gaze of the nation, and almost suspended the legislative functions
of Congress, pertain to the destiny of freedom or of slavery, to
which our new territories are to be devoted. After the acquisition of
Louisiana, and Florida, and Texas, for the aggrandizement and security
of the Slave-power; after the aboriginal occupants of the soil of the
Southern States have been slaughtered, or driven from their homes, at
an expense of not less than a hundred millions of dollars, and at the
infinite expense of our national reputation for justice and humanity;
and after the area of the slave states has been made almost double that
of the free states, while the population of the free is about double
that of the slave; the reasons seem so strong that they can hardly be
made stronger, why the career of our government, as a slavery-extending
power, should be arrested. On the other hand, the oligarchy who
rule the south, seeing that, notwithstanding their rich and almost
illimitable domain, they are rapidly falling behind the north in all
the distinctive elements of civilization and well being,--industry,
temperance, education, wealth,--not only defend the Upas that blasts
their soil, as though it were the tree of life, but seek to transplant
it to other lands. With but about three slaves to a square mile,--three
millions of slaves to nearly a million of square miles,--they say they
are too crowded; that they feel a sense of suffocation, and must have
more room, when all their weakness and pain proceed, not from the
limited quantity, but from the malignant quality of the atmosphere they
breathe. Hence the war with Mexico, commenced and prosecuted to add
slave territory and slave states to the southern section. Hence the
refusal to accept propositions of peace, unless territory _south_ of
latitude 36° 30´, (the Missouri compromise line, so called,) should be
ceded to us. Hence, when the Mexican negotiators proposed to insert a
prohibition of slavery in the treaty of cession, and declared that the
inquisition would not be more odious to the American people than the
reinstitution of slavery to them, our minister, Mr. Trist, told them
he would not consent to such a prohibition though they would cover the
soil a foot deep with gold. And hence, also, the determination of a
portion of the southern members of Congress to stop the whole machinery
of the government, to sacrifice all the great interests of the country,
and assail even the Union itself, unless slavery shall be permitted
to cross the Rio Grande and enter the vast regions of the west, as it
heretofore, in its aggressive march, crossed the Mississippi and the
Sabine.
Even in 1846, when the war against Mexico was declared, all men of
sagacity foresaw the present conflict. Could that question have been
decided on its merits, or could the institutions to be planted upon
the territory we might acquire have been determined by the unbiased
suffrages of the American people, no war would have been declared,
and no territory acquired. But the great political leaders of the
south expected to make up both for their numerical weakness and for
the injustice of their cause, by connecting the question of slavery
extension with that of future presidential elections and with the
strife of parties. They promised themselves that they could draw over
leading northern men to their support, by offering them the Tantalus
cup of presidential honors; and then, by the force of party cohesion
and discipline, insure the support of the vast descending scale of
office expectants. Early in the present session of Congress, it was
distinctly declared from a high southern source, that the south must
do most for those northern men who would do most for them. A few words
will make it apparent how faithfully this plan has been adhered to, and
how successful it may become.
No northern Democrat, opposed to slavery extension, could expect
the support of the southern democracy. Hence, General Cass stepped
promptly forward, and declared, in his Nicholson letter, that Congress
had no power to exclude slavery from the territories. This has been
technically called his “bid,” or his “first bid.” It was deemed
satisfactory by the south; for, according to their philosophy, the
relation of master and slave is the natural or normal relation of
mankind; and therefore, where no prohibition of it exists, slavery
flows into free territory as water runs down hill. This avowal of
General Cass was rendered more signal and valuable to the south,
because, for the greater part of his political life, he had taken
oaths, held offices, and administered laws, in undeniable contradiction
to the declaration then made. The ordinance of 1787 was expressly
recognized by the first Congress held under the constitution, [see
ch. 8.] It was modified in part, and confirmed as to the rest; and in
holding offices under this, General Cass had laid the foundation of
his honors and his fortune. His declaration, therefore, against all
interdiction of slavery, made under circumstances so extraordinary
and in contradiction to the whole tenor of his past life, was hailed
with acclamation by the south, and he was unanimously declared, at
Baltimore, to be the accepted candidate of the democracy, for the
office of President. The common notion is, that a man shows his love
for a cause by the amount of sacrifice he will make for it; and as
consistency, honor, and truth, are the most precious elements in
character, he showed his devotion to the south by sacrificing them all.
To the honor of the Whig party be it said, there was not a northern man
to be found, who, to gain the support of the south, would espouse its
pro-slavery doctrines, or invent any new reading of the constitution to
give them a semblance of law. Hence, at the Philadelphia Convention,
no northern Whig received even so much as a complimentary vote. The
judicial eminence of Judge McLean, the military eminence of General
Scott, were passed contemptuously by; and Mr. Webster, acknowledged to
be the greatest statesman of the age, received but fourteen votes out
of almost three hundred; and twelve of these were from Massachusetts.
Mr. Webster had spoken more eloquent words for liberty than any other
living man, and this distinguished neglect was doubtless intended to
teach him the lesson, that the path to presidential honors did not lie
through an advocacy of the rights of man. General Taylor was nominated
and chosen. He was understood to take neutral ground. Discountenancing
the veto power, if the House of Representatives, who are chosen
directly from and by the people, and the Senate, who are chosen by
the states, will pass a territorial bill, either with or without a
prohibition of slavery, he will approve it. This is the common opinion,
and I have no doubt of its correctness.
Under these circumstances, a most desperate effort was made at the
close of the last Congress to provide a government for the territories
with no prohibition of slavery. Had General Cass been elected, no
such effort would have been necessary, for he was pledged to veto a
prohibition. General Taylor was supposed to be pledged to an opposite
course; and hence the struggle. The facts must be so fresh in the
recollection of all, that they hardly need to be recounted. The
House performed its duty to the country and to freedom, by sending
territorial bills to the Senate containing the prohibitory clause.
The Senate, equalling the northern by its southern votes, and far
outnumbering the Whigs by its Democrats, left those bills to sleep the
sleep of death upon its table. But during the closing hours of the
session, it foisted a provision for the government of the territories
into the general appropriation bill; and held out the menace that this
bill should not pass at all, unless the territorial clause should
pass with it. The flagitiousness of this proceeding it is difficult to
comprehend and impossible to describe. The appropriation bill is one on
which the working, and even the continuance of the government, depend.
Without it, the machinery of the state must cease to move. Contracts by
the government to pay money must be violated. Officers cannot obtain
their salaries. Families must be left without subsistence. If long
continued, all judges would resign, and courts be broken up; and when
justice should cease to be administered, violence, robbery, and every
form of crime would run riot through the land.
Besides, an appropriation bill and a bill for the government of
territories have no congruity with each other. They are not relevant.
Neither is germane to the other. Every one knows it to be a common
parliamentary rule that when a proposition is submitted which is
susceptible of a division, any _one_ member has a right to demand
it. All bills, too, for raising revenue, must, by the constitution,
originate in the House; and the House has as much right to interfere
to prevent the Senate from ratifying a treaty, as the Senate has to
obstruct the passage of a revenue bill by adding to it extraneous
provisions. It was this effort on the part of the Senate to incorporate
into the appropriation bill a provision most unrighteous in itself
and most odious to the free sentiments of the north, which led to the
protracted session on the night of the 3d of March, 1849. The course of
the pro-slavery leaders, on that occasion, resembled that of a madman
who should seize a torch and stand over the magazine of a ship, and
proclaim that he would send men and vessel to destruction, unless they
would steer for his port. A portion of the House confederated with
the majority of the Senate in this unprincipled machination; but the
larger number stood undaunted, and after perils, such as so precious
an interest never before encountered, the pro-slavery amendment was
stricken out, and its champions were foiled. Through that memorable
night the friends of freedom wrestled like Jacob with the angel of God,
and though the session did not close until the sun of a Sabbath morning
shone full into the windows of the capitol, yet a holier work never was
done on that holy day.
It was with a joy such as no words can ever express, that I saw the
territories rescued from the clutch of slavery by the expiration of
the Thirtieth Congress. I felt confident that when the Thirty-first
Congress should assemble, it would be under better auspices, and with a
stronger phalanx on the side of freedom. In regard to California, those
hopes have been fulfilled; but I proceed to state how they have been
nearly extinguished in regard to the residue of the territory.
Our first disaster was the election of a most adroit, talented, and
zealous pro-slavery speaker. A better organ for the accomplishment of
their purposes the friends of slavery could not have found; nor the
friends of freedom a more formidable opponent. Whilst the pro-slavery
champions of the south, almost without distinction of party, exulted
over this triumph, it has been the occasion of most lamentable
criminations and recriminations at the north. Southern men abandon all
distinctions of Whig or Democrat for the cause of slavery. Would to God
we could do as much for the cause of freedom.
The choice of a pro-slavery speaker was immediately followed by the
appointment of most ultra pro-slavery committees. Some Free-Soil
members, it is true, were placed upon these committees; but in this,
the speaker only carried out more fully his own purposes and those of
his party, by putting, what they considered as insane men, into close
custody, instead of letting them run at large. He showed, however,
either a want of courage in himself, or of confidence in his chosen
guards; for, on the District of Columbia committee he detailed a
file of five, on the judiciary committee a file of four, and on the
territorial committee a file of six strong pro-slavery men, for the
safe keeping of one Free-Soiler.
Within an hour after the House was organized, Mr. Root, of Ohio,
submitted a resolution, instructing the committee on territories
to report territorial bills prohibiting slavery. Many true friends
to freedom believed this movement to be ill timed and unfortunate;
and though the House then refused, by a handsome vote, to lay the
resolution on the table, yet when it came up for consideration again,
the first decision was reversed by about the same majority. There is
abundant proof that the latter vote did not express the true sentiment
of the House. Not a few voted against the resolution avowedly because
of its paternity,--thus spiting a noble son on account of its obnoxious
father. Others repented of their votes as soon as they came to reflect
that the record would go where their explanation could not accompany it.
But unfortunately it was too late. There stands the record, to survive
through all time and to be read of all men. The champions of slavery
seized upon this vote as a propitious omen. They derided and scouted
the proviso with a fierceness unknown before. They shouted their
threats of disunion with a more defiant tone, should any attempt at
what they called its resurrection, be made. A speech was delivered by
Mr. Clingman, of North Carolina, in which a massacre of a majority of
the House was distinctly shadowed forth, so that not “a quorum should
be left to do business.” The effect of that vote was almost as bad as
though it meant what it said.
At a later day, when a bill for the admission of California was
presented, the tactics of delay were resorted to, and midnight found
us calling the yeas and nays, for more than the thirtieth time, on
questions whose frivolousness and vexatiousness cannot be indicated by
numbers.
The proceedings in the Senate, however, are those which now
threaten the most disastrous consequences. Early in the session, in
order to bring his northern friends up to the doctrine that it is
unconstitutional to legislate against slavery in the territories,
General Cass made a speech, in which he denies that Congress has _any_
power, under _any_ circumstances, to pass _any_ law respecting their
inhabitants. According to that speech, the United States stands in the
relation of a foreign government to the people of its own territories;
and if they set up a king or establish a religion, we cannot help it;
for we have no more power or right to control them than we have the
subjects of Great Britain or the citizens of France. It has been said
that the doctrine of General Cass and that of General Taylor, on this
subject, are identical; but there is this all-important difference
between them:--General Taylor maintains the right of Congress to
legislate for the territories, and will doubtless approve any bill
for the prohibition of slavery in them; but General Cass, denying
this right in Congress, would, if President, veto such a bill. He,
therefore, would leave the territories open to be invaded and possessed
by slavery; and in southern law and practice possession is more than
nine points.
Next came Mr. Clay’s compromise resolutions, so called. By these,
California was to be admitted as a state; the territories organized
without any restriction upon slavery; the south-western boundary of
Texas to be extended to the Rio Grande; a part of her ten or twelve
million debt to be paid by the United States, on condition of her
abandoning her claim to a part of New Mexico lying east of the Rio
Grande; the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia,
and the inviolability of slavery in the District daring the good
pleasure of Maryland and of the inhabitants of the District; more
effectual provision for the restitution of fugitive slaves, and free
traffic in slaves forever between the states, unless forbidden by
themselves.
A compromise is a settlement of difficulties by mutual concessions.
Let us examine the mutuality of the concessions which Mr. Clay’s
resolutions propose.
In the first place, California is to be permitted to remain free if
the territories of New Mexico and Utah may be opened to slavery. But
California is free already; free by her own act; free without any
concession of theirs, and without any grace but the grace of God. It is
mainly occupied by a northern population, who do their own work with
their own hands, or their own brains. Fifty hardy gold diggers from
the north will never stand all day knee deep in water, shovel earth,
rock washers, &c., under a broiling sun, and see a man with his fifty
slaves standing under the shade of a tree, or having an umbrella held
over his head, with whip in hand, and without wetting his dainty glove,
or soiling his japanned boot, pocket as much at night as the whole of
them together. Or, rather, they will never suffer institutions to exist
which tolerate such unrighteousness. California, therefore, is free; as
free as Massachusetts; and Mr. Clay might as well have said in terms,
that whereas Massachusetts is free, therefore New Mexico and Utah shall
be slave, or run the hazard of being so.
The next point of Mr. Clay’s compromise is, that Texas shall extend
her south-western boundary from or near the Nueces to the Rio Grande,
and shall receive, probably, some six or eight millions of dollars for
withdrawing her claim to that part of New Mexico which lies east of the
last-named river. Now, Texas has no rightful or plausible claim to a
foot of all this territory. But suppose it to be a subject of doubt,
and therefore of compromise. The mutuality, then, consists in dividing
the whole territory claimed by Texas, and then giving her a valid title
to one portion of it, and paying her for all the rest. Texas, or,--what
in this connection is the same thing,--slavery surrenders absolutely
nothing, gets a good title to some seventy thousand square miles of
territory, and pay for as much more!
But what renders it almost incredible that any man could soberly submit
such a proposition and dare to call it a compromise, is this: All that
part of New Mexico which Texas claims, and which lies between the
parallels of 36° 30´ and 42°, is, by the resolutions of annexation,
to be forever free. I shall consider the constitutionality of these
resolutions by and by; I now treat them as valid. Now the compromise
proposes to buy this territory, so secured to freedom, and annex it to
New Mexico, which is to be left open to slavery. We are to peril all
the broad region between 36° 30´ and 42°, and pay Texas some six or
eight millions of dollars for the privilege of doing so! Mr. Clay is
not less eminent for his statesmanship than for his waggery. Were he
to succeed in playing off this practical joke upon the north, and were
it not for the horrible consequences which it would involve, a roar of
laughter, like a _feu de joie_, would run down the course of the ages.
As it is, the laughter will be “elsewhere.”
The next point pertains to the abolition of the slave trade, and the
perpetuity of slavery, in the District of Columbia. This District
has an area of about fifty square miles; and Mr. Clay proposes, in
consideration of transferring its slave marts to Alexandria, on the
Virginia side, or to some convenient place in Montgomery or Prince
George’s county, on the Maryland side, to divest Congress forever of
its right of “exclusive legislation” over it. Should this plan prevail,
the perpetuity of slavery in the District will be defended by more
unassailable and impregnable barriers than any other institution in
Christendom. The President has a veto upon Congress; but two thirds
of both Houses may still pass any law, notwithstanding his dissent.
Mr. Clay proposes to give, both to Maryland and to the citizens of the
District, a veto on this subject;--an absolute veto, not a qualified
one, like that of the President of the United States, but one that
will control, not majorities merely, but an absolute unanimity in
both branches of Congress. By his plan, therefore, three separate,
independent powers are to have a veto upon the abolition of slavery in
the District of Columbia. And not only so, but while it will require
their _joint_ or _concurrent_ action to abolish the institution, any
one of them can preserve it. The laws of the Medes and Persians had no
such guaranties for perpetuity as this.
Mr. Clay’s last point is really too facetious. So solemn a subject does
not permit such long-continued levity, however it may be masked by
sobriety of countenance. It is, that Congress shall make more effectual
provision for the capture and delivery of fugitive slaves; and, as
an equivalent for this, it shall bind itself never to interfere with
the inter-state traffic in slaves. We are to catch the slaves of the
South, and, as though this were a grateful privilege to us, we are to
allow them free commerce in slaves, coastwise or inland. By this means,
slaves can be transported to the mouth of the Rio Grande, and some
hundreds of miles up that river, towards New Mexico, instead of being
driven in coffles across the country. The compromise is, that for every
slave we catch, we are to facilitate the passage of a hundred into New
Mexico.
Such is the mutuality of Mr. Clay’s compromises. They are such
compromises as the wolf offers to the lamb, or the vulture to the dove.
They make the rightful admission of California into the Union, with
her free constitution, contingent upon opening the new territories
to slavery; they ratify one part of the predatory claim of Texas,
and propose to give her millions for the other part; they give an
unconditional veto to the state of Maryland and to the citizens of the
District of Columbia, over a unanimous vote of both Houses of Congress,
even when approved by the President; in connection with Mr. Butler’s
bill and Mr. Mason’s amendments, they expose our white citizens to
grievous penalties and imprisonments for not doing what the Supreme
Court of the United States has decided we are not bound to do, in
relation to fugitive slaves, and they offer our colored citizens to be
kidnapped and spirited away into bondage; and they foreclose, in favor
of the south, the disputed question of the inter-state commerce in
slaves. In one particular only do they appear to concede any thing to
northern rights, or northern convictions, or northern feelings. They
propose to transfer the District of Columbia slave trade across an
ideal line into Virginia or into Maryland, so that the slave planter
or slave trader, when he comes to our American Congo to replenish his
stock of human cattle, shall be obliged to go a mile or two, to the
slave marts, instead of walking down Pennsylvania Avenue. I deem this
to be no concession. If it is honorable to produce corn and cotton,
it is honorable to buy and sell them,--and if it is honorable to hold
beings created in God’s image in slavery, it is honorable to stand
between the producer and consumer, and to make merchandise of the
bodies and the souls of men. Let this Light of the Age be set upon a
hill, that all nations may behold it.
I will refer to Mr. Bell’s resolutions no further than to say, that
they propose the formation of three slave states out of what is now
claimed by Texas, one of which is to be admitted into the Union
forthwith as an offset to California.
Mr. Buchanan has not regarded the movements of his rival, General Cass,
with indifference. He has spent a considerable portion of the winter
in Washington, and it is understood that he holds out the Missouri
compromise line, from the western boundary of Missouri to the Pacific
Ocean, as his lure to the south, for their favorable regards in the
ensuing presidential contest.
In a chronological order, I must now consider some vitally important
views, which have been submitted by some members in the House, and by
Mr. Webster and others in the Senate. In mentioning the name of this
great statesman, and in avowing that I am one among the many whom his
recently expressed opinions have failed to convince, it is due to
myself, however indifferent it may be to him or to his friends, that I
should express my admiration of his powers, my gratitude for his past
services, and the diffidence with which I dissented, at first, from
his views. But I have pondered upon them long, and the longer I have
pondered the more questionable they appear. I shall therefore venture
upon the perilous task of inquiring into their correctness; and while I
do it with the deference and respect which belong to his character, I
shall do it also with that fidelity to conscience and to judgment that
belong to mine. He is great, but truth is greater than us all.
I shall confine myself mainly, and perhaps wholly, to Mr. Webster’s
views, because he has argued the cause of the south with vastly more
ability than it has been argued by any one among themselves. If his
conclusions, then, be not tenable, their case is lost.[9]
Mr. Webster casts away the “Proviso” altogether. He says, “_If a
resolution or a law were now before us to provide a territorial
government for New Mexico, I would not vote to put any prohibition into
it whatever_.” (p. 44.) The reason given is, that slavery is already
excluded from “California and New Mexico” “by the law of nature, of
physical geography, the law of the formation of the earth.” (p. 42.)
“California and New Mexico are Asiatic in their formation and scenery.
They are composed of vast ridges of mountains of enormous height, with
broken ridges and deep valleys.” (p. 43.)