Presidential Candidates:

"If Congress may establish a territorial government in the exercise of its discretion, it is a clear principle that a court cannot control that discretion. This being the case, I do not see on what ground the act is held to be void. It did not purport to forfeit property, or take it for public purposes. It only prohibited slavery; in doing which, it followed the ordinance of 1787."

In 1840, Judge McLean lost his wife, and in 1843, married his present wife, Mrs. Sara Bella Gerrard of Cincinnati. In his personal appearance, Judge McLean is imposing, for he is tall and well proportioned, and his face is one of the finest among the list of American jurists. As a judge, he is above reproach; and as a Christian – he is a member of a Christian church – he has won the esteem of all who know him in that relation.

HENRY A. WISE

Governor Wise is certainly one of the ablest of the southern democrats. He may lack judgment and that balance of character which is necessary in the truly great man; but he is a decided genius. Whatever he has attempted he has accomplished, thus far, from his wonderful energy and activity. Whether he has reached that bound in his political triumphs beyond which he cannot pass, remains to be seen. We will very briefly glance at his past history and his present views upon the great political issues of the country.

Henry A. Wise was born in Drummond Town, Accomack County, Virginia, December 3, 1806. He was a precocious lad, for he graduated at Washington College, Pa., when he was but nineteen years old. He then studied law, and was admitted to the bar of Winchester, Va., in 1828. With a western fever in his bones, and desirous of a new field in a new country, he emigrated to Nashville, Tennessee, where he practised law for two years. He soon grew homesick for old Virginia, and returned to Accomack County. The district showed its estimation of the young man by returning him to Congress in 1833. He continued to represent it in the House of Representatives for ten years. In 1843, he resigned his place and took the mission to Brazil. He remained there for a Presidential term. In 1848, he was a Presidential elector in Virginia; in 1850, was a member of the Reform Convention which adopted the present constitution of the State. In 1852, he was again a Presidential elector, and in 1855 was nominated by his party as their candidate for Governor. This caucus will always be remembered and will give him unfading political laurels. The contest was probably one of the most exciting, close, and bitter, which ever took place, even in Virginia. The Know Nothings, or Americans, were then in the height of power and were sanguine of success. Mr. Wise took the stump with the prophets against him, and in fact with a general impression abroad that he would be defeated. He carried on the year's canvass as no other man beside Henry A. Wise could have done it. He bearded Americanism in its den – forced it upon its own territory – and triumphed in the popular vote by thousands. However rash and extravagant his speeches were, he had that overwhelming enthusiasm and vigor, which carried down all opposition, and placed him in the Governor's chair.

As a politician, Governor Wise has always been true to the Virginian school. Rigidly in favor of State rights, and as rigidly opposed to protective tariffs – in short, bitterly anti-Whig in all his opinions. On the slavery question, from the outset, he has been ultra pro-slavery, though he was opposed to the Lecompton policy of Mr. Buchanan's administration. He has favored internal improvements in Virginia, and has in this respect differed from Mr. Hunter. This is the bright feature in Governor Wise's political character. He never was an old fogy, but is brimful of originality and reform. To see what is Governor Wise's position on many of the issues of the day, we will quote a few passages from his letter of January 3, 1859, to Hon. David Hubbard:

"Now, I have raised my warning of late against this weakness and wickedness on our part. I have tried to protect my widowed mother, the South, by giving honest filial counsel against the whole household. The Reubens have tried to sell me into Egypt for my 'dreaming.' But I am, nevertheless, loyal to the house of my father and loving to my misguided brethren, and I mean to redouble my efforts the more to save the house of Israel. If I must be driven out as a dreamer, I will, at least, preserve 'mine integrity,' and time and the day of famine will show whose counsel and whose course will have saved the household and fed it, and all the land of the stranger too. Aye; and is democracy as well as the South to have no out-spoken, honest counsellor? Are we to be given over to the federal gods of Pacific railroads? Are we to out-Yazoo Yazoo? To out-Adams Adams in putting internal improvements by the General Government on the most Omnipotent and indefinitely stretching power of all powers of the Federal Government —the war power? Are we to abolish ad valorem and adopt the specific duties to supply a tariff for revenue, the standard of which is already eighty-one millions of expenditure on three hundred and twenty-one millions average rate of importations? Are we to increase eighty-one millions of expenditure to the unknown limitless amount required for railroads across this continent; for post-offices that don't pay expenses; for pensions unheard of in character and amount; for a land office which gives away three acres for every one sold, and brings us in debt; for increase of a standing army such as our frontiers and Indian wars and protectorates of foreign territory propose; and, therefore, for such a navy as Isthmian wars with no less than eight powers of the earth – England, Spain, France, Mexico, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, New Granada, and Paraguay – demand if threatened only? Is protection to be turned into prohibition? If so, what is a 'direct tax?' Is land tax the only one which can be 'apportioned?' Are the landowners to pay all the cost of the crusade of Congress and manifest destiny? Is strict construction and are State rights to be abandoned, and are we to give up State corporations to the bankruptcies of a federal commission? Where would have been our people and their effects last year if a federal power could have put our State banks into a course of liquidation under a commission of bankruptcy? Is the South, is any portion of our community, in a situation to rush into wars – wars invited by the President with three European and five American powers? And are we to be a grand consolidated, elective, North and South American imperialism? The question is not, 'Will the Union be dissolved?' That is a settled question. But the question is, 'Is the old Virginia democratic faith to be abandoned, and are we to rush on with the President into a full scheme of federal policy which in its outline and filling up, exceeds any federalism, in all its points, which a Hamilton, or Adams, or any other latitudinarian, ever dared to project or propose?

"For my part, I take ground now firmly and at once against the war power. I am for the Washington policy of peace, and against all entangling alliances and protectorates, and the Jackson rule of 'demanding nothing but what is right, and submitting to nothing that is wrong,' and for preserving and protecting the South and whole country from ambitious and buccaneering wars, of which the landed and planting interests would have to bear the burden, at a great sacrifice of present prosperity. I am against internal improvements by the General Government, more than ever since their construction is put on the war power. If we could beard England up to 54° 40', ten years ago, without a road or known route to Oregon, why can't we wait for emigrants to beat a path on their way to gold mines, and hold California, without cutting a military road in time of peace? I am for retrenchment and reform of all expenditures, and for revenue only for economical administration, on a scale of pure, old-fashioned republican simplicity, discriminating no more than is necessary to prevent prohibition on non-dutiable articles. I am for free trade, and the protection it affords is demonstrably ample for a people of enterprise and art like ours. I am against State-bank bankruptcy, and all sorts of bankruptcy whatever. The Federal Government shall never declare again that honest debts shall be paid by gulping and oaths, with my consent. But my paper is run out.

"The President bids high. To filibusters he offers Cuba and the Isthmus and North Mexico; to the West a Pacific Railroad; to the North protection to iron and coarse woollens; and to the great commercial countries the power of centralization by obvious uses and abuses of a bankrupt act to supply to State banks. Yesterday Biddle was a monster, and to-day a few Wall street bankers can expand and contract upon us more like a vice than he did; and what would they not do if they could force the poor provinces when they pleased into bankruptcy?"

In his later letter – to Mr. Samford, of Alabama – Gov. Wise gave his opinion of the Douglas "non-intervention" doctrine in unmistakable language. He says:

"Intervention for protection, by the United States, through Congress, is all-pervading. It penetrates into States, territories, districts and other places throughout the United States, and is one of the most vitally essential attributes of our blessed Federal Union. No doctrine could be more repugnant to its benign spirit, none more destructive of federal immunities and privileges, and none more fatal to State rights and the safety of individual persons and their property, than this new light of "Non-Intervention" to protect all and everything in the jurisdiction of the United States. It is a question which cannot be retired from discussion in Congress, where it rises up every day in every form, and where it must be met with intelligence, integrity and courage. It cannot be renounced or smothered, or the Government must relinquish its dominion over every subject of its jurisdiction.

"And this doctrine of 'Non-Intervention for Protection' is only equalled in danger and destructiveness by that correlative error of some minds in these days: 'That Congress may not intervene to protect; for if it has the power to protect, it has the power to destroy.' This is a non sequitur, and a weak fallacy and gross delusion. The power and duty to protect is the power and duty not only not to destroy, but something far greater – it is the duty to intervene against invasion and violence. The whole American system of government throughout is one to protect against destruction. Because Congress may and shall provide the writ of habeas corpus, trial by jury, freedom of speech or of the press, etc., etc., shall it, therefore, be said to possess the power to withhold, deny or destroy either or all of these rights?

"But, say some, cui bono? – if a majority of Congress are opposed to the protection of the right, what use is there in claiming the mere abstraction of the right? I reply that there is great use and practical effect in it too.

"The proposition of non-intervention is: 'By the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas Nebraska act, and other declarations of its will, Congress renounced the exercise of any direct jurisdiction over the territories, and delegated its power to the local legislatures.' But it concedes that Congress could bestow no authority on the local legislatures of which it was not itself possessed' – in other words, "Congress cannot delegate more power than it possesses itself; and it has none to prohibit slavery. Very well, and so good as to the power. But there is a positive duty to be discharged as well as a power not to be exercised. Suppose the territorial legislature attempts to prohibit slavery, and thus do what Congress itself cannot do in the territories. Has Congress renounced its jurisdiction in the case? Could it or can it do so? If not, what is its duty? Does non-intervention renounce this duty of protection, in such a case, or not? It replies that this claim upon Congress to discharge this duty will be vain. Why? There is a dead majority against us in Congress, and they will not heed the appeal to the legislative department for protection.

"Well, but the case supposes a like dead majority and an aggressive majority against us in the territorial legislature too. – What then? There is no refuge of safety from a majority against us in territorial legislatures. Non-intervention quickly answers this dilemma, by saying: 'let the courts determine between us and our adversaries.' This is what is called 'remitting' the question to the judiciary, which may decide as well as the Congress or the Executive. – True, the judiciary may and must decide, anyhow, in either case, for that was no discovery of Mr. Calhoun, but a Constitutional function, which has ever belonged to the courts, and of which Congress and the Executive and the Territorial authorities cannot deprive them; and, without any remission by Congress, the judiciary department has the power of deciding upon the validity of laws. And it can as well and more directly pass upon the validity of laws enacted by Congress itself as upon the validity of those enacted by the territorial legislatures. If Congress passes an unconstitutional law, we can go to the courts, just as easy as if the law was passed by its delegate, the territorial Legislature. And if Congress does not renounce its direct jurisdiction and delegate it to the territorial legislature, then the latter will have no power to annoy the slave property locally by its abuse of delegated power; and the territorial legislature is more apt to pass a prohibition than Congress is, for very obvious reasons. The eye of the whole nation is immediately upon Congress, and no positive code is required to establish its power and duty to protect persons and property. The Constitution itself dictates and enjoins both. And it is first of all necessary, that neither the power nor the duty shall be practically denied, embarrassed or obstructed, by the enactment of unconstitutional laws of prohibition. Positive legislation is more apt to be passed against slavery by local than by national laws. In any practical view, then, we are attempting to shear a lion instead of a wolf. Non-intervention is simply absurd and impossible, and it is worse than impracticable.

-

"Such are the teachings to me of our past history, and I trust that I have now demonstrated in the second place: 'That the inhabitants or people of a territory are sovereign to form themselves a constitution and State government as I have shown in the first place, that in their territorial condition they are within the entire control and jurisdiction, or under the entire rule or regulation of Congress, subject to the Constitution of the United States, and that the citizens of each and all of the States are alike equally entitled to protection in all the privileges and immunities of persons and property, common to equal confederates.

"And this right and this duty of protection is not to be evaded or avoided either by the false ad captandum clamor that a code is required to be enacted by Congress for the protection of slave property. This is but to cast odium upon slavery, by creating the impression that a discrimination is necessary to distinguish it above what is due to other personal and proprietary rights. On the contrary, no such code is required to create either the right or the duty of protection, and no law is necessary to distinguish slave property from any other property. All persons and all property, equally and alike, require only not to be assailed and destroyed in, or excluded from the common territories. Every species of rights requires laws, it is true, suited to its character and to its case. Personal property, for example, must have a law that it shall not be 'taken and carried away;' and land, which cannot be 'taken and carried away,' must have a law that it shall not be trespassed upon in some other way; and so with slaves and everything else, they must have provisions according to their kind. But the Constitution of the United States, and the laws of Congress heretofore organizing territories are sufficient, and if amendments of the laws are required, it is the duty of Congress to see that they are provided, of the Executive of the United States to see that they are executed, and of the judiciary to decide upon the rights under the laws. The slave States should never pretend to any peculiar privileges, and do not, so far as I know. They ask only that their rights shall not be assailed and invaded, and, if they be assailed, that they may be protected as other personal and proprietary rights are protected; that they may have equal, confederate, federal privileges and immunities, and they ask for no special or peculiar code…

"To escape danger or disaster to themselves, your Congress, and Executives, and judiciary, and State legislatures, shall not, with my consent, be allowed to drop the reins of government and leap from the seats of power and responsibility, and renounce the duty of protection and preservation to all within their care by the ignoring and stultifying and disqualifying plea of negation – 'Non-intervention.' There are too many elements of discord in this country which require to be restrained by the most active and positive, but prudent intervention. These resolutions of Vermont, the tendency of which is either to drive one section of the States out of the Union, or to degrade and subjugate them in it, are an example. If anything can be worse than disunion to the United States, it would be the more dire alternative of degrading and subjugating any one State by forcing her submission to unequal laws and dishonorable conditions in the confederacy. The state or section of states thus subdued and humbled, would be unworthy of the union with other free republics, and such a union would be no longer what union now is. It should, then, be the watchful concern of all to maintain and support the honor, dignity, and equality of each; and equality alone can reciprocally maintain the strength of all. If first one and then another may be subdued, finally all but one will become subject to that one, central and consolidated. This should always combine the majority of States to support the weaker portion of the Union against the very appearance of oppression."

Such is the position of Gov. Wise on the slavery question. He is radical in his views, demanding the fullest protection from the courts and Congress for the protection of slavery. The faults as well as the virtues of Gov. Wise he carries openly in his face; if he is bold and imprudent, so he is frank and truthful. There is no deceit in him, and his political enemies know the worst when they know anything of his views or his course.

R. M. T. HUNTER

Senator Hunter is a contrast, in almost every one of his traits of character, to Governor Wise. The Governor is voluble – he writes letters thirty columns long upon the condition of the country. Senator Hunter is reticent. The Governor is, say his enemies, rash. Mr. Hunter is cautious and prudent to a fault. Governor Wise, again, is a reformer in his way – Senator Hunter is set down as an "old fogy" in politics. Yet both are Democrats, and agree in essentials, as a matter of course.

Few members of the Senate enjoy to such an extent the respect of the entire body as Mr. Hunter. His manners, his bearing, his style of speaking, and his deportment in social circles, are such as to win him the esteem of all who know him, even in spite of political opposition.

In the Senate, he resembles some quiet unpretending farmer, who might have come up from a rural district, to sit in a State legislature. He dresses plain, is dignified without the least particle of pretension; speaks plainly, slowly, but clearly. Never tries to ride down a political opponent by declamation, but coolly argues the point of difference. During the most exciting debates he keeps his temper, and though in political matters, especially upon the slavery question, he is ultra-southern in his views, he is so watchful, so prudent, so mild in his speech, that he contrives to win the esteem of his northern associates, and to be very popular with them.

Mr. Hunter is a native of Essex County, Va., was liberally educated, and adopted the law as a profession. His first political experience was gained in the Virginian State Legislature, where he remained three years; but in 1837, he was elected to Congress as a member of the House of Representatives, where he remained four years. In 1845, he was reëlected to Congress, and was made Speaker of the Twenty-sixth Congress. In 1847, he was elected United States' Senator, where he still remains, and has been for years the able Chairman of the Finance Committee.

Mr. Hunter's political views are known to the country at large. He is a southern Democrat, with the views of a southern democratic politician – anti-tariff, of course – anti-homestead law – in the last Congress voting in the Senate against bringing up the bill for consideration. His views on Popular Sovereignty, we will give, shortly, from his own lips. He supported the Lecompton bill through thick and thin, though he did it as he does all his work, in a modest, quiet way, without bluster, or any attempt to intimidate.

In the non-intervention debate of March, 1839, Senator Hunter gave his views of the question under discussion, in the following language:

"It is with extreme reluctance that I say a word on this subject so unhappily sprung up on the appropriation bill, of which I stand here as the guardian, a very insufficient one, as it seems; but the course of the debate has made it necessary for me, in my own vindication, to say a word or two in regard to this Nebraska-Kansas act.

"I differ from the senator from Illinois in regard to the bill, the history of its inception, and what was intended by it. As I understand it, we stood in this position: the southern senators, I believe, almost without an exception, who spoke upon that question – I know I did for one, as I have always done from the time I first made my appearance on this floor – maintained that the South had the right, under the Constitution, of protection of this property in the Territories; on the other hand, senators from the free States denied that right. None of them would vote to give it to us; but there were a portion of the northern democracy who were willing to do this; they were willing to repeal the Missouri restriction, and establish a territorial government there. A bill was immediately drawn which left this right to the territories to legislate for the prohibition of slavery in abeyance. It neither affirmed nor disaffirmed the power of the territorial legislature to legislate upon this subject of slavery; but it provided very carefully and cautiously that any question arising out of it might be referred to the judiciary…

The case then stood thus: whilst the southern men maintained on one side (and I was amongst them) that they had the right to the protection of their property under the Constitution, those from the free States maintained the opposite opinion. There could have been no accord between them on that point; but the southern men, with some objection and reluctance, in order to harmonize, did agree, as the only mode of getting the Missouri Compromise repealed, if the territorial legislature attempted to exercise the power, that the court should decide; and this they could do with perfect consistency, because they provided that whatever powers were delegated to the territorial legislature should be exercised under the Constitution. In their opinion, the Constitution not only prohibited Congress from delegating a power to abolish slavery to the territories, but from exercising it itself. Whilst they maintained that Congress had the power to govern in the territories, they maintained that there was an obligation on Congress, imposed by the equality of the States, that they should not prohibit the institutions of one State while they allowed those of another; and that was the mode in which it was passed. The bill in itself was, in my opinion, a compromise in which neither sacrificed principles, but left the whole question in abeyance to be decided by the courts without taking from Congress the power to resume jurisdiction, if they should choose to do so afterward. They retained as much good as they could without raising those questions upon which there could have been no accord of opinion.

"Now, sir, I say it never was understood, so far as I had anything to do with the bill, by the southern men who maintained the class of opinions of which I am speaking, that they were conferring on the territorial legislature the absolute power to deal with this subject. They did not; but they were secured to vote for a bill which would organize a territorial Legislature which should leave this question in abeyance, and this bill decided nothing, but only provided that the question should go to the courts, to be decided under that jurisdiction.