OREGON TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT: ANTI-SLAVERY ORDINANCE OF 1787
APPLIED TO OREGON TERRITORY: MISSOURI COMPROMISE LINE OF 1820, AND
THE TEXAS ANNEXATION RENEWAL OF IT IN 1845, AFFIRMED.
It was on the bill for the establishment of the Oregon territorial
government that Mr. Calhoun first made trial of his new doctrine of,
"No power in Congress to abolish slavery in territories;" which,
so far from maintaining, led to the affirmation of the contrary
doctrine, and to the discovery of his own, early as well as late
support, of what he now condemned as a breach of the constitution,
and justifiable cause for a separation of the slave from the free
States. For it was on this occasion that Senator Dix, of New York,
produced the ample proofs that Mr. Calhoun, as a member of Mr.
Monroe's cabinet, supported the constitutionality of the Missouri
compromise at the time it was made; and his own avowals eighteen
years afterwards proved the same thing--all to be confirmed by
subsequent authentic acts. On the motion of Mr. Hale, in the Senate,
the bill (which had come up from the House without any provision on
the subject of slavery) was amended so as to extend the principle
of the anti-slavery clause of the ordinance of '87 to the bill. Mr.
Douglass moved to amend by inserting a provision for the extension
of the Missouri compromise line to the Pacific Ocean. His proposed
amendment was specific, and intended to be permanent, and to apply
to the organization of all future territories established in the
West. It was in these words:
"That the line of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes of north
latitude, known as the Missouri compromise line, as defined
by the eighth section of an act entitled 'An act to authorize
the people of the Missouri territory to form a constitution
and State government, and for the admission of such State into
the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and
to prohibit slavery in certain territories, approved March 6,
1820,' be, and the same is hereby, declared to extend to the
Pacific Ocean; and the said eighth section, together with the
compromise therein effected, is hereby revived, and declared to
be in full force and binding, for the future organization of the
territories of the United States, in the same sense, and with
the same understanding, with which it was originally adopted."
The yeas and nays were demanded on the adoption of this amendment,
and resulted, 33 for it, 22 against it. They were:
"YEAS--Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Borland,
Bright, Butler, Calhoun, Cameron, Davis of Mississippi,
Dickinson, Douglass, Downs, Fitzgerald, Foote, Hannegan,
Houston, Hunter, Johnson of Maryland, Johnson of Louisiana,
Johnson of Georgia, King, Lewis, Mangum, Mason, Metcalfe,
Pearce, Sebastian, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood.
"NAYS--Messrs. Allen, Atherton, Baldwin, Bradbury, Breese,
Clark, Corwin, Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dix, Dodge,
Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Niles, Phelps, Upham,
Walker, Webster."
The vote here given by Mr. Calhoun was in contradiction to his new
doctrine, and excused upon some subtle distinction between a vote
for an amendment, and a bill, and upon a reserved intent to vote
against the bill itself if adopted. Considering that his objections
to the matter of the amendment were constitutional and not
expedient, and that the votes of others might pass the bill with the
clause in it without his help, it is impossible to see the validity
of the distinction with which he satisfied himself. His language
was that, "though he had voted for the introduction of the Missouri
compromise, he could not vote for the bill which he regarded as
artificial." Eventually the bill passed through both Houses with
the anti-slavery principle of the ordinance embraced in it; whereat
Mr. Calhoun became greatly excited, and assuming to act upon the
new doctrine that he had laid down, that the exclusion of slavery
from any territory was a subversion of the Union, openly proclaimed
the strife between the North and the South to be ended, and the
separation of the States accomplished; called upon the South to do
her duty to herself, and denounced every Southern representative who
would not follow the same course that he did. He exclaimed:
"The great strife between the North and the South is ended. The
North is determined to exclude the property of the slaveholder,
and of course the slaveholder himself, from its territory.
On this point there seems to be no division in the North. In
the South, he regretted to say, there was some division of
sentiment. The effect of this determination of the North was
to convert all the Southern population into slaves; and he
would never consent to entail that disgrace on his posterity.
He denounced any Southern man who would not take the same
course. Gentlemen were greatly mistaken if they supposed the
presidential question in the South would override this more
important one. The separation of the North and the South is
completed. The South has now a most solemn obligation to
perform--to herself--to the constitution--to the Union. She is
bound to come to a decision not to permit this to go on any
further, but to show that, dearly as she prizes the Union, there
are questions which she regards as of greater importance than
the Union. She is bound to fulfil her obligations as she may
best understand them. This is not a question of territorial
government, but a question involving the continuance of the
Union. Perhaps it was better that this question should come to
an end, in order that some new point should be taken."
This was an open invocation to disunion, and from that time forth
the efforts were regular to obtain a meeting of the members from
the slave States, to unite in a call for a convention of the slave
States to redress themselves. Mr. Benton and General Houston, who
had supported the Oregon bill, were denounced by name by Mr.
Calhoun after his return to South Carolina, "as traitors to the
South:" a denunciation which they took for a distinction; as, what
he called treason to the South, they knew to be allegiance to the
Union. The President, in approving the Oregon bill, embraced the
opportunity to send in a special message on the slavery agitation,
in which he showed the danger to the Union from the progress of that
agitation, and the necessity of adhering to the principles of the
ordinance of 1787--the terms of the Missouri compromise of 1820--and
the Texas compromise (as he well termed it) of 1845, as the means of
averting the danger. These are his warnings:
"The fathers of the constitution--the wise and patriotic men
who laid the foundation of our institutions--foreseeing the
danger from this quarter, acted in a spirit of compromise and
mutual concession on this dangerous and delicate subject; and
their wisdom ought to be the guide of their successors. Whilst
they left to the States exclusively the question of domestic
slavery within their respective limits, they provided that
slaves, who might escape into other States not recognizing the
institution of slavery, shall 'be delivered up on the claim
of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.' Upon
this foundation the matter rested until the Missouri question
arose. In December, 1819, application was made to Congress by
the people of the Missouri territory for admission into the
Union as a State. The discussion upon the subject in Congress
involved the question of slavery, and was prosecuted with such
violence as to produce excitements alarming to every patriot in
the Union. But the good genius of conciliation which presided
at the birth of our institutions finally prevailed, and the
Missouri compromise was adopted. This compromise had the
effect of calming the troubled waves, and restoring peace and
good-will throughout the States of the Union. I do not doubt
that a similar adjustment of the questions which now agitate
the public mind would produce the same happy results. If the
legislation of Congress on the subject of the other territories
shall not be adopted in a spirit of conciliation and compromise,
it is impossible that the country can be satisfied, or that the
most disastrous consequences shall fail to ensue. When Texas
was admitted into our Union, the same spirit of compromise
which guided our predecessors in the admission of Missouri,
a quarter of a century before, prevailed without any serious
opposition. The 'joint-resolution for annexing Texas to the
United States,' approved March the first, one thousand eight
hundred and forty-five, provides that 'such States as may be
formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of
thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly
known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into
the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each State
asking admission may desire. And in such State or States as
shall be formed out of said territory north of the Missouri
compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for
crime) shall be prohibited. The territory of Oregon lies far
north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, the Missouri and
Texas compromise line. Its southern boundary is the parallel
of forty-two, leaving the intermediate distance to be three
hundred and thirty geographical miles. And it is because the
provisions of this bill are not inconsistent with the terms of
the Missouri compromise, if extended from the Rio Grande to the
Pacific Ocean, that I have not felt at liberty to withhold my
sanction. Had it embraced territories south of that compromise,
the question presented for my consideration would have been
of a far different character, and my action upon it must have
corresponded with my convictions.
"Ought we now to disturb the Missouri and Texas compromises?
Ought we at this late day, in attempting to annul what has been
so long established and acquiesced in, to excite sectional
divisions and jealousies; to alienate the people of different
portions of the Union from each other; and to endanger the
existence of the Union itself?"
To the momentous appeals with which this extract concludes, a
terrible answer has just been given. To the question--Will you annul
these compromises, and excite jealousies and divisions, sectional
alienations, and endanger the existence of this Union? the dreadful
answer has been given--WE WILL! And in recording that answer,
History performs her sacred duty in pointing to its authors as the
authors of the state of things which now alarms and afflicts the
country, and threatens the calamity which President Polk foresaw and
deprecated.