1847, Mr. Webster said he would consent to no extension of slavery.
Are not the laws which I have just read a consent?--full consent? He
claimed the Wilmot proviso as his “thunder,” and said it had been
stolen from him. Whether stolen from him, or not, I do not decide.
He certainly seems to have lost possession of it; for we now find
him thundering on the other side;--yes, from the high Olympus to
which the votes of Massachusetts had elevated him, he has hurled his
bolts against the dearest interests of his benefactors. But it is
said we have registered these acts of pro-slavery legislation, at the
dictation of the south, in order to save the Union. When Governor
Davis was once asked to surrender the rights of humanity to save the
Union, he retorted with the question, “How many times have we got to
save the Union?” If we yield to every threat of disunion, we shall
have to save the Union whenever any factious and unprincipled member
of it shall threaten resistance to the laws. Look at the present
threat which has been made by Texas. What resources has she wherewith
to oppose the general government? She has no funds except a school
fund of $34,000, which her governor, in one of his late messages,
declared to be inviolably devoted to education. To be sure, since
this cry of rebellion has been raised, he has said that this fund,
which could be diverted for no useful purpose, might be appropriated
to the treasonable one of resistance. But look at the amount of this
fund,--$34,000. Military men tell me it would not support a single
regiment of mounted rangers more than a month; and all the more
settled parts of Texas are at least one month’s marching distance from
Santa Fe, which is the nearest point of attack. There was never any
thing more ridiculous than the threats of Texas, that she will take
armed possession of the eastern side of the Rio Grande, if it be not
surrendered to her. She cannot even protect herself against the Indian
tribes that roam through the regions lying between her and the people
she threatens to subjugate. Will the disaffected states of the south
help her by munitions, money, or men? The only states on which she
could place any reliance are Mississippi and South Carolina. Could a
military force be organized, and then marched nearly a thousand, or
nearly fifteen hundred miles, across the country, to uphold the Texan
banner on the borders of the Rio Grande? Were expeditions to be sent by
sea, could not the mouth of the Mississippi, the harbor of Charleston,
and that gateway of the Gulf of Mexico, which lies between the capes of
Florida and the West India Islands; ay, the whole Texan coast itself,
be blockaded and guarded, so as to make a hostile irruption into New
Mexico impossible? Talk about Texan resistance to the government of
these United States, my fellow-citizens; it is so ridiculous that
nothing can be conceived which is not less ridiculous, and which would,
therefore, by the very comparison, relieve the supposition of a portion
of its nonsense. This surrendering to the threat of disunion, is like
the foolish mother who gave her boy a sugar-plum to stop swearing.
Presently he belched out a stream of profanity; and when the mother
asked him why he did so, he said, “I want more sugar-plums.” General
Taylor embraced the whole subject in a short sentence when he said he
was more afraid of Texan bonds than of Texan bayonets. Their bonds
have been ten thousand times more powerful than their bayonets in
consummating this disastrous compromise.
But it is not only in conventions of the Whig party that sentiments
have been expressed wholly incompatible with the great surrenders
we have made. Such sentiments have emanated from more authoritative
sources. They are the voice of our commonwealth,--the repeated voice,
reiterated again and again, through a series of years. Let me select
a few from among the many resolves of the Massachusetts legislature,
covering the time, and preceding the time, that I have been in
Congress. The following was passed in 1847:--
“_Resolved_, _unanimously_, That the legislature of Massachusetts
views the existence of human slavery within the limits of the United
States as a great calamity, an immense moral and political evil,
which ought to be abolished, as soon as that end can be properly and
constitutionally attained, and that its extension should be uniformly
opposed by all good and patriotic men throughout the Union.”
Again, in 1849, the legislature of Massachusetts
“_Resolved_, That when Congress furnishes governments for the
territories of California and New Mexico, it will be its duty to
establish therein the fundamental principles of the ordinance of
seventeen hundred and eighty-seven, upon the subject of slavery, to
the end that the institution may be perpetually excluded therefrom
beyond every chance and uncertainty.”
And again, during this present year, and not six months ago, the same
general court passed the following resolve. I might read from the
printed volume of the “Acts and Resolves of 1850;” but I choose to
read from _this official circular_ which I hold in my hand, which is
attested by the secretary of state, and was sent to me at Washington,
as to all the other members of Congress from Massachusetts, so that we
might be informed of the views of the state government, as well as of
our respective constituencies, on this important subject:--
“_Resolved_, That the people of Massachusetts earnestly insist
upon the application by Congress of the ordinance of 1787, with
all possible sanctions and solemnities of law, to the territorial
possessions of the Union in all parts of the continent, and for all
coming time.
“_Resolved_, That the people of Massachusetts, in the maintenance of
these their well known and _invincible_ principles, expect that all
their officers and representatives will adhere to them at all times,
on all occasions, and under all circumstances.”
And yet, in six months, we are called upon to support these laws.
Is this “all coming time”? Are these “invincible principles” of the
Massachusetts Whig legislature to melt, like wax, when touched by the
breath of party? They notified me, under their seal and sign-manual,
that they expected “all their officers and representatives to adhere
to them, at all times, on all occasions, and under all circumstances.”
And yet, before six months have elapsed, some of the very men who
voted to give me such instructions, or injunctions, or whatever you
please to call them, having discarded their own solemn asseverations of
principle, now upbraid me because I, too, will not be recreant to them.
Is this what you are to expect from men whom you have elected by your
votes, and to whom the momentous interests of millions, and the honor
of the country, have been confided, that their vows should be like
those of perfidious lovers, who swear “eternal fidelity”--during the
honey moon? We cannot plead the excuse, in regard to these resolves,
which a certain hearer of Whitfield did, for appearing unmoved at one
of his pathetic discourses, while all others were melted to tears. When
asked why he, too, did not weep, he replied that “he did not belong
to that parish.” We do belong to this parish. These are the “acts and
resolves” of our own state, fresh and unsullied from the mint. We
cannot deny their genuineness. If we impute fraud any where, it must
be to the motives of those who passed them. Hear, too, what Governor
Briggs says on this same subject, in his last inaugural address:--
“Entertaining no doubt of the constitutional power of Congress to
exclude slavery from its own territories, and believing that such
exclusion is demanded by the highest principles of morality and
justice, she never can consent to its extension over one foot of
territory where it now is not. If the other free states concur with
her in this resolution, the thing will be done, and consequences left
to themselves.”
Thus have the Whig party in this state, and its executive, pledged
themselves not to extend slavery “one foot.” How many feet in the six
hundred thousand square miles, into which the legislation of the last
Congress permits slavery to enter?--which legislation the Whig party is
now called upon to indorse,--that is, how many myriad pledges do they
require us to break?
Let me now quote from another high Whig authority,--General James
Wilson, of New Hampshire. For many years, probably no man has been
considered a more authoritative expounder of Whig sentiment. He has
been employed by the party, or the organs of the party, to traverse the
country for the advocacy of Whig principles, and has been every where
listened to with great acceptance. In Congress, he spoke as follows:--
“I hold that Congress is bound to take care of the territories, and
so execute the trust as will best promote the interests of those who
may hereafter be entitled to the beneficial use. As a member of this
Congress, I feel that I sustain a part of that responsibility, and it
is my desire to acquit myself worthily in meeting it. I desire so to
acquit myself that my own conscience will not upbraid me, and that
when I shall pass away, no reproach shall fall upon me, or my children
after me, for my acts here upon this momentous question. I have, sir,
an only son, now a little fellow, whom some of this committee may have
seen here. Think you that when I am gone, and he shall grow up to
manhood, and shall come forward to act his part among the citizens of
the country, I will leave it to be cast in his teeth, as a reproach,
that his father voted to send slavery into those territories? No!
O, no! I look reverently up to the Father of us all, and fervently
implore him to spare that child that reproach. May God forbid it!
“I have said that it is characteristic of the slave power to
accomplish all of its political purposes in this government. I must
now say that the power and influence of slavery over the action
of Congress is impaired, if not entirely gone. [What an infinite
mistake!] I make this declaration, not because I have any confidence
in the politicians of the day. No, sir, I have none whatever. The
politicians are just as ready now to betray their constituents as
they ever have been. I am sorry to say there is evidence enough of
this. My confidence is in the people. They have taken the matter into
their own hands; they have brought themselves into order of battle
and line, without the word of command from any political leader. Here
they stand, with front rank, and rear rank, and rank of file-closers
in position, with bayonets at a charge. They have spoken to their
representatives in a voice of thunder, and warned them against
abandoning their interests. They have bid them do it at their peril.
The constituents have challenged their representatives to betray their
trusts, and skulk and retreat upon them, _if they dared_.
“And, sir, the constituencies have spoken ‘upon honor.’ They are
determined, and will execute their purposes. There was a time, when,
if the slave power had any special work to be done, and wanted a
northern man to do it, they hunted him up from New Hampshire. Little,
unfortunate New Hampshire was called upon to furnish the scavenger to
do the dirty work. That day, thank God, has gone by, and it will not
come again very soon. [Wait a short year, Mr. Wilson, and see who the
Hazael will be.]
“The north are not disposed to trespass or interfere with the rights
of the south. Where slavery exists within the states, the northern
people claim no right to interfere with it by any political action of
this government. The people ask no action by Congress on the subject
of slavery within the states. But gentleman need not ask me for my
vote to extend the institution of slavery one single inch beyond its
present boundaries. Did I say an inch, Mr. Chairman? Ay, I would not
extend it one sixteen-thousandth part of a hair’s breadth. I would
not extend it, because it would be doing an irretrievable wrong to
my fellow-man; because it would be doing irreparable wrong to those
territories for which we are now to legislate; because it would be
doing violence to nature and to nature’s God; and because it would be
a wicked and wanton betrayal of the trust confided to me by the free,
intelligent constituency which has done me the honor to send me here.
“It shall not be in the power of any man to shake a menacing finger at
me, and look me in the face with a jibe of contempt, and say to me, in
the insulting language of a former representative from Virginia, [Mr.
RANDOLPH,] ‘we have conquered you, and we will conquer you again; we
have not conquered you by the black slaves of the south, but by the
white slaves of the north.’ No, sir, that remark shall never apply
to me. Gentlemen need not talk to me, or attempt to frighten me, by
threats of dissolution of the Union. Sir, I do not permit myself to
talk, or even think of the dissolution of the Union; very few northern
men do. We all look upon such a thing as impossible. But, sir, sir, if
the alternative should be presented to me of the extension of slavery,
or the dissolution of the Union, I would say, rather than extend
slavery, let the Union, ay, the Universe itself be dissolved! Never,
never will I raise my hand or my voice to give a vote by which it can
or may be extended. As God is my judge, I cannot, I will not be moved
from the purpose I have now announced.”
And yet this same General Wilson did vote for every one of these laws,
excepting, perhaps, the last, which passed in the night,--fit darkness
for so dark a deed,--and the next morning he was off for California.
How can such a man stop this side of Botany Bay? Now, fellow-citizens,
did you want me to disgrace myself, and you, and human nature, too,
by such an act of flagrant apostasy? [A crash of noes.] Yet if these
measures are adopted and sustained by the Whig party, and if those men
who committed these nefarious deeds are justified and upheld by you,
then how are you less guilty than General Wilson?[16]
Let me quote a passage or two from a speech delivered by one of my
colleagues in Congress, the Hon. George Ashmun, who has, I believe,
usually been considered pretty good Whig authority. In a speech made by
him on the 27th of last March, referring to the subjects of slavery in
the territories and the recaption of alleged fugitive slaves, he said,--
“But I am bound to say, however, if the south persist in uniting
to demand the entrance of slavery into our free territories, I,
for one, must conform to what are, at the same time, the views of
my constituents and the convictions of my own judgment; and if I
am driven to the alternative, I shall not hesitate to vote for the
proviso.”--_App. to Cong. Globe_, _1st Sess. 31st Congress_, p. 401.
“While I desire to do every thing which may protect the rights of
property which are guarantied to citizens of the slave states, I
cannot consent to sacrifice the rights of liberty which belong to
the citizens of the free states. To secure both these ends, I see no
other mode than to have those rights settled before legal tribunals,
_by the verdicts of juries and the judgments of courts_.... When
a colored man is seized in Massachusetts upon a claim that he is
the property of a citizen of a slave state, and he claims to be a
citizen of Massachusetts, and invokes the protection of the laws of
Massachusetts, is it to be said he may be summarily sent away by the
decree of any one magistrate without the privilege of vindicating his
title to his citizenship before a jury of the country? Why, sir, it
could not be done in the case of a horse escaped from one state to
another, and found in the possession of a citizen. It could not be
taken by strong hand,--by force. The claimant must resort to process
of law. He must sue out his writ of replevin, and the title of the
defendant must be tried where he lives. That defendant may be a negro;
and surely, if without a trial by jury you may not take that which
he claims to be his property, you can hardly claim to seize the man
himself, and carry him away, before his title to freedom has been
tested by a tribunal, as respectable, at least, and as safe, as that
which settles a title to his horse.”--_Ib._ p. 399.
And another of my colleagues, [Mr. DUNCAN,] even as late as the 7th of
June last, emphatically declared, in the House of Representatives, as
follows:--
“If territorial bills are presented for the government of New Mexico
and Utah, I shall vote for the exclusion of slavery from those
territories.
Let me fortify these citations by another from one of the acknowledged
leaders of the Whig party,--the Hon. Rufus Choate:--
“On all the great questions of the day, but just slavery; on executive
power, on internal improvement, on the protection of labor, on peace,
and the constitution, we mean to remain the same party of Whigs, one
and indivisible, from Maine to Louisiana,--one vast incorporation of
consentaneous feeling throughout the land; and upon this question
alone we always differ from the Whigs of the south; and on that one we
propose simply to vote them down.”[17]
I will quote a passage also from a recent letter of the Hon. Zeno
Scudder, late a Whig president of the Massachusetts Senate, and now a
candidate of the Whig party for Congress, in District No. 10:--
“I was at the Springfield convention when Mr. Webster said, ‘Not
another inch of slave territory; _no, not one inch_!’ By the aid of
his remarks on that occasion, I was confirmed in the views which I had
before entertained, and have as yet seen no reason to change them.
“In 1847, I had the honor and pleasure of recording my ‘yea’ in favor
of the resolves ‘concerning the existence and extension of slavery
within the jurisdiction of the United States,’ and ‘concerning
the Mexican war and the institution of slavery,’ which passed the
legislature of last year; and had I been a member of that body at
its last session, I should have given my support to the resolve
‘concerning slavery,’ which was then passed.
“When I recorded my ‘yea,’ and advocated the resolves of 1847, I did
not suppose them to be _idle words_, written out to be bandied about
and declaimed upon in Massachusetts, and be _laid snugly away_, if
ever I should depart the jurisdiction. I supposed them to involve
great principles of human freedom, which were to be applied throughout
the length and breadth of our country, whenever and wherever the time
and place might present legitimate opportunities therefor.”
At the Whig state convention held at Springfield in 1847, a resolution
was submitted by Dr. Palfrey, “that the Whigs of Massachusetts will
support no men for the offices of president and vice-president, but
such as are known by their acts, or declared opinions, to be opposed to
the extension of slavery;” and Mr. William Dwight, then of Springfield,
is reported to have said, “You cannot vote for a candidate not known to
be opposed to slavery extension; _it would be guilt_.”
But, fellow-citizens, I might go on citing authorities of this kind
until sunset;--nay, until sunlight should come round again, and still
leave the greater part of my resources untouched. I will refer you but
to one more,--a resolution passed at the late Whig state convention,
only a few days ago, which was as follows:--
“_Resolved_, That Massachusetts avows her unalterable determination
to maintain all the principles and purposes she has in times past
affirmed, and reäffirmed, in relation to the extension of slavery;
and the measure of success which has attended her exertions is a new
incentive to continue and persevere in all constitutional efforts,
till the great and good work shall be accomplished and perfected.”
And now, gentlemen, let me ask you whether my action has been in
accordance with these sentiments, as expressed by the highest acts of
the party and the most solemn resolutions of the state? [An acclamation
of yeas.]
Here, fellow-citizens, I come to the test question: Did we, as true
Whigs, and as honorable men, make all these declarations in sincerity,
meaning to stand by them to the end; or was it done, from time to time,
to beguile a portion of our fellow-citizens of their votes, on the vile
doctrine that “all is fair in politics”? Were we frank and in earnest,
or were we hollow and fraudulent?
I know very well what influences have been brought to bear upon us. I
know we are a people intent on thriving, and on worldly prosperity.
Every young man amongst us sets out in life determined to better his
condition. This, to me, is no cause of regret, but of rejoicing. If
the spirit of thrift does not transgress the limits of honor and
duty, it is not only right but laudable. The animal wants of man
must be supplied before he will develop his intellectual or moral
powers. You may find individuals who will be virtuous amid want and
privation,--heroes in virtue;--but a virtuous community in rags and
hunger, you will never find. We must put society in a condition of
physical comfort, before it will rise to mental excellence. I am
an ardent advocate, therefore, of all measures tending to increase
the wealth of the country; but on this ever-present and everlasting
condition, that it is done without a sacrifice of principles. Any
enlargement of business, any increase of profits, any augmentation of
wealth, gained by a community through a dereliction from principle, is
as insecure and as ignominious as the gains of an individual through
fraud, embezzlement, or peculation.
For the purpose of rewarding our native labor, therefore, I am for a
protective tariff. Perhaps some persons may be here present who dissent
from this opinion; but I came here to avow, and not to conceal my
sentiments and acts. It has always seemed to me that we must protect
our labor against foreign labor, or our laborers at home will fall
to the condition of the pauper laborers abroad. In Manchester in
England, and Glasgow in Scotland, and many other manufacturing towns
in Great Britain, there are thousands of wretched, degraded female
operatives, who earn scarcely a shilling a day. After their day’s work
is done, they visit the dram-shops, roam the streets till midnight,
and if not invited away by vicious men, they huddle by scores into
filthy lodging-houses, where they sleep, men and women promiscuously,
till morning summons them back to their tasks. Now where labor is so
scantily paid, fabrics can be produced more cheaply; and if these
fabrics can be sent into this country, free of duty, they will
undersell ours, until the prices of our labor and the condition of our
laborers are reduced to theirs. Nothing is left to protect our industry
but the cheaper freight of the materials, and that is too trifling a
compensation to be of any account. This is the whole philosophy of the
matter, and to me it has always seemed unassailable.
It has been thought and said that if we would yield to the south on
the slavery question, they would yield to us on the tariff question.
We have surrendered the slavery question. Have we got the tariff? Have
we got any thing but disgrace in the eyes of the civilized world? To
me, it seems that our chance for a tariff is greatly diminished. For
the majority which is necessary to enable us to pass a tariff law,
we must depend on our opponents. By our yielding to the south, their
party discipline has been immensely strengthened, and it is now more
difficult than ever to obtain their votes for any measure conducive to
northern interests. Besides, they now say they will retain the tariff
question as an open one, in order to keep us on our good behavior. What
have those now to say for themselves, who beguiled a portion of our
people into the delusion, that they might safely barter human rights
for pecuniary advantages, and have left to their dupes both the loss of
the advantages, and the disgrace of abandoning their principles!