from his speech at Salem. He tells us the great work is, "The passage of
a law to-day that California and New Mexico shall remain forever free.
That is ... an object of great and transcendent importance:... we should
go up to the very limits of the Constitution itself ... to defeat the
always detested, and forever-to-be detested object of the dark ambition
of that candidate of the Baltimore Convention, who has consented to
pledge himself in advance, that he will veto the future law of freedom!"
"Is there a whig upon this floor who doubts that the strength of the
whig party next March will extend freedom to California and New Mexico,
if by the Constitution they are entitled to freedom at all? Is there a
member of Congress that would not vote for freedom?" [_Sancta
simplicitas! Ora pro nobis!_] "Is there a single whig constituency, in
any free State in this country, that would return any man that would not
vote for freedom? Do you believe that Daniel Webster himself could be
returned, if there was the least doubt upon this question?"
That is plain speech. But, to pass from the special to the particular,
hear Mr. Webster himself. What follows is from his famous speech at
Marshfield, September, 1848.
"General Cass (he says) will have the Senate; and with the
patronage of the government, with the interest that he, as a
Northern man, can bring to bear, cooeperating with every
interest that the South can bring to bear, we cry _safety_
before we are out of the woods, if we feel that there is no
danger as to these new territories!" "In my judgment, the
interests of the country and the feelings of a vast majority
of the people require that a President of these United
States shall be elected, who will neither use his official
influence to promote, nor who feels any disposition in his
heart to promote, the further extension of slavery in this
country, and the further influence of it in the public
councils."
Speaking of the free soil party and the Buffalo platform, he says--"I
hold myself to be as good a free soil man as any of the Buffalo
Convention." Of the platform he says--"I can stand upon it pretty well."
"I beg to know who is to inspire into my breast a more resolute and
fixed determination to resist, unyieldingly, the encroachments and
advances of the slave power in this country, than has inspired it, ever
since the day that I first opened my mouth in the councils of the
country."
If such language as this would not "deceive the very elect," what was
more to the point, it was quite enough to deceive the electors. But now
this language is forgotten; forgotten in general by the whig party
North; forgotten in special by those who seemed to be the exponents of
the whig party in Massachusetts; forgotten at any rate by the nine
hundred and eighty-seven men who signed the letter to Mr. Webster; and
in particular it is forgotten by Mr. Webster himself, who now says that
it would disgrace his own understanding to vote for the extension of the
Wilmot Proviso over the new territory!
There were some men in New England who did not believe the statements of
the whig party North in 1848, because they knew the men that uttered the
sentiments of the whig party South. The leaders put their thumbs in the
eyes of the people, and then said, "Do you see any dough in our faces?"
"No!" said the people, "not a speck." "Then vote our ticket, and never
say we are not hostile to slavery so long as you live."
At the South, the whig party used language somewhat different. Here is a
sample from the New Orleans Bee:--
"General Taylor is from birth, association, and conviction,
identified with the South and her institutions; being one of
the most extensive slaveholders in Louisiana--and supported
by the slaveholding interest, as opposed to the Wilmot
Proviso, and in favor of securing the privilege to the
owners of slaves to remove with them to newly acquired
territory."
* * * * *
3. Then there is the Democratic party. The distinctive idea of the
democrats is represented by the word anti-protection, or revenue tariff.
This party, as such, is still less opposed to slavery than the whigs;
however, there are connected with it, at the North, many men who oppose
the extension of slavery. This party is divided into two divisions, the
democratic party South, and the democratic party North. They agree in
their idea of anti-protection and slavery, differing only in the
emphasis which they give to the two words. The democrats of the South
say Slavery and Anti-protection; the democrats North, Anti-protection
and Slavery. Thus you see, that while there is a specific difference
between democrats and whigs, there is also a generic agreement in the
matter of slavery. According to the doctrine of elective affinities,
both drop what they have a feeble affinity for, and hold on with what
their stronger affinity demands. The whigs and democrats of the South
are united in their attachment to slavery, not only mechanically, but by
a sort of chemical union.
Mr. Cass's Nicholson letter is well known. He says Congress has no
constitutional right to restrict slavery in the territories. Here is the
difference between him and General Taylor. General Taylor does not
interfere at all in the matter. If Congress puts slavery in, he says,
Very well! If Congress puts slavery out, he says the same, Very well!
But if Congress puts slavery out, General Cass would say, No. You shall
not put it out. One has the policy of King Log, the other that of King
Serpent. So far as that goes, Log is the better king.
So much for the democratic party.
* * * * *
4. The Free Soil party opposes slavery so far as it is possible to do,
and yet comply with the Constitution of the United States. Its idea is
declared by its words,--No more slave territory. It does not profess to
be an anti-slavery party in general, only an anti-slavery party subject
to the Constitution. In the present crisis in the Congress of the United
States, it seems to me the men who represent this idea, though not
always professing allegiance to the party, have yet done the nation good
and substantial service. I refer more particularly to Messrs. Chase,
Seward and Hale in the Senate, to Messrs. Root, Giddings and Mann in the
House. Those gentlemen swear to keep the Constitution; in what sense and
with what limitations, I know not. It is for them to settle that matter
with their own consciences. I do know this, that these men have spoken
very noble words against slavery; heroic words in behalf of freedom. It
is not to be supposed that the free soil party, as such, has attained
the same convictions as to the sin of slavery, which the anti-slavery
party has long arrived at. Still they may be as faithful to their
convictions as any of the men about this platform. If they have less
light to walk by, they have less to be accountable for. For my own part,
spite of their short-comings, and of some things which to me seem wrong
in the late elections in New England, I cannot help thinking they have
done good as individuals, and as a party; it seems to me they have done
good both ways. I will honor all manly opposition to slavery, whether it
come up to my mark, or does not come near it. I will ask every man to be
true to his conscience, and his reason, not to mine.
In speaking of the parties, I ought not to omit to say a word or two
respecting some of the most prominent men, and their position in
reference to this slavery question. It is a little curious, that of all
the candidates for the Presidency, Mr. Benton, of Missouri, should be
the least inclined to support the pretensions of the Slave Power. But so
it is.
Of Mr. Cass, nothing more need be said at present; his position is
defined and well known. But a word must be said of Mr. Clay. He comes
forward, as usual, with a "Compromise." Here it is, in the famous
"Omnibus Bill." In one point it is not so good as the Government scheme.
General Taylor, as the organ of the party, recommends the admission of
California, as an independent measure. He does not huddle and lump it
together with any other matters; and in this respect, his scheme is more
favorable to freedom than the other; for Mr. Clay couples the admission
of California with other things. But in two points Mr. Clay's bill has
the superiority over the General's scheme.
1. It limits the Western and Northern boundaries of Texas, and so
reduces the territory of that State, where slavery is now established by
law. Yet, as I understand it, he takes off from New Mexico about seventy
thousand square miles, enough to make eight or ten States like
Massachusetts, and delivers it over to Texas to be slave soil; as Mr.
Webster says, out of the power of Congress to redeem from that scourge.
2. It does not maintain that Congress has no power to exclude slavery in
admitting a new State; whereas, if I understand the President in his
Message, he considers such an act "An invasion of their rights."[6]
Let us pass by Mr. Clay, and come to the other aspirant for the
Presidency.
At the Philadelphia Convention, Mr. Webster, at the most, could only get
one half the votes of New England; several of these not given in
earnest, but only as a compliment to the great man from the North. Now,
finding his presidential wares not likely to be bought by New England,
he takes them to a wider market; with what success we shall one day see.
Something has already been said in the newspapers and elsewhere, about
Mr. Webster's speech. No speech ever delivered in America has excited
such deep and righteous indignation. I know there are influential men in
Boston, and in all large towns, who must always have somebody to sustain
and applaud. They some time since applauded Mr. Webster, for reasons
very well known, and now continue their applause of him. His late speech
pleases them; its worst parts please them most. All that is as was to
be expected; men like what they must like. But, in the country, among
the sober men of Massachusetts and New England, who prize Right above
the political expediency of to-day, I think Mr. Webster's speech is read
with indignation. I believe no one political act in America, since the
treachery of Benedict Arnold, has excited so much moral indignation, as
the conduct of Daniel Webster.
But I pass by his speech, to speak of other things connected with that
famous man. One of the most influential pro-slavery newspapers of
Boston, calls the gentlemen who signed the letter to him, the
"Retainers" of Mr. Webster. The word is well chosen and quite
descriptive. This word is used in a common, a feudal, and a legal sense.
In the common sense, it means one who has complete possession of the
thing retained; in the feudal sense, it means a dependent or vassal, who
is bound to support his liege lord; in the legal sense, it means the
person who hires an attorney to do his business; and the sum given to
secure his services, or prevent him from acting for the opposite party,
is called a retaining fee. I take it the word "Retainers," is used in
the legal sense; certainly it is not in the feudal sense, for these
gentlemen do not owe allegiance to Mr. Webster. Nor is it in its common
sense, for events have shown that they have not a "complete possession"
of Mr. Webster.
Now, a word about this letter to him. Mr. Webster's retainers--nine
hundred and eighty-seven in number--tell him, "You have pointed out to a
whole people the path of duty, have convinced the understanding, and
touched the conscience of a nation." "We desire, therefore, to express
to you our entire concurrence in the sentiments of your speech, and our
heartfelt thanks for the inestimable aid it has afforded towards the
preservation and perpetuation of the Union."
They express their entire concurrence in the sentiments of his speech.
In the speech, as published in the edition "revised and corrected by
himself," Mr. Webster declares his intention to support the famous
fugitive slave bill, and the amendments thereto, "with all its
provisions, to the fullest extent." When the retainers express their
"entire concurrence in the sentiments of the speech," they express their
entire concurrence in that intention. There is no ambiguity in the
language; they make a universal affirmation--(_affirmatio de omni_). Now
Mr. Webster comes out, by two agents, and recants this declaration. Let
me do him no injustice. He shall be heard by his next friend, who wishes
to amend the record, a correspondent of the Boston Courier, of May
6th:--
"The speech now reads thus:--'My friend at the head of the
Judiciary Committee has a bill on the subject, now before
the Senate, with some amendments to it, which I propose to
support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent.'
Changing the position of the word _which_, and the sentence
would read thus:--'My friend at the head of the Judiciary
Committee has a bill on the subject, now before the Senate,
which, with some amendments to it, I propose to support,
with all its provisions, to the fullest extent.'"
"Call you that backing your friends?" Really, it is too bad, after his
retainers have expressed their "entire concurrence in the sentiments of
the speech," for him to back out, to deny that he entertained one of the
sentiments already approved of and concurred in! Can it be possible, we
ask, that Mr. Webster can resort to this device to defend himself,
leaving his retainers in the lurch? It does not look like him to do such
a thing. But the correspondent of the Courier goes on as follows:--
"We are authorized to state, first--That Mr. Webster did not
revise this portion of his speech, with any view to examine
its exact accuracy of phrase; and second--That Mr. Webster,
at the time of the delivery of the speech, had in his desk
three amendatory sections,... and one of which provides
expressly for the right of trial by jury."
But who is the person "authorized to state" such a thing? Professor
Stuart informs the public that it "comes from the hand of a man who
might claim a near place to Mr. Webster, in respect to talent,
integrity, and patriotism."
Still, this recantation is so unlike Mr. Webster, that one would almost
doubt the testimony of so great an unknown as is the writer in the
Courier. But Mr. Stuart removes all doubt, and says--"I merely add, that
Mr. Webster himself has personally assured me that his speech was in
accordance with the correction here made, and that he has now in his
desk the amendments to which the corrector refers." So the retainers
must bear the honor, or the shame, whichsoever it may be, of
volunteering the advocacy of that remarkable bill.
When Paul was persecuted for righteousness' sake, how easily might "the
offence of the cross" have been made to cease, by a mere transposition!
Had he pursued that plan, he need not have been let down from the wall
in a basket: he might have had a dinner given him by forty scribes, at
the first hotel in Jerusalem, and a doctor of the law to defend him in a
pamphlet.
But, alas! in Mr. Webster's case, admitting the transposition is real,
the transubstantiation is not thereby effected; the transfer of the
_which_ does not alter the character of the sentence to the requisite
degree. The bill, which he volunteers to advocate, contains provisions
to this effect: That the owner of a fugitive slave may seize his
fugitive, and, on the warrant of any "judge, commissioner, clerk,
marshal, postmaster, or collector," "residing or being" within the State
where the seizure is made, the fugitive, without any trial by jury,
shall be delivered up to his master, and carried out of the State. Now,
this is the bill which Mr. Webster proposes "to support, with all its
provisions, to the fullest extent." Let him transfer his _which_, it
does not transubstantiate his statement so that he can consistently
introduce a section which "provides expressly for the right of trial by
jury." This attempt to evade the plain meaning of a plain statement, is
too small a thing for a great man.
I make no doubt that Mr. Webster had in his desk, at the time alleged, a
bill designed to secure the trial by jury to fugitive slaves, prepared
as it is set forth. But how do you think it came there, and for what
purpose? Last February Mr. Webster was intending to make a very
different speech; and then, I make no doubt, it was that this bill was
prepared, with the design of introducing it! But I see no reason for
supposing, that when he made his celebrated speech, he intended to
introduce it as an amendment to Mr. Mason's or Butler's bill. It is said
that he will present it to the Senate. Let us wait and see.[7]
But, since the speech at Washington, Mr. Webster has said things at
Boston, almost as bad. Here they are; extracts from his speech at the
Revere House. I quote from the report in the Daily Advertiser. "Neither
you nor I shall see the legislation of the country proceed in the old
harmonious way, until the discussions in Congress and out of Congress
upon the subject, to which you have alluded [the subject of slavery],
shall be, in some way, suppressed. Take that truth home with you--and
take it as truth." A very pretty truth that is to take home with us,
that "discussion" must be "suppressed!"
Again, he says:--
"Sir, the question is, whether Massachusetts will stand to
the truth against temptation [that is the question]! whether
she will be just against temptation! whether she will defend
herself against her own prejudices! She has conquered every
thing else in her time; she has conquered this ocean which
washes her shore; she has conquered her own sterile soil;
she has conquered her stern and inflexible climate; she has
fought her way to the universal respect of the world; she
has conquered every one's prejudices but her own. The
question now is, whether she will conquer her own
prejudices!"
The trumpet gives no uncertain sound; but before we prepare ourselves
for battle, let us see who is the foe. What are the "prejudices"
Massachusetts is to conquer? The prejudice in favor of the American
idea; the prejudice in favor of what our fathers called self-evident
truths; that all men "are endowed with certain unalienable rights;" that
"all men are created equal," and that "to secure these rights,
governments are instituted amongst men." These are the prejudices
Massachusetts is called on to conquer. There are some men who will do
this "with alacrity;" but will Massachusetts conquer her prejudices in
favor of the "unalienable rights of man?" I think, Mr. President, she
will first have to forget two hundred years of history. She must efface
Lexington and Bunker Hill from her memory, and tear the old rock of
Plymouth out from her bosom. These are prejudices which Massachusetts
will not conquer, till the ocean ceases to wash her shore, and granite
to harden her hills. Massachusetts has conquered a good many things, as
Mr. Webster tells us. I think there are several other things we shall
try our hand upon, before we conquer our prejudice in favor of the
unalienable rights of man.
There is one pleasant thing about this position of Mr. Webster. He is
alarmed at the fire which has been kindled in his rear. He finds
"considerable differences of opinion prevail ... on the subject of that
speech," and is "grateful to receive ... opinions so decidedly
concurring with" his own,--so he tells the citizens of Newburyport. He
feels obliged to do something to escape the obloquy which naturally
comes upon him. So he revises his speech; now supplying an omission, now
altering a little; authorizes another great man to transpose his
relative pronoun, and anchor it fast to another antecedent; appeals to
amendments in the senatorial desk, designed to secure a jury trial for
fugitive slaves; derides his opponents, and compares them with the
patriots of ancient times. Here is his letter to the citizens of
Newburyport--a very remarkable document. It contains some surprising
legal doctrines, which I leave others to pass upon. But in it he
explains the fugitive slave law of 1793, which does not "provide for the
trial of any question whatever by jury, in the State in which the arrest
is made." "At that time," nobody regarded any of the provisions of that
bill as "repugnant to religion, liberty, the Constitution, or humanity;"
and he has "no more objections to the provisions of this law, than was
seen to them" by the framers of the law itself. If he sees therein
nothing "repugnant to religion, liberty, the Constitution, or humanity,"
then why transpose that relative pronoun, and have an amendment "which
provides expressly for the right of trial by jury?"
"In order to allay excitement," he answers, "and remove
objections." "There are many difficulties, however,
attending any such provision [of a jury trial]; and a main
one, and perhaps the only insuperable one, has been created
by the States themselves, by making it a penal offence in
their own officers, to render any aid in apprehending or
securing such fugitives, and absolutely refusing the use of
their jails for keeping them in custody, till a jury could
be impanelled, witnesses summoned, and a regular trial be
had."
Think of that! It is Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York,
which prohibit the fugitive from getting a trial for his freedom, before
a jury of twelve good men and true! But Mr. Webster goes on: "It is not
too much to say, that to these State laws is to be attributed the actual
and practical denial of trial by jury in these cases." Generally, the
cause is thought to precede the effect, but here is a case in which,
according to Mr. Webster, the effect has got the start of the cause, by
more than fifty years. The fugitive slave law of Congress, which allowed
the master to capture the runaway, was passed in 1793; but the State
laws he refers to, to which "is to be attributed the actual and
practical denial of trial by jury in these cases," were not passed till
after 1840. "To what base uses may we come at last!" Mr. Webster would
never have made such a defence of his pro-slavery conduct, had he not
been afraid of the fire in his rear, and thought his retainers not able
to put it out. He seems to think this fire is set in the name of
religion: so, to help us "Conquer our prejudices," he cautions us
against the use of religion, and quotes from the private letter of "One
of the most distinguished men in England," dated as late as the 29th of
January--"Religion is an excellent thing in every matter except in
politics: there it seems to make men mad." In this respect, it seems
religion is inferior to money, for the Proverbs tell us that money
"answereth all things;" religion, it seems, "answereth all things,"
except politics. Poor Mr. Webster! If religion is not good in politics,
I suppose irreligion is good there; and, really, it is often enough
introduced there. So, if religion "seems to make men mad" in politics, I
suppose irreligion makes them sober in politics. But Mr. Webster, fresh
from his transposition of his own relative, explains this: His friend
ascribes the evils not to "true and genuine religion," but to "that
fantastic notion of religion." So, making the transposition, it would
read thus: "That fantastical notion of religion," "is an excellent thing
in any matter except politics." Alas! Mr. Webster does not expound his
friend's letter, nor his own language, so well as he used to expound the
Constitution. But he says, "The religion of the New Testament is as sure
a guide to duty in politics, as in any other concern of life." So, in
the name of "Conscience and the Constitution," Professor Stuart comes
forward to defend Mr. Webster, "by the religion of the New Testament;
that religion which is founded on the teachings of Jesus and his
apostles." How are the mighty fallen!
Mr. Webster makes a "great speech," lending his mighty influence to the
support and extension of slavery, with all its attendant consequences,
which paralyze the hand of industry, enfeeble the thinking mind, and
brutify the conscience which should discern between right and wrong;
nine hundred and eighty-seven of his retainers in Boston, thank him for
reminding them of their duty. But still the fire in his rear is so hot,
that he must come on to Boston, talk about having discussion suppressed,
and ask Massachusetts to conquer her prejudices. That is not enough. He
must go up to Andover, and get a minister to defend him, in the name of
"Conscience and the Constitution," supporting slavery out of the Old
Testament and New Testament. "To what mean uses may we not descend!"