REMINISCENCES OF THE THIRTY-FIRST CONGRESS.
Novel political complications--The Compromise Measures--First
election to Congress--Sketch of the "immortal nine"--The speakership
and Wm. J. Brown--Gen. Taylor and the Wilmot proviso--Slave-holding
banter--Compromise resolutions of Clay, and retreat of Northern
Whigs--Visit to Gen. Taylor--To Mr. Clay--His speeches--Webster's
seventh of March speech--Character of Calhoun--Speech on the slavery
question.
The scheme of "pacification" and "final settlement," which was
launched in 1850, under the leadership of Henry Clay, constitutes
one of the chief landmarks in the history of the great conflict
between freedom and slavery. It was the futile attempt of legislative
diplomacy to escape the fatal logic of antecedent facts. The war
with Mexico, like the annexation of Texas which paved the way for
it, was inspired by the lust for slave territory. No sophistry
could disguise this fact, nor could its significance be overstated.
The prophets of slavery saw clearly that restriction meant destruction.
They girded themselves for battle on this issue, and were not at
all placated by Northern disclaimers of "abolitionism," and reiterated
disavowals of any right or purpose to intermeddle with slavery as
the creature of State law. Its existence was menaced by the policy
of confinement and ultimate suffocation; and therefore no compromise
of the pending strife over its prohibition in New Mexico, Utah and
California was possible.
This strife was aggravated by its peculiar relations to the dominant
political parties. The sacrifice of Martin Van Buren in 1844,
because of his manly letter on the annexation of Texas, had been
a sore trial to his devoted friends. They could neither forgive
nor forget it; and when the opportunity for revenge finally came
in 1848, they laid hold of it with the sincerest and most heartfelt
satisfaction. As we have seen, they bolted from their party, threw
themselves into the Free Soil movement, and thus made the defeat
of Gen. Cass inevitable by the election of Gen. Taylor. Thousands
of these bolting Democrats, particularly in the State of New York,
cared more for the personal and political fortunes of Mr. Van Buren
than for the slavery question, as their subsequent return to their
party allegiance made manifest; but their action was none the less
decisive in the emergency which called it forth. The trouble in
the Whig camp was also serious. The last hopes of Mr. Clay and
his worshipers had perished forever in the nomination of the hero
of the Mexican war and the owner of two hundred slaves, by a
Convention which became famous as "the slaughter house of Whig
principles." Very many of these Clay Whigs, like the devotees of
Mr. Van Buren, would have been satisfied with almost any dispensation
of the slavery issue if their chief had been nominated, but they
were now enlisted in the anti-slavery army, and, like Joseph L.
White, of Indiana, vociferously shouted for "liberty and revenge."
Mr. Webster and his friends were also profoundly disgusted, and
lent a strong hand to the work of party insubordination, while the
election of Gen. Taylor was quite naturally followed by formidable
party coalitions. One of these, as already stated, made Salmon P.
Chase a senator of the United States from Ohio, as John P. Hale
had been chosen from New Hampshire some time before, and Charles
Sumner came in a little later from Massachusetts; and the House of
Representatives now contained nine distinctly anti-slavery men,
chosen from different States by kindred combinations, who had
completely renounced their allegiance to the old parties, and were
able to wield the balance of power in that body. Such were the
complications of the great problem which confronted the Thirty-
first Congress at the opening of its first session, on the third
day of December, 1849.
In this Congress I was a representative, for the first time, of
the Fourth Indiana District. This district contained a large Quaker
population, and in the matter of liberality and progress was in
advance of all other portions of the State; and yet the immeasurable
wrath and scorn which were lavished upon the men who deserted the
Whig party on account of the nomination of General Taylor can
scarcely be conceived. The friends of a life-time were suddenly
turned to enemies, and their words were often dipped in venom. It
seemed as if a section of Kentucky or Virginia had in some way
usurped the geography of Eastern Indiana, bringing with it the
discipline of the slave-master, and a considerable importation of
"white trash." The contest was bitter beyond all precedent; but
after a hard fight, and by a union of Free Soilers, Democrats, and
Independent Whigs, I was elected by a small majority. Owing to
serious illness, resulting from the excitement and overwork of the
canvass, I did not reach Washington till the 19th of December--just
in time to cast my vote for speaker on the fifty-sixth ballot in
this first important "dead-lock" in the organization of the House.
With the exception of two Indiana members, I had no personal
acquaintance in either branch of Congress, and, on entering the
old Hall of Representatives, my first thought was to find the Free
Soil members, whose political fortunes and experience had been so
similar to my own. The seat of Mr. Giddings was pointed out to me
in the northwest corner of the Hall, where I found the stalwart
champion of free speech busy with his pen. He received me with
evident cordiality, and at once sent a page for the other Free Soil
members. Soon the "immortal nine," as we were often sportively
styled, were all together: David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, then
famous as the author of the "Provsio," short and corpulent in
person, and emphatic in speech; Preston King, of New York, with
his still more remarkable rotundity of belt, and a face beaming
with good humor; the eccentric and witty "Jo Root," of Ohio, always
ready to break a lance with the slave-holders; Charles Allen, of
Massachusetts, the quiet, dignified, clear-headed and genial
gentleman, but a good fighter and the unflinching enemy of slavery;
Charles Durkee, of Wisconsin, the fine-looking and large-hearted
philanthropist, whose enthusiasm never cooled; Amos Tuck, of New
Hampshire, amiable and somewhat feminine in appearance, but firm
in purpose; John W. Howe, of Pennsylvania, with a face radiant with
smiles and good will, and full of anti-slavery fervor; and Joshua
R. Giddings, of Ohio, with his broad shoulders, giant frame,
unquenchable love of freedom, and almost as familiar with the
slavery question, in all its aspects, as he was with the alphabet.
These, all now gone to their reckoning, were the elect of freedom
in the lower branch of this memorable Congress. They all greeted
me warmly, and the more so, perhaps, because my reported illness
and doubtful recovery had awakened a peculiar interest in my fortunes
at that time, on account of the political situation, and the possible
significance of a single vote. John P. Hale happened to enter the
hall during these congratulations, and still further lighted up
the scene by his jolly presence; while Dr. Bailey, of the "National
Era," also joined in the general welcome, and at once confirmed
all the good opinions I had formed of this courageous and single-
minded friend of the slave. I was delighted with all my brethren,
and at once entered fully into their plans and counsels.
An incident connected with the organization of the House, which
caused intense excitement at the time, seems to deserve some notice.
It occurred on the 12th of December, while William J. Brown, of
Indiana, was being voted for as the Democratic candidate for Speaker.
He was a pro-slavery Democrat, through and through, and commanded
the entire and unhesitating confidence of Southern members; and
yet, on the last ballot for him, he received the votes of Allen,
Durkee, Giddings, King, and Wilmot, and came within two votes of
an election. The support of Mr. Brown by the leading Free Soilers
was a great surprise to both sides of the House, and the suspicion
that some secret arrangement had been made gave birth to a rumor
to that effect. After the balloting, while Mr. Bailey, of Virginia,
was on the floor, Mr. Ashmun, of Massachusetts, asked him whether
a secret correspondence had not taken place between some member of
the Free Soil party and Mr. Brown, by which the latter had agreed
to constitute the Committees on the Judiciary, on Territories, and
on the District of Columbia, in a manner satisfactory to that party.
Mr. Bailey scouted the idea, and asked Mr. Ashmun what authority
he had for the statement. Mr. Ashmun replied, "Common rumor"; to
which Mr. Bailey rejoined, "Does not the gentleman know that common
rumor is a common liar?" Turning to Mr. Brown, he said, "Has any
such correspondence taken place?" Mr. Brown shook his head, and
Mr. Bailey became more emphatic than ever in his denial. But the
fever was now up, and the Southern members scented treason. Several
of them withheld their votes from Mr. Brown because of his Free
Soil support, and thus prevented his election. He was in a very
trying dilemma with his Southern friends, while the Free Soilers
who had supported him were also placed in a novel predicament, and
subjected to catechism. The fact was finally revealed in the course
of a long and exciting debate, that Mr. Wilmot _had_ entered into
a correspondence with Mr. Brown on the subject of the organization
of the Committees named, and that the latter _had_ promised in
writing to constitute them as stated in Mr. Ashumn's inquiry--
declaring that he had "always been opposed to the extension of
slavery," and believed that "the Federal Government should be
relieved from the responsibility of slavery where it had the
constitutional right to abolish it." This, in substance, was the
whole Free Soil gospel; and the disappointment and rage of Southern
members, when the letter was produced, can be more easily imagined
than described. Mr. Brown labored very painfully to explain his
letter and pacify his Southern friends, but the effort was utterly
vain. He was branded with treachery and duplicity by Bailey,
Harris, Burt, Venable, Stanton, and McMullen, while no man from
the South pretended to excuse him. In the midst of great excitement
he withdrew from the contest for Speaker, and the catastrophe of
his secret maneuver was so unspeakably humiliating that even his
enemies pitied him. But he was unjustly dealt with by his Southern
brethren, whose fear of betrayal and morbid sensitiveness made all
coolness of judgment impossible. While he possessed very social
and kindly personal traits of character, no man in this Congress
was more inflexibly true to slavery, as his subsequent career amply
demonstrated. If he had been chosen Speaker he would doubtless
have placed some of the Free Soil members on the Committees specified,
but the whole power of his office would have been studiously
subservient to the behests of the slave oligarchy; and nothing
could excuse the conduct of Mr. Wilmot and his associates but their
entire ignorance of his political character and antecedents. I
regretted this affair most sincerely, for I knew Mr. Brown well,
and could undoubtedly have prevented the negotiation if I had been
present.
The Speakership was obviously the first question on which the slave
power must be met in the Thirty-first Congress. No question could
more completely have presented the entire controversy between the
free and slave States which had so stirred the country during the
previous eighteen months. In view of the well-nigh autocratic
power of the Speaker over legislative measures, no honest Free
Soiler could vote for a candidate who was not known to be sound on
the great issue. We could not support Howell Cobb, of Georgia,
the nominee of the Democratic party, however anxious our Democratic
constituents might be to have us do so; nor could we vote for Robert
C. Winthrop, of Massachusetts, to please the Whigs and semi-Free
Soilers who affiliated with them, since Giddings, Palfrey and others
had demonstrated that he was wholly untrustworthy in facing the
ragged issue of slavery. This had been proved by his acts as
Speaker in the preceding Congress. We therefore united in the
determination to vote for neither of these candidates. The contest
was protracted till December 22d, when, on the sixty third ballot,
Mr. Cobb was chosen. The result was effected, by adopting, at the
instigation of the Whigs, what was called the "plurality rule,"
the operation of which enabled a minority to choose the speaker.
The Whigs, when they entered upon this proceeding, well knew that
the Free Soilers were willing and anxious to vote for Thaddeus
Stevens, or any other reliable member of the party. They well knew
that none of us would vote for Mr. Winthrop, under any circumstances,
and for excellent reasons which we had announced. Further, they
well knew that without Free Soil votes Mr. Cobb would certainly be
chosen; and yet the angry cry went up from the Whigs in Congress
and throughout the Northern States that the Free Soilers had elected
a slave-holder to be speaker of the House! For a time the ridiculous
charge served the purpose of its authors, but the subsequent career
of Mr. Winthrop finally and entirely vindicated the sagacity of
the men whose resolute opposition had thwarted his ambition.
In the further organization of the House Mr. Campbell, a Tennessee
slave-holder, was chosen clerk on the twentieth ballot, by the help
of Southern Democrats, over John W. Forney, who was then the
particular friend of James Buchanan, and who had made himself so
conspicuous by his abuse of anti-slavery men that the Free Soil
members could not give him their support. On the eighth ballot
Mr. Glossbrenner, of Pennsylvania, the nominee of the Democrats,
was chosen sergeant-at-arms, and after fourteen ineffectual ballots
for doorkeeper, Mr. Horner, the Whig incumbent in the preceding
Congress, was continued by resolution of the House. This was on
January 18th, and the organization of the House was not yet completed,
but further proceedings in this direction were now postponed till
the first of March.
In the meantime the slavery question had been receiving daily
attention. The strife over the Speakership had necessarily involved
it, and constantly provoked its animated discussion. The great
issue was the Congressional prohibition of slavery in the Territories,
then popularly known as the "Wilmot proviso"; and the first vote
on it was taken December 31st, upon the motion to lay on the table
Mr. Root's resolution which embodied it. The yeas were 83, nays
101; being a majority of only 18 in its favor. The Southern men
seemed to gather hope and courage from this vote. On January 4th,
the President sent in his special message relative to California
and New Mexico, announcing his famous "Non-action" policy, which
was simply another name for the "Non-intervention" dogma of Gen.
Cass. A year before he had declared that the new Territories must
not be "surrendered to the pistol and the bowie-knife"; but a new
light now dawned upon him, and he advised Congress to leave the
Territories to themselves till their people should be prepared to
ask admission into the Union as States. He talked glibly about
"geographical parties" and the "operation of natural causes" as
any trained Whig politician, and seemed to have totally forgotten
his repeated pledges not to interfere with the action of Congress
respecting "domestic questions." While the hand of the Executive
was thus at work, extreme men in both Houses led the way in violent
and inflammatory speeches. "When we ask for justice, and to be
let alone," said Mr. Clingman, of North Carolina, "we are met by
the senseless and insane cry of Union, Union! Sir, I am disgusted
with it. When it comes from Northern gentlemen who are attacking
us, it falls on my ear as it would do if a band of robbers had
surrounded a dwelling, and when the inmates attempted to resist,
the assailants should raise the cry of peace, union, harmony!" He
gave out the threat, that unless the slave-holders were allowed to
extend their system over the virgin soil of our Territories, they
would block the wheels of Government, and involve the nation in
the horrors of civil war. He charged that the free States "keep
up and foster in the bosoms Abolition Societies, whose main purpose
is to scatter fire-brands throughout the South, to incite servile
insurrections, and stimulate by licentious pictures our negroes to
invade the persons of our white women." Mr. Brown, of Mississippi,
said he regarded slavery "as a great moral, social and _religious_
blessing,--a blessing to the slave, and a blessing to the master."
He graciously admitted that Northern people thought slavery an
evil; but he added, "Very well, think so; _but keep your thoughts
to yourselves_." Jefferson Davis, then as ever afterward, the
apostle of disunion, declared that "slavery existed in the tents
of the patriarchs, and in the households of His own chosen people";
that "it was established by the decree of Almighty God," and
"sanctioned in the Bible--in both Testaments--from Genesis to
Revelations." Southern members pointed to the battle-fields of
the Revolution, and warned the people of the free States to beware;
while the menace was uttered that if the representatives of the
Northern States should vote California into the Union as a free
State, without some compensating measures to the South, their
numbers would be decimated by violence. Mr. Toombs, in referring
to the exclusion of slavery from the common territory, said "I will
then, if I can, bring my children and my constituents to the altar
of liberty, and like Hamilcar, I will swear them to eternal hostility
to your foul domination." On January 29th, Mr. Clay introduced
his eight resolutions of compromise, which still further weakened
the anti-slavery policy of Northern Whigs; and when, on February
4th, another vote was taken on the Wilmot proviso, it was laid on
the table by yeas 104, noes 75;--showing a majority of 29, and a
change of 47 votes in a little more than one month! Thus began
the sickening career of political apostacy, which so gathered
momentum during the spring and summer months that it became impossible
to admit the free State of California into the Union until the
passage of the Texas Boundary Bill and the new Fugitive Slave Act
had been made certain.
Early in the session I called on President Taylor with Mr. Giddings
and Judge Allen. I had a very strong curiosity to see the man
whose name I had used so freely in two exasperating political
campaigns, and desired to stand corrected in my estimate of his
character, if I should find such correction to be demanded by the
truth. Our interview with the old soldier was exceedingly interesting
and amusing. I decidedly liked his kindly, honest, farmer-like
face, and his old-fashioned simplicity of dress and manners. His
conversation was awkward and labored, and evinced a lack of self-
possession; while his whole demeanor suggested his frontier life,
and that he had reached a position for which he was singularly
unfitted by training and experience, or any natural aptitude. In
the few remarks he addressed to me about farming in the West, he
greatly amused us by saying, "I would like to visit Indiana, and
see your plows, hoes--and other reaping implements"; failing, as
he often did, to find the word he wanted. He frequently mispronounced
his words, hesitated and stammered, and sometimes made a breakdown
in the middle of a sentence. But although he seemed to be in the
hands of the slave-holders, and was about to proclaim his policy
of non-intervention with slavery in the Territories, he impressed
me as being personally honest and patriotic. In this impression
I was fully confirmed later in the session, when he sorrowfully
but manfully resisted the attempt of Senator Davis, his son-in-law,
and other extreme men, to bully him into their measures, and avowed
his sympathy with the anti-slavery sentiment of the country. I
believe his dying words in July, "I have tried to do my duty," were
the key-note of his life, and that in the Presidential campaign of
1848, I did him much, though unintentional, injustice.
It was about the same time that I called with other Western members
to see Mr. Clay, at the National Hotel. He received us with the
most gracious cordiality, and perfectly captivated us all by the
peculiar and proverbial charm of his manners and conversation. I
remember nothing like it in the social intercourse of my life.
One of our party was Hon. L. D. Campbell, then a prominent Whig
politician of Ohio, and an old friend of Mr. Clay, who seemed
anxious to explain his action in supporting Gen. Scott in the
National Convention of 1848. He failed to satisfy Mr. Clay, whose
eye kindled during the conversation, and who had desired and counted
on the nomination himself. Mr. Clay, addressing him, but turning
to me, said: "I can readily understand the position of our friend
from Indiana, whose strong opinions on the slavery question governed
his action; but your position was different, and, besides, General
Scott had no chance for the nomination, and you were under no
obligation to support him." He spoke in kindly terms of the Free
Soil men; said they acted consistently in supporting Van Buren in
preference to Taylor, and that the election of the latter would
prove the ruin of the Whigs. I heard Mr. Clay's great speech in
the Senate on the Compromise Measures, and although I believed him
to be radically wrong, I felt myself at times drawn toward him by
that peculiar spell which years before had bound me to him as my
idolized political leader. I witnessed his principal encounters
with Col. Benton during this session, in which I thought the latter
had the better of the argument; but his reply to Mr. Barnwell, of
South Carolina, on July 22d, in which he said: "I owe a paramount
allegiance to the whole Union, a subordinate one to my State," and
denounced the treasonable utterances of Mr. Rhett, was altogether
inimitable and unsurpassed. In the same speech he showed as little
quarter to the Abolitionists. Turning to Mr. Hale, he said, "They
live by agitation. It is their meat, their bread, the air which
they breathe; and if they saw in its incipient state, a measure
giving them more of that food, and meat, and bread, and air, do
you believe they would oppose themselves to its adoption? Do you
not believe that they would _hail_ [Hale] it as a blessing? * * *
They see their doom as certain as there is a God in heaven, who
sends his providential dispensations to calm the threatening storm,
and to tranquilize agitated men. As certain as God exists in
heaven, your business, your vocation, is gone." His devotion to
the Union was his ruling passion, and in one of his numerous speeches
during this session he held up a fragment of Washington's coffin,
and with much dramatic effect pleaded for reconciliation and peace
between the warring sections.
His scheme of compromise, or "omnibus bill," was the darling child
of his political ambition and old age; and when, after lovingly
nursing it and gallantly fighting for it through seven or eight
weary months, he saw it cruelly dismembered on July 31st, and his
sovereign remedy for our national troubles insulted by the separate
passage of the bill providing a Territorial Government for Utah,
I could not help feeling a profound personal sympathy with him.
Beaten at last on every point, deserted by some senators in whom
he had trusted implicitly, crushed and exhausted by labors which
few young and vigorous men could have endured, he bowed to the
inevitable, and retired from the Senate Chamber. But in the next
morning, prior to his departure for the sea-shore, he was in his
seat; and with lightning in his eye, and figure erect as ever, he
paid his respects to the men whose work of political havoc he
deplored. His impassioned arraignment of the disunionists was
loudly applauded by the galleries, and clearly indicated the part
he would have played in the late Rebellion had his life been spared
to witness that direful event. "So long," said he, "as it pleases
God to give me a voice to express my sentiments, or an arm, weak
and enfeebled as it may be by age, that voice and that arm will be
on the side of my country, for the support of the general authority,
and for the maintenance of the powers of this Union."
I heard the famous "Seventh of March Speech" of Mr. Webster. To
me his oratory was a perfect surprise and curiosity. He not only
spoke with very unusual deliberation, but with pauses having no
relation whatever to the sense. His sentences were broken into
the oddest fragments, and the hearer was perplexed in the endeavor
to gather his meaning. In declaring, for example, that he "would
put in no Wilmot proviso for the purpose of a taunt," etc., he made
a long pause at "Wilmot," perhaps half a minute, and finally, having
apparently recovered his breath, added the word "proviso"; and
then, after another considerable pause, went on with his sentence.
His speaking seemed painfully laborious. Great drops of perspiration
stood upon his forehead and face, notwithstanding the slowness of
his utterance, suggesting, as a possible explanation, a very recent
and heavy dinner, or a greatly troubled conscience over his final
act of apostasy from his early New England faith. The latter was
probably the truth, since he is known to have long and seriously
pondered the question of his ultimate decision; and with his
naturally great and noble traits of character he could not have
announced it without manifest tokens of uneasiness. I was greatly
interested in the brief dialogue between him and Mr. Calhoun, which
followed this speech. Reference was made to their famous passage-
at-arms twenty years before; and Mr. Calhoun, while taking exception
to some of Mr. Webster's positions, congratulated him on his strong
deliverance in the interest of slavery. The great Carolinian was
then wrestling with the disease which soon afterward terminated
his life, and was thin, pale, and feeble of step; but his singularly
intellectual face, and the peculiar light which flashed from his
eye while speaking, made him the most strikingly picturesque figure
in the Senate. No man can compute the evils wrought by his political
theories; but in private life he was thoroughly upright and pure,
and no suspicion of political jobbery was ever whispered in connection
with his name. In his social relations he was most genial and
kindly, while he always welcomed the society of young men who sought
the aid of his friendly counsel. Politically, he has been singularly
misunderstood. He was not, as has been so generally thought, a
disunionist. He was the champion of State Sovereignty, but he
believed that this was the sure basis and bond of Union. He thought
the right of State nullification, if recognized, would hold the
central power in check, and thus cement the Union; while his devotion
to African slavery as a defensible form of society, and a solution
of the conflict between capital and labor, was doubtless as sincere
as it was fanciful.
During the first months of this session my spare time was devoted
to the preparation of a speech on the slavery question. My
constituents expected this, and so did my anti-slavery and Free
Soil friends generally. It was my darling purpose, and I resolved
to do my best upon it. I not only meant that they should not be
ashamed of it, but that, if possible, it should stand the test of
criticism, both as to matter and diction. I re-examined the question
in its various aspects, and more thoroughly than I had been able
to do before, giving special attention to the speeches of Southern
members in both Houses, and carefully noting their vulnerable
points. I overhauled the question of "Northern aggression" pretty
thoroughly, and endeavored to expose the absurdity of that complaint,
while crowding into my task such facts and arguments as would help
educate the people in right thinking. I had my task completed in
March, and now anxiously waited the opportunity for its delivery.
I was very curious to know how it would sound, and what would be
thought of it, while my constitutional self-distrust made me dread
the experiment unspeakably. My scuffle for the floor was a sore
trial of patience, and it was not until the fourteenth of May that
the competitive contest was ended. I got through with the work
better than I anticipated, was handsomely listened to, and went
home in triumph. A great burden of anxiety had been lifted, while
I received letters from the leading Abolitionists of New England
and elsewhere, very cordially complimenting the speech, which was
copied into the principal anti-slavery newspapers, and quite
favorably noticed. I was flattered beyond measure, and found my
self-esteem germinating into new life under these fertilizing dews.