COMPROMISE OF 1850.
"That, as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any
territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said
territory."
_Wilmot Proviso_, _August_ 8, 1846.
From the campaign of 1844 to the Civil War the slavery question
dominated all others in politics, North and South. During this period
almost every legislative question was decided with reference to its
effect on slavery. Press, Pulpit and Platform felt the baleful influence
of its presence, and aspirants to the presidency and to lesser political
honors sacrificed principle, conscience, and the support of their
friends to obtain the favor of the aggressive and dominating Slave
Power. The Democratic Party during this entire period took a bold stand
on the question; an anti-slavery wing of the party appeared in the
North, but at no time was it successful in changing the party platforms.
The Whig Party, with its strong pro-slavery wing in the South, and with
its northern members desirous of party success, omitted entirely any
mention of slavery in its platforms, and although the anti-slavery
members of the party were outspoken in their private views of slavery,
they attended the party conventions and acquiesced in the platforms
until 1852, when there was a general desertion of the Whig platform and
candidate. The refusal of the Whig Party to make a direct issue of the
slavery question doomed it, sooner or later, to dissolution; and
although the party was successful in 1840 and in 1848, its
disintegration really began after the election of 1840.
To say that the result of the "Log Cabin and Hard Cider" campaign was a
bitter disappointment to both Democrats and Whigs is putting it mildly.
The Democrats were deeply chagrined at the defeat of their candidate by
a "clap-trap" campaign, and the disappointment of the Whigs came with
the death of President Harrison and the succession of Tyler, who played
directly into the hands of the Democrats and the Slave Power, bitterly
antagonizing the party that elected him.
The Texas question now came up to disturb politics and again bring
slavery directly before the people. Texas had gained her independence
from Mexico, and had applied, in 1837, to be received into the Union,
but the offer was declined by President Van Buren. The tragic death of
Mr. Upshur, Secretary of State, on February 28, 1844, and the
appointment of Mr. Calhoun to that office, made possible the completion
of a long conspiracy to admit Texas, and to further extend the slave
area by a war with Mexico. A Treaty of Annexation was immediately
prepared (April 12, 1844) and presented to the Senate, but was
subsequently rejected. It then became apparent that the South intended
to make a political issue of the Texas question, and there was great
alarm in the North, for the admission of Texas meant a slave area
capable of being divided into five or six slave States. In addition, it
meant war with Mexico over disputed boundaries, and the fact that Mexico
had not fully recognized the independence of Texas, and the result of
that war would unquestionably be the acquisition of more area contiguous
to the South.
Mr. Clay and Mr. Van Buren at this time were the only ones prominently
mentioned as possibilities for the Whig and Democratic nominations for
the presidency; both published letters in which they opposed the
annexation of Texas. Mr. Van Buren's letter cost him the Democratic
nomination, for when the Convention met at Baltimore on May 27, 1844, he
was unable to obtain a sufficient vote under the two-thirds rule, and
the South forced the nomination of James K. Polk of Tennessee. This
division on the slavery question in a Democratic Convention is of great
historical importance as a link in the chain of events which led to the
final great political division between the North and South. The
Democratic Platform was emphatic in its support of slavery and the
condemnation of the Abolitionists; it advocated the annexation of Texas
and the occupation of Oregon, and the Democrats went into the campaign
with the rallying cry of "Fifty-Four Forty or Fight," in the North--a
promise of more free soil--and in the South the "Annexation of Texas."
Mr. Clay's letter had made him stronger than ever with his party and he
was nominated unanimously. The Whig Platform, however, was absolutely
silent about the Texas question, and there was absolutely no mention of
any opposition to slavery; the whole question was totally ignored. Mr.
Clay would have defeated Polk had he not been led into the blunder of
writing another letter on the Texas question, in which he largely
withdrew from his earlier position; this alienated great numbers of the
Northern Whigs and threw thousands of votes to the candidate of the
Liberty Party. This party, in a convention at Buffalo the preceding
year, had again nominated James G. Birney for President. Its platform
was long and elaborate, and contained strong denunciations of slavery
and pledged the party to work for its abolition. The Liberty Party
polled a total of 62,300 votes, defeating Clay, who lost New York, the
pivotal State, with its thirty-six electoral votes, by 5,106, the
Liberty Party casting 15,812 votes in that State. Texas annexation
followed the election, but the pledge in regard to Oregon was cast
aside. "Fifty-four Forty or Fight" was nothing more than a campaign cry,
never intended to be followed up, and, in truth, could not have been
without a war with England.
With the great Texas victory achieved, the South now turned herself to
the acquisition of more territory, and war with Mexico was declared May
11, 1846. The Whig Party in the North was strongly against the Mexican
War, and a strong element also expressed itself in the northern
Democratic ranks as against it; the opposition became so threatening
that, as a new House was to be elected in the Fall of 1846, the
Administration decided to end the War, if possible, and Congress was
asked to give $2,000,000 to be used in negotiating a Treaty with Mexico,
fixing the disputed boundaries. Immediately David Wilmot, of
Pennsylvania, introduced a Proviso, which had been prepared by Jacob
Brinkerhoff, of Ohio (both Democrats, and both afterwards members of the
Republican Party), to the effect that slavery should be prohibited in
any territory acquired from Mexico. This Proviso carried in the House,
but the Senate adjourned its session without coming to a vote on it. The
Proviso appeared again often in Congress, but was never adopted; it
caused more excited debate between the North and South than anything
that had ever been introduced by the anti-slavery element in Congress.
Although defeated, it served to amalgamate the anti-slavery forces, and
from that day they rallied around it as representing the fixed and
unalterable sentiment of the North; on it the Free-Soil Party entered
the Campaign of 1848 and it was the underlying principle in the
organization of the Republican Party in 1854. As a counter-balancing
action to the Wilmot Proviso, Mr. Calhoun, in February, 1847, introduced
in the Senate a long resolution to the effect that Congress had no power
to prohibit slavery in any territory, and that any attempt to do so
would be a violation of constitutional rights and lead to a dissolution
of the Union. No vote was ever taken on this resolution, and it was
nothing more than a deliberate attempt to force the issue with the
North.
The Thirtieth Congress met December 6, 1847, and had among its members
Abraham Lincoln, of Illinois, and Andrew Johnson, of Tennessee, the
former elected as a Whig and the latter as a Democrat; in the Senate
Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, took his seat for the first time in
that body. Opposition to the war was strong, and it was finally closed
by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed February 2, 1848; by its
terms vast stretches of new territory were acquired by the United
States. This land had been free soil by the Laws of Mexico since 1827,
but the South, as a matter of course, expected, and had planned, to make
it slave soil, and she was determined to oppose to the utmost any
attempt to keep slavery out of this new territory; the North was equally
determined that it should remain free. The campaign of 1848 came on with
the question undecided. The Democratic Convention nominated Lewis Cass,
of Michigan, and adopted a platform similar to those of 1840 and 1844,
but nothing was said about slavery in the new territory. The Whigs
nominated Major-General Zachary Taylor, of Louisiana, for President, and
Millard Fillmore, of New York, for Vice-President, and their Convention
adjourned without adopting any platform at all.
The failure of the two great parties to take up the prohibition of
slavery in the new territory was regarded with great indignation by many
members of both parties in the North, especially so by the Whigs; in
addition, an element of political revenge crept into the situation to
help the anti-slavery sentiment. The defeat of Van Buren in the
Democratic Convention of '44, and the anti-slavery sentiment in the
Democratic Party, had divided it, in New York, into two factions known
as "Barnburners" and "Hunkers"; the former being those who were opposed
to the extension of the slave area, and were likened to the Dutchman who
burned his barn to rid it of rats; and the latter were "Administration
Democrats"--"Northern men with Southern principles," who "hankered"
after office. Samuel J. Tilden and Benjamin F. Butler were two of the
leading "Barnburner" leaders. When the Democratic National Convention
convened in 1848, both "Barnburners" and "Hunkers" applied for
admission; the Convention offered to permit the New York vote to be cast
between them. This was refused by the "Barnburners," and they withdrew
and held an enthusiastic meeting in New York, and soon became known as
"Free-Soil Democrats." A National Convention was called to meet at
Buffalo, August 9, 1848. The old Liberty Party had already held their
Convention in November, 1847, and had nominated John P. Hale, of New
Hampshire, for President, but Mr. Hale withdrew and the Liberty Party
joined in the new movement and attended the Free-Soil Convention. Mr.
Van Buren was nominated for President, and Charles Francis Adams, of
Massachusetts, for Vice-President. The Free-Soil Platform was, of
course, strongly antagonistic to the Slave Power, and concluded with the
stirring words, "We inscribe on our banner, 'Free Soil, Free Speech,
Free Labor and Free Men,' and under it will fight on and fight ever,
until a triumphant victory shall reward our exertions."
The Free-Soil Party was the second predecessor of the Republican Party,
and it was a curious circumstance that in this campaign it was to have
at its head a man who had been a Democratic President. The Free-Soilers
of New York later nominated Senator John A. Dix for Governor, and the
split in the Democratic Party in that State was complete, and lost the
election for the National ticket. Many Whigs hesitated between Taylor
and Van Buren, but Horace Greeley, in the _New York Tribune_, advocated
the election of Taylor. The vote in New York, which was again the
pivotal State, was: Taylor, 218,603; Cass, 114,318; Van Buren, 120,510.
The total Free-Soil vote was 291,263. It was a strange and fateful
effect that made the Liberty Party in 1844 divide the Whigs and give the
victory to the Democrats; and in 1848 the Free-Soil Party, a successor
of the Liberty Party, divided the Democrats and gave the Whigs the
victory.
The Campaign of '48 assumes another important aspect, in that Mr.
Lincoln took an active part in it; it fixed his ideas on slavery, and
impressed him with the utter hopelessness of reconciling the North and
South on this question. Mr. Lincoln had made his debut in the House in
December, 1847, with the famous "Spot Resolutions." In the Spring of '48
he urged his Illinois friends to give up Clay and support Gen. Taylor.
He attended the Whig Convention at Philadelphia and was well satisfied
with the nominations and the prospects of victory. Late in July he made
a strong speech for Taylor on the floor of the House, attracting the
attention of the campaign managers to such an extent that he was sent to
New England where he delivered a number of speeches, pleading with the
New Englanders not to join the Free-Soil movement, but to vote with the
Whig Party. Here he saw the strength of the anti-slavery movement, and
what he heard made him think deeper on the great question of the hour.
After listening to one of Governor Seward's speeches at Boston, in
September, he said, "Governor Seward, I have been thinking about what
you said in your speech; I reckon you are right. We have got to deal
with this slavery question, and got to give more attention to it than we
have been doing." Later in the campaign Mr. Lincoln stumped Illinois for
Taylor.
When the Thirty-first Congress convened for its first session, on
December 3, 1849, all was confusion and uncertainty in regard to the
situation. A great many felt that the crisis had been reached at last,
and that nothing but a civil war could result. The South feared that its
long cherished plan of more slave territory was to be frustrated, and
the anxiety in the North that the territory acquired from Mexico might
be made slave was equally great. An event now occurred that brought
matters directly to an acute crisis and necessitated a settlement or a
war. Gold had been discovered in California early in 1848, and instantly
there was a tremendous influx of population, with the result that late
in 1849 California was ready for admission into the Union, not as a
slave State, as the South fondly hoped, but as free soil. With the
convening of Congress came the President's message, and it was a severe
blow to the South, for it advocated the admission of California as a
free State. The South now indeed saw its plan rapidly weakening. Violent
opposition was at once made to the admission of California as disturbing
the equal balance between the two sections, and in addition the South
complained bitterly of the difficulty of capturing slaves who escaped
into the free States. She also complained of the constant agitation of
the slave question, and now demanded that the territories should be open
to slavery, and asserted that any attempt to enforce the Wilmot Proviso
or to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia would lead to an
immediate dissolution of the Union.
Such was the acute situation in December, 1849, and the men, scenes and
debates which attended the solution of this grave crisis present a
remarkable and dramatic picture. All eyes now turned to Mr. Clay, the
great Compromisor, then in his seventy-third year. In January, 1850, he
began his efforts to bring about what proved to be the last compromise
between the North and the South. Four great speeches were delivered on
the resolutions introduced by him. Mr. Clay, so feeble that he had to be
assisted up the Capitol steps, spoke early in February. On March 4th Mr.
Calhoun, too weak to speak himself, had his speech, full of antagonism
and foreboding, read by a colleague. Three days after Calhoun's speech,
Webster delivered his famous "Seventh of March" speech, in which he
sacrificed the support of thousands of friends, and demoralized the
entire North by condemning the Abolitionists and advocating the passage
of the Compromise measures. On March 11th Mr. Seward delivered his
"Higher Law" speech, denouncing the Compromise. The great triumvirate,
Clay, Calhoun and Webster, appeared in this debate for the last time
before the American public. Calhoun died on the last day of March. Late
in '51 Clay resigned his seat in the Senate and died at Washington, June
29, 1852. Webster took the office of Secretary of State, received a few
votes in the Whig Convention and refused to support General Scott in the
election of 1852, and died broken-hearted October 24, 1852.
The Compromise of 1850, as finally agreed on, provided that Utah and New
Mexico should be organized into territories without reference to
slavery; California to be admitted as a free State; $10,000,000.00 to be
paid Texas for her claim to New Mexico; a new Fugitive Slave Law; and
the slave trade to be abolished in the District of Columbia. The
compromise was viewed with great indignation by the North, and was in
many respects extremely unsatisfactory to the South, who was now certain
that her plan of extension of slave area was lost. The political leaders
of both parties now argued and pretended that the slavery question was
absolutely settled, inasmuch as there was no further territory to be
partitioned, and that Clay's Compromise had included all possible phases
of the subject. But it was apparent to those who looked beneath the
surface that the situation was not settled at all; nobody in the North,
however, looked for such a startling and rash course as was adopted by
the South in 1854, and which resulted, in that year, in the formation of
the Republican Party.