hat were not legitimately within the scope of
Federal authority. Fierce contentions prevailed for years, sometimes
more violent than at others.

In 1850 a budget of compromises, which has already been alluded to,
involving a surrender of principles and an enactment of laws that were
unwarranted by the Constitution, and offensive in other respects, had
been patched up by old Congressional party leaders, ostensibly to
reconcile conflicting views and interests, but which were superficial
remedies for a cancerous disease, and intended more to glorify the
authors than to promote the country's welfare. Both of the great parties
were committed by the managers to these compromises, but the effect upon
each was different. The Whigs, tired of constant defeat, hoped for a
change by the compromises that would give them recognition and power;
but instead of these they found themselves dwarfed and weakened, while
the Democrats, who yielded sound principles to conciliate their Southern
allies, were for a time numerically strengthened in that section by
accessions from the Whigs. Old party lines became broken, and in the
Presidential contest of 1852 the Democratic candidate, General Pierce, a
young and showy, but not profound man, was elected by an overwhelming
majority over the veteran General Scott, who was the candidate of the
Whigs. From this date the Whig organization dwindled and had but a
fragmentary existence. Thenceforward, until the overthrow of the
Democratic party, the Government at Washington tended to centralization.
Fidelity to party, and adherence to organization with little regard for
principle, were its political tests in the free States. Sectional
sentiments to sustain Southern aggressions, under the name of "Southern
rights," were inculcated, violent language, and acts that were scarcely
less so, prevailed through the South and found apologists and defenders
at the North. Presidents Pierce and Buchanan, literally "northern men
with southern principles," were submissive to these sectional
aggressions, acquiesced in the repeal of the Missouri compromise, the
extension and nationalizing of slavery, hitherto a State institution,
and also to the schemes to prevent the establishment of a free
constitution by the people of Kansas. The mass of voters opposed to the
policy of these administrations, and who constituted the Republican
party, were not entirely in accord on fundamental principles and views
of government, but had