land lying between the Sierra de los Mimbres and the Sierra Nevada,
on the east and west, and the 32d and 35th degrees of latitude. The
waters at the mouth of a river give no doubtful indication respecting
the country from which they flow. If the volume be large, we know it
must drain an extensive region; for the waters of a great river cannot
be supplied from a narrow surface. So if the water be muddy, as is said
to be the case with that of the Colorado, it is proof that it courses
through a diluvial country. But however this may be, all accounts
concur in representing New Mexico to be rich in mines; and mines are
the favorite sphere for slavery, as the ocean is for commerce.
In his late speech in the Senate, Mr. Davis, of Massachusetts, said,
that however it might be with regard to employing slaves in New Mexico
for raising crops of corn or cotton, there was still one purpose to
which they might be applied,--the most odious of all purposes,--to
raising crops from themselves. From this “Southern Hive,” the markets
of Texas and Louisiana might be supplied with “vigintial” crops of
human beings. It will be incumbent on Mr. Webster to invent some
new “physical” law to meet this astute suggestion of his colleague.
“Asiatic scenery” will hardly answer his purpose here.
Within the limits of the proposed territory of New Mexico, it is said,
on the authority of Humboldt, that that powerful and comparatively
civilized people, the Aztecs, once resided. Can any person for a
moment believe that the Aztecs ever grew to opulence and power, in any
such sterile and desolate region, as Mr. Webster’s “diligent reading”
portrays?
But what must satisfy every man whose blindness is not of the soul
rather than of the senses, is the fact that the people of New Mexico,
in the constitution which they have just framed, have embodied a
prohibition of slavery in their fundamental law. Had slavery been
forbidden there by any “Asiatic scenery,” or by any “law of physical
geography,” who should know it better than they? They have had slavery
amongst them heretofore, and therefore they know it can invade them
again, and therefore they forbid it; and in the choice of senators to
Congress under the new organization, should any candidate put forward
the vagary, the phantasm, the fatuity, that slavery _cannot_ exist
among them, they would doubtless deem him a less fit subject for the
Senate of the United States than for sanitary treatment.
How stands the evidence, then, on the question, whether “California
and New Mexico,” from their geology, their geography, or their Asiatic
scenery, are inaccessible or not, to the invasion of slavery? It
is well known that the war with Mexico was provoked, and violently
precipitated upon the country, in order to extend the domain and the
power of slavery. In negotiating for the cession of California and New
Mexico, the Mexican commissioners strove to introduce a prohibition
against slavery into the treaty. This demonstrates that they thought
slavery could exist there. Our minister declared that he would assent
to no such stipulation, though they would cover all the land a foot
thick with gold. This shows the tenacity with which Mr. Polk’s
administration, and all its southern friends, adhered to their original
purpose of obtaining new territory for slavery. In view of this, the
House of Representatives again and again voted to apply the proviso to
whatever territory should be obtained. When the treaty was ratified,
many of the leading senators voted against the clause for acquisition,
foreseeing the present controversy, and hoping to avert it. Even after
the treaty was ratified, leading southern Whigs in the House voted
against paying the first instalment under it, still clinging to the
hope that the territory might be restored to Mexico, and this cause of
dissension withdrawn. During all this period, fourteen of the northern
legislatures, many of them again and again, voted that the proviso
should be applied. The present six months’ contest, in the Senate and
House, between the north and the south, is conducted solely on the
conviction that slavery _may_ exist in the territories; and that it
will or will not exist there, according as the law allows or forbids
it. Otherwise it would be the most nonsensical and nugatory discussion
ever engaged in out of a lunatic asylum. Once make it as clear as any
law of physical nature, that slavery can never transgress the bounds of
the new territories, and there is not a man so demented that he would
any longer contend either for the proviso, or against it. Mr. Webster
was always of the same opinion, and has declared it a hundred times. In
his Marshfield speech, September 1, 1848, he said, “He [General Cass]
will surely have the Senate, and with the patronage of the government,
with every interest that he, as a northern man, can bring to bear,
coöperating 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_ [of slavery] _as to these new territories_.” Up to the 7th of
March, 1850, then, when he abandoned all the doctrines and sentiments
he had ever before advocated on this subject, and when he incurred
the public, hearty approval and encomiums of Mr. Calhoun, by his
moral agility in springing, at one leap, from Massachusetts to South
Carolina;--until this time, Mr. Webster had always held, that slavery
would invade the new territories if not barred out of them by positive
law. And what would be still more remarkable, if the doctrines of the
7th of March speech had the least shadow of soundness in them, is, that
they have now been before the public for more than four months, and, so
far as I know, not a single southern man has been converted by them.
Are not Mr. Benton, Mr. Mason, Colonel Davis, and thousands of others,
individually, as good judges, or as good witnesses, as he is? Since
the speech, the people of New Mexico have prohibited slavery in their
constitution, because they knew it to be possible among them. Before
the speech, California did the same, and for the same reason. The
Nashville convention has just resolved, “That California is peculiarly
adapted for slave labor, and that if the tenure of slave property was
by recognition of this kind secured in that part of the country south
of 36° 30´, it would in a short time form one or more slaveholding
states, to swell the number and power of those already in existence.”
Even those who seek to apologize for Mr. Webster, avow, at the same
time, their disbelief in his doctrine. Such is the evidence, on the
one side and on the other, as to the possibility or impossibility of
slavery in the territories. Mr. Webster is against the whole world, and
the whole world is against him, and this, too, on a question already
settled by history and experience. He is just as much to be believed,
as a man who looks up into the clear midnight sky, and denies the
existence of the heavenly host, while all the stars of the firmament
are shining down into his eyes.
To increase the overwhelming proof against Mr. Webster, I add the
following:--
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, June 1, 1850.
HON. S. R. THURSTON, Delegate from Oregon.
DEAR SIR; In a speech delivered by you, in the House of
Representatives, in March last, I understood you to say that you
had been in the valley of the Great Salt Lake, and that you were
acquainted, from personal observation, with a large part of the
territory of California. Will you be so good as to give me your
opinion, and the reasons for entertaining it, of the probability or
improbability of the introduction of slave labor into any part of the
territory recently acquired by the United States from Mexico; provided
such introduction be not prohibited by law.
I wish to obtain your opinion in regard to other kinds of labor,
as well as agricultural; because, as it seems to me, a most
unwarrantable, if not a most disingenuous attempt has been made, to
lead the public to believe that no form of slave labor will ever
be introduced there, because, possibly, or probably, it may not be
introduced for agricultural purposes.
A reply at your earliest convenience will much oblige
Yours, very truly,
HORACE MANN.
WASHINGTON, June 10, 1850.
HON. HORACE MANN;
I received a note from you some days ago, making certain inquiries,
but which, up to this time, I have been unable to answer. I desire to
take no part in the question now dividing the country; but as you have
asked my judgment upon a matter which appears to be a disputed point,
I cannot, consistently with the law of courtesy, refuse you an answer.
That answer will be in conformity with what I have frequently said,
heretofore, in private conversation with gentlemen on this subject.
The point of inquiry seems to be, whether slave labor could be
profitably employed in Oregon, California, Utah, and New Mexico. If
the nature of the climate and resources of these countries are such
as to furnish a profitable market for slave labor, it appears to be
conceded, on all sides, that it would be introduced, if left free to
seek profitable investment, like other capital. The whole point at
issue, then, is dependent, as it is conceived, upon the determination
of the first point of inquiry. Hence, to that point, only, it is
necessary for me to confine my answer.
I need not remind you of the law regulating the investment of capital.
It will always go where, under all circumstances, it will yield the
greatest return to the owner. Upon this principle I am very clear,
that slave labor, if unrestricted, could be employed in Oregon, with
at least double the profit to the owner of the slave that it now
yields in any state of the Union. I am uninformed as to the usual
price of slave labor in the states, but the price paid to Indians in
Oregon during the past year, for labor, has ranged from two to three
dollars per day. Domestic negro servants, whether male or female,
who understand the business of housework, would command, _readily_,
five or six hundred dollars a year. I recollect well that there was a
mulatto man on board the vessel in which I took passage from Oregon to
San Francisco, who was paid _one hundred and eighty_ dollars per month
for his services as cook. I will not stop to particularize further,
in regard to the inducements Oregon would offer to unrestricted slave
labor, but will simply add, that a very large number of slaves might
now be employed in Oregon at annual wages sufficiently large to
purchase their freedom. I think, therefore, that the point is settled
so far as Oregon is concerned, and that slave labor, if it had been
left free to seek profitable employment, would readily find its way to
that territory.
As to California, I am equally clear. California will always be a
mining country, and wages will range high. At present, slave labor in
California would be more profitable than in Oregon. And I have always
been of the opinion, that wherever there is a mining country, if not
in a climate uncongenial to slave labor, that species of labor would
be profitable. That it would be in the California mines, is evident.
A good able-bodied slave would have commanded, in California, during
the past year, from eight to ten hundred dollars per annum. When it
is recollected that one hundred dollars per annum, upon an average,
is considered a good compensation for their labor in the Southern
States, it is idle, in my judgment, to contend that slaves would not
be carried to the California market, if protected by law.
The greatest impediment which white labor has to encounter in
the mines, is the intensity of the heat, and the prevalence of
bilious disease. The one is almost insufferable, while the other is
pestilential. Against both of these the negro is almost proof. Now,
while white labor is so high, it is evident that no one can hire a
white laborer, except at a rate that would consume his profit. Not so
with negro labor. That species of labor might be obtained for half the
amount which you would have to pay for white labor. The result would
be a profit alike to the hirer and seller of slave labor. There is no
doubt, in my judgment, that almost any number of slaves might be hired
out in California, were the whites willing to allow it, at from eight
to ten hundred dollars a year. This is pay so much above what their
services command in the states, as to satisfy any one, that could this
species of service be protected in California, it would rush to the
Pacific in almost any quantity.
Let us next turn our attention to Utah and New Mexico. I have no
doubt, from what knowledge I have of those countries, that they will
turn out to be filled with the richest mines. I clip the following
from a recent paper, containing the news from Texas and Chihuahua:--
“Mr. James was informed, by Major Neighbours and Mr. Lee Vining,
that they had been shown by Major Stein, some gold washed out by his
troops, on the Gila River, in a short excursion to that stream.
“It is reported, that, at the copper mines above El Paso, there are
about one hundred tons of pure copper lying upon the ground. This had
been got out by Mexicans, and abandoned when attacked by Indians.
“There are at El Paso, in the hands of different persons, several
large amounts of silver ore, taken from the mines in that
neighborhood. With guaranties of titles to lands, and protection from
Indians, only a short time would elapse before all these mines would
be well worked, and we would have large quantities of metal seeking a
market through this place.”
And if you consult Fremont’s map, printed by order of the Senate in
1848, you will find, near the source of one of the branches of the
Gila River, “copper and gold mines” laid down. And if I am not greatly
mistaken, it will turn out that the Mormons are in possession of the
richest kind of mines, east of the Sierra Nevada. It is known, too,
that silver and copper mines have, for many years, been worked in New
Mexico; and I am informed by Hugh N. Smith, Esq., that there are, in
that territory, gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc mines of the
richest quality, and that the reason why they have not latterly been
worked more extensively is, that it is prevented by the incursions of
the Indians. He is of the opinion, and he is borne out by what history
we can get on the subject, that when these mines shall come to be
explored, their wealth will turn out to be enormous. When you have
once cast your eye over the country lying west of the Rocky Mountains,
and east of the Sierra Nevada, and are informed of the peculiarity of
the gold bearing region, you at once become convinced that the United
States is in possession of mineral wealth so vast, that ages will not
be able to measure its extent. And when these mines shall begin to be
developed, and their unquestionable richness known, population will set
that way, attended with the usual consequences, high prices, and a
demand for labor. If slave labor is like other capital, if it will go
where it is best paid, then we have a right to say it will seek these
mines, and become a part of the producing capital of the country where
those mines are located. That these whole regions are filled with rich
mines, is little less than certain, and that they can be profitably
worked by slave labor is sure. Hence, were I a southern man, and my
property invested in slaves, I should consider the markets of New
Mexico, Utah, and California, for slave labor, worthy of an honorable
contest to secure.
I am, sir, with due consideration, yours, truly,
SAMUEL R. THURSTON.
5. The Kennebec letter has another most extraordinary and discreditable
passage. It is near the close. Mr. Webster quotes from a speech
delivered by him in the Senate, March 23, 1848, says it was published
in newspapers and circulated in pamphlet form, and that that speech
contained the same doctrines in regard to the “legal construction and
effect of the resolutions” for admitting Texas, as are contained in
the speech of the 7th of March. He says nobody complained then, and he
wonders that any body should complain now.
It is very remarkable that such a man as Mr. Webster should furnish,
in the very quotation which he offers, the means of utterly confuting
the assertion which he makes. I suppose this can be accounted for only
on the ground, that he now occupies a position so antagonistic to that
which he has abandoned that he can hardly refer to his former views
without self-impeachment and self-conviction. Let passages from the two
speeches be placed side by side, to show, not their identity, but their
utter irreconcilability.
MARCH 23, 1848.
[_A passage quoted by himself._]
“It shall be _in the power_ of Congress hereafter to make _four_ other
new states out of Texan territory.”
MARCH 7, 1850.
“I wish it to be distinctly understood, to-day, that, according to my
view of the matter, this government _is solemnly pledged by law and
contract_ to create new states out of Texas,” &c. (p. 42.)
The first quotation only asserts a “power” in Congress to create new
states; the last affirms an obligation, “by law and contract,” to do
so. How could Mr. Webster have expected that this broad distinction
between _power_ and _duty_, between _option_ and _obligation_, could
escape the attention of his readers?
But there is another discrepancy or contradiction still more remarkable:
MARCH 23, 1848.
“It shall be in the power of Congress hereafter to make _four_ other
new states out of Texan territory.”
MARCH 7, 1850.
“----the guaranty is, that new states shall be made out of it, and
that such states as are formed out of that portion of Texas lying
south of 36° 30´, may come in as slave states to the number of _four_,
in addition to the state then in existence.” (p. 29.)
The first speech speaks of the _power_ of Congress, but the last of the
_obligation_ of Congress, to admit new states out of Texan territory.
The first speaks of “four other new states;” but the last of the
“guaranty” to admit “SLAVE states to the number of four.” Yet the first
speech is cited, to men who can read and write, as identical “in legal
construction and effect” with the last. The motto under which Danton
attempted to carry himself through his bloody career, was: “_L’audace,
l’audace, toujours l’audace_.” “Audacity, audacity, always audacity.”
But what else did Mr. Webster say, in his speech of the 23d of March,
1848? Referring to the debate which took place in December, 1845, on
the final act for admitting Texas, Mr. Webster said: “And I added, that
while I held, with as much faithfulness as any citizen of the country,
to all the original arrangements and compromises of the constitution
under which we live, I never could, and I never should, bring myself
to be in favor of the admission of any states into the Union as
slaveholding states.”[13] This is what Mr. Webster reports himself to
have said when the final vote on the admission of Texas was immediately
to be taken, and when he commenced his speech by saying, “I am quite
aware, Mr. President, that the resolution will pass,”--meaning the
resolution for the admission of Texas. Mr. Webster’s “never could and
never should” covered the exact case of the then contemplated future
slaveholding states to be formed out of Texas. While in the broadness
of its terms it embraced all slaveholding states, whensoever, or
whencesoever they might come, it had special and pointed application to
any slave state to be thereafter formed out of Texan territory.
In the same speech of December 22, 1845, Mr. Webster spoke as follows:--
“It may be said that according to the provisions of the constitution,
new states are to be admitted on the same footing as the old states.
It may be so; but it does not follow at all from that provision that
every territory or portion of country may at pleasure establish
slavery, and then say we will become a portion of the Union; and will
bring with us the principles which we may have thus adopted, and must
be received on the same footing as the old states. It will always
be a question whether the old states have not a right, (and I think
they have the clearest right,) to require that the state coming into
the Union should come in upon an equality; and, if the existence of
slavery be an impediment to coming in on an equality, then the state
proposing to come in should be required to remove that inequality by
abolishing slavery, or take the alternative of being excluded.”
He also said, in the same speech, “I agree with the unanimous opinion
of the legislature of Massachusetts.”
And what was this “unanimous opinion of the legislature of
Massachusetts”? Among many other things equally decisive, the
Massachusetts legislature, on the 26th of March, 1845,--and, of course,
long after the annexation resolutions had been passed,--declared as
follows:--
“And whereas the consent of the executive and legislative departments
of the government of the United States has been given, by a resolution
passed on the 27th of February last, to the adoption of preliminary
measures to accomplish this nefarious project, [the admission of
Texas, with the stipulation to admit four more states out of its
territory;] therefore, be it
“_Resolved_, That Massachusetts hereby refuses to acknowledge the act
of the government of the United States, authorizing the admission
of Texas, as a legal act, in any way binding her from using her
utmost exertions, in coöperation with other states, by every lawful
and constitutional measure, to annul its conditions, and defeat its
accomplishment.
“_Resolved_, That no territory hereafter applying to be admitted to
the Union, as a state, should be admitted without a condition that
domestic slavery should be utterly extinguished within its borders,
and Massachusetts denies the validity of any compromise whatsoever,
that may have been, or that may hereafter be, entered into by persons
in the government of the Union, intended to preclude the future
application of such a condition by the people, acting through their
representatives in the Congress of the United States.”
Such were the opinions which Mr. Webster then openly expressed, and
such the resolutions of the legislature of Massachusetts, which he
fully indorsed. Yet he now professes to wonder that any body can see
any difference between the doctrine of those speeches and resolutions,
and those of his speech delivered on the 7th of March.[14]
6. A reference to a few other misstatements of facts will close my
remarks on this subject.
Mr. Webster says that, previous to writing his Newburyport letter, he
made “diligent inquiry,” of members of Congress from New England, to
ascertain how many arrests of fugitive slaves had been made in their
time; and he adds, “the result of all I can learn is this: No seizure
of an alleged slave has ever been made in Maine.”
Now, two such cases have happened in the State of Maine. One took place
in the eastern part of the state, about 1835 or ’36. The other happened
at or near Thomaston, a little later. In this latter case, the fugitive
came to Maine in a Thomaston vessel, whose master was afterwards
demanded as a fugitive from justice. This demand gave rise to a
prolonged correspondence, I think, with no less than three governors
of Maine. This correspondence was extensively circulated through the
newspapers, or referred to by them, and it would seem hardly possible
that Mr. Webster should not have seen it. Since the Newburyport letter
was published, this misstatement of fact has been noticed in the Maine
newspapers, yet no retraction is made. The misstatement is allowed
to be spread over the whole country, uncorrected by its author. Mr.
Webster then adds, “No seizure of an alleged fugitive slave has ever
been made in Vermont.” Tradition, and, as I believe, authentic history,
contradict Mr. Webster here. It is said by “members of Congress” from
Vermont, that an alleged fugitive was carried before Judge Harrington
of Vermont, in 1807, and on his being asked what evidence would satisfy
him that the person was a slave, he replied, “A bill of sale from
Almighty God.”