HANNIBAL HAMLIN, the
third and youngest son of Cyrus and Anna (Livermore) Hamlin,
was born at Paris, Oxford County, Maine, August 27, 1809. His
parentage and birthplace are both indicative of the strong
physical and mental traits he possesses. His parents were of
English descent, and on the father's side his ancestors came
from Norman England to Massachusetts. The homestead where he was
born still stands on the western slope of Paris Hill, almost in
the heart of Switzerland America.
His education was in the common-school, and the village
academy in Hebron, an adjoining town, supplemented by work on
the home farm and in the printing-office of the Jeffersonian
newspaper, until he began the study of law, which became his
chosen profession, and for which he was well prepared under the
tuition of excellent teachers, including, among others, men
eminent for their ability, like Fessenden and Deblois
of Portland.
He began the practice of law in 1833 at Hampden,
Penobscot County, where he resided until he removed to Bangor in
1861, soon after his election as Vice-President.
His entrance into political life was as a Democrat,
with which party he acted for twenty years as a Member of the
Legislature, where he was chosen Speaker three times in
succession, Member of Congress and Senator until 1856, when he
resigned his position as Chairman of the Committee on Commerce
in the Senate, and refused to follow that party any farther.
This he did in accordance with his previously expressed
convictions of duty, upon the subject of extending slavery into
the Territories.
Mr. Hamlin gave his reasons for resigning his
chairmanship, and withdrawing from what had been his party, in a
speech made in the Senate on the 12th of June, 1856. When the
Senate came to order, on the morning of that day, he took the
floor, and amid intense excitement said: " Mr. President, I rise
for a purpose purely personal—a purpose such as I have never
before risen for in the Senate. I desire to explain some matters
personal to myself, and to my own future course in public life."
"Go on! go on!" cried several Senators in a breath; and he
continued in a speech which not only clearly defined his own
position, but gave, in the shortest possible epitome, a history
up to that time of the relations of the Democratic Party toward
the slavery question. It was as follows:
"I ask the Senate to excuse me from further service as
Chairman of the Committee on Commerce. I do so because I feel
that my relations hereafter shall be of such a character as to
render it proper that I should no longer hold that position. I
owe this act to the dominant majority in the Senate. When I
cease to harmonize with the majority, or tests are applied by
that party with which I have acted to which I cannot submit, I
feel that I ought no longer to hold that respectable position. I
propose to state briefly the reasons which have brought me to
that conclusion.
" During nine years of service in the Senate I have
preferred to be a working rather than a talking member, and so I
have been almost a silent one. On the subjects which have so
much agitated the country, Senators know that I have rarely
uttered a word. I love my country more than I love my party. I
love my country above my love for any interest that can too
deeply agitate or disturb its harmony. I have seen, in all the
exciting scenes and debates through which we have passed, no
particular good that would result from my active intermingling
in them. My heart has often been full, and the impulses of that
heart have often been felt upon my lips, but I have repressed
them there. Sir, I hold that the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise was a gross moral and political wrong, unequalled in
the annals of the legislation of this country, and hardly
equalled in the annals of any other free country. Still, sir,
with a desire to promote harmony and concord and brotherly
feeling, I was a quiet man under all the exciting debates which
led to that fatal result. I believed it wrong then. I can see
that wrong lying broadcast all around us now. As a wrong I
opposed that measure—not indeed by my voice, but with consistent
and steady, uniform votes. I so resisted it in obedience to the
dictates of my own judgment. I did it also cheerfully, in
compliance with the instructions of the Legislature of Maine,
which were passed by a vote almost unanimous. In the House of
Representatives of Maine, consisting now of one hundred and
fifty-one members, only six, I think, dissented; and in the
Senate, consisting of thirty-one members, only one member
non-concurred.
" But the Missouri restriction was abrogated. The
portentous evils that were predicted have followed, and are yet
following along in its train. It was done, sir, in violation of
the pledges of that party with which I have always acted, and
with which I have always voted. It was done in violation of
solemn pledges of the President of the United States, made in
his Inaugural Address. Still, sir, I was disposed to suffer the
wrong until I should see that no evil results were flowing from
it. We were told by almost every Senator who addressed us upon
that occasion, that no evil results would follow, that no
practical difference in the settlement of the country and the
character of the future State would take place, whether the act
were done or not. I have waited calmly and patiently to see the
fulfilment of that prediction; and I am grieved, sir, to say now
that they have at least been mistaken in their predictions and
promises. They all have signally failed.
"That Senators might have voted for that measure under
the belief then expressed and the predictions to which I have
alluded, I can well understand; but how Senators can now defend
that measure amid all its evils, which are overwhelming the
land, if not threatening it with a conflagration, is what I do
not comprehend. The whole of the disturbed state of the country
has its rise in and is attributable to that act alone—nothing
else. It lies at the foundation of all our misfortunes and
commotions. There would have been no incursions by Missouri
borderers into Kansas, either to establish slavery or control
elections. There would have been no necessity, cither, for
others to have gone there partially to aid in preserving the
country in its then condition. All would have been peace there.
Had it not been done, that repose and quiet which pervaded the
public mind then would hold it in tranquillity to-day. Instead
of startling events, we should have quiet and peace within our
borders, and that paternal feeling which ought to animate the
citizens of every part of the Union toward those of all other
sections.
"Sir, the events that are taking place around us are
indeed startling. They challenge the public mind and appeal to
the public judgment; they thrill the public nerve as electricity
imparts a tremulous motion to the telegraph wire. It is a period
when all good men should unite in applying the proper remedy to
secure peace and harmony to the country. Is this to be done by
any of us remaining associated with those who have been
instrumental in producing these results, and who now justify
them? I do not see my duty lying in that direction.
" I have, while temporarily acquiescing, stated here
and at home—everywhere uniformly—that when the tests of those
measures were applied to me as one of party fidelity, I would
sunder them as flax is sundered at the touch of fire. I do it
now.
"The occasion involves a question of moral duty, and
self-respect allows me no other line of duty but to follow the
dictates of my own judgment and the impulses of my own heart. A
just man may cheerfully submit to many enforced humiliations,
but a self-degraded man has ceased to be worthy to be deemed a
man at all.
" Sir, what has the recent Democratic Convention at
Cincinnati done? It has indorsed the measures I have condemned,
and has sanctioned its destructive and ruinous effects. It has
clone more—vastly more. That principle or policy of Territorial
sovereignty which once had, and which I suppose now has, its
advocates within these walls is stricken down; and there is an
absolute denial of it in the resolution of the convention—if I
can draw right conclusions—a denial equally to Congress, and
even to the people of the territories, of the right to settle
the question of slavery therein. On the contrary, the convention
has actually incorporated into the platform of the Democratic
Party that doctrine which only a few years ago met nothing but
ridicule and contempt, here and elsewhere—namely, that the flag
of the Federal Union, under the Constitution of the United
States, carries slavery wherever it floats. If this baleful
principle be true, then that national ode which inspires us
always as on a battle-field should be rewritten by Drake, and
should read thus :
" ' Forever float that standard sheet!
Where breathes the foe but falls before us,
With slavery's soil beneath our feet,
And slavery's banner streaming o'er us ! '
"Now, sir, what is the precise condition in which this
matter is left by the Cincinnati Convention? I do net design to
trespass many moments on the Senate, but allow me to read and
offer a few comments upon some portions of the Democratic
platform. The first resolution that treats upon the subject is
in these words—I read just so much of it as is applicable to my
present remarks:
'"That Congress has no power under the Constitution to
interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the
several States, and that all such States are the sole and proper
judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs not
prohibited by the Constitution.'
" I take it that this language thus far is language
that meets a willing and ready response from every Senator here;
certainly it does from me. But in the following resolution I
find these words :
"'Resolved, That the foregoing proposition covers and
was intended to embrace the whole subject of slavery agitation
in Congress.'
"The first resolution which I read was adopted years
ago in Democratic conventions. The second resolution which I
read was adopted in subsequent years, when a different state of
things had arisen, and it became necessary to apply an abstract
proposition relating to the States to the Territories. Hence the
adoption of the language contained in the second resolution
which I have read.
"Now, sir, I deny the position thus assumed by the
Cincinnati Convention. In the language of the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. Crittenden), so ably and so appropriately used on
Tuesday last, I hold that the entire and unqualified sovereignty
of the Territories is in Congress. That is my judgment; but this
resolution brings the Territories precisely within the same
limitations which are applied to the States in the resolution
which I first read. The two taken together deny to Congress any
power of legislation in the Territories. Follow on and let us
see what remains. Adopted as a part of the present platform, and
as necessary to a new state of things, and to meet an emergency
now existing, the convention says:
" ' The American Democracy recognize and adopt the
principles contained in the organic laws establishing the
Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, as embodying the only sound
and safe solution of the slavery question, upon which the great
national idea of the people of this whole country can repose in
its determined conservatism of the Union,—non-interference by
Congress with slavery in States and Territories.'
"Then follows the last resolution :
"'Resolved, That we recognize the right of the people
of all the Territories, including Kansas and Nebraska, acting
through the fairly expressed will of the majority of actual
residents, and whenever the number of their inhabitants
justifies it, to form a constitution, with or without domestic
slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect
equality with the other States.'
"Take all these resolutions together, and the deduction
which we must necessarily draw from them is a denial to Congress
of any power whatever to legislate upon the subject of slavery.
The last resolution denies to the people of the Territory any
power over that subject, save when they shall have a sufficient
number to form a constitution and become a State, and also
denies that Congress has any power over the subject. And so the
resolutions hold that this power is at least in abeyance while
the Territory is in a Territorial condition. That is the
only conclusion which you can draw from these resolutions. Alas
for short-lived Territorial sovereignty! It came to its death in
the house of its friends; it was buried by the same hand which
had given it baptism. But, sir, I did not rise for the purpose
of discussing these resolutions, but only to read them, and
state the action which I propose to take in view of them. My
object now is to show only that the Cincinnati Convention has
indorsed and approved of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise,
from which so many evils have already flowed, from which more
and worse evils must yet be anticipated. It would of course be
expected that the Presidential nominee of that convention would
accept cordially and cheerfully the platform prepared for him by
his party friends. No person can object to that; there is no
equivocation on his part about the matter. I beg leave to read a
short extract from a speech of that gentleman made at his own
home within the last few days. In reply to the Keystone Club,
which paid him a visit there, Mr. Buchanan said:
" 'Gentlemen, two weeks since I should have made you a
longer speech, but now I have been placed on a platform of which
I most heartily approve, and that can speak for me. Being the
representative of the great Democratic Party, and not simply
James Buchanan, I must square my conduct according to the
platform of the party, and insert no new plank, nor take one
from it.' "
Having read this extract from the speech of the man who
was to be the last Democratic President of the United States,
Mr. Hamlin, amid the utmost silence in the crowded Senate
Chamber, concluded his memorable speech as follows:
"These events leave to me only one unpleasant duty,
which is to declare here that I can maintain political
associations with no party that insists upon such doctrines;
that I can support no man for President who avows and recognizes
them; and that the little of that power with which God has
endowed me shall be employed to battle manfully, firmly, and
consistently for his defeat, demanded as it is by the highest
interests of the country which owns all my allegiance."
Thus closed Mr. Hamlin's connection with
the Democratic party. During the remainder of his life he has
been a leader in the Republican party, beginning in 1856 with
the election as Governor of Maine, next returning to the U. S.
Senate, and in i860 elected Vice-President with Abraham
Lincoln President, after which he was twice
returned to the Senate, retiring voluntarily in March, 1881,
from that body, where, on the floor and in the chair, he served
in all thirty years. For one year he was Collector of the Port
of Boston, and Minister to the Court of Spain. He closed his
public life upon his return from Spain.
It is not a part of our plan to dwell upon the history
of each of his successive triumphs in the political arena. To do
this completely would require us to write a history of parties
for fifty years. We must confine the limits of this brief sketch
to some few things which are more personal in their nature, and
make way for the historian of the future to tell how he served
his country.
We hazard nothing in the statement that Mr. Hamlin's
superior claims to public recognition of his worth and power
during the whole of his long and useful career are due to his
fidelity and integrity. They are conceded alike both by friend
and foe. Add to these qualities an untiring industry, an
indomitable will guided by an ever kindly heart, and you have
the man whose hold upon the people of Maine is not equalled by
any other man. He seems never to have forgotten, from the time
he entered public life, that the wants of his constituents were
the first claim to his service, and he made no distinction of
party or person in all matters of business. Many touching
instances might be told of the relief and comfort which he has
been instrumental in procuring for the disabled soldier, his
widow and orphans. His manner of speaking is direct and
forcible. He never fails to touch the hearts and minds of his
hearers at the beginning; and the clear soprano tones of his
voice which never tire the ear, may be heard much beyond the
ordinary range of the human voice. At the ripe old age of his
seventy-fifth anniversary he spoke with all his accustomed power
to an outdoor audience of thousands, assembled in the public
square of a Maine village, for upwards of an hour. No public
speaker at his home ever receives warmer applause, and nowhere
is he more welcome upon the platform than among his own friends
and neighbors. His statement is perspicuous and free from
declamation. He is therefore easy of apprehension. His argument
abounds in happy illustrations full of good-natured humor.
When necessary, he can use ridicule and sarcasm with effect.
Volumes might be filled with his witty and mirthful sayings. If
we were disposed to criticise, it would be to say that he is
indifferent about his fame as a debater. Content with the
success of their present effect, he takes no care to have his
popular speeches reported. He resembles Corwin and
Clay in this respect rather than Burke and Sumner.
His senatorial arguments, as preserved by congressional
reporters, give occasional glimpses of his oratorical powers,
but fail even in his defence of free labor when replying to Mr.
Hammond of South Carolina—who in the Senate stigmatized our free
laborers as "mudsills of the North"—to disclose his wonted fire
and pathos.
As a practical legislator, constant in committee, watchful of
the order and method of business, wise to counsel with, and an
authority in parliamentary law and tactics, his relations with
Senators were both engaging and serviceable. No Senator ever
left that body more regretted or with fewer enemies. He numbers
among his political opponents many personal friends like
Allen G. Thurman of Ohio, who also served with him in the
House of Representatives.
It is rarely accorded to the American statesman to pass
unscathed through so many years of public life, and retire with
so many honors and so warmly endeared with the true love of
hosts of friends, as Mr. Hamlin.
Mr. Hamlin has been twice married. His first
wife, Sarah Jane, was the daughter of Stephen
Emery of Paris, who was a district judge and
attorney-general. They were married at Paris, December 10, 1833,
and began their married life at Hampden. Four sons and one
daughter were born to them : George (1), George
(2), Charles, Cyrus, and Sarah. The two
first died in infancy, Cyrus, brigadier and brevet
major-general, at New Orleans, August 28, 1867, of disease
contracted in the army; and the daughter at her father's, June
28, 1878. Charles, the surviving son, resides in Bangor,
and is a lawyer. He served in the Army of the Potomac, and was
honorably discharged after the close of the war, at his own
request, having previously been promoted to the grade of brevet
brigadier-general. He has also served in the Legislature of
Maine as representative from Bangor. Mrs. Hamlin
died at Hampden, April 17, 1855. He married for his second wife
Ellen Vesta, the third daughter of Judge
Emery, at Paris, September 25, 1856. Two sons, Hannibal
Emery and Frank, were born to them. The former is a
lawyer, and resides at Ellsworth. He is a law partner with
Hon. Eugene Hale, U. S. S. The latter has
recently been graduated at Harvard College. Mrs. Hamlin's fine
education, winning manners, and affectionate heart have made
her a fit companion, at home and abroad, to her noble husband. |
