Editing William H. Seward (section)

===Second term===
[[File:Seward full face (cropped).jpg|thumb|left|Photograph of Seward by [[Julian Vannerson]], 1859]]
The political turmoil engendered by the North–South divide split both major parties and led to the founding of new ones. The American Party (known as the [[Know Nothing Party|Know Nothings]]) contained many nativists and pursued an anti-immigrant agenda. The Know Nothings did not publicly discuss party deliberations (thus, they knew nothing). They disliked Seward, and an uncertain number of Know Nothings sought the Whig nomination to legislative seats. Some made clear their stance by pledging to vote against Seward's re-election, but others did not. Although the Whigs won a majority in both houses of the state legislature, the extent of their support for Seward as a US senator was unclear. When [[United States Senate election in New York, 1855|the election]] was held by the legislature in February 1855, Seward won a narrow majority in each house. The opposition was scattered, and a Know Nothing party organ denounced two dozen legislators as "traitors".{{sfn|Stahr|pp=149–152}}

The [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] had been founded in 1854, in reaction to the Kansas–Nebraska Act. Its anti-slavery stance was attractive to Seward, but he needed the Whig structure in New York to get re-elected.{{sfn|Taylor|pp=98–99}} In September 1855, the New York Whig and Republican parties held simultaneous conventions that quickly merged into one. Seward was the most prominent figure to join the new party and was spoken of as a possible presidential candidate in 1856. Weed, however, did not feel that the new party was strong enough on a national level to secure the presidency, and advised Seward to wait until 1860.{{sfn|Goodwin|pp=182–183, 187}} When Seward's name was mentioned at the [[1856 Republican National Convention]], a huge ovation broke out.{{sfn|Denton|p=53}} In [[1856 United States presidential election|the 1856 presidential election]], the Democratic candidate, former Pennsylvania senator [[James Buchanan]], defeated the Republican, former California senator [[John C. Frémont]], and the Know Nothing candidate, former president Fillmore.{{sfn|Goodwin|p=188}}

The 1856 campaign played out against the backdrop of "[[Bleeding Kansas]]", the violent efforts of pro- and anti-slavery forces to control the government in [[Kansas Territory]] and determine whether it would be admitted as a slave or free state. This violence spilled over into the Senate chamber itself after Republican Massachusetts Senator [[Charles Sumner]] delivered an incendiary speech against slavery, making personal comments against South Carolina Senator [[Andrew P. Butler]]. Sumner had read a draft of the speech to Seward, who had advised him to omit the personal references. Two days after the speech, Butler's nephew, Congressman [[Preston Brooks]] entered the chamber and beat Sumner with a cane, injuring him severely. Although some southerners feared the propaganda value of the incident in the North, most lionized Brooks as a hero. Many northerners were outraged, though some, including Seward, felt that Sumner's words against Butler had unnecessarily provoked the attack.{{sfn|Denton|p=52}}{{sfn|Taylor|pp=100–103}} Some Southern newspapers felt that the Sumner precedent might usefully be applied to Seward; the ''Petersburg Intelligencer'', a Virginia periodical, suggested that "it will be very well to give Seward a double dose at least every other day".{{sfn|Stahr|p=162}}

In a message to Congress in December 1857, President Buchanan advocated the admission of Kansas as a slave state under the [[Lecompton Constitution]], passed under dubious circumstances. This split the Democrats: the administration wanted Kansas admitted; Senator Douglas demanded a fair ratification vote.{{sfn|Stegmaier|p=198}} The Senate debated the matter through much of early 1858, though few Republicans spoke at first, content to watch the Democrats tear their party to shreds over the issue of slavery.{{sfn|Stegmaier|p=199}} The issue was complicated by the Supreme Court's ruling the previous year in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'' that neither Congress nor a local government could ban slavery in the territories.{{sfn|Stegmaier|p=200}}

In a speech on March 3 in the Senate, Seward "delighted Republican ears and utterly appalled administration Democrats, especially the Southerners".{{sfn|Stegmaier|p=203}} Discussing ''Dred Scott'', Seward accused Buchanan and Chief Justice [[Roger B. Taney]] of conspiring to gain the result and threatened to reform the courts to eliminate Southern power.{{sfn|Stegmaier|p=203}} Taney later told a friend that if Seward had been elected in 1860, he would have refused to administer the oath of office. Buchanan reportedly denied the senator access to the White House.{{sfn|Stahr|p=172}} Seward predicted slavery was doomed:
{{blockquote|
The interest of the white races demands the ultimate emancipation of all men. Whether that consummation shall be allowed to take effect, with needful and wise precautions against sudden change and disaster, or be hurried on by violence, is all that remains for you to decide.{{sfn|Stegmaier|pp=204–205}}
}}

Southerners saw this as a threat, by the man deemed the likely Republican nominee in 1860, to force change on the South whether it liked it or not.{{sfn|Stegmaier|pp=205–206}} Statehood for Kansas failed for the time being,{{sfn|Stegmaier|pp=217–218}} but Seward's words were repeatedly cited by Southern senators as the secession crisis grew.{{sfn|Stegmaier|p=220}} Nevertheless, Seward remained on excellent personal terms with individual southerners such as Mississippi's [[Jefferson Davis]]. His dinner parties, where those from both sides of the sectional divide mingled, were a Washington legend.{{sfn|Goodwin|p=193}}<!-- "Within the Washington community, Seward's extravagant dinner parties were legendary, attended by Northerners and Southerners alike." -->

With an eye to a presidential bid in 1860, Seward tried to appear a statesman who could be trusted by both North and South.{{sfn|Van Deusen|p=188}} Seward did not believe the federal government could mandate emancipation but that it would develop by action of the slave states as the nation urbanized and slavery became uneconomical, as it had in New York. Southerners still believed that he was threatening the forcible ending of slavery.{{sfn|Goodwin|p=192}} While campaigning for Republicans in the 1858 midterm elections, Seward gave a speech at Rochester that proved divisive and quotable, alleging that the U.S. had two "antagonistic systems [that] are continually coming into closer contact, and collision results&nbsp;... It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces, and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become entirely either a slave-holding nation, or entirely a free-labor nation."{{sfn|Stahr|p=174}} White southerners saw the "irrepressible conflict" speech as a declaration of war, and Seward's vehemence ultimately damaged his chances of gaining the presidential nomination.{{sfn|Stegmaier|pp=218–219}}