Report of Speech at Kalamazoo, Michigan, 27 August 18561
At 2 o’clock, P.M., Hon. Abram Lincoln, of Illinois, was introduced to the meeting, and greeted with much enthusiasm, He addressed the assembly as follows:
Fellow countrymen:— Under the Constitution of the U.S. another Presidential contest approaches us. All over this land— that portion at least, of which I know much— the people are assembling to consider the proper course to be adopted by them. One of the first considerations is to learn what the people differ about. If we ascertain what we differ about, we shall be better able to decide. The question of slavery, at the present day, should be not only the greatest question, but very nearly the sole question. Our opponents, however, prefer that this should not be the case. To get at this question, I will occupy your attention but a single moment. The question is simply this:— Shall slavery be spread into the new Territories, or not?2 This is the naked question. If we should support Fremont successfully in this, it may be charged that we will not be content with restricting slavery in the new territories.3 If we should charge that James Buchanan, by his platform, is bound to extend slavery into the territories, and that he is in favor of its being thus spread, we should be puzzled to prove it.4 We believe it, nevertheless. By taking the issue as I present it, whether it shall be permitted as an issue, is made up between the parties. Each takes his own stand. This is the question: Shall the Government of the United States prohibit slavery in the United States.
We have been in the habit of deploring the fact that slavery exists amongst us. We have ever deplored it. Our forefathers did, and they declared, as we have done in later years, the blame rested on the mother Government of Great Britain. We constantly condemn Great Britain for not preventing slavery from coming amongst us. She would not interfere to prevent it, and so individuals were enabled to introduce the institution without opposition. I have alluded to this, to ask you If this is not exactly the policy of Buchanan and his friends, to place this government in the attitude then occupied by the government of Great Britain— placing the nation in the position to authorize the territories to reproach it, for refusing to allow them to hold slaves. I would like to ask your attention, any gentleman to tell me when the people of Kansas are going to decide. When are they to do it? How are they to do it? I asked that question two years ago— when, and how are to do it?5 Not many weeks ago, our new Senator from Illinois, (Mr. Trumbull) asked Douglas how it could be done. Douglas is a great man— at keeping from answering questions he don’t want to answer. He would not answer. He said it was a question for the Supreme Court to decide.6 In the North, his friends argue that the people can decide it at any time. The Southerners say there is no power in the people, whatever. We know that from the time that white people have have been allowed in the territory, they have brought slaves with them. Suppose the people come up to vote as freely, and with as perfect protection as we could do it here. Will they be at liberty to vote their sentiments? If they can, then all that has ever been said about our provincial ancestors is untrue, and they could have done so, also. We know our Southern friends say that the General Government cannot interfere. The people, say they, have no right to interfere. They could as truly say,— “It is amongst us— we cannot get rid of it”
But I am afraid I waste too much time on this point. I take it as an illustration of the principle, that slaves are admitted into the territories. And, while I am speaking of Kansas, how will that operate? Can men vote truly? We will suppose that there are ten men who go into Kansas to settle. Nine of these are opposed to slavery. One has ten slaves. The slaveholder is a good man in other respects; he is a good neighbor, and being a wealthy man, he is enabled to do the others many neighborly kindnesses. They like the man, though they don’t like the system by which he holds his fellow-men in bondage. And here let me say, that in intellectual and physical structure, our Southern brethren do not differ from us. They are, like us, subject to passions, and it is only their odious institution of slavery, that makes the breach between us. These ten men of whom I was speaking, live together three or four years; they intermarry; their family ties are strengthened. And who wonders that in time, the people learn to look upon slavery with complacency? This is the way in which slavery is planted, and gains so firm a foothold. I think this is a strong card that the Nebraska party have played, and won upon, in this game.
I suppose that this crowd are opposed to the admission of slavery into Kansas, yet it is true that in all crowds there are some who differ from the majority.7 I want to ask the Buchanan men, who are against the spread of slavery, if there be any present, why not vote for the man who is against it? I understand that Mr. Fillmore’s position is precisely like Buchanan’s. I understand that, by the Nebraka bill, a door has been opened for the spread of slavery in the Territories. Examine, if you please, and see if they have ever done any such thing as try to shut the door. It is true that Fillmore tickles a few of his friends with the notion that he is not the cause of the door being opened. Well; it brings him into this position: he tries to get both sides, one by denouncing those who opened the door, and the other by hinting that he doesn’t care a fig for its being open.8 If he were President, he would have one side or the other— he would either restrict slavery or not. Of course it would be so. There could be no middle way. You who hate slavery and love freedom, why not, as Fillmore and Buchanan are on the same ground, vote for Fremont? Why not vote for the man who takes your side of the question? “Well,” says Buchanier, “it is none of our business.” But is it not our business? There are several reasons why I think it is our business. But let us see how it is. Others have urged these reasons before, but they are still of use. By our Constitution we are represented in Congress in proportion to numbers, and in counting the numbers that give us our representatives, three slaves are counted as two people.9 The State of Maine has six representatives in the lower house of Congress. In strength South Oarolina is equal to her. But stop! Maine has twice as many white people, and 32,000 to boot! And is that fair? I don’t complain of it. This regulation was put in force when the exigencies of the times demanded it, and could not have besn avoided. Now, one man in South Carolina is the same as two men here. Maine should have twice as many men in Congress as South Carolina.10 It is a fact that any man in South Carolina has more influence and power in Congress to-day than any two now before me. The same thing is true of all slave States, though it may not be in the same proportion. It is a truth that cannot be denied, that in all the free States no white man is the equal of the white man of the slave States. But this is in the Constitution, and we must stand up to it. The question, then is, “Have we no interest as to whether the white man of the North shall be the equal of the white man of the South?” Once when I used this argument in the presence of Douglass, he answered that in the North the black man was counted as a full man, and had an equal vote with the white, while at the South they were counted at but three-fifths. And Douglas, when he had made this reply, doubtless thought he had forever silenced the objection.11
Have we no interest in the free Territories of the United States— that they should be kept open for the homes of free white people? As our Northern States are growing more and more in wealth and population, we are continually in want of an outlet, through which it may pass out to enrich our country. In this we have an interest— a deep and abiding interest. There is another thing, and that is the mature knowledge we have— the greatest interest of all. It is the doctrine, that the people are to be driven from the maxims of our free Government, that despises the spirit which for eighty years has celebrated the anniversary of our national independence.
We are a great empire. We are eighty years old. We stand at once the wonder and admiration of the whole world, and we must enquire what it is that has given us so much prosperity, snd we shall understand that to give up that one thing, would be to give up all future prosperity. This cause is that every man can make himself. It has been said that such a race of prosperity has been run nowhere else. We find a people on the North-east, who have a different government from ours, being ruled by a Queen.12 Turning to the South, we see a people who, while they boast of being free, keep their fellow beings in bondage. Compare our Free States with either, shall we say here that we have no interest in keeping that principle alive? Shall we say— “Let it be.” No— we have an interest in the maintenance of the principles of the Government, and without this interest, it is worth nothing. I have noticed in Southern newspapers, particularly the Richmond Enquirer, the Southern view of the Free States. They insist that slavery has a right to spread. They defend it upon principle. They insist that their slaves are far better off than Northern freemen.13 What a mistaken view do these men have of Northern laborers! They think that men are always to remain laborers here— but there is no such class. The man who labored for another last year, this year labors for himself, and next year he will hire others to labor for him. These men don’t understand when they think in this manner of Northern free labor. When these reasons can be introduced, tell me not that we have no interest in keeping the Territories free for the settlement of free laborers.
I pass, then, from this question. I think we have an ever growing interest in maintaining the free institutions of our country.
It is said that our party is a sectional party. It has been said in high quarters that if Fremont and Dayton were elected the Union would be dissolved.14 The South do not think so. I believe it! I believe it! It is a shameful thing that the subject is talked of so much. Did we not have a Southern President and Vice President at one time? And yet the Union has not yet been disolved.15 Why, at this very moment, there is a Northern President and Vice-President. Pierce and King were elected, and King died without ever taking his seat. The Senate elected a Northern man from their own numbers, to perform the duties of the Vice-President. He resigned his seat, however, as soon as he got the job of making a slave State out of Kansas.16 Was not that a great mistake?
(A voice,— “He didn’t mean that!”)
Then why didn’t he speak what he did mean? Why did not he speak what he ought to have spoken? That was the very thing. He should have spoken manly, and we should then have known where to have found him. It is said we expect to elect Fremont by Northern votes.17 Certainly we do not think the South will elect him. But let us ask the question differently. Does not Buchanan expect to be elected by Southern votes? Fillmore, however, will go out of this contest the most national man we have. He has no prospect of having a single vote on either side of Mason and Dixon’s line, to trouble his poor soul about. (Laughter and cheers.)
We believe that it is right that slavery should not be tolerated in the new territories, yet we cannot get support for this doctrine, except in one part of the country. Slavery is looked upon by men in the light of dollars and cents. The estimated worth of the slaves at the South is $1,000,000,000,18 and in a very few years, if the institution shall be admitted into the territories, they will have increased fifty per cent in value.
Our adversaries charge Fremont with being an abolitionist. When pressed to show proof, they frankly confess that they can show no such thing. They then run off upon the assertion that his supporters are abolitionists. But this they have never attempted to prove. I know of no word in the language that has been used so much as that one “abolitionist,” having no definition. It has no meaning unless taken as designating a person who is abolishing something. If that be its signification, the supporters of Fremont are not abolitionists. In Kansas all who come there are perfectly free to regulate their own social relations. There has never been a man there who was an abolitionist— for what was there to be abolished? People there had perfect freedom to express what they wished on the subject, when the Nebraska bill was first passed. Our friends in the South, who support Buchanan, have five disunion men to one at the North. This disunion is a sectional question. Who is to blame for it? Are we? I don’t care how you express it. This government is aought to be put on a new track. Slavery is to be made a ruling element in our government. The question can be avoided in but two ways. By the one, we must submit, and allow slavery to triumph, or, by the other, we must triumph over the black demon. We have chosen the latter manner. If you of the North wish to get rid of this question, you must decide between these two ways— submit and vote for Buchanan, submit and vote that slavery is a just and good thing and immediately get rid of the question; or unite with us, and help us to triumph. We would all like to have the question done away with, but we cannot submit.
They tell us that we are in company with men who have long been known as abolitionists. What care we how many may feel disposed to labor for our cause? Why do not you, Buchanan men, come in and use your influence to make our party respectable? (Laughter.) How is the dissolution of the Union to be consummated? They tell us that the Union is in danger. Who will divide it? Is it those who make the charge? Are they themselves the persons who wish to see this result? A majority will never dissolve the Union. Can a minority do it? When this Nebraska bill was first introduced into Congress, the sense of the Democratic party was outraged.19 That party has ever prided itself, that it was the friend of individual, universal freedom. It was that principle upon which they carried their measures. When the Kansas scheme was conceived, it was natural that this respect and sense should have been outraged. Now I make this appeal to the Democratic citizens here. Don’t you find yourself making arguments in support of these measures, which you never would have made before? Did you ever do it before this Nebraska bill compelled you to do it? If you answer this in the affirmative, see how a whole party have been turned away from their love of liberty! And now, my Democratic friends, come forward. Throw off these things, and come to the rescue of this great principle of equality. Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution.— That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these great and true principles. Come, and keep coming! Strike, and strike again! So sure as God lives, the victory shall be yours.(Great cheering.)20
1On August 29, 1856, the Daily Advertiser published this report of a speech that Abraham Lincoln delivered in Kalamazoo, Michigan on August 27. The original speech in Lincoln’s hand has not been located.
2Lincoln references the political and social implications of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.
3During the 1856 Republican National Convention, the party’s delegates selected John C. Fremont as the Republican presidential candidate in the 1856 Federal Election. In its platform, the party declared its opposition to the extension of slavery into new territories.
Proceedings of the First Three Republican National Conventions of 1856, 1860 and 1864 (Minneapolis, MN: Charles W. Johnson, 1893), 43, 58-59.
4Delegates to the 1856 Democratic National Convention nominated James Buchanan as the Democratic Party’s candidate for president. That party’s platform asserted that “the people of all Territories, including Kansas and Nebraska,” were entitled to form constitutions “with or without domestic slavery” without interference from the U.S. Congress.
Official Proceedings of the National Democratic Convention Held in Cincinnati, June 2-6, 1856 (Cincinnati: Enquirer Company Steam Printing, 1856), 26.
5Passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and its effective repeal of the Missouri Compromise had reawakened Lincoln’s passion for politics, and he threw himself into opposing the act during the 1854 election campaign, crisscrossing Illinois to deliver speeches against the legislation and to rebut Stephen A. Douglas’ views on popular sovereignty.
During a speech at Peoria on October 16, 1854, Lincoln asserted that the framers of the U.S. Constitution rejected the principle of slavery, blamed Great Britain for permitting its introduction in the U.S., tolerated its existence “only by necessity,” and always intended for new territories that were added to the United States to be free from the institution of slavery—citing the Northwest Ordinance’s clause prohibiting slavery in the Northwest Territory and in any states that might arise from it as proof for the latter assertion.
David Herbert Donald, Lincoln (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995), 167-73.
6Lincoln references questions that Lyman Trumbull posed to Douglas and other Democrats during debates in the U.S. Senate regarding Senate Bill 356, the so-called Toombs Bill proposed by Robert A. Toombs that attempted to quell the escalating political violence in Kansas by formulating a process for bringing the territory into the union as a new state.
The portion of the debate over the bill that Lincoln references centered upon whether the Kansas Territorial Legislature had the right “at any time to exclude slavery or allow it,” or whether that right was reserved for states. Trumbull argued that all territorial legislatures should have the right and wanted this made explicit in the bill via amendment. Douglas argued that it was a “constitutional question” for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide. The Senate ultimately rejected Trumbull’s amendment on the topic.
In a July 5 letter to Lincoln, Trumbull discussed the debates over the Toombs bill, claiming “Douglas has been perfectly whipped out of his self government, non-intervention & popular sovereignty dogmas.” Toombs’ bill passed the Senate, which had a Democratic majority, on July 2, but ultimately failed in the U.S. House of Representatives, in which Republicans held a majority.
S. 356. 34th Cong. 1st sess. (1856); U.S. Senate Journal. 1856. 34th Cong., 1st sess., 402; Biographical Directory of the American Congress 1774-1949 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1950), 251; Cong. Globe, 34th Cong., 1st Sess., 1439, 1506, 1519, 1539 (1856); Cong. Globe, 34th Cong., 1st Sess., Appendix, 796-98 (1856); Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, The Life of Robert Toombs (New York: Macmillan, 1913), 126, 128; David M. Potter and Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861 (New York: Harper & Row, 1976), 215.
7Lincoln delivered this speech at a Republican Party rally in support of Fremont’s candidacy for the presidency. Many of the attendees, therefore, would have been Republicans who agreed with the party’s opposition to the extension of slavery into new territories.
Abraham Lincoln to Hezekiah G. Wells; Daily Advertiser (Detroit, MI), 29 August 1856, 2:2-4; Proceedings of the First Three Republican National Conventions of 1856, 1860 and 1864, 43.
8Delegates to the 1856 American Party National Convention nominated Millard Fillmore as the American Party’s candidate for president. The party’s platform emphasized “non-intervention by each State with the affairs of any other State” and decried the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and the “sectional agitation” caused by the Kansas-Nebraska Act but made no direct statements either for or against the extension of slavery into new territories and made no promises to restore the Missouri Compromise. During the 1856 election campaign, Fillmore denounced sectionalism, was cordial with southern slaveholding Whigs, demonstrated a willingness to be conciliatory with the South, and urged that slavery be set aside as a national issue.
Daily Illinois State Journal (Springfield), 26 February 1856, 2:4; Horace Greeley and John F. Cleveland, eds., A Political Text-Book for 1860 (New York: Tribune Association, 1860), 23; David M. Potter and Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861, 262; Tyler Anbinder, “Fillmore, Millard,” American National Biography, ed. by John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 7:911.
9Per article one, section two of the U.S. Constitution, the number of representatives that each state is granted in the U.S. House of Representatives is determined in proportion to the population of the state. For the purposes of apportionment, three-fifths of the total number of a state’s enslaved persons were added to each state’s population for the purposes of calculating congressional representation. The Three-Fifths Compromise, reached during the 1787 Constitutional Convention and in force until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, granted slave-holding states more representatives in Congress as well as more electoral votes in presidential elections than they would have had if only the number of free persons were used to calculate each state’s congressional apportionment.
U.S. Const. art. I, § 2-3; U.S. Const. art. XIV; James Oakes, The Crooked Path to Abolition: Abraham Lincoln and the Antislavery Constitution (New York: W. W. Norton, 2021), 10-11.
10According to the census of 1850, the population of Maine was 583,169 and the population of South Carolina was 668,507—but the latter was the aggregate total, which included three-fifths of the total number of enslaved persons in South Carolina. As of the 1850 census, 384,984 enslaved persons resided in South Carolina, meaning that its white population numbered 437,517. Maine had no enslaved persons, but nearly 150,000 more white persons than South Carolina at the time.
Lincoln made the same argument about Maine and South Carolina’s representation—with similar population figures—while stumping on behalf of the Republican Party during the 1854 election campaign. His source for each state’s population data is unclear. His figures do not match those found in the 1850 U.S. census.
Biographical Directory of the American Congress 1774-1949, 250, 253; J. D. B. DeBow, Statistical View of the United States (Washington, DC: A. O. P. Nicholson, 1854), 40, 83; Report of Speech at Springfield, Illinois; Report of Speech at Peoria, Illinois.
11Although it is unclear precisely when Douglas made this reply to Lincoln, it was most likely in October 1854 when Douglas spoke in Springfield, Illinois as part of his Illinois campaign to defend the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Although Douglas refused to debate Lincoln during the 1854 election campaign, after Douglas concluded an address given at the opening of the Illinois State Fair on October 3, 1854, Lincoln announced to the crowd that he or Trumbull would answer Douglas the next day and invited Douglas to attend and respond. Lincoln delivered a speech to a large crowd gathered in the Illinois House of Representatives hall on October 4. Douglas not only attended but interrupted and bantered with Lincoln from a seat directly in front of him and, after Lincoln concluded, offered a nearly two-hour rejoinder.
David Herbert Donald, Lincoln, 173-74, 177.
12Lincoln may be referencing either Canada or the United Kingdom.
13Lincoln may be referring to an article that appeared in the Richmond Enquirer on August 22, 1856, heartily endorsing the views of William A. Smith, then president of Randolph Macon College. In the article, the Enquirer agreed with Smith’s arguments that, “the (so-called) free laborer was less free than the slave,” that “the normal condition of the slave is far better than that of the free laborer,” and that “No government can be stable without slavery.”
Richmond Enquirer (VA), 22 August 1856, 1:7.
14During his “Union Speech,” delivered in Albany, New York in late-June 1856, Fillmore called the Republican Party a “sectional party” that represented only the interests of the free states of the nation. He argued this was dangerous, and that if the Republican Party gained power it would lead “inevitably to the destruction” of the nation.
Frank H. Severance, ed., Millard Fillmore Papers, vol. 11 of Publications of the Buffalo Historical Society (Buffalo, NY: Buffalo Historical Society, 1907), 2:3, 19, 21.
15Lincoln also made this argument during the 1854 election campaign, citing President Andrew Jackson and Vice President John C. Calhoun elected in 1828.
16Lincoln references David R. Atchison, who was president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate at the time of Vice President William R. D. King’s death in April 1853. Under Article one, section three of the U.S. Constitution, the Senate president pro tempore assumed the duties of president of the Senate in the absence of the vice president. Since President Franklin Pierce had no vice president after King’s death, this technically made Atchison the acting vice president of the United States, and, consequently, second in line for the presidency. Jesse D. Bright was president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate at the time that Lincoln delivered this speech.
When the Thirty-Third Congress opened its second session in December 1854, Atchison did not appear; he was leading pro-slavery forces in Bleeding Kansas instead. In his absence, the Senate elected first Lewis Cass and later Bright president pro tempore. When Atchison returned to the Senate on December 22, 1854, Bright offered to step aside so that Atchison could reclaim the role, but Atchison declined. Atchison failed in his bid for reelection, leaving the Senate in March 1855 and becoming a leader of pro-slavery forces in the Kansas Territory throughout 1855 and 1856. This series of events is what Lincoln means when he refers to Atchison resigning his seat as acting vice president to take up the job of “making a slave State out of Kansas.”
Biographical Directory of the American Congress 1774-1949, 19, 251, 890; U.S. Senate Journal. 1853. 33rd Cong., special sess., 331; U.S. Const. art. I, § 3; U.S. Senate Journal. 1854. 33rd Cong., 2nd sess., 5-6, 26, 65; Steven G. O’Brien, American Political Leaders: From Colonial Times to the Present (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1991), 16; William E. Parrish, “David Rice Atchison of Missouri,” University of Missouri Studies 34, no. 1 (1961), 167-68.
17Fillmore made this argument in his Albany “Union Speech.”
Frank H. Severance, ed., Millard Fillmore Papers, 2:21.
18Lincoln’s estimate is fairly accurate, if potentially an underestimate. According to the federal census of 1850, there were 3,204,313 enslaved persons in the United States. At the time of the census, $400 was used in statistical assessments as the average value of an enslaved person, although some considered $400 a low estimate. When applied to the population figure of 3,204,313 enslaved persons, this places the estimated worth of enslaved persons at nearly 1.3 billion dollars in 1850—reasonably close to Lincoln’s estimate used in this speech.
J. D. B. DeBow, Statistical View of the United States, 82; Henry Chase and Charles H. Sanborn, The North and the South: Being a Statistical View of the Condition of the Free and Slave States (Boston, MA: John P. Jewett, 1857), 80.
19When Douglas first introduced the Kansas-Nebraska Act in the U.S. Congress in January 1854, the Democratic Party was not united in its response. Antislavery Democrats denounced the bill. Others were split over whether or not the bill should include specific language repealing the Missouri Compromise. Still others decried Douglas and his allies’ heavy-handed tactics to win support for the bill within the party.
David M. Potter and Don E. Fehrenbacher, The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861, 158-61, 165-67; Michael Burlingame, Abraham Lincoln: A Life (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008), 1:363, 390.
20Lincoln delivered this and more than fifty other speeches during the presidential election campaign of 1856 in an effort not only to solidify Republican support for Fremont, but also to convince members of the American Party to unite with Republicans against Buchanan. Although Lincoln had declined other requests to speak outside Illinois during the 1856 campaign, he accepted Hezekiah G. Wells’ invitation to speak in Kalamazoo. He was the only speaker from outside Michigan to speak at the event.
Ultimately, Buchanan won the presidency. See the 1856 Federal Election. In Illinois, Buchanan won 44.1 percent of the vote to Fremont’s 40.2 percent and Fillmore’s 15.7 percent. In Michigan, Fremont won 57.2 percent of the vote compared to Buchanan’s 41.5 percent and Fillmore’s 1.3 percent.
As many predicted, sectionalism played a significant role in the success of each party during the election. Nationally, Buchanan won 174 electoral votes to Fremont’s 114 and Fillmore’s eight. Although Buchanan received the majority of his electoral votes from states below the Mason-Dixon line, he earned some support from free states, winning New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and California. Fremont’s electoral votes came entirely from the North, and he performed so well that the election established the Republican Party as the major anti-Democratic party in the North. Fillmore’s only electoral win was Maryland and, overall, he performed better in the South than in the North.
Abraham Lincoln to James W. Grimes; Abraham Lincoln to Joel B. McFarland; Abraham Lincoln to Hezekiah G. Wells; Abraham Lincoln to Hezekiah G. Wells; Tom M. George, “‘Mechem’ or ‘Mack’: How a One-Word Correction in the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Reveals the Truth about an 1856 Political Event,” Journal of the Abraham Lincoln Association 33 (Summer 2012), 21; Michael Burlingame, Abraham Lincoln: A Life, 1:425, 433; Howard W. Allen and Vincent A. Lacey, eds., Illinois Elections, 1818-1990 (Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992), 10; Michael J. Dubin, United States Presidential Elections, 1788-1860: The Official Results by County and State (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2002), 135; Michael F. Holt, The Rise and Fall of the American Whig Party: Jacksonian Politics and the Onset of the Civil War (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 978-79; Cong. Globe, 34th Cong., 3rd Sess., 652 (1857).

Printed Document, 1 page(s), Daily Advertiser (Detroit, MI), 29 August 1856, 2:3-4.