unpopularity of its
originator, Mr. Tyler, although ultimately the people were
wiUing to leave it in the discretion of a President who they
believed would regard the honor of the whole country, and
the interests of the North as well as the South.
But the annexation which the North expected was to be
effected in a constitutional manner. The people had no
idea that it would be attempted to be effected by any but
the treaty-making power. They had never been told that
Congress would assume a power which the Constitution had
never given it. They expected that the judgment of the
President would be controlled or confirmed by the solemn
deliberation of the Senate, and that New Hampshire would
have an equal voice in this question with Yirginia, or any
of the larger States.
Again, when New Hampshire and the other Northern
States declared themselves in favor of annexation, it was
upon the express understanding that slavery was not to be

20
perpetuated and extended by it, or that more slave than
free States were to be added to the Union. All the public
speakers before the late election were careful to declare that
the interest of slavery and the predominance of the slave-
holding States would not be advanced by annexation. This
was the universal language of the Northern press, and it
was the opinion of the " Democratic Eeview," the most
respectable organ of the party at the North. In an able
article on the Texas question it urged the opinion of Mr.
Clay that Texas would furnish from three to two slave-
holding States, and showed that Mr. Waddy Thompson, our
late minister to Texas, was opposed to annexation as a
Southern man, upon that very ground, he having declared
that the real question was between Texas divided into an
equal number of slaveholding and non-slaveliolding States,
and Texas as it is now, — an undivided slave country.
If the language of the Democratic press can be received
as an indication of public feeling, there can be no doubt as
to the feeling of New Hampshire upon this question before
the election. " The Nashua Gazette " of Nov. 6, 1843, in
speaking of the annexation of Texas, said : —
" The object and design throughout all is black as ink — bitter
as hell. . . .
" We hope and sincerely trust there will be no truckling on the
part of our Northern Representatives, when this mighty project
shall come up before them in all its questionable shapes."
" The New Hampshire Patriot," of Nov. 23, 1843, speak
ing of annexation, says : —
" He [the President] and his gang will probably attempt to
throw this question into Congress as a firebrand. It may produce
mischief, but we trust that the Democrats have good sense enough
to avoid being distracted by the arts of the enemy."
« The Dover Gazette," in the fall of 1843, published a
most able article against the admission of Texas into the
Union, which among other things says: —

21
" The admission of Texas into the Union would be a public dis
grace, and disgrace us in the eyes of all the civilized world. It
would array against us the moral influence of all Christendom, and
draw upon us the just retribution of an offended God."
These are but a few of the opinions which might be
quoted from the Democratic press.
The sentiments of New Hampshire upon this question
were distinctly declared by the vote of the convention which
elected the delegates for the Baltimore convention. Those
delegates were instructed to vote for Mr. Yan Buren, who
had declared himself opposed to immediate annexation.
Why, if annexation, immediate, unconditional annexation
had been the darling measure of New Hampshire, as is now
pretended, was not the vote of New Hampshire given for
Mr. Calhoun, the most earnest and consistent advocate, if
not the original proposer, of annexation ? Why was the
only paper in the State which had placed the name of
Calhoun at the head of its columns as the Presidential can
didate, which had from the first earnestly advocated annexa
tion, and defended it upon Southern grounds, denounced by
the dominant party in the State ? And why were the editor
and patrons of that paper, and the most consistent advo
cates of this pretended fundamental doctrine of Democracy,
forbidden to vote in Democratic caucuses in this town ? It
is vain for those who, to make interest with a Southern
President, would manifest their new-born zeal for Southern
doctrines, to expect to wink out of sight the fact that the
dominant portion of the Democratic party in this State
regarded the question of annexation at first with suspicion,
and finally with indifference.
Again, it is said that Mr. Hale has set himself above the
people by disregarding the instructions of the Legislature.
He had a perfect right to disregard any instructions of the
Legislature. The Legislature was not his constituency. It
had an undoubted right to instruct the senators whom it
had appointed. But the representative in Congress is as

22
much a representative of the people as the members of the
Legislature, and is au equal judge of public opinion with
them. Can the people complain that their representative
has appealed from the self-constituted interpreters of their
opinions directly to themselves ? Is there any arrogance or
assumption in his declaring that he will most cheerfully
submit to the will of the people when clearly and directly
expressed ? The Democrats of Portsmouth cannot com
plain that Mr. Hale has appealed from the instructions
of the Legislature in which they had no voice. They were
not represented in that Legislature, unless they were ¦ by the
Whig members from this town, who voted against these
resolutions. But I maintain, fellow-citizens, that Mr. Hale has, in fact,
carried out the spirit of those resolutions. The Legislature
in these resolutions deliberately expressed their belief that
the annexation of Texas would add more free than slave
States to the Union. It was upon this belief that they
desired their senators and representatives to vote for annexa
tion. It was annexation which would effect this, which
would maintain the balance of power of the North, which
would not perpetuate and extend slavery, which would in
fact extend the area of freedom that they desired. To
carry out this desire of the Legislature, Mr. Hale asked
leave to introduce an amendment to the resolution for an
nexation before the House, urging that Texas should be
divided into two equal parts, in one of which slavery should
be forever prohibited. So much respect did the Southern
men pay to the opinions and wishes declared in the New
Hampshire resolutions, that thoy would not even extend to
the New Hampshire representative the common courtesy to
suspend the rules so as to allow the amendment to be con
sidered. When the South refused even to listen to a propo
sition to effect what New Hampshire had expected would
be done, had Mr. Hale any reason to beUeve that he would
be sustained in advocating a scheme diametrically opposite

23
to that recommended by his State, a scheme wliich would
not add one free State to the Union, and which was so
arranged that it never would ? — a scheme advocated wholly
upon Southern grounds, and to maintain Southern institu
tions. Could he believe that the liberty- loving Democracy
of his State would require him to defend an object which
its press had declared in the words I have before quoted,
"black as ink — bitter as hell," which had hoped "that
there would be no truckling on the part of our Northern
representatives when this mighty project shall come up
before them in all its questionable shapes." Mr. Hale had
been already mainly instrumental in defeating the favorite
Southern measure, the infamous rule which prohibited the
right of petition. By so doing he had demolished one of
the most formidable outposts of slavery. He had taken dis
tinct ground as a Northern man against Southern dictation.
This was a distinct declaration of his opinions upon slavery,
while his opinions upon this subject were otherwise fully
declared. The people of his State had fully sanctioned his
course, and by re-nominating, him had declared their con
fidence in tho soundness of his principles, and their appro
bation of his former political course. Had Mr. Hale any
reason to believe that the people would demand of him to
renounce bis opinions and bow in contemptible subser
viency to the dictation he had once resisted ?
Again, Mr. Hale has not acted against the true public
sentiment of the Democracy of the North. He has carried
out the views of Benton and Yan Buren, who have always
been first among our statesmen in the confidence of New
Hampshire, of Mr. Wright whose nomination as governor
of New York undoubtedly secured the election of Mr. Polk,
but who on account of his Texas views was refused even a
commendatory resolution in a late Tyler annexation-meet
ing in New York. He was sustained by the fourteen Demo
cratic representatives of New York, the four from Maine,
one from New Hampshire, and eight from other free States,

24
who have all declared that they opposed the present scheme
of annexation for its palpable disregard of all Northern
rights. The most talented portion of the Democratic press
has opposed the present annexation. The " Morning News "
and " Evening Post," the most able Democratic papers in
New York, have waged an uncompromising hostility against
it. The weight of this influence may be appreciated when
you remember that one is conducted by the talented editor
of the " Democratic Eeview," and the other by William
Cullen Bryant, the brightest ornament of American litera
ture, the author of those noble lines which were the watch
words of the Democratic party in the great campaign of
1840, — " Truth crushed to earth shall rise again:
The eternal years of God are hers," —
words I confidently believe sublimely prophetic of the ulti
mate triumph of the principles which he and the other true
friends of freedom have so boldly maintained.
Having now shown conclusively, as I believe, that Mr.
Hale has not violated the expressed will of his constituents,
or the voice of the party at the North, I would now ask in
what manner his present avowed opinions unfit him to repre
sent the true Democracy of his State ? The Democratic
party, it is true, has declared itself in a general sense in
favor of annexation, and Mr. Hale has said that he should
be in favor of a constitutional annexation which would not
advocate and perpetuate slavery. But I have yet to learn
that the Democracy of the north in their grasping desire for
Texas would trample the Constitution in the dust, and dash
to pieces the foundation-stones of their political faith. The
two great principles which have given strength, union, and
consistency to the Democratic party have been the doc
trines of State rights and a strict construction of the Con
stitution. We have always looked to these as the cardinal
points of our faith. Amidst all the political agitations and
tempests we have had only to keep our eyes fixed upon

25
them, to weather the storm. But the Annexationists in Con
gress in their mad haste would not only do that which Mr.
Jefferson believed was unconstitutional, namely, to annex a
foreign territory to the Union, but which he consented to
in the case of the purchase of Louisiana only from the ex
treme necessity of the case and with the understanding that
tlie Constitution should be amended to sanction the act,
but they propose to violate the rights of the States and the
very letter and spirit of the Constitution by the usurpation
of a function which our Constitution has given to the treaty-
making power alone.
The Constitution gives the power to make treaties to the
President, provided two thirds of the Senate agree. This
power was given and limited that the rights of the sover
eign States should be scrupulously respected. The debates
at the convention which formed the Constitution show with
what care all its provisions were adjusted, that the rights
of the States, as distinguished from the popular rights or
wishes, should be respected.
New alliances or treaties might change the conditions
upon which the State entered into the compact, might de
stroy her influence and affect her interests. Delaware and
Ehode Island having a popular representation which was
only a sixty-fourth part of that of the thirteen States, knew
that by giving to a popular majority the power to make new
alliances with them they would throw away their rights as
States, and, to give the States their full power, it was
arranged that one third of the smallest States in the Union
by gaining one vote should overpower all the other States,
that little Delaware might checkmate the Empire State with
her thirty-four representatives.
If the small States insisted upon these provisions for
their security at a time when no extension of territory was
dreamed of, would they have consented to enter into the
Union if they had suspected that by a mere popular major
ity, Texas, Mexico, Canada, or Ireland might be added to

26
the Union, as the Annexationists now maintain ? Is not
this resolution, then, a direct violation of the rights of the
States, and do not its advocates throw away one of the great
principles of the Democratic faith ?
The only authority by which a foreign territory can be
annexed resides in another power, and we have recognized
Texas as foreign power. She cannot be annexed without a
compact agreement, or without her consent. " The Federal
ist," which has always been received as the highest authority
in interpreting the Constitution, says : " A treaty is but
another name for a contract." And who but the President
and Senate have a right to make this compact, contract,
or treaty, without which Texas cannot be annexed ? Mr.
Calhoun ought to be authority on this question. He says :
" Whatever, then, concerns our foreign relation, whatever requires
the consent of another nation, belongs to the treaty power, — can
only be regulated by it."
If that is not conclusive, hear the language of Washing
ton : —
" The Constitution is the guide which I never can abandon. It
has assigned to the President the power of making treaties, with the
advice and consent of the Senate. It was doubtless supposed that
these two branches would combine without passion, and with the
best means of information, those facts and principles on which the
success of our foreign relations will always depend."
We cannot, as strict constructionists, advocate a legisla
tive usurpation which the Constitution has nowhere author
ized in express terms. The fact that the advocates for this
annexation find authority in different parts of the Constitu
tion and can agree upon no one clause, is a conclusive ob
jection to the assumption of the power. Can an honest
advocate of strict construction hear without indignation the
language of the member from Alabama, who said that in case
of constitutional difficulty he should follow the maxim of
Hoyle, " where you are in doubt take the trick " ? I have

27
always understood it to be the Democratic doctrine never to
exercise a power where there is the slightest doubt as to
the constitutional right. I have always been taught, and
by Southern politicians too, that a liberal construction of
the Constitution is the essence of Federalism. How vehe
mently have we cried out against the Whigs because they
attempted to charter a bank of the United States and carry
out a scheme of internal improvements without the literal
express sanction of the Constitution. If we who have set
ourselves up as guardians of the Constitution now prove
recreant, where will be the liberties of the people? Our
mouths will be forever closed. Already a leading press of
the South has said, " Constitution or not, we will have
Texas." If wo now suffer this outrage, what check will
there hereafter be to the course of a corrupt legislation ?
The shield of the Constitution will be broken. In the lan
guage of Mr. Jefferson, we shall " have no constitution — a
paper, but a blank one."
I protest against this abandonment of the first principles
of our faith — against this political apostasy. I protest
against the reception of these new doctrines which venal
leaders would impose upon the people, which are like the
new revelations which Mahomet from time to time gave
his followers as his interest made expedient. I protest
against this abandonment by the Democratic party of the
fixed citadel of principles in which they have been in
trenched, to wander like a horde of roving Tartars in
search only of spoils and plunder.
All this, fellow-citizens, may be said by one of our repre
sentatives to be the quibbling and pettifogging of New
York politicians. And if a constitutional government is
what the Autocrat of Eussia said it was, a government of
lawyers, this quibbling and pettifogging would be of very
little interest to the people.
But there are certain eternal principles of truth, liberty,
and human rights, which the people do care for, certain

28
principles of Democracy which are universal, which neither
constitutions, compacts, nor compromises can qualify or re
peal. These radical, fundamental principles of Democracy
the people of New Hampshire have always clung to as to a
religious faith, and I verily believe with an affection which
has been founded upon principle. Tested by these princi
ples, the present scheme of annexation has objections which
can never be overcome. We are demanded to declare
whether we will perpetuate the institution of slavery in a
country as large as six of the largest States of the Union, —
the institution which Mr. Jefferson regarded as such a great
political and moral evil, declaring it in the first draft of the
Declaration of Independence as " a cruel war against human
nature itself."
It is true the Democratic party of New Hampshire and
the North have never taken ground with the Abolitionists ;
but it has been, not from any indifference to the evil of
slavery or from sympathy with slaveholders, but because their
State-rights principles taught them that slavery, whether
right or wrong, was a local municipal institution, an institu
tion for which the States concerned were alone responsible,
and with which the nation had no connection or interest.
When we have been reproached with the inconsistency
between our Democratic pretensions and our apparent sup
port of slavery, we have had but one answer: " As citizens
of the Union wo can have nothing to do with the slavery of
other States ; we cannot interfere without violating our
principles and the Constitution ; we are opposed to slavery,
and would do anything which we could constitutionally to
prevent it."
But where is now the position upon which we have stood ?
The Southern men, and the Secretary of State of the Union,
the leader of the South, have abandoned the States-right
ground upon which they demanded our aid, and have de
clared the institution of slavery to bo one which belongs to
the nation. The organ of the whole nation has defended

29
this local institution in volunteer discussions with leading
foreign nations, thus committing the whole nation in its
defence. The most momentous question of national policy
that has ever agitated the country has been advocated
almost exclusively upon the ground of sustaining negro
slavery. In fact, all the influence of the national govern
ment has been exercised to sustain that institution. The
ground upon which the Northern Democrats stood has thus
been knocked from under their feet. And if now they stand
by the South against Abolitionism, or in defence of their
favorite measures, it must be upon the ground that they are
willing to vindicate slavery as a national institution.
There cannot be any doubt that the present scheme of
annexation has been pushed unequivocally and openly as
a slave question. The diplomatic correspondence of Mr.
Upshur and Calhoun, a portion of which is quoted in Mr.
Hale's letter, and Mr. Ingersoll's declaration that " South
ern interests, Southern frontiers, slavery and all, are to be
primarily rejected in settling the restoration of Texas," are
sufficient to establish this.
The terms of the resolution for annexation prove that
slavery was the first and last thing cared for in the project. '
It provides that the whole of Texas be annexed as one great
State in which there will not be a foot of free territory.
New States are to be formed with tho consent of the origi
nal State in which slavery will continue. After reserving
all of Texas that is worth anything for the domain of
slavery, the South made the insulting concession, that any
State formed north of 36° 30' should be exempt from slavery,
a concession which will not give a single free State to the
Union ; for as a new State cannot be formed without the
consent of Texas, although she may cut up tho Southern
territory portion into States, she will never consent to have
a free State upon her borders. But even if this were not
so, how degrading is it to the North, after having talked
about an equal division of the territory, to accept a tract

30
for a free State, not one fifth part of the area which is dedi
cated to slavery, a portion which never belonged to Texas,
and the greater part of which must be surrendered to Mexico
on settling the boundaries ; a country intersected with moun
tains and bordered on all sides by hostile Indians ! Can we
as Northern men consent that tlie power of the South should
be almost indefinitely increased without receiving anything
but the mere shadow of an equivalent ?
The manner in which all other propositions for annexa
tion were received show what were the purposes of the
slavery men. Mr. Holmes, of South Carolina, said that
" the Southern man who would consent to a division of
Texas between slaveholding and non-slaveholding States was
either a knave or a fool." When Mr. Eobinson, a Demo
cratic member from New York, introduced a proposition
that a State be formed out of the territory of Texas of the
size of the largest State in the Union, and that slavery
should be continued in the territory by the consent of Con
gress, Mr. Paine, of Alabama, said that all these projects had
for their object tho interference of the North with slavery, and
that he would rather lose Texas than vote for such a bill.
What equivalent can the South give Now Hampshire for
making the degrading concessions which this resolution de
mands ? What equivalent can she give the people of New
Hampshire for sacrificing their rights, violating their con
sciences, giving the lie to their professions, and holding
themselves up as a scorn and reproach to the civilized
world ? The elevation to office of a few political leaders
would be a poor reward to the people for such sacrifices.
If New Hampshire should yield, then indeed she would
deserve the foul insult given her by John Eandolph, when
a Southern measure was opposed by a member from this
State : " The gentleman from New Hampshire threatens to
go against this measure. I tell that gentleman we have
bought them before, and whenever we want them we will
buy them again, dog cheap, sir."

31
If New Hampshire now rejects a faithful, able, and well-
tried representative solely because he has opposed this
scheme of annexation, and with a knowledge of the reasons
for his opposition, she will thereby pledge herself directly
and unconditionally to slavery. She will do it in the face
of the public opinion of the whole North, to which a party
is as much answerable as an individual. She will do it
without the sympathy or alliance of a single Northern State,
and she alone will present the disgraceful paradox of the
warmest friends of human rights striving to extend and
perpetuate the most grievous outrage upon human nature.
The eyes of the whole country are upon New Hampshire
at this crisis. She stands forth as the peculiar representa
tive of the Democracy of the north. The honesty of the
cause which she represents will be judged by her decision.
The spirit of liberty has always been enshrined among her
mountains. She was among the first of the colonies to re
sist the oppression of England. She sacrificed more of her
blood and treasure in the war of the Eevolution than any
other State. Even to this day, as her legislation shows,
she has been sensitively jealous of the least encroachments
upon individual rights. Here, if anywhere, should a stand
be taken for freedom. Let us, then, fellow-citizens, as the
sons of Democratic New Hampshire, manfully sustain a
representative who has dared to protest against human
oppression, — a politician who has had the rare virtue to
abandon the selfish, staggering policy of a seeming party
expediency, and trust in the higher principles of freedom,
religion, moral power, and universal justice. Let us by do
ing this prove that we are true to the one great idea of
Democracy, " that man is not to exercise arbitrary, irrespon
sible power over man."

33

DEMOCRATIC MASS MEETING.

CALL.
To the Democratic citizens of Exeter and the neighboring towns,
and all attending the Court of Common Pleas now in session :
The undersigned members of the Democratic party, believing that
the course of our representative i in Congress, Hon. John P. Hale, is
approved by the people of New Hampshire, and is the only course
which can be consistently advocated by the friends of liberty ;
Believing that the present scheme of (the) annexation (of Texas)
is in violation of the fundamental principles of Democracy, the doc
trine of States rights, strict construction of the Constitution, and
regard fer equal rights, and wishing to raise our voices against a
scheme which will tend to extend and perpetuate slavery, and to
weaken the influence of free representation in Congress ;
Believing, also, that the late Convention at Concord has put the
party in a position which they do not wish to occupy ;
Respectfully request all who would maintain the fundamental
principles of the Democratic faith to assemble at the vestry of the
First Church in Exeter, on Saturday, the 22d day of February,
present (1845), at 10 o'clock, a.m., to make a full declaration of
their sentiments, and take into consideration the present position of
our party.

N. P. Cram. ¦
Joseph Cram.
Daniel Veasey.
William Wadleigh.
Amos Tuck.
John L. Hayes.
Jacob M. Towle.
Enoch Bartlett.
Henry Y. Wiggin.
E. G. Tappan.
Joseph J. Hoit.
James R. Thing.
Geo. S. Yeaton.
Nath. Swasey.
Oliver Towle, 3d.
John Clement.
Gilman Thing.

Josiah Smith.
Samuel Greenleaf.
Josiah G. Barker-
Samuel Hanson.
Jeremiah Leavitt.
Asa B. Lamson.
A. R. Wiggin.
Jacob Taylor.
Christopher Rymes.
James E. Odell.
George Janvrin.
Wm. L. Gooch.
Asa Jewell.
Nath'l Weeks.
Thomas Wiggin.
Benjamin P. Batchelder.
James J. Wiggin.

L. D. Towle.
John Remick.
Simeon P. Clark.
Geo. W. Prescott.
Samuel S. Marshall.
James F. Marshall.
Samuel Hanson.
Amos Bartlett.
Amos Judkins.
John B. Hanson.
Ephraim Blaisdell.
Peter Froude.
Thomas Page.
Aaron Quimby.
John Page, of Danville.
Josiah Tewksbury.
William Hoyt.

1 Misprinted " representation " in the original.
5

34

Joseph W. Blake.
Amos Davis, Jr.
Jonathan S. Wadleigh.
Joseph P. Secomb.
Albert Brown.
Benj. Page.
William Bartlett.
James F. Marshall.
Samuel Stevens.
Elisha Quimby.
Peter Sargent.
Bernard Currier.
John Collins.
Gilman Collins.
Jacob Collins.
Laban Collins.
Jabez Collins.
Nathaniel Bradley.
George Whittier.
David Dearborn.
Jonathan L. James-
Calvin Eastman.
Oren Dimond.
Reuben Dimond.
John G. Tuttle.
David Johnson.
Benj. S. Sanborn.
Jacob Whittier.
Elihu T. Webster.
Jesse E. Gorge.
Enos Tewksbury.
Samuel Dunn.
Peter Sanborn.
Sewall Eastman.
Nathan Hoyt.
Hichlas Towle.
Darius Towle.
John Atkinson.
Geo. W. H. Morrill.
Chase Fuller.
Josiah Brown.
Robert S. Prescott.
John Dow, of Epping.
LeviM. Knight.
John P. Chase.
Daniel Dow.
Joseph S. Lawrence.
Samuel H. Dow.
Samuel Melcher.
Levi Brown.

David Brown.
Sewel Brown.
Charles F. Chase.
Richard Morrill.
Jona. Morrill.
Otis Wing.
Woodbury Marsh.
David Janvrin.
Joshua Janvrin.
C. C. Gove.
John C. Gove.
John B. Brown.
Jacob Brown.
J. T. Brown.
Thos. Brown.
Nathan B. Marsh.
Nathan Pike.
Matthew Nealey.
Bowdin Nealey.
Daniel C. Sleeper.
Simeon Robinson.
John H. Chesley.
Israel Bartlett.
Moses Cilley.
Sewall Watson.
Joseph H. Chesley.
Rice Watson.
Benj. Sawyer.
Samuel Sargent, Jr.
David Clifford.
Nathaniel Webster.
Jedediah Philbrick.
Moses R. Dow.
Jonathan Osgood.
Amos Tucker.
Jonathan Sanborn.
Levi Collins.
David T. Sleeper.
Moses Collins.
Moses Page.
E.F. Stevens, Jr., ofDeerfield.
Josiah B. Tilton.
.Tohn K. Moore.
John H. Brown.
Stoten Tuttle.
John B. Batchelder.
Jonathan Collins.
Oren M. Challis.
Daniel G. Brackett.
J. W. Shaw.

Joseph Challis.
Israel Dimond.
Jeremiah Beard.
John H. Griffin.
Jacob Collins.
Moses Anderson.
Nathaniel W. Cheney.
Robert T. Shirley.
John C. Bradley.
George W. Buswell.
Lyman George.
Levi Collins, 2d.
Amos Tewksbury.
Joseph Cook.
Stevens Blake.
Wm. H. Huntington.
Harlan P. Griffin.
William George.
John L. Allen.
David Griffin.
Joseph H. Allen.
Joseph H. Challis.
William Badger.
Currier George.
Daniel Page.
Thomas Carter.
Ephraim Carter.
Jesse Gilmore.
Richard Carter.
William M. Carter.
Benjamin Fitz, Jr.
James Hook.
Lewis Kimball.
Daniel Osgood.
Jacob Randall.
Harrison Jack.
John S. Rowe.
J. W.James, ofDeerfield.
Moses D. Emerson.
John James.
Samuel Dearborn.
G. M. Wear.
Ebenezer Tilton.
David Gerrish.
Jeremiah D. Tilton.
Josiah Dudley.
Ephraim Winslow.
Joseph T. Tilton.
Daniel Tilton, Jr.
John Dearborn.

35

Albert Knowls.
Sewell Goodhue.
James Willey.
Rufus Drew.
Solomon York.
Samuel G. Carswell.
Dennis Colman.
Charles C. French.
David Stevens.
Hilliard Fogg.
Nathan Chase.
Joseph Merrill.
George Lane.
Joseph C. Harvey.
Daniel Merrill.
Abner Cram.
Samuel L. Whidder.
William Chase.
George H. James.
Shediah Ring.
Geo. W. Robinson.

Wm. T. Smith, Jr.
Daniel Merrill, Jr.
Edmund C. Lane.
Jonathan Cass.
Sherburn Fifleld.
Justin Cilley.
Benjamin Gerrish.
Samuel J. Tuttle.
Josiah Whittier, Jr.
Ebenezer Tilton, Jr.
Person Richardson.
Peter Philbrick.
John Page, of Kingston.
Samuel Webster.
' Ezra B. Gale.
George Dalton.
Nath'l Dearborn, Jr.
Moses French.
Geo. W. Prescott.
Francis J. White.
Amos E. Mon'ison.

Thomas Robinson.
J. S. Morrill.
Jesse Smith.
A. D. Dudley.
Sam'l Dudley.
Joseph Eastman. ,,
Sam'l Martin.
Sam'l Cass.
John Q. Cass.
Austin Cass.
Albert Bean.
George R. Bean.
Samuel Dearborn.
John Edes.
L. Bean.
Richard Hoit.
Biley Smith.
Jona. Martin.
J. Martin.
C. B. Haynes.

Proceedings of a Democratic Meeting at Exeter, N. H., Feb. 22,
1845, in opposition to the present scheme for the Annexation of
Texas, and in favor of the re-election of the Hon. John P. Hale as
a member of Congress.
After addresses by the President and others, stating the objects
of the meeting, the Convention adjourned, to meet again at two
o'clock in the afternoon. At two o 'clock the Convention met
again, and Mr. John L. Hayes, in behalf of the Committee, reported
the following resolutions : —
1. Resolved, That it is the peculiar duty of the Democratic party
to assert at all times the principles of human equality and univer
sal justice, which form the basis of the Democratic faith.
2. Resolved, That a direct or indirect advocacy of slavery, or
support of those measures which will foster and encourage it, is
wholly inconsistent with the doctrines of human equality and uni
versal justice, and that nothing but the restraints of the Constitu
tion, and a regard for the stability of the present Union of the
States, should withhold the people of a free State from denouncing
an institution which disgraces our Republic in the eyes of the
whole civUized world.

36
3. Resolved, That the Democratic party of the North have been
withheld from a severe reprobation of slavery, only from the
consideration that slavery is a local and municipal institution, for
which the slaveholding States are alone responsible ; but the aban
donment of this doctrine by the great champions of slavery, and
their attempt to invoke the aid of the nation to annex a foreign
country for the avowed purpose of sustaining and strengthening the
peculiar institutions of the South compel us to the alternative of
acknowledging slavery to be a great national interest to be pro
tected and strengthened by the nation, or of solemnly protesting
against its extension and continuance.
4. Resolved, That if the Democrats of New Hampshire, before
the late Presidential election, consented at all io the annexation of
Texas, they consented to it upon the sole ground, everywhere
proclaimed, that the influence of free representation would be
strengthened by the addition of more free than slaveholding States
through the annexation of Texas ; but that the present resolutions
for annexation show that we were entirely deceived in supposing
that the rights of free States would be respected, or even considered,
in annexation.
5. Resolved, That our representative in Congress, Hon. John P.
Hale, has been perfectly uniform and consistent in his principles,
that his views in relation to slavery were perfectly well known at
the time of his election and re-nomination for Congress, and that
he can be rejected only upon the ground that his constituents hav
ing changed their views, he is no longer a suitable person to repre
sent them ; or that an unreserved intercourse of the representative
with his constituents, and a frank and manly declaration of his
sentiments without the consent of the rulers of the party, is an arro
gance which demands the reprobation of the people.
6. Resolved, That the nomination of another candidate for Con
gress at this period is wholly uncalled for by the people ; and that
a representative who has exerted himself successfully to restore the
right of petition to the people, who has been the fearless advocate
of human rights, who has appealed to the higher principles of his
constituents, who has been jealous of the honor and rights of his
own State, deserves and shall receive our enthusiastic support.
7. Resolved, That while we assert these views, we stand upon
the broad platform of the Democratic party, that we will maintain

37
all its principles as taught and illustrated by the great fathers of
our political faith, that we will abide by the letter and spirit of the
Constitution, and will endeavor to strengthen the existing union by
resisting those encroachments which would inevitably produce a
dismemberment of the nation.^

EXTRACT FROM A SPEECH OF HON. AMOS TUCK, AT
THE "REUNION OF FREE-SOILERS OF 1848."
Now, you are making up history here, and nobody can make
up history better, or that is likely to last longer, than the people of
Massachusetts ; but will you please to take account of things that
happened prior to 1848?
Will you not bear in mind, Mr. Downer, and gentlemen, that
two years before, and more than two years previous to that date,
people in the State of New Hampshire set an example of a conflict
with party leaders that had never been set in this country before ?
(Applause.) We organized an opposition to the Democratic party
in 1844-45, which we have never given up to this day. (Renewed
applause.) And in 1845 we made a declaration of principles that consti
tuted the essence of the Republican party which was formed at
Philadelphia eleven years later. I have in my pocket, gentlemen,
a call which will prove the truth of what I say. Here is an origi
nal call for a convention on the 22d of February, 1845, signed by
263 Democrats, and drawn up by my friend John L. Hayes, now
of Cambridge, and myself, in one of the jury -rooms in the Exeter
court-house. It invites Democrats to assemble on the 22d of
February, to take into consideration the condition of the party, and
to make a declaration of sentiments in regard to the action which
Mr. Hale had previously taken in opposition to the annexation of
Texas. We were soon denounced by the great organs of the party
because we would not assent to the annexation of Texas for the
reasons given by Mr. Calhoun, or for any reasons whatever.
We organized it as a movement of Democrats.
1 Reprinted from " The Independent Democrat " of May 14, 1845. The
resolutions were followed by an address to the Democrats of New Hamp
shire, which is too long for republication.

38
Previous to that time many men had remonstrated at differ
ent times against the action of the Democratic party in New
Hampshire, which was the strongest Democratic State in the
Union ; but when they were denounced by the party leaders, and
either passed over to the Abolitionists or to the Whig party, they
acquiesced in being thus ranked.
On the other hand, we insisted on organizing as Democrats.
We refused to leave the Democratic party on account of our
declaration of sentiments ; we claimed that antislavery was true
Democracy. We refused to leave the party, and we have refused
to leave to this day, until we have got a majority of the Democracy
of New Hampshire on the Republican side. (Applause.)
Well, gentlemen, I wish you to correct the history you are
making. You have no right, permit me to say, to write on the
page of history that the Republican enterprise in this country be
gan in 1848. Previous to 1848, 1 have told you how we organized
the opposition in New Hampshire in 1845.
We began in 1844. In 1846, at the March election, the Inde
pendent Democrats held the balance of power between the Whig
party and the Democratic party in New Hampshire.
No election of governor by the people having taken place,
when the Legislature assembled in June of that year we said to
the Whigs, " We will put your man, Anthony Colby, into office
as Governor of the State, if you will elect John P, Hale to the
Senate." (Applause.)
They said they would. This was in 1846. There was a
vacancy in the House of Representatives, and they coijcluded, after
Mr. Hale had been put in the Senate, to nominate myself for the
House of Representatives, and after several ineffectual efforts I
was elected to Congress in 1847, one year before the Buffalo Con
vention. You had at that time elected John G. Palfrey, as a regu
lar Whig, to the House of Representatives, and the Whigs of New
Hampshire came in to the support of myself, simply because of my
statement to Ichabod Bartlett, the President of the Convention,
who was sent to consult with me, that I should expect, if elected,
to be found voting with such men as Joshua R. Giddings and
John G. Palfrey. (Applause.) I voted with them ; but at the
next election the Whigs of Massachusetts would not re-elect Mr.
Palfrey.

39
Please to put that down on record. (Laughter.)
And in the revolution that took place in the United States,
bear in mind that the humble State of New Hampshire placed the
first antislavery Senator in the Senate of the United States.
Joshua R. Giddings, elected as a Whig, John G. Palfrey,
elected as a Whig, and your humble servant, elected as an Anti-
slavery Independent Democrat, were the antislavery members of
the House who took their seats in the 30th Congress, which
assembled in December, 1847.
You formed your independent organization in Massachusetts in
1848. But when we organized in 1845, when we elected an anti-
slavery man to the Senate in 1846, when we sent an antislavery
man to the House in 1847, Charles Francis Adams, Charles Allen,
Charles Sumner, and Henry Wilson stood well in the Whig
party. But the Cotton Whigs rejected Dr. Palfrey, adopted Gen
eral Taylor, and you rejected the Cotton Whigs. It was not until
the next year that you pronounced the Whig party dissolved. We
claim that we helped convert you. (Laughter and applause.)
Please to put that down in the record of the history you are mak
ing, because, while we cannot claim much in our little State, we
are very jealous of what little we can claim. I say that here are
the declarations carefully made at that Exeter meeting, where we
published an address and resolutions, and we had no occasion, up
to the time of the formation of the Republican party, and in all
our labors in the Republican party, and in all our votes in Congress
or out, to cross a < or dot an i of what we wrote in February, 1845.
And there is thfe document ! Your patent was not taken out until
1848. (Laughter and applause.)

JOHN PARKER HALE.
Upon re-reading miy letter to the " Exeter News-Letter,"
I feel that adequate justice is not done to Mr. Hale, the
pivot upon whom the Free-Soil movement in New Hamp
shire turned ; and this from no want of appreciation of his
services and noble character, but because no tribute to

40
Mr. Hale was required for the people of the State to whom
my letter was addressed.
While it is true that Mr. Hale did not take part in our
early movements, except in the letter which first roused
them,i I believe that he was restrained only by a high
sense of honor, one of his peculiar attributes, which bound
him to the pledge, perhaps unwittingly given, that he would
abide by the party will. The election in March, and the
defeat of Mr. Woodbury, the candidate of the old party,
released him from his bonds. Returning at once to New
Hampshire, he took the place of leader, which be thence
forth occupied. In the brilliant campaign terminating in
his election to the Senate he bore the most distinguished
part. The contest was practically ended by one of those
Homeric combats in which great issues are decided by sin
gle champions. A convention of Independent Democrats
was held iii Concord. The Legislature, which was in ses
sion, adjourned to attend it, for it was known that Franklin
1 It was my original intention to reproduce in this publication the whole
of Mr. Hale's celebrated letter to the " Democratic Republican Electors of
New Hampshire ; " but upon re-perusing it I found its length greater than
I had thought, and that it was largely composed of extracts from correspond
ence with Mr. Upshur showing the purpose of the South in the project for
the annexation of Texas, extracts which have ceased to have any interest,
as that purpose is now everywhere acknowledged. The letter is therefore
omitted. It was not so much the argument of that letter, as appeals like
the following, which roused New Hampshire : —
" When our forefathers bade a last farewell to the homes of their child
hood, the graves of their fathers, and the temples of their God, and ventured
upon all the desperate contingencies of wintry seas and a savage coast,
that they might, in strong faith and ardent hope, lay deep the foundations
of the temple of liberty, their faith would have become scepticism, and their
hope despair, could they have foreseen that the day would ever arrive
when their degenerate sons should be found seeking to extend their boun
daries and their government, not for the purpose of promoting freedom, but
sustaining slavery."
The unusual address of the letter to Democratic Republican Electors is
remarkable as a prediction of the future Republican party, so largely com
posed of Democratic elements, and based upon the central idea of Mr. Hale's
appeal.

41
Pierce and John P. Hale, the Achilles and the Hector of
the hostile parties, were to encounter each other on the
great issue upon which hung the fate of the Democratic
party. Mr. Pierce, though a ready and eloquent speaker,
was hampered by his cause, and by an audience raised from
the old level of party appeal by the newly awakened moral
sentiment of the State. Mr. Hale rose to a height of elo
quence and fearfulness of denunciation of slavery and its
tools which astonished even his friends and confounded his
opponents. His victory was complete. No forensic en
counter in New Hampshire ever had such celebrity or was
so momentous in its consequences. Even Mr. Pierce's vain
effort for a losing cause helped him to the Presidency, and
hastened the aggressions of slavery which terminated in
its downfall ; while Mr. Hale's triumph made him the first
antislavery Senator in the Senate of the United States, and
the most distinctly representative champion of the Free-Soil
movement with its glorious results, — the Republican party
and Emancipation.
I have deliberately claimed for Mr. Hale the highest
moral honor that ever came to a citizen of New Hampshire,
not forgetting the competitors from other States, whether
Sumner or Wilson in Massachusetts, Cliase in Ohio, Seward
in New York, or Wilmot and Stevens in Pennsylvania. I
claim it for Mr. Hale's precedency in time ; for his intellec
tual and moral boldness ; for his singleness of purpose,
uninfluenced by ambition or selfish motive ; for his surpass
ing eloquence ; for the generous methods of his warfare,
fighting as he did without malignity, and wounding, but
never with envenomed shafts ; for a chivalry like the ideal
knight-errantry of old, defensive of all weakness and. aggres
sive to all oppression ; and for a purity of personal character
which made him a champion without reproach.
Who can forget the bold challenges which our champion
trumpeted from the Capitol on each recurring opening of
the Senate, and instantly on the reading of the President's
6

42
message, proclaiming fierce defiance of slavery, and above
all of its Northern abettors ? These speeches, brief, unpre
pared, unheralded, but ringing like alarm-bells, moved the
people as the higher intellectual efforts of Seward, Sumner,
and Chase never did.
Mr. Hale was not a profound student, nor learned in law
or statesmanship. He seemed to grasp truth intuitively,
and not by slow processes of reasoning. His power in the
Senate and popular assemblies came from his admirable
common sense, his tact, founded upon his discernment of
men, his absolute fearlessness, and more than all a sym
pathetic temperament which kindled emotion in himself and
stirred it in others. It is no disparagement to Mr. Hale
as a Senator to say that his true vocation was that of ad
dressing vast popular assemblies. He was fitted for this
by his imposing person, his sonorous voice, his genial face,
his self-abandonment, and bis honest sympathy with the
masses. Much of his power and fearlessness came from
his entire want of self-consciousness, which made him confi
dent without conceit. He forgot himself in his subject aud
his cause, and had no side objects of political ambition or
personal applause. But be had supreme confidence in him
self in all intellectual emergencies, for his best efforts were
unprepared. I never knew an orator who could rise so dar
ingly and happily to a climax, felicissime audax, — soaring,
while the listener almost treml)led for his fall, like a rocket,
and descending with its gentle curve, or bursting in a cor
uscation of eloquence. Much of Mr. Hale's effectiveness as
a public speaker was due to the quickness of perception and
geniality of temperament which made him a natural humor
ist. The jests which lightened his public addresses were
not, however, without their disadvantages. They sometimes
gave an impression of levity which formed no part of his
character. As there is in art an ignoble and a noble gro
tesque, and in poetry a sardonic, and a just yet not malig
nant satire, so there is in oratory a humor which degrades,

43
and another which attracts, to uplift the hearer. This was
the humor of our orator ; like the wit of Lincoln, it was
always serious in its application, an instrument for noble
appeal or impressive illustration, a foil for grave discourse
or earnest invocation.
A friend who appreciates eloquence because ho is him
self eloquent has given me this illustration of Mr. Hale's
higher oratory. In the trial of Theodore Parker for high
treason at Boston, in the United States Circuit Court, before
Judge Curtis and a jury, Mr. Hale was counsel for the
defence, and the friend referred to as my narrator, then a
student of law, was present at the trial. The alleged act
of treason was complicity in the rescue of a fugitive slave
named Shadrach. Mr. Hale, in addressing the jury, said :
" John Debree claims that he owns Shadrach. Owns what?
Owns a man ! Suppose John Debree should say that he
owns the moon, and has an exclusive right in its beams !
Would a Massachusetts jury find it so? And yet, moons
shall wax and wane no more ; the earth itself shall crumble
and decay, while the soul of the poor, hunted, persecuted
Sha'drach shall live on with the life of God himself!" It
was to this speech that Mr. Sumner referred, when he said
in one of his letters that it had been reported to him
by those who heard it as a speech worthy of Curran or
Erskine. Mr. Hale's antislavery efforts were less conspicuous in
the latter part of his senatorial career, because the country
had come round to his opinions. He was the pilot in a
storm, and was willing that others should steer in smooth
waters. Our friend, like other great political leaders, such as
Washington, Garfield, Blaine, and Gladstone, suffered from
aspersions. But no charges against his professional con
duct received a moment's belief from the eminent lawyers of
the country who knew him, nor against his official conduct
from his senatorial associates. As in another and more

44
recent case of political obloquy, his great peers, like the com
purgators in the ancient British trials, have purged him, for
posterity, of all reproach, by their solemn assertion of his
purity. Still calumny accomplished, as it too often does,
its temporary political object. It shortened a senatorial ser
vice which for the credit of. his State should have been for
life, and terminated his diplomatic career. It was unfor
tunate for the Republican party, as it gave a Republican
administration occasion to commit its most discreditable act
in recalling a minister who had contributed more than any
other individual to put that administration in power.
Mr. Hale's higliest place was in the hearts of his friends.
Few men in the country had more, among the humblest as
well as highest classes. I speak from an intimate friend
ship with him during a residence of fourteen years in Wash
ington, as well as a knowledge of him in New Hampshire
from his early manhood. His friends love to dwell upon
his private virtues as proofs of the sincerity and lofty mo
tives of his public acts. They cherish the memory of his
simplicity like that of a child, with the tenderness of a
woman, and the delicacy in speech and deportment of a
maiden, — qualities which, combined with his conspicuous
physical and moral manliness, make almost an ideal hero.
They remember his faithfulness to the religion he professed,
that of liberal Christianity, his exemption from every social
and personal vice, his personal unselfishness, his interest in
his friends, their children, their business, and their pleas
ures, his cheery voice, his hearty sociability, his genial wit,
his apt and delightful stories. These are some of the traits
which made us often forget in the man and the friend even
that public record of patriotism and service for humanity
which places him first in the proud roll of the distinguished
sons of New Hampshire.

4

% \

••mt-'

J.