History of the United States, Vol. I, 1850-1854, by James Ford Rhodes Flipbook PDF

History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850, Vol. I, 1850-1854, by James Ford Rhodes, Harper & Brothers

---

294 Views
65 Downloads
FLIP PDF 10.75MB

DOWNLOAD FLIP

REPORT DMCA

HISTORY OF THE

UNITED

STATES

FROM

THE C OMPRO MISE OP 1850

BY

JAMES FORD RHODES

Vol . I

NEW HARPER

YORK

& BROTHERS 1893

PUBLISHERS

Copyright, 1892, by J

a m es

F ord R h o d e s .

A ll rights reserved.

iv

CONTENTS

P u rch ase o f L o u is ia n a ............................................................................................27 B e lie f in 1 8 0 4 th a t slavery w as d im in ish in g in p o w e r ................ .....2 8 P ro h ib itio n o f th e fo r e ig n sla v e -tr a d e ..........................................................29 T h e q u estion o f th e ad m issio n o f M isso u r i.......................................... .....30 G row in g im p ortan ce o f th e S e n a te .........................................................

33

S p ee c h o f W illia m P in k n e y ...............................................................................3 4 T h e M issouri C o m p r o m ise ............................................................................... .....36 T h e M issouri C om p rom ise, a p o litic a l n e c e s s it y ................................ .....3 8 B e g in n in g o f th e N u llific a tio n tr o u b le ..........................................................4 0 Jo h n C. C a lh o u n ................................................................................................. ..... 41 D e b a te b e tw e en W e b ste r an d H a y n e .................................................... .....4 2 C alhou n and N u llific a tio n ............................................................................... .....4 4 N u llification O rdinance o f S ou th C a r o lin a ...............................................4 6 C om p rom ise T arifl o f 1 8 3 3 .................................................................................49 D e b a te b e tw e en W7e b ste r and C a lh o u n .................................................. .....50 W illia m L loyd G arrison an d th e L ib e r a to r .......................................... .....5 3 T h e N a t T urner In su rrection ..............................................................................56 S ou th ern e x citem e n t reg a rd in g th e a b o litio n ist m o v e m e n t . . . .

57

A m erican A n ti-slavery S o c i e t y .................................................................... .....59 M ob v io le n c e a t th e N orth d ir ec ted a g a in st th e a b o lit io n is t s ..

61

T h e in flu en ce o f G a rriso n ............................................................................... .... 62 D r. C h a n n in g on ‘- S la v e r y ” .............................................................................. 64 T h e P r e sid e n t and C o n g re ss on p u b lica tio n s o f th e a b o litio n ists

67

C h an ge in S ou th ern se n tim e n t regard in g sla v e r y ............................. .... 68 J o h n Q u in cy A d a m s ............................................................................................... 69 W e b ste r ’s d e sc r ip tio n o f N orth ern se n tim e n t on sla v ery ................. 72 G row th o f a b o litio n s e n t i m e n t s ...................................................................... 73 C haracter o f th e a b o litio n is ts ........................................................................... 75 T e x a s q u e s tio n ........................................................................................................... 75 W e b ste r on T e x a s a n n e x a tio n .........................................................................77 P r e sid e n t T y ler and T e x a s a n n e x a tio n .................................................. ....7 8 C alh ou n and T e x a s ............................................................................................ ....80 C lay and P o l k ...........................................................................................................83 A n n ex a tio n o f T ex a s b y jo in t r e s o lu tio n ............................................... ....85 T h e O regon q u e s tio n ..............................................................................................86 T h e M exican W a r ...................................................................................................87 T h e AVilm ot P r o v is o ......................................................................................... ....90

vi

CONTENTS

S ew a rd ’s s p e e c h ....................................................................................................

163

S ew ard ’s sp e e c h d isc u s se d ..............................................................................

165

T h e d eb a te on th e C om p rom ise M ea su res..................................... ..

168

B e n to n an d F o o te .................................................................................................

169

T h e C om m ittee o f T h ir tee n ............................................................................

171

T h e N a sh v ille c o n v e n tio n ...............................................................................

173

T h e p o sitio n o f th e a d m in is tr a tio n ..........................................................

175

Illn e ss and d eath o f P r e sid e n t T a y lo r .....................................................

175

M illard F illm o r e ....................................................................................................

178

S ta te go v ern m en t form ed in N ew M e x ic o .............................................

180

T h e C om p rom ise M e a su r e s.............................................................................

181

T h e C om p rom ise c o m p le te d ..........................................................................

183

T h e F u g itiv e S la v e la w .....................................................................................

185

T h e 'r e a so n o f its e n a c tm e n t..........................................................................

187

F illm ore and th e F u g itiv e S lave law .........................................................

188

T h e C om p rom ise d is c u s s e d .......................................................................

189

C lay and W e b ste r .....................

190

.......................................................................

S ew ard and C h a s e .............................................

.............................................

192

N o rth ern se n tim e n t...............................................................................................

194

S o u th e rn se n tim e n t.........................................................................................

196

N orth ern se n tim e n t on th e F u g itiv e S lave la w ..................................

196

‘ CHAPTER

III

T h e C layton -B u h ver tr e a ty ...............................................................................

199

T h e G alp hin C laim ..............................................................................................

202

T h e H iilsem a n n le t t e r .......................................................................................

205

T h e fin ality o f th e C o m p r o m ise ..................................................................

207

T h e F u g itiv e S lave la w ....................................................................................

207

T h e rescu e o f S h a d r a c h ............................................................ .......................

209

T h e r en d itio n o f S im s .......................................................................................

211

P ro c la m a tio n b y v ig ila n c e c o m m it t e e .....................................................

212

F a n eu il H all r efu sed fo r a r ec ep tio n to W e b s te r .............................

213

A lle n ’s a tta ck on W e b ste r ..............................................................................

213

R e d u ctio n o f rates o f p o s t a g e .......................................................................

215

T h e L opez e x p e d itio n to C u ba...................................................................... 2 1 6 R io t in N e w O r le a n s....................................................... ..................................

220

T h e w o r k in g o f th e F u g itiv e S lave la w ..................................................

222

v iii

CONTENTS

CH APTER

IV

S la v e r y ....................................................................................... .................................

303

F red eric Law O lm s te d .................. .. .................................................................

303

C o st o f k e e p in g s la v e s .......................................................................................

305

O v e r s e e r s ...................................................................................................................

307

N e g r o regard ed m erely as p r o p e r ty ..........................................................

308

W o m e n un der s la v e r y .......................................................................................

310

C o tto n and s la v e r y ...............................................................................................

311

T h e value o f s la v e s .............................................................................................

314

T h e b r e ed in g o f sla v es fo r m a r k e t.............................................................

315

S la v es w ere c h a t te ls ............................................................................................

318

S lave a u c tio n ............................................................................................................

319

T h e d o m e stic sla v e -tr a d e ..................................................................................

323

T h e flo g g in g o f s la v e s .......................................................................................

325

L e g isla tio n fo r b id d in g th e e d u c a tio n o f s la v e s ..................................

327

R e lig io u s te a c h in g ...............................................................................................

329

In tellec tu a l and m oral c o n d itio n o f th e s l a v e s ..................................

333

T h e h o u se s e r v a n ts ............................................................................................

334

A m a lg a m a tio n .........................................................................................................

335

M orals o f s l a v e r y .................................................................................................

336

T h e rn u la tto es.........................................................................................................

339

E ffect o f slavery on w h ite c h i ld r e n ..........................................................

343

T h e poor w h it e s ....................................................................................................

344

T h e S ou th ern o lig a r c h y ....................................................................................

345

T h e S ou th ern a r is to c r a c y ...............................................................................

347

L ack o f c o m fo r t am o n g th e m ass o f sla v e -h o ld e r s...........................

349

L ack o f s c h o o ls .......................................................................................................

350

C riticism o f N orthern sc h o o l-b o o k s ..........................................................

350

C riticism o f N o r th e rn lite r a tu r e ..................................................................

352

M aterial p ro sp erity o f th e N orth and th e S o u t h .............................

354

D iffer e n c es b e tw e en th e N o r th and th e S o u t h ..................................

356

T h e virtu es o f th e S o u th ern a r is to c r a c y ................................................

359

T h e d isa d v a n ta g e s o f S ou th ern s o c i e t y ..................................................

361

“ U n c le T o m ’s C a b in ” .......................................................................................

363

S o u th ern d e fe n c e o f s la v e r y ..........................................................................

365

E u rop ean o p i n io n s ....................................................................... .......................

373

x

CONTENTS

D iffe r in g c o n str u c tio n s o f th e K a n sa s-N eb ra sk a b ill ....................... .. 4 5 9 D o u g la s’s parliam entary m a n a g e m e n t....................................................... ..4 6 1 C h ase, th e lea d er o f th e o p p o s i t i o n .......................................................... ..4 6 2 P u b lic se n tim e n t as se e n in th e p r e s s .......................................................4 6 3 P u b lic se n tim e n t as s e e n in p u b lic m e e t i n g s ..................................... ..4 6 5 P u b lic se n tim e n t a s se e n b y a ctio n o f S ta te le g is la tu r e s ............. ..4 6 7 P e titio n s a g a in st th e K a n sa s-N eb ra sk a a c t .......................................... ..4 6 8 S o u th ern s e n t i m e n t ............................................................................................ ..4 6 8 D o u g la s’s c lo s in g s p e e c h ....................................................................................4 7 0 T h e v o te on th e K a n sa s-N eb ra sk a b i l l .......................................................4 7 5 “ P o p u la r S o v e r e ig n ty ” ......................................................................................4 7 7 T h e p e titio n o f th e c le r g y m e n .......................................................................4 7 7 T h e K a n sa s-N eb ra sk a b ill in th e H o u s e ..................................................4 8 0 T h e K an sas-N eb rask a b ill p a s s e d ................

.......................................... ..4 8 9

T h e K an sas-N eb rask a b ill d is c u s s e d ............................................................4 9 0 P o w e r an d in flu en ce o f D o u g la s ................................................................. ..491 C haracter o f D o u g la s ......................................................................................... ..4 9 2 N o rth ern se n tim e n t......................................................... ......................................4 9 4 S o u th ern se n tim e n t.............................................................................................. ..4 9 6 T h e K an sas-N eb rask a b ill, an d th e F u g itiv e S lave l a w ..................4 9 8 T h e B u r n s c a s e .......................................................................................................5 0 0

2

INTRODUCTION

[C h . I.

those gigantic events whose causes, action, and sequences will be of perennial concern to him who seeks the wisdom underlying the march of history. While we now clearly see th at the conflict between two opposing principles caus­ ing the struggle th at led to the Missouri Compromise, and renewed from time to time after that settlement, was des­ tined to result in the overthrow of one or the other, yet it was not until the eleven years preceding the appeal to arms that the question of negro slavery engrossed the whole at­ tention of the country. I t then became the absorbing con­ troversy in Congress, and dominated all political contests; the issue came home to every thinking citizen, and grew to be the paramount political topic discussed in the city mart, the village store, and the artisan’s workshop. I t was less than three years before the secession of South Carolina that Seward described our condition as “ an irrepressible con­ flict,” and Lincoln likened it to a house divided against itself that could not stand. I t is not difficult to trace the different manifestations of the opposing principles in these years. The signs of the times are so plain that he who runs may read them. I t will be my aim to recount the causes of the triumph of the Republican party in the presidential election of 1860, and to make clear how the revolution in public opinion was brought about th a t led to this result. Under a consti­ tutional government, the history of political parties is the civil history of the country. I shall have to relate the down­ fall of the W hig party, the formation of the Republican, and the defeat of the Democratic party, that, with brief in­ termissions, had conducted the affairs of the government from the election of Jefferson, its founder and first Presi­ dent. The year th at this party returned to power under the leadership of Grover Cleveland is a fitting close of this historical inquiry ; for by th at time the great questions which had their origin in the war had been settled as far as they could be by legislation or executive direction. Time only, that old common arbitrator, could do the rest. I t is

4

SLAVERY IN SOUTH CAROLINA

[C h . L

of the colonies began to be stringent, foreshadowing in their severity the inhuman slave codes of the Southern States under the Union ; yet while the Yirginia slave legis­ lation was ferocious, the custom was more lenient than the law.' In South Carolina, however, the advantage of negro labor m ight be seen at its best, for it had a climate better suited to the African than the northern colonies, and it was, moreover, essentially a planting state. The rice plant had at an early period been introduced from Madagascar, and the rice of Carolina was soon esteemed the best in the world. The cultivation of rice and indigo was unhealthy but highly remunerative labor, and it became the great ob­ ject of the emigrant “ to buy negro slaves, without which,” the Secretary to the proprietors of Carolina wrote, “ a planter can never do any great matter.” 4 In less than a century after the settlement of South Carolina, capital in­ vested in planting could easily be doubled in three or four years. The mechanic left his trade and the merchant his business to devote themselves to agriculture.3 Slaves could be bought for about forty pounds each, and as they pro­ duced in twelve months more than enough rice and indigo to pay their entire cost, they were a profitable investment, and the temptation was great to work them beyond their physical endurance. The planters lived in fear of a rising and massacre, and the legislation regarding the slaves was harsh and cruel. The degradation of the negroes was g re a t; dispensing for the most part w ith the ceremony of marriage, their sexual relations were loose and irregular.4 In the neighboring colony of Georgia, the last of the thir1 L odge, p. 69. ’ A n A ccount o f th e Province o f Carolina, L ondon, 1682, cited from the H istorical C ollections o f Sou th Carolina, by B. R. Carroll, vol. ii. p. 33. 3 Bancroft, vol. ii. p. 392. T h e edition used is th at o f A p pleton & Co., 1887, h avin g th e author’s la st revision. South Carolina w as settled in 1670. * L odge, p. 182.

6

SLAVERY AT THE NORTH

[Ch. L

of his time. He conformed to the practice of the best peo­ ple and held slaves.1 Farther northw araT ^rrery appeared stripped of some of its evils. The treatm ent of the negroes was more humane, and legislation secured them a greater degree of personal protection. In the*colonies th at afterwards became the Middle States they were rarely worked as field hands, and though sometimes employed in the iron furnaces and forges of Pennsylvania,3 their chief use was as domestic servants. In New York it was deemed a mitigation of punishment th at refractory slaves, instead of being whipped, were sold for the W est Indian market. In New England slavery was not a prominent feature except in Rhode Island, where New­ port was largely engaged in the slave-trade; and at the out­ break of the Revolution, when one in fifty of the popula­ tion of New England were slaves, the general tendency of public opinion was against the institution. The laws in regard to the slaves were mild, and limited their punish­ m ent; they were invariably employed as house-servants, and were taught to read the Bible.3 In the colonies where moral feeling was not stifled by golden returns from the culture of rice and tobacco by slave labor, and where slaves were rather a domestic conven­ ience than a planter’s necessity, the notion that the practice was an evil began to make itself manifest. The legislators of the Providence Colony, in the middle of the seventeenth century, enacted th a t no negro should be held to perpetual service, but that all slaves should be set free at the end of ten years; yet the law was not enforced, for it was far in advance of public sentiment.4 William Penn made earnest though unavailing efforts to improve the mental and moral condition of the negroes and to secure a decent respect for 1 H istory o f E n glan d in th e E ig h te en th Century, L ecky, y o l.ii. p. 17. 2 Iron in all A ges, Sw ank, p. 143. 3 L odge, p. 4 4 2 ; H ildreth, vol. ii. p. 419. 4 Bancroft, vol. i. p. 293.

8

ATTITUDE OF VIRGINIA

[C n. I.

land were not of this way of thinking. Baxter, the Chris­ tian patriot, had in the previous century reminded the slave­ holder that the slave “ was of as good a kind as himself, born to as much liberty, by nature his e q u a l a n d it is a grateful remembrance to lovers of English literature th at Addison and Steele protested against the inhumanity of holding in bondage the African.1 Virginia for many years took a creditable attitude tow­ ards the question of slavery, although it is probable th a t before the Revolution negro labor was for her an instru­ ment of wealth. By the middle of the eighteenth century a large number in this colony favored the prohibition of the slave-trade;8 and this opinion, which with some undoubt­ edly had a moral prompting, was fostered by alarm at the growing number of blacks, especially excited during the French and Indian W ar. “ The negro slaves have been very audacious on the news of the defeat on the Ohio,” wrote Governor Dinwiddie to the home administration after Braddock’s defeat in 1755. “ These poor creatures imagine the French will give them their freedom. We have too many here.” 3 Six years later the Virginia Assembly imposed a high duty on imported slaves, which it was hoped would be prohibitory, but this act was vetoed by E ngland;4 and in 1770 King George III. instructed the Governor of Virginia, “ upon the pain of the highest displeasure, to assent to no law by which the importation of slaves should be in any respect prohibited or obstructed.” 5 A t this time Virginia, Maryland, and the Northern colonies favored strongly put­ ting a stop to the foreign slave-trade; and this feeling showed itself in Virginia by a strong and respectful remonstrance against the royal instructions, in which she had the sympa1 Bancroft, vol. ii. p . 277. ! Ib id ., vol. ii. p. 394. 5 M ontcalm and W olfe, Parkm an, vol. i. p. 229. 4 Bancroft, vol. ii. p. 550; see H ildretli, vol. ii. p. 494. 5 Bancroft, vol. iii. p . 410; Order iu council o f D ec. 9th, 1770.

\

10

JEFFERSON AND WASHINGTON

[Cn. I.

lizing a sentiment of humanity, was destined always to re­ main an honor to the great judge and his country’s juris­ prudence. I t was a decision of prime importance to the English-speaking communities, who are more influenced by the dicta of high courts than by the assertion, however eloquent, of general ideas of abstract justice. There had been incomplete and unenforced legislation favoring the slave and judicial decisions unrespected, but no authority of such weight as Chief Justice Mansfield and his court had pronounced in terms which could not be misunderstood th at henceforward, in one country governed by English law, free­ dom should be the invariable rule. While Whitefield was conducting his Georgia plantation in the fashion of the time, John Wesley, having pondered deeply on the cruelty of slavery as he had seen it in Amer­ ica, characterized the slave-trade as “ that execrable sum of all v i l l a i n i e s a n d in his “ Thoughts on Slavery ” denounced the practice in unmeasured terms. A t the same time, Jef­ ferson, holding opinions th a t would have made him an abo­ litionist had he lived in 1860, gave expression to them in his draft of instructions for Virginia’s delegates to the first Con­ gress of the Colonies, which was called to meet a t Philadel­ phia in 1774. The abolition of slavery, he wrote, is the great object of desire in the colonies. “ But previous to the en­ franchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude any further importations from Africa.” To that end the repeated endeavors of Virginia had been directed ; but every such law had been vetoed by the king himself, who thus pre­ ferred the advantage of “ a few British corsairs to the lasting interest of the American States and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice.” 1 Wash­ ington shared the ideas of Jefferson. lie presided at the Fairfax County Convention, and took part in framing the H olland, and som e other European countries; and as y e t E n glan d had show n no sym ptom s o f com passion for th e negro beyond her ow n shores.” ’ L ife o f Jefferson, P arton, p. 138; Jefferson’s W orks, vol. i. p. 135.

12

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

[C h . I.

lating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the per­ sons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in the transportation thither. . . . De­ termined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attem pt to prohibit or restrain this execra­ ble commerce.” This passage, however, was struck out, Jefferson explained, “ in compliance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importa­ tion of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to con­ tinue it. Our Northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little tender under these censures; for though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty con­ siderable carriers of them to others.” 1 “ We hold,” said the Congress of 1776, in the Declaration of Independence, “ these truths to be self-evident: th a t all men are created equal; th at they are endowed by their Cre­ ator with certain inalienable rig h ts; th at among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This clause cre­ ated as much discussion during all the years of the slavery agitation as if it had been part of our organic law. The abolitionists, and afterwards the Republicans, asserted th at it proved the solemn and deliberate belief of our Revolution­ ary fathers to be th at all men were entitled to their free­ dom ; while, on the other hand, the apologists for slavery maintained that, in the minds of the illustrious author and his colleagues, the words “ all men ” certainly did not include the African ra c e ; and a very clever argument to this effect was made by Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott decision.2 The affirmation by slaveholders of the equality of man is an inconsistency which cannot be denied.3 But as Jef1 Jefferson’s A utobiography. W orks, vol. i. p. 19. 2 Infra, Chap. I S . 3 “ T he grotesque absurdity o f slave-ow ners sig n in g a D eclaration o f Independence, -which asserted th e in alienab le righ t o f every m an to lib ­ erty and equality.”— L eck y’s E nglan d, vol. vi. p. 282.

14

VERMONT, PENNSYLVANIA, MASSACHUSETTS

[C h . I.

in Carolina was seriously discussed, and the policy was warmly recommended to Congress by H am ilton; but as a m atter of policy it was disapproved of by Washington. He argued : “ Should we begin to form battalions of them, I have not the smallest doubt ” the British would “ follow us in it, and justify the measure upon our own ground. The contest then must be, who can arm fastest. And where are our arms ?” 1 The year following the Declaration of Independence, V er­ mont separated from New York and framed a State con­ stitution, in which slavery was forbidden forever; but of the original thirteen colonies, Pennsylvania was the first to take steps to abolish the system, the Assembly voting in 1780 a scheme of gradual emancipation.2 In the same year Massachusetts adopted a new constitution, and in the declaration of rights it was asserted: “ All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and in­ alienable rights.” When the convention came to discuss how many of the old laws should remain in force, it was seen th a t any statutes th at maintained or protected property in negroes were inconsistent with this clause; and it was therefore considered that its adoption abolished slavery. The common notion soon had the seal of judicial approval. The Supreme Court had occasion to pass upon the ques­ tion, and decided that by virtue of" this article slavery ceased to exist in Massachusetts. The colored inhabitants became citizens, and were allowed to vote if they had the requisite qualifications of age, property, and residence. A t about the same time the Methodists of the United States, in solemn and regular conference, resolved th at “ slavekeeping was hurtful to society, and contrary to the laws of God, man, and nature.” 3 1 Bancroft, vol. v. p. 370. 3 A c t o f M arch 1st, 1780. L aw s o f th e C om m onwealth o f P en n syl­ vania from Oct. 14th, 1700, to A pril 6th, 1802, vol. ii. p. 246. 3 Bancroft, vol. v. pp. 416-422.

16

ORDINANCE OF 1787

[C h . L

In contriving the passage of this Ordinance, the friends of freedom builded on a more magnificent scale than they dreamed. A bulwark against the encroachments of slavery was needed for the Northwest, as Indiana Territory (it then included Illinois) afterwards petitioned many times for the suspension of the anti-slavery article of the Ordinance, but Congress refused the prayer. I t is probable th a t had it not been for the prohibitory clause, slavery would have gained such a foothold in Indiana and Illinois th at the two would have been organized as slave-holding States. The tribute paid by Webster contains the truth of history, and is pregnant with philosophy. “ We are accustomed,” he said, “ to praise the law-givers of antiquity; we help to perpetuate the fame of Solon and Lycurgus; but I doubt whether one single law of any law-giver, ancient or modern, has produced effects of more distinct, marked, and lasting character than the Ordinance of 1787. . . . I t fixed for­ ever the character of the population in the vast regions northwest of the Ohio, by excluding from them involuntary servitude. I t impressed on the soil itself, while yet a wil­ derness, an incapacity to sustain any other than freemen. I t laid the interdict against personal servitude, in original compact, not only deeper than all local law, but deeper also than all local constitutions.” 1 Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and Franklin did not assist at the Congress th at enacted the Ordinance of 1787; they were at the federal convention in Philadelphia, en­ gaged in framing the Constitution, that an eminent English statesman has called “ the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.” 2 To * F irst speech on F o o t’s resolution, 1830, W ebster’s W orks, vol. iii. p. 263. On the O rdinance o f 1787, see Bancroft, vol. vi. p. 287 et seq.; B enton’s T hirty Y ears’ V iew , vol. i. p. 133; H in sd ale’s Old N orthw est, chaps, xv. and x v iii.; D unn’s Indiana, chaps, v. and v i . ; P o o le ’s article, N orth A m erican Review, April, 1876; E volu tion o f the Ordinance o f 1787, Barrett. 2 G ladstone.

18

SLAVERY AND THE CONSTITUTION

[C h . I.

have power to pass navigation laws by a simple majority, an action which the South contended ought to require two thirds of both branches of the Legislature. Finally mutual concessions were made. The N orth was given what it de­ sired, and a provision was incorporated in the Constitution to the effect that the slave-trade should not be prohibited until the year 1808.' In due time, acts to enforce the un­ derstanding that was expressed in this article of organic law were passed, and the inhuman traffic was virtually brought to an end in the year named in the Constitution. The existence of slavery dictated the provision for the rendition of persons who, “ held to service or labor in one State,” escape into another. It was by authority of this clause that the two Fugitive Slave laws were enacted. I t is unques­ tionable that this stipulation was necessary for the adoption and acceptance of the Constitution; 5 and there were two precedents for it, one in the New England Confederacy of 1643,3 and the other in the Ordinance of 1787. This clause was the subject of but little debate and passed unanimously.4 A defence of the work of our constitutional fathers, in­ cluding the slavery compromises, is hardly necessary. Their choice lay between achieving a union of the States with those provisions, and failing to accomplish any union at all. I t is a tendency of the Anglo-Saxon race to take the ex­ pedient in politics when the absolute right cannot be had, and in following it the delegates acted wisely. Yet, could our fathers have known what was known to the abolitionists of 1833 and 1860, how different the course of history would have been! In 1787 it was supposed, and with apparent reason, th at slavery would die out in all of 1 Curtis, vol. ii. p. 303. * Curtis, vol. ii. p. 4 5 1 ; B enton's T hirty Years’ V iew , vol. ii. p. 773; T h e W ar betw een tlie States, A lex. Stephens, vol. i. p. 302; A lex. Johnston w ent over the ground thoroughly, and cam e to th e sam e con ­ clusion, New P rinceton Review, vol. iv. p. 183. ’ Bancroft, vol. i. p. 293; Curtis, vol. ii. p. 453. 4 E llio t’s D ebates, vol. v. pp. 487, 4 9 2 ; Curtis, vol. ii. p. 456.

20

SERVITUDE IN EUROPE

[C h . I.

trade could be prohibited, the extinction of slavery would soon follow. In its attitude towards this moral question, the convention was in advance of the world, as it confessedly was in pro­ gressive political ideas. No European country had at that time abolished the African slave-trade. Its maintenance was, as we have seen, an object of English commercial policy. Some of the ablest and purest men in Parliament worked earnestly to put a stop to i t ; yet, in 1791, a motion of Wilberforce for leave to bring in a bill to prevent the further im­ portation of negroes into the W est Indies, though supported by P itt, Fox, and Burke, was defeated in the House of Com­ mons by a vote of nearly two to one.' While ten of our States had prohibited the slave-trade and seven were abol­ ishing slavery, serfdom and many feudal obligations still existed in Germany and France, and were only brought to an end by the French Revolution.3 In England a species of white slavery was in force, as horrible in practice, if not in ethical theory, as negro servitude in America.a If we ask the question, Could a better organic instrument than our present Constitution be framed and adopted in the United States of to-day? we may not refuse to answer that it is “ perhaps the most remarkable monument of political wisdom known to history.” 4 If “ human progress rarely 1 L eck y’s E n glan d in the E igh teen th Century, vol. vi. p. 293. 2 L eck y’s E n glan d , vol. v. p. 317. “ Slavery or v illein age in France w as on ly destroyed in th a t great revolution.”— H istory o f C ivilization, B uckle, vol. i. p. 455. 3 “ It w as one o f the effects o f th e im m ense d evelop m en t o f the cotton manufacture, th a t negro slavery in Am erica, w h ich at th e tim e o f W ash­ in g to n seem ed lik ely to be extin gu ish ed by an easy and natural process, at once assum ed g ig a n tic dim ensions. I t w as hardly more horrible, how ever, than the w h ite slavery w h ich for years after th e establishm ent o f the factory system prevailed both in E nglan d and on th e C ontinent.”— H ist, o f E ngland, L ecky, vo l. vi. p. 225. 4 Jam es R. L ow ell in 1888, P olitical Essays, p. 311. “ T he framers of the C onstitution” w ere “ w iser than Justin ian before them or N apoleon after them .”— Am erican Com m onwealth, Bryce, vol. i. p. 364.

22

SLAVERY QUESTION IN THE FIRST CONGRESS .

[C h . I.

not forbid his saying that it would have been better to suffer the prohibition of the slave-trade to go into immediate opera­ tion.1 Franklin was President of the Pennsylvania Aboli­ tion Society,organized for promoting the abolition of slavery. Jefferson and John Adams had no part in framing the Con­ stitution, for both were then serving their country at foreign courts; but, although soon to represent opposing political parties, they were at one on the question of negro servitude. Jefferson, in a letter w ritten at about this time, expressing his ardent desire to see not only the slave-trade but also slavery abolished, laments that those whom he represents have not been able to give their voice against the practice.5 John Adams, through his whole life, had held slavery in such abhorrence that he had never owned a slave, though he had lived for many years in times Avhen the practice was not disgraceful, and when the best men in his vicinity thought it not inconsistent with their character.3 In 1790, during the second session of the First Congress, petitions from the Quakers of several States were presented, praying against the continuance of the slave-trade. The Pennsylvania Abolition Society, through its President, Franklin, earnestly entreated the serious attention of Con­ gress to the subject of slavery; and further prayed “ th at you will be pleased to countenance the restoration of liberty to those unhappy men, who are degraded into perpetual bondage . . . and th a t you will step to the very verge of the power vested in you for discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our fellow-men.” 4 These petitions gave rise in the House of Representatives to a warm and at times excited discussion on the question whether the memo­ rials should be received and referred to a committee. The burden of the argument against their reception was borne by members from South Carolina and Georgia, and was to 1 F ederalist, N o. 42. 2 Jefferson’s W orks, vol. ii. p. 357. 3 A dam s’s W orks, quoted by Greeley, A m erican Conflict, vol. i. p. 52. * B enton’s A b ridgm ent o f tbe D ebates o f Congress, vol. i. p. 208.

24

THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW

[C h . I.

an authoritative and just interpretation of the Constitution. The same principle was more than once afterwards reaffirmed by Congress, and no political party ever questioned the doc­ trine. The debate and resolution settled this point.1 In all the slavery agitation, this principle stood out with the force of a fundamental tru th ; and in our consideration of the subsequent history, it can never too often be called to mind th at the polit­ ical parties of the N orthern States, and their senators and rep­ resentatives in Congress, scrupulously respected the constitu­ tional protection given to the peculiar institution of the South, until, by her own action, secession dissolved the bonds of union. In 1793 the first Fugitive Slave law was passed. The cir­ cumstance that led to its enactment deserves notice. Three white men had kidnapped a free negro in Pennsylvania and taken him to Virginia. The governor of Pennsylvania asked the rendition of the kidnappers, which Virginia refused on the ground th a t there was no law carrying into effect the constitutional provision for the surrender of fugitives from justice. The governor of Pennsylvania then submitted the facts to President Washington, who brought them before Congress. The result was the passage of the act known as the Fugitive Slave law of 1793, the two first sections of which related to the surrender of fugitives from justice, and the two last to the rendition of fugitive slaves. As the pro­ ceedings of the Senate were secret, neither the nature of the discussion nor the difference of opinion elicited in th at body during the consideration of the bill is known. I t passed the House, however, without debate : seven votes only are record­ ed against it, and two of these were from the slave States.3 1 “ The introduction o f the Q uaker m emorial respecting slavery was, to be sure, n ot only ill-tim ed , bu t occasioned a great w aste o f tim e. T he final decision thereon, how ever, w as as favorable as the proprietors o f th is sp ecies o f property could w ell have expected, considerin g the lig h t in w h ich slavery is view ed by a large part o f the U n ion .”—W ash in gton to D avid Stuart, June, 1790, Sparks, vol. x. p. 98. 5 See F a y H ouse m onograph, F u g itiv e Slaves, by Marion G. M cDougall, and the authorities cited, especially State Papers, Annals o f Congress,

26

THE COTTON-GIN

[Cu. I.

than the seizure of eight bags of it in England, a few years before, on the ground that so great a quantity could not be supplied from the United States; and when Ja y negotiated the treaty of 1794 with Great Britain, cotton was of so little significance that he did not know it was an article of export from his country.1 The production of cotton from 1791 to 1860 increased more than a thousandfold,2 and more than one half of the negro slaves were engaged in its culture.3 W hat, asked Webster, created the new feeling in favor of slavery in the South, so th at it became an institution—a cher­ ished institution—“ no evil, no scourge, but a great religious, social, and moral blessing ? I suppose this is owing to the rapid growth and sudden extension of the cotton plantations of the South. I t was the cotton interest that gave a new desire to promote slavery, to spread it, and to use its labor.” 4 Among the Fathers were men who had a correct notion of the possible future growth of the country, but no one could have dreamed th at one of the very first of those splen­ did mechanical inventions, which are justly our boast and pride, would have the effect of riveting more strongly than ever the fetters of the slave. No one could have imagined that economic conditions were destined to prevail th at would bring to naught the moral and humane expectations of the wisest statesmen of the time. I t is more than prob­ able that the invention of the cotton-gin prevented the peaceful abolition of slavery. Rice, sugar, and cotton were, apparently, the only products for which slave labor was nec­ essary ; and, compared with cotton, sugar and rice were in­ 1 H ildreth, vol. iv. p. 545; W ebster’s W orks, vol. v . p. 338. s P roduction, 1791, 2,000,000 p ou n d s; 1860, 2,154,820,800 pounds. ' In 1850, according to D e B ow , 1,800,000 o f the 3,204,051 slaves were en g a g ed in th e cu ltivation o f cotton . Com pendium o f Census, 1850; O lm sted’s Cotton K in gdom , vol. i. p. 17. I have never seen any estim ate for 1860, but th e ratio, i f changed, m ust have been greater, as th e cotton crop o f 1860 w as more than double th a t o f 1850: 1850, 2,445,793 bales; 1860, 5,387,052 bales. 4 7th o f March, 1850, speech, W ebster’s W orks, vol. v. p. 338.

28

SLAVERY

[C h . I.

stances to secure the purchase of this magnificent domain from the French government. During the negotiations and the ratification of the treaty, the question of slavery did not arise. The notion that this territory would be an accession of strength to the slave-power seemed not to occur to Jef­ ferson, to his advisers, or to the ardent advocates of South­ ern institutions; and although opposition to the purchase was made by the Federalists, it was not on the ground that it would lead to the extension of slavery. Nor was this surprising. By this time all the States but South Carolina had prohibited the slave-trade.1 The year after the pur­ chase of Louisiana (in 1804), New Jersey abolished slavery; she was the seventh and last of the original thirteen States to dedicate her soil to freedom. A conviction prevailed that the power of slavery was rapidly diminishing. Even John Adams, while President, had shared this belief.3 I t might now have been possible to set apart to freedom, by solemn legislative act, the whole of the new territory, ex­ cepting that portion which afterwards became the State of Louisiana, where slavery existed and was protected by the treaty of cession. The Quakers petitioned that Congress would take measures to prevent the introduction of slavery into any of the territories of the United States, but the op­ portune moment for legislation to that end was not seized. The virtual understanding at the time the Constitution was framed, in regard to the prohibition of the slave-trade, was carried out. President Jefferson, in his annual message to Congress, December, 1806, said : “ I congratulate you, fellow-citizens, on the approach of the period at which you may interpose your authority constitutionally to withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participa­ tion in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa., 1 South Carolina had passed a law prohib iting th e slave-trade, b u t afterwards repealed the act. 1 H istory o f the U n ited States, Schouler, vol. ii. p. 58.

30

MISSOURI

[C h . L

the South. The opinion of the N orth on slavery was the same as at the adoption of the Constitution; th at of the South had retrograded. Missouri was a part of the Louisiana pur­ chase, and, having now a population of 56,000 freemen and 10,000 slaves, she desired recognition as a State of the Union. The usual form of bill was prepared; but when, during the w inter session of 1819, it came to be considered in the House, Tallmadge, of New York, offered an amendment providing th a t the further introduction of slavery should be prohibit­ ed, and that all children born in the State after its admission into the Union should be free at the age of twenty-five. Since the organization of the government new States had been admitted from time to time, and by tacit agreement had entered in pairs, a free State and a slave State coming in at about the same time. Thus, Yermont and Kentucky, Tennessee and Ohio, Louisiana and Indiana, Mississippi and Illinois, had each been an offset to the other. Alabama was on the point of admission as a slave State, and the usage would require th at another free State should be coincidently added to the Union. The North had been growing more rapidly than the S outh; in 1790 the two sections were near­ ly equal in population, but in 1820, in a total of less than ten millions, there was a difference of nearly 700,000 in favor of the North. Although the contest over Missouri took place in a House of Representatives based on the apportionment of the census of 1810, yet the Northern States, including Delaware, had a clear majority of twenty-nine members.1 Missouri had slavery, and was determined to keep i t ; and the supporters of the slave interest in Congress would not for one moment consent to a restriction which should create bars to the further increase of slaves within her borders. Tallmadge’s proposed amendment, therefore, caused an ex­ citing debate. Among the first to speak, vehemently op­ posing the restriction, was H enry Clay, Speaker of the 1 There were 106 from the N orth, 2 o f these from D ela w a re; and 77 from th e South.

32

MISSOURI

[C h . I.

created equal, while it had only through necessity been tol­ erated by the Constitution. Tallmadge, who closed the de­ bate, met the assertion of a Georgia member, th at if the N orth persisted in the restriction the Union would be dis­ solved, by a fierce note of defiance; 1 and he proceeded to delineate the evil of slavery with impassioned eloquence, calling it “ this monstrous scourge of the human race,” fraught with “ dire calamities to us as individuals and to our nation.” The speech produced a sensation, and under its influence the vote was taken. The Tallmadge amend­ ment was passed by a vote of 87 to 76. The bill for the admission of Missouri as amended went to the Senate, which rejected the slavery restriction by the entire Southern vote, assisted by one senator from Massachusetts, one from Penn­ sylvania, two from Illinois, and two from Delaware.2 If all the senators from the free States had voted for the amend­ ment, it would have been carried. Each House held tena­ ciously to its own ideas; and when adjournment came, March 4th, 1819, no agreement had been reached. Then began a discussion which engrossed the press of the country, and prompted many public meetings. The legis­ latures of Northern States adopted resolutions protesting against the admission of Missouri unless the further intro­ duction of slavery should be prohibited. Illinois and New England were alone officially silent, but public meetings were held all over New England—Poston being impressed by the eloquence of Webster—and they proclaimed in strong language the same sentiment. Virginia and Kentucky were equally zealous for slavery; Maryland agreed with Virginia, but a meeting of citizens in Baltimore, over which the mayor presided, petitioned Congress against the further extension of slavery. The legislature of the slave State of Delaware was on the side of freedom, but her senators and

1 A portion o f th is speech is g iv en by H ildreth, vol. vi. p. 665. 2 T he vote w as 23 against slavery-restriction, and 16 for it.

34

WILLIAM PINKNEY

[C h . I.

savored rather of the cabinet than of the legislative body.1 But in the Senate of 1820, consisting of forty-four members, began th a t series of parliamentary efforts which in elo­ quence have never been surpassed. The oration of William Pinkney, of Maryland, was the masterpiece of the session. lie had served his country abroad with ability and honor, but had won his greatest renown at the bar.2 W hen Daniel Webster came to W ash­ ington to practise in the Supreme Court, Pinkney was the acknowledged leader of American lawyers, and this surpass­ ing eminence he held to the day of his death, although his position began to be shaken after the Boston lawyer had made the great argument in the Dartmouth College case. Perhaps a perception of Webster’s growing power and fut­ ure rank led Pinkney to say to his friend and biographer that he “ did not desire to live a moment after the standing he had acquired at the bar was lost, or even brought into doubt or question.” 3 This great lawyer was as vain of a handsome face, accomplished manners, and an elegant dress as he was proud of his legal acumen. Clad in the extreme of fashion, lie preferred to be regarded an idle and polished man of society rather than to be looked upon as w hat he really was, an unwearied student.4 Always preparing his speeches with the utmost care, writing out the showy pas­ sages and learning them by heart, rehearsing in private the 1 N orth Carolina and R hode Islan d w ere n ot represented at the first session o f the first Congress. 2 “ Am erica never sent an abler representative to th e Court o f L ond on.” — H istory o f U n ited States, Henry Adams, vol. vi. p. 21. C h ief Justice Marshall rem arked shortly after th e death o f P in k n ey th at P in k n ey “ was th e greatest m an he had ever seen in a court o f ju stice.” T yler’s Taney, p. 141. 3 Life o f P in kn ey, W heaton, p. 179. 4 “ W illiam P in k n ey, a large, handsom e man and rem arkable for his som ew hat foppish dress, w earing, w h en I saw him , a w h ite w aistcoat and w h ite top-boots.”— R ecollections o f a Lifetim e, S. G. G oodrich, vol. ii. p. 399.

36

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE

[C h . I.

Having a fine command of language, acquired by the pro­ found study of the accurate use of words, his oration is re­ plete with classical and historical allusions, and the thought and language of it bear witness to hours spent with Milton. W ith much force, Pinkney urged the Southern argument. States are sovereign, he maintained. If Missouri comes in with the restriction, it comes in shorn of its beams—crip­ pled and disparaged beyond the original* States—it is not into the original union that it comes. The original union was a union among equals; this would be a union between giants and a dwarf, between power and feebleness, between full - proportioned sovereignties and a miserable image of power. Under the Constitution you have a right to refuse to admit a S tate; but if you admit it, you must do so on full and complete equality w ith the other sovereign States of the union; you must receive it into the actual union and recognize it as a parcener in the common inheritance, w ith­ out any other shackles than the rest have, by the Constitu­ tion, submitted to bear. Meanwhile the question had assumed a new phase. Maine, recently separated from Massachusetts, had applied for ad­ mission as a State. Senator Thomas, of Illinois, had intro­ duced a proviso which prohibited slavery in th at part of the Louisiana purchase which lay north of the latitude of 36° 30', except the portion included within the limits of the proposed State. This line wras the southern boundary of Missouri, and the arrangement involved the admission of Missouri as a slave State. This was the famous Missouri Compromise. I t was also understood th at Maine should be admitted without opposition; and the parties to the bargain carried it through the Senate exactly as planned. Greater difficulty was encountered in getting the project through the House. But by the aid of eighteen N orthern members, the slavery restriction was finally defeated; fifteen of them voted openly against it, while three absented themselves.1 1 H istory o f the U n ited States, Schouler, vol. iii. p. 165.

38

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE

[Cn. I.

who voted against slavery-restriction, only three were re­ turned to Congress.1 But the most important bearing of this controversy is that a very large majority of Congress, made up of Southern as well as N orthern senators and representatives, went on record as averring that, by a true interpretation of the Con­ stitution, Congress had power to prohibit slavery in the ter­ ritories. Of greater significance even was the discussion of the question by the Pi’esident and his cabinet. Monroe, a Virginian, before approving the act, asked his advisers “ whether Congress had a constitutional right to prohibit slavery in a territory.” John Quincy Adams, Crawford of Georgia, John C. Calhoun, Thompson of New York, Mc­ Lean of Ohio, and William W irt of Maryland, who com­ posed the President’s cabinet, “ unanimously agreed th at Congress have the power to prohibit slavery in the territo­ ries.” 3 We have seen th at one of the first interpretations of the Constitution which had the seal of the House of Rep­ resentatives was that Congress had no power to interfere with slavery in the States, and it was remarked th at this principle had the respect of the N orth until the outbreak of the civil war. The historian would write a grateful page could he add that the doctrine of 1820, solemnly agreed to by representative men of both sections, had received equal respect from the South. Impartial historians have affirmed, with satisfying rea­ sons, th a t the Missouri Compromise was a political neces­ sity in order to preserve the fraternal relations th at should 1 T he debate in Congress and analyses o f th e votes fully support these sta te m en ts; see also B enton’s T hirty Y ears’ V iew , vol. i. pp. 5, 8. B enton’s A b ridgm ent o f D ebates, vol. vi., notes on pp. 333, 4 53; H ildreth, vol. vi. p. 694. A w riter in the N orth Am erican Review for April, 1820, said th at the p assin g o f the com promise was the first ju st cause o f re­ proach on Am erica for th e toleration o f slavery. 3 D iary o f John Q. Adam s, M emoirs, vol. v. p. 5; B enton’s Thirty Years’ V iew , vol. ii. p. 141; Schouler, vol. iii. p. 167. On the action o f Congress, see B enton’s A bridgm ent, vol. vi., note on p. 367.

40

NULLIFICATION

[Cn. I.

of Independence, for he eagerly grasped a t Clay’s theory that the extension of slavery was far-seeing humanity. Spreading the slaves, he wrote, “ over a larger surface w ill. dilute the evil everywhere and facilitate the means of get­ ting finally rid of it.” 1 Nor could Madison resist the entic­ ing logic of the rising statesm an; beginning now to admire, he came to revere Clay as the hope of the country.3 He wrote to Monroe “ that an uncontrolled dispersion of the slaves now in the United States was not only best for the nation, but most favorable for the slaves also.” 3 I t is wor­ thy of observation th at Clay and Pinkney, who began their political life with earnest efforts towards the abolition of slavery in their respective States, now led the opposition to the restriction of slavery; and that not a senator or South­ ern member of Congress had dared to vote on the side of freedom.* The nullification trouble of 1832-33, although caused by the enactment of a high protective tariff, must claim our attention, for the reason that, in this controversy, two con­ stitutional theories were developed, one of which was hugged to delusion by the South, while the other became the justifi­ cation and incentive of the N orth to draw the sword. The obnoxious tariff, the “ tariff of abominations,” as its oppo­ nents called it, was enacted in 1828, and established a greater degree of protection to manufactures than had any previous revenue bill. Calhoun and the people of his State had for­ merly been in favor of the protective principle. But by this time the belief had become fixed that, as England was the largest purchaser of cotton, it was for the best interest of South Carolina to have English goods brought in fre e ; or, if that were impracticable, to have duties imposed upon 1 L etter o f Jefferson to L afayette, D ec. 26th, 1820, W orks, vol. vii. p. 193. 5 See article o f George Bancroft on H enry Clay, C entury M agazine, vol. v iii. p. 479. 3 W ritin gs o f Jam es M adison, vol. iii. p. 169. 4 H ildreth, vol. vi. p. 697.

42

JOHN C. CALHOUN

[C h . I.

He was candidate for Yice-President on the same ticket w ith General Jackson; and for another term he hoped to have the influence of the great popular hero in favor of his own ele­ vation to the higher place. He was now drawn in two di­ rections—in one by the sentiment of his own State, in the other by his feeling of nationality and restless craving for the presidency. He would retain his support at the North, and yet he wished to lead the public sentiment of South Carolina. He was equal to the occasion. He did nothing until after election, when he had a handsome majority of the electoral votes for Yice-President; but in December the legislature printed a paper which he had prepared under the title of “ The South Carolina Exposition and Protest on the Subject of the Tariff.” This was a mild document, and merely a plain argument to show the great injury of a pro­ tective tariff to the “ staple States;” and while the right of interposing the veto of the State is asserted, no threat is made, but, on the contrary, it is deemed advisable to allow time for further consideration and reflection, in the hope of a returning sense of justice on the part of the majority.1 A fter this deliverance the excitement in South Carolina subsided. The next act of the drama took place in the national theatre. Desiring to know how the country would receive the bare doctrine of nullification, Senator Hayne was put forward to deliver the prologue, but Calhoun was the prompter behind the scenes. Hayne asserted that, in case of a palpable violation of the Constitution by the general government, a State may interpose its v eto ; th at this inter­ position is constitutional, and the State is to be the sole judge when the federal government transcends its consti­ tutional limit. The senator’s speeches were not remarka­ ble, and would never have been remembered, had not his most labored effort given Webster the occasion for one of those rare bursts of eloquence th at astonish and delight the 1 F or a g o o d abstract o f this docum ent, see Yon H olst’s Calhoun, p. 76.

44

CALHOUN AND NULLIFICATION

[C h . I.

ideas and devote himself to the seeming interests of his native State. His talents were well adapted to the work. The South had special interests based upon her peculiar system of labor. The N orth was growing much faster than the South, and the large immigration from Europe, just be­ ginning, was being directed entirely to the free States. The South attracted none of this, for the reason th a t freemen would not work with slaves. The stubborn fact came home to every Southern politician th at she was losing political power. A theory of the Constitution was therefore needed which should give the minority an absolute check on the majority. Calhoun was by nature and education as well fitted to construct a narrow and sectional hypothesis as Webster was adapted to elaborate a broad national one. A fter 1830, we look in vain to Calhoun for any exhibition of th a t pervasive patriotism th a t was so distinguishing a feature in the characters of Webster, Clay, and Jackson. Calhoun now bent all his energies to the task, and worked out the fine-spun theory of nullification. He elaborated it in subtle language, and supported it by ingenious, metaphys­ ical reasoning. Brave in the closet when developing his theories, on the stage of action he shrank from putting them in practice. H e became a man of one id ea; he lacked that commerce with the world which would have modified the opinions he elaborated in the study. “ Calhoun is mind through and through,” said Lieber; 1 and H arriet Martineau was struck by his “ utter intellectual solitude,” by his ha­ rangues at the fireside as if he were in the Senate, and, ob­ serving that he was full of his nullification doctrine, wrote, “ I never saw any one who so completely gave me the idea of possession.” 2 An impracticable theorist, he neglected the obvious application of his country’s Constitution, of the constitutions of the different States, and of the English Con1 Life and Letters o f F rancis Lieber, p. 123. a T his w as in 1836. R etrospect o f W estern Travel, q u oted b y Sumner, L ife o f Jackson, p. 284.

46

THE NULLIFICATION ORDINANCE

[Ch . I.

Carolina after the first day of February, 1833. This action was immensely popular in the state. The nullifiers were blatant and aggressive, and the respectable minority of Unionists were silent. Warlike preparations began to be made, medals were struck bearing the impress “ John C. Calhoun, first President of the Southern Confederacy.” ' Here was a great opportunity for President Jackson, and he comprehended it fully. His honest and wise action in this trouble is his best title to fame, and it overshadows his arbitrary acts and injudicious measures. Apprehending nullification proceedings, he had already sent secret orders to the collector at Charleston, th at in case there should be a refusal to pay any duties, the cargo in question should be seized forthwith, and sold to pay the duty charges. He had also ordered General Scott to Charleston. The Presi­ dent’s answer to the nullification ordinance was a procla­ mation, in which were blended appeal, argument, and warn­ ing ; in all respects it was a dignified state paper, worthy of the country, whose good fortune it was to have a fit ex­ ecutive at so important a crisis. The proclamation began by refuting the right to annul, and the right to secede as claimed by the nullifiers; any such rights were inconsistent with the main object of the Constitution, which was “ to form a more perfect union.” I t was admitted that the tariff act complained of did act unequally ; but so did every reve­ nue law that ever had been or ever could be passed. “ To say th a t any state may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation.” In con­ clusion the people of South Carolina were plainly warned that in case any forcible resistance to the laws was tried by them, the attem pt would meet the united power of the other states.2 Every important idea in this proclamation may be found in Webster’s reply to Hayne,3 which shows

1 Life o f Jackson, Parton, vol. iii. p. 459. 2 Ib id ., p. 468. 3 E verett’s Memoir o f W ebster, prefixed to W ebster’s W orks, p. cv.

48

THE NULLIFICATION ORDINANCE

Out of South Carolina public opinion was certainly against h im ; and only here and there did he find a good Freundsberg to whisper in his ear, ‘ If you are sincere and sure of your cause, go on in God’s name, and fear nothing.’ ” 1 Cal­ houn was in his seat in the Senate and heard the message from the President asking additional powers for the en­ forcement of the laws made necessary by the action of South Carolina and her governor. A bill, called by its enemies the Force bill, giving the President the authority he wished, was reported without delay. The action of the President thoroughly frightened Calhoun.8 As Webster said of him, he had not seemed “ conscious of the direction or the rapidity of his own course. The current of his opin­ ion sweeps him along he knows not whither. To begin with nullification with the avowed intent, nevertheless, not to proceed to secession, dismemberment, and general rev­ olution, is as if one were to take the plunge of Niagara and cry out that he would stop half-way down.” s I t was brought to the knowledge of Calhoun th at General Jack­ son had determined to take at once a decided course with him, and that the m atter of his arrest for high treason was under serious consideration.4 If the logic of his closet found no place for compromise, the logic of events demand­ ed one very imperatively. By whom could it be brought about ? There was one man whose wide influence, winning address, and skill in party management might effect a compromise; th at man was Ilenry Clay. To him, therefore, although they had not been on speaking terms, Calhoun repaired.6 The result of one or more conferences and of mediation by mutual friends was a compromise tariff bill 1 Life o f Calhoun, Jenkins, p. 246. ! Parton, vol. iii. p. 474; B enton, vol. i. p. 343; Curtis's W ebster, v ol. i. p. 443. * Speech, F eb . 16th, 1833. W orks, vol. iii. p. 460. * B enton, vol. i. p. 343; Parton, vol. iii. p. 474. 5 Curtis, vol. i. p. 444; also see B enton, vol. i. p. 343.

50

WEBSTER AND CALHOUN

position ignominiously or come into collision with the fed­ eral power, for it was quite plain the country would sus­ tain the President. They were therefore ready to grasp at anything having the semblance of compromise, and Clay’s project was now the best they could get.1 In the meantime the 1st of February had come, and the South Carolina people had decided to defer practical nulli­ fication until, at any rate, after the adjournment of Con­ gress. "Webster would have nothing to do with the compromise. Clay had broached the m atter to him, but he refused his support. “ I t would,” he said, “ be yielding great princi­ ples to faction; the time has come to test the strength of the Constitution and the government.” 2 A few days after the compromise tariff was introduced occurred the debate on the Force bill in the Senate between Calhoun and Webster, in which the opposite theories of the nature of our government were maintained by their re­ spective champions. “ The people of Carolina,” said Cal­ houn, “ believe th at the Union is a union of States and not of individuals; that it was formed by the States, and th at the citizens of the several States were bound to it through the acts of their several S tates; that each State ratified the Constitution for itself, and that it was only by such ratifica­ tion of a State that any obligation was imposed upon its citizens. . . . On this principle the people of the State (South Carolina) . . . have declared by the ordinance that the acts of Congress which imposed duties under the au­ thority to lay imposts were acts not for revenue, as intend­ ed by the Constitution, but for protection, and therefore null and void.” “ The terms union, federal, united, all imply a combination of sovereignties, a confederation of States. . . . The sovereignty is in the several States, and our system is a union of twenty-four sovereign powers, under a constitu1 Benton, vol. i. p. 342. 1 F or the secret history o f this com promise, see Benton, vol. i. p. 342.

52

WEBSTER AND CALHOUN

[Ch. I.

“ The truth is, and no ingenuity of argument, no subtlety of distinction, can evade it, that as to certain purposes the people of the United States are one people. . . . Sir, how can any man get over the words of the Constitution itself ? —‘We, the people of the United States, do ordain and es­ tablish this Constitution.’ . . . Who is to construe finally the Constitution of the United States? . . . I think it is clear that the Constitution, by express provision, by definite and unequivocal words, as well as by necessary implication, has constituted the Supreme Court of the United States the appellate tribunal in all cases of a constitutional nature which assume the shape of a suit in law or equity.” 1 These citations only give Webster’s bare positions, but the proofs are irrefragable. The detailed arguments are no longer necessary to carry conviction; the statements them­ selves command unquestioned assent; but it was not so when Webster made this speech. He had the majority of the South against him, and not every one at the N orth was prepared to adopt his strong national opinions.2 But the greatest .authority living, James Madison, in a letter con­ gratulating Webster for his speech, agreed with the view he had taken of the nature of the government established by the Constitution.3 The justification alleged by the South for her rebellion in 1S61 was based on the principles enunciated by Calhoun; the cause was slavery. Had there been no slavery, the Calhoun theory of the Constitution would never have been propounded, or, had it been, it would have been crushed be­ yond resurrection by W ebster’s speeches of 1830 and 1S33, 1 W ebster's W orks, vol. iii., speeeli en titled “ The C onstitution not a Com pact betw een Sovereign States.” 2 See for exam ple M emoirs o f John Q. Adam s, vol. viii. p. 526 ; N orth Am erican Bevieio, July, 1833. F or com m ent ou th is debate from the Southern point o f view , see W ar betw een the States, A. H. Stephens, vol. i. p. 387. 3 M emoir o f W ebster by E dw . Everett, prefixed to W orks, vol. i. p. cvii.

54

WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON

[C h . L

he had for several years been advocating anti-slavery ideas, his denunciations of slavery had attracted as little attention at the national capital as Paul’s preaching excited in the palace of the Caesars. A t this time, in the slave States, the opinion prevailed th at slavery in the abstract was an evil. Miss Martineau conversed with many hundreds of persons in the South on the object, but she met only one person who altogether de" the institution. Everybody justi­ fied its present exisie^e, but did so on the ground of the impossibility of its abolition,1although forecasts were some­ times given of the position the South would in the future be forced to take. Senator Ilayne, in the celebrated debate, argued that slavery in the abstract was no evil; but, in the course of the same discussion, Benton had addressed himself to the people of the N orth and with truthful emphasis as­ sured them that " slavery in the abstract had but few advo­ cates or defenders in the slave-holding states.” 2 The senti­ ment at the N orth was well portrayed by W ebster in his reply to Hayne. “ The slavery of the South,” he said, “ has always been regarded as a m atter of domestic policy left with the States themselves, and with which the federal gov­ ernment had nothing to do. . . . I regard domestic slavery as one of the greatest evils, both moral and political. But whether it be a malady and whether it be curable, and if so, by what m eans; or, on the other hand, whether it be the vitlnus immedicabile of the social system, I leave it to those whose right and duty it is to inquire and decide. And this I believe is, and uniformly has been, the sentiment of the North.” 3 More than forty years had now passed since the establish­ ment of the government. The hopes of its founders had not been realized, for the number of slaves was fast increasing; slavery had waxed strong and had become a source of great 1 Society in Am erica, H arriet M artineau, vol. i. p. 349. M iss Martineau was in the South in 1835. 3 T hirty Y ears’ V iew , vol. i. p. 136. ’ W orks, vol. iii. p. 279.

56

NAT TURNER

the national capitol, floating from whose dome was a flag inscribed “ L i b e r t y i n the foreground is seen a negro, flogged at a whipping-post, and the misery of a slave auc­ tion.1 This journal began in poverty; but in the course of the first year the subscription list reached five hundred.3 Garrison wrote the leading articles and then assisted to set them up in type and did other work of the printer. In August of this year (1831) occurred the N at Turner in­ surrection in Virginia, which seemed to many Southerners a legitimate fruit of the bold teaching of Garrison, although there was indeed between the two events no real connec­ tion. But this negro rising struck terror through the South and destroyed calm reason. The leader, N at Turner, a genuine African of exceptional capacity, knowing the Bible by heart, prayed and preached to his fellow-slaves. He told them of the voices he heard in the air, of the visions he saw, and of his communion with the Holy Spirit. An eclipse of the sun was a sign that they must rise and slay their enemies who had deprived them of freedom. The massacre began at night and continued for forty-eight hours; women and children were not spared, and before the bloody work was checked sixty-one whites were victims of negro ferocity. The retribution was terrible. Negroes were shot, hanged, tortured, and burned to death, and all on whom suspicion lighted met a cruel fate. In Southampton County, the scene of the insurrection, there Avas a reign of terror, and alarm spread throughout the slave States.3 This event, and the thought that it might be the precur­ sor of others of the same kind, account for much of the Southern rage directed against Garrison and his crusade. Nor, when we reflect on the sparsely settled country, the 1 Life o f W . L. Garrison, vol. i. p. 232. 2 Ib id ., p. 430. 3 An in terestin g account o f the massacre, by T. W . H iggin son , may be found in the A tla n tic M onthly, vol. viii. p. 173. T h is article has been reprinted in th e volum e en titled “ T ravellers and O utlaw s,” by T. W . H igginson. See also H istory o f th e N egro R ace in Am erica, W illiam s, vol. ii. p. 88.

58

SOUTHERN EXCITEMENT

[C h . I.

abolitionist could have used. The alarm excited all over the South by the negro rising in Southampton County was not, one member explained, from the fear of N at Turner, but it was on account of “ the suspicion eternally attached to the slave himself—a suspicion that a N at Turner might be in every family, th a t the same bloody deed might be acted over at any time, and in any place; th at the materials for it were spread through the land, and were always ready for a like explosion.” 1 But a majority of the House of Kepresentatives, in which the project was discussed, could not be had for ordering an inquiry, and the further consideration of the subject Avas in­ definitely postponed. I t has sometimes been asserted that had not the abolitionist agitation begun, this Virginia move­ ment would haAre resulted in the gradual emancipation of slaves in that state; but there is, in truth, no reason for thinking th at anything more Avould have come of it than from previous abortive attempts in the same direction. On many pages of Virginia history may one read of noble ef­ forts by noble men towards freeing their State from s l a v e r y . But the story of the end is a repeated ta le ; the seeds sown fell among thorns, and the thorns sprung up and choked them. Meanwhile Garrison and his little band continued the up­ hill Avork of proselyting a t the North, and especially in Bos­ ton. Merchants, manufacturers, and capitalists were against the movement, for trade Avith the South was important, and they regarded the propagation of abolition sentiments as in­ jurious to the commercial interests of Boston. Good society turned the back upon the abolitionists. Garrison had no college education to recommend him to an aristocracy based partly upon wealth and partly upon culture.2 The churches were bitterly opposed to the movement. Oliver Johnson, 1 For an abstract o f th is debate, see R ise and F a ll o f the Slave Power, W ilson, vol. i. chap. xiv. 3 Life o f Garrison, vol. i. p. 515.

60

SOUTHERN SENTIMENT

[C h . I.

the same way as we should now look upon an assemblage of anarchists.1 This year (1833) is also noteworthy as furnishing a fresh argument for the abolitionists. The British Parliament, influenced by a long course of agitation, emancipated the negro slaves in the West Indian colonies, so that hencefor­ ward freedom was the rule in all the vast colonial posses­ sions of England, as it had been for years in the parent state. A t the same time, ambitious Southern politicians began to turn to their own advantage the anti-slavery agitation at the North. This did not escape the keen observation of Madison, who, though well stricken in years, was able to de­ tect, from his country retreat, the reason of various moves in the political sphere of his native state, which had for their aim to make a unit of Southern opinion on the slavery question. “ I t is painful,” wrote Madison to Clay in June, 1833, “ to observe the unceasing efforts to alarm the South by imputations against the N orth of unconstitutional de­ signs on the subject of the slaves.” 2 In a letter w ritten more than a year later, he said th at one could see from the Virginia newspapers and the proceedings of public meet­ ings that aspiring popular leaders were inculcating the “ im­ pression of a permanent incompatibility of interests between the South and the North.” a Excitement about the abolition movement characterized the year 1835. Numerous public meetings and the press of the South demanded almost with one voice th a t the aboli­ tionists must be put down or they would destroy the Union. A suspension of commercial intercourse with the N orth was

1 A sim ilar com parison su ggested itse lf to Ampfere in 1851: ‘-L e s fita ts & esc laves,” lie w rites, “ dfifendeut avec passion, avec fureur, ce qui est a leurs yeux le droit de propriety : les abolition istes son t pour eu x ce que sont les com m unistes pour les proprietaires franijais.”— Prom enade en Am erique, vol. i. p. 48. 1 M adison’s W orks, vol. iv. p. 301. 8 Ibid., p. 358.

62

THE INFLUENCE OF GARRISON

[Ch. I.

subjected to indignity and insult, and his life was threatened. The mayor and police finally rescued him from the hands of the rioters, and put him in jail as a protection against further violence. Yet the work of converting and creating Northern senti­ ment went on. In spite of misrepresentation, obloquy, and derision, the abolitionists continued to apply moral ideas and Christian principles to the institution of slavery. The teachings of Christ and the Apostles actuated this crusade,1 and its latent power was great. If one looks for its results merely to the numbers of congressmen chosen by the aboli­ tionists, to the vote received by their distinctively presiden­ tial candidates, or even to the number of members enrolled in the anti-slavery societies, only a faint idea of the force of the movement will be had. The influence of the Liberator cannot be measured by its subscribers, an}7 more than the French revolutionists of 1789 can be reckoned as of no greater number than the readers of “ The Social Contract.” If Rousseau had never lived, said Napoleon, there would have been no French Revolution. I t would be historical dogmatism to say th at if Garrison had not lived, the Repub­ licans would not have succeeded in 1860. But if we wish to estimate correctly the influence of Garrison and his disciples, we must not stop with the enumeration of their avowed ad­ herents. We must bear in mind the impelling power of their positive dogmas, and of their never-ceasing inculcation on those who were already voters and on thinking youths who were to become voters, and who, in their turn, pre­ vailed upon others. We must picture to ourselves this proc­ ess of argument, of discussion, of persuasion, going on for twenty-five years, with an ever-increasing momentum, and we cannot resist the conviction that this anti-slavery agita­ tion had its part, and a great part too, in the first election 1 T he anti-slavery agitation is “ probably the last great reform th at the w orld is lik ely to see based upon the B ible and carried out w ith a m illen­ nial fervor.”— Life o f Garrison, vol. i. p. xiii.

64

CHANNING ON SLAVERY

[C h . I.

In 1828 he wrote to Webster deprecating any agitation of the question. Our Southern brethren, he said, would “ inter­ pret every word from this region on the subject of slavery as an expression of hostility.” 1 He feared the agitation might harm the Union, and he loved the Union as Webster loved it. In 1835 he published a book on “ Slavery,” which, with the exception of the Liberator, is the most remarkable contribution of this decade to the cause of the abolitionists. The appearance of Dr. Channing in this arena was for him a notable sacrifice. The effective work of his life had been done. He had led to triumph a liberal religious movement, and he had a right to seek repose and shrink from another contest. He was now the pastor of a devoted and cultured society in Boston, and the most eminent preacher in Ameri­ ca.2 Emerson wrote that his sermons were sublime,3 and James Freeman Clarke says that Channing spoke “ with the tongues of men and of angels.” 4 He was one of the few Americans who had a literary reputation in E urope; and, while not as extensive as th at of Washington Irving, it was, in the opinion of Ticknor, “ almost as much so, and deserv­ edly higher.” 6 A scholar and a student, he had projected a work on “ Man,” for which he had been gathering mate­ rials many years. The purpose of the book was an exposi­ tion of religion and philosophy, which he thought the world needed, and he expected it would be his literary monument. * W ebster’s W orks, vol. v. p. 3G6. 5 John Q uincy A dam s, on th e death o f C hanning, w rote in h is d ia r y : “ Dr. C hanning never flinched or quailed before th e enem y. B u t he was deserted by m any o f h is follow ers, and lost so m any o f his parishioners that he had yield ed to his colleague, E. S. G annett, th e w h ole care o f his pastoral office, g iv in g up all claim to salary and reserving only th e privi­ leg e o f occasionally preaching to them at h is convenience. The loss o f Dr. Channing to th e anti-slavery cause is irreparable.”— M emoirs o f J. Q. Adam s, vol. xi. p. 258. 3 M emoir o f R. W . Emerson, Cabot, vol. i. p. 105. * M emorial and B iograp hical Sketches, p. 159. 5 Life o f G eorge T icknor, vol. i. p. 479.

66

CHANNING ON SLAVERY

[C h . L

holding states.” The argument is an elaboration of the thesis: No “ right of man in man can exist. A human be­ ing cannot be justly owned;” and the duty then incumbent upon Northern people is thus form ulated: “ Our proper and only means of action is to spread the truth on the subject of slavery.” If slavery were wrong, the only valid objection to dis­ cussing it lay in the possibility th at the agitation might ex­ cite servile insurrection. This argument appears and reap­ pears in Congress, in the press and the pulpit of the time. Dr. Channing addressed himself with success to the refuta­ tion of this reasoning, and the course of events proved that his position was well taken. From N at Turner’s to John Brown’s, a period of twenty-eight years, no slave insurrection gathered to a h ead ; and both of these were, in their imme­ diate physical results, insignificant. The first revolt was, as we have seen, contemporaneous with the inception of the abolition movement. The John Brown invasion, in no way a rising of slaves, occurred after the moral agitation had ac­ complished its work, and when the cause had been consigned to a political party that brought to a successful issue the movement begun by the moral sentiment of the country. A potent influence of Dr. Channing’s book lay in the fact th at he had little sympathy with Garrison’s methods, and repre­ sented a different range of sentim ent; and he was appar­ ently not aware how much he had been influenced by the abolitionist agitation. Channing, like Emerson, would never have initiated a movement of this kind. They were apostles of an advanced religion and philosophy, but they loved the tranquillity of culture, and could not play the part of vio­ lent iconoclasts. They were optim ists; they were not ag­ gressive natures ; they were not the sort of men to whom would come, as a call from on high, the burning conviction th a t the times were out of joint, and they must go to work and set them right. Emerson, with the abolitionists in his mind, said that “ the professed philanthropists are an alto­ gether odious set of people, whom one would shun as the

68

SOUTHERN SENTIMENT

[C h . I.

had now become usual with him : If Congress would not do what it lawfully could to stop the work of the aboli­ tionists, the Union would be in danger, and the South would have recourse to nullification, which, he asserted, had been carried into practice successfully on a recent oc­ casion by the gallant state he had the honor to represent. Clay opposed the bill, and Webster made a strong argu­ ment against it, taking the broad ground th a t it would conflict with the liberty of the press. A fter three tie voter, in different parliamentary stages of the bill, it was defeated by a majority of six. The important consideration now to be observed is the great change in Southern sentiment regarding slavery. Silent and unseen forces had been at work revolutionizing public opinion,1and their result was now manifest. Gov­ ernor McDuffie, in his message to the South Carolina leg­ islature, said, “ Domestic slavery is the corner-stone of our republican e d i f i c e a n d Calhoun, two years later, averred in open Senate that slavery is a good, a positive good.2 William Gilmore Sims, the poet andnovelist, whom the South­ ern people delighted to read and honor, could not in 1852 felicitate himself too highly that he had fifteen years pre­ viously been one of the first to advocate that slavery was " a great good and blessing.” 3 A t the birth of the nation, as we have seen, the difference of opinion on the subject between the N orth and the South was not great, but opin­ ions had moved on divergent lines. If we seek to appor­ tion the blame for this increasing irritation, we have an impartial witness, Senator Thomas Benton, of Missouri. A student of books, but pedantic, ostentatious, and inapt in the use of learning, Benton was still a profound observer of men, an honest man, and a loyal citizen. lie loved the 1 See Memoirs o f J. Q. Adams, vol. v. p. 10 et seq. s Calhoun’s W orks, vol. ii. p. 031. 3 Pro-slavery A rgum ent, Charleston, W alker, R ichards & Co., 1852, p. 178.

70

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS

[C h . I.

be laid upon the table, and th at no further action whatever shall be had thereon.” 1 This, for the Southern leaders, was the beginning of the madness that the gods send upon men whom they wish to destroy; for, instead of making the fight on the merits of the question, they shifted the ground. H ad they simply resisted the abolition of slavery in the District, the vast pre­ ponderance of Northern sentiment would have been with them ; but, with a fatuitous lack of foresight, they put Adams in a position where his efforts in the anti-slavery cause were completely overshadowed in his contest for the right of petition. A t each session of Congress, “ the old man eloquent,” 8for he had gained this name, presented pe­ tition after petition for the abolition of slavery and the slave-trade in the District of Columbia, and each time they were disposed of under the gag rule.3 The anti-slavery peo­ ple of the country, fully alive to the fact that a representa­ tive had appeared who would present such prayers, busied themselves in getting up and forwarding to him petitions, and those he presented must be numbered by thousands, and they were signed by 300,000 petitioners.4 Never had there been such a contest on the floors of Congress. One man, with no followers and no adherents, was pitted against all the representatives from the South. I t was a contest th at set people to thinking. The question could not fail to be asked, If the slave power now demands th at the right of petition must be sacrificed, what will be the next sacred re­ publican principle that must be given up in obedience to its behests? Yet the merchants and manufacturers of Boston had no sympathy with the efforts of A dam s; they did not approve of his stirring up the question. But the district 1 Life o f John Q uincy Adam s, Morse, p. 231. 2 “ T hat grand old m an,” W . II. Seward called him . vol. i. p. 713. s T h is rule w as n ot repealed un til D ec. 3d, 1844. i Schouler, v ol. iv. p. 302.

L ife o f Seward,

72

WEBSTER ON SLAVERY

made in the diary in the same year is a faithful represen­ tation of the state of public opinion on what had now be­ come the all-absorbing question. “ I t is also to be con­ sidered,” he wrote, “ that at this time the most dangerous of all the subjects for public contention is the slavery ques­ tion. In the South it is a perpetual agony of conscious guilt and terror, attempting to disguise itself under sophis­ tical argumentation and braggart menaces. In the N orth the people favor the whites and fear the blacks of the South. The politicians court the South because they want their votes. The abolitionists are gathering themselves into societies, increasing their numbers, and in zeal they kindle the opposition against themselves into a fl ame; and the passions of the populace are all engaged against them.” 1 In 1837, Webster, in a speech at New York, described the anti-slavery sentiment of the country in felicitous words. “ The subject” (of slavery), said he, “ has not only attracted attention as a question of politics, but it has struck a far deeper-toned chord. I t has arrested the religious feeling of the country; it has taken strong hold on the consciences of men. He is a rash man indeed, and little conversant with human nature, and especially has he a very erroneous estimate of the character of the people of this country, who supposes that a feeling of this kind is to be trifled with or despised.” ’ I t no longer required the m artyr spirit to be an abolitionist in the eastern part of the country, and yet there were few accessions from the influential part of the community. I t was an affair of great moment, when Wen­ dell Phillips and Edmund Quincy, representatives of the wealth, culture, and highest social position of Boston, joined the anti-slavery society. Wendell Phillips became an abo­ litionist from seeing Garrison dragged through the streets of Boston by a m o b ; and Quincy’s action was decided by the martyrdom of Lovejoy, who persisted in publishing an 1 Entry, A pril 19th, 1837, Memoirs, vol. ix . p. 349. s Life o f W ebster, Curtis, vol. i. p. 560.

74

GROWTH OF ABOLITION SENTIMENT

[C h . I.

no longer be shut out from the balls of the national legis­ lature. The abolitionists had now begun to take political action; this was the reason why Clay spoke with such ve­ hemence against them, and it tended to intensify the ex­ citement each time th at the subject was broached in either the House or the Senate. For more than a year they had adopted the system of putting questions to candidates, con­ gressional and local, demanding an expression of opinion on the vital question; and, guided by these declarations of sentiments, the abolitionist vote was beginning to have in some states an important influence on the result of elec­ tions. In 1840 a division in the ranks of the abolitionists took place, arising out of a difference of opinion regarding political action. Many of them thought they should take a part in active political life, and even form a political party, while others, headed by Garrison and Phillips, held that the movement ought to remain purely moral, and they should only use moral means for the accomplishment of their ends. Garrison never voted but once, and Wendell Phillips never voted.1 The separation into two factions is a proof of the growing power of the abolitionists, for as long as all hands were raised against them, perfect harmony existed in their ranks. Dissension, or rather division, came with prosperity; there were now two thousand anti-slavery societies with a membership of 200,000.2 This was the acme of the moral movement. The Liberator, indeed, continued to appear weekly, but its denunciations of the slave power were ac­ companied by criticisms of the opposing faction. In the next decade the Garrison abohtionists suffered loss of in­ fluence by advocating disunion as a remedy. Failing to appreciate the love for the Union and reverence for the Constitution that prevailed among the mass of the Northern people, they adopted the motto, “ No union with slave­ holders,” and proclaimed the Constitution “ a covenant with 1 L ife o f Garrison, vol. i. p. 455; Life o f W endell P hillips, A ustin, p. 5. 2 B ise and F a ll o f the Slave Pow er, W ilson, vol. i. p. 180.

76

TIIE TEXAS QUESTION

[C h . I.

this consideration has induced many writers to justify the winning of this domain.1 But in pondering the plain narra­ tive of these events, more reason for humiliation than pride will be found. Texas, a part of the Mexican republic, was settled by hardy adventurers from our southwestern States, who, des­ pite the fact th at Mexico had abolished slavery by presi­ dential decree, took with them to the new country their slaves. The Americans, after their arrival, paid no attention to the prohibition of slavery, and the Mexican government, in the interest of peace, allowed an interpretation of the edict that excluded Texas from its operation. But there were no sympathetic relations between the Texans and Mex­ icans. The difference between the Spanish and English nationalities, between Continental and English institutions, between the Catholic and Protestant religions, was too great for the hope th at any union could exist between the two peoples. Texas had with the province of Coahuila been constituted one state by the Mexican Constitution of 1827. This was not satisfactory to the Texans, who demanded autonomy. This demand caused constant friction between them and the central government, and finally resulted in an attem pt of the President, Santa Anna, to enforce obedi­ ence by military authority, and Texas rebelled. The Texans were victorious in the decisive battle of San Jacinto in 1830, and gave the world evidence that they were able to estab­ lish a government de facto The independence of Texas 1 Emerson had rem arkable foresight. In 1844 lie w rote in his diary: “ T he question o f the annexation o f T exas is one o f those w h ich look very differently to the centuries and to the years. I t is very certain that the strong B ritish race, w h ich have now overrun so m uch o f th is conti­ nent, must also overrun that tract and M exico and Oregon a ls o ; aud it w ill in the course o f ages be o f sm all im port by w h at particular occasions and m ethods it w as don e.”— Memoir o f It. W. Emerson, Cabot, vol. ii. p. 576. 2 P resident Jackson had tried to bu y Texas, and, failin g in that, had, according to John Q. Adam s, en g a g ed in a plot w ith his friend H ouston

78

PRESIDENT TYLER AND TEXAS

[Ch. I.

Owing to these rebuffs, the question slept until 1843. Meanwhile Harrison had been elected President, had died, and had been succeeded by John Tyler, who, though former­ ly a Democrat, had become a W hig and was chosen VicePresident. He had not been long in the presidential chair when it was evident that he leaned towards the party of his first love ; and when he came into conflict with the Whig party, where its fundamental principles were involved, all the members of the original cabinet resigned except Webster, who retained the portfolio of State for the reason that he was engaged in the negotiation of an important treaty with England. He remained in the cabinet until he and Lord Ashburton had agreed upon the treaty of Washington ; and he still lingered until it had been ratified by both govern­ ments, and Congress had passed laws carrying it into effect.1 The position, however, became distasteful to him, owing to the quarrel between the President and the Whigs, and in the spring of 1843 he resigned. By this time Tyler had be­ come committed to Texas annexation, and, as he knew Web­ ster was opposed to it, he gladly accepted the resignation.3 A short time afterwards Upshur, of Virginia, who was ardent­ ly in favor of the Texas project, became Secretary of State. In the summer of 1843 the intrigue began. Congress was not in session. The President, Upshur, and the Southern schemers could pursue their machinations almost un noticed. On the assembling of Congress, in December, 1843, the scheme began to develop. As Benton had strong national sentiments, as he had been opposed to the retrocession of Texas,3 and was a true embodiment of the boundless spirit 1 L ife o f W ebster, L odge, p. 259 ; Life o f Crittenden, Coleman, vol. i. p. 205. 2 T he P resident bad broached the subject ten tatively to W ebster in a letter dated Oct. l l t l i , 1841. Letters and Tim es o f th e Tylers, vol. ii. p. 126. I do not kn ow w h at reply, i f any, w as m ade to this com m unication. See Memoirs o f J. Q. Adam s, vol. xi. p. 347; also Schouler, vol. iv . pp. 4 3 7 ,4 4 7 , note. 3 T exas had generally been considered as inclu ded in the L ouisiana

80

CALHOUN AND TEXAS

[C h . I.

the results of which were to hasten the execution of the an­ nexation treaty with Texas that had already been prepared.1 The President, a party of officials, and friends were assisting as spectators at the trial of a new piece of ordnance on board of the man-of-war Princeton, when the bursting of the big gun “ Peacemaker’’ killed several persons, among whom was Upshur, the Secretary of State. Passing the night after the accident in deep reflection, H enry A. Wise, of Virginia, a confidential friend of the President, whose eagerness for the annexation of Texas went beyond bounds, came to the conclusion that the man of all others to drive the project forward was Calhoun. Kepairing to the White House in the early morning, and while the President was still a prey to the painful emotions excited by the previous day’s occurrence, Wise actually browbeat Tyler into the appointment of Calhoun as Secretary of State.2 Calhoun became the master spirit of the cabinet. The man of one idea, and that idea the extension of slavery, had a large share of executive direction. The annexation project no longer lagged; it galloped towards consummation. Calhoun was appointed and confirmed March Gth (1844). On April 11th, although Mexico was at peace with us, he complied with a request, made some months previously, and promised to lend our army and navy to the President of Texas to be used in her war against Mexico. On the following day, the treaty of annexation of Texas to the United States was signed. W hat Texas had vainly sought, and what the extreme Southern party had ardently desired for eight years, was ac­ complished, so far as it lay in the power of the executive de­ partment of the government. Ten days went by before the treaty was sent to the Sen­ ate,3 for Calhoun wished to submit with it his reply to a 1 “ T h e treaty as sign ed was th e w ork o f A b el P. Upshur.”— Letters and T im es o f the Tylers, vol. ii. p. 297. £ See Seven D ecad es o f th e U nion, Henry A. W ise, chap. s i . ; Letters and T im es o f the Tylers, vol. ii. p. 294. 3 “ T he treaty for the annexation o f T exas to th is U n ion w as th is day

82

CALHOUN AND TEXAS

his closet dialectics. A letter of his written at this tim e 1 shows that in the event of annexation he expected a reply from Aberdeen, to which he hoped to return a crushing re­ joinder. Happily the country was spared the humiliation of maintaining the affirmative in a diplomatic controversy on the question, Is slavery right ? Calhoun was disappoint­ ed not to have the occasion to lecture England again on the advantage of slavery. But he astonished the humane King Louis Philippe by a despatch, forwarded by the Amer­ ican minister at Paris, in which he attempted to make clear the community of interest between France and the United States in maintaining slavery on the American continent.3 Although signally defeated in the Senate, the administra­ tion by no means abandoned its project. The President ap­ pealed from the Senate to the House of Representatives. He sent all the documents to the House, with an explana­ tory message suggesting th at Congress had the power to acquire Texas in another way than by the formal ratifica­ tion of the treaty. This was an obvious hint for annexa­ tion by joint resolution of Congress. Meanwhile the friends of the Texas scheme did not con­ fine themselves to the advocacy of it before Congress. They proposed to submit the question to the people in the presi­ dential election taking place this year (1844). Clay received by acclamation the nomination from the enthusiastic Whigs. The adroit management of the annexationists was shown in the manipulation of the Democratic convention, which met some weeks later. A majority of the convention was in favor of the nomination of Van Buren, and his choice would have given satisfaction to Northern Democrats, but his opposition to immediate annexation caused his defeat. The old rule requiring two-thirds of the convention to nom­ inate was adopted, and this resulted in the choice, on the 1 I t w as n ot pu blished un til sixteen years later, see Life o f Calhoun, Von H olst, p. 241. 3 T his letter uiny be found in Greeley’s American Conflict, vol i. p. 139.

84

CLAY AND POLK

[C h . I.

N orthern education, was a gentleman of high character and a practical abolitionist, for, becoming convinced of the wrong of slavery, he had emancipated his own slaves and thenceforward devoted himself to the anti-slavery cause. He had gained note (by a tract he had written entitled “ The American Churches the Bulwarks of American Slav­ ery.” He had been the candidate of the Liberty party four years previously, but in the whole country had only received seven thousand votes. His candidacy in 1844 would prob­ ably have been of no greater moment had it not been for the unfortunate J uly letter of Clay, which alienated enough Whigs to lose him the State of New York, and therefore the election. Polk carried New York State by a plurality of little more than five thousand, while Birney polled in the same state nearly sixteen thousand votes. The feeling against the annexation of Texas gave Birney this important support, and, while well-meaning, it was ill-considered action. Polk or Clay was certain to be elected President. The success of Polk would register the desire of the country to have Texas, regard­ less of consequences, while the election of Clay would certain­ ly postpone, and might defeat, the project of annexation; and a vote for Birney was indirectly a vote for Polk. Thus ar­ gued Adams, Seward, Greeley, and Giddings, all strong anti­ slavery men. But the abolitionists rejoiced at the defeat of C lay; their high-toned exultation mingled with the bois­ terous demonstrations of the New York D em ocrats;1 while never before or since has the defeat of any man in this coun­ try brought forth such an exhibition of heart-felt grief from the educated and respectable classes of society as did this defeat of Clay. Men were frequently heard to say th at they now “ had no more interest in politics.” 1 The real meaning of the election of Polk was proclaimed by President Tyler in his annual message. A controlling 1 Life o f Seward, p. 731. 1 Ibid., p. 732; Life o f Lincoln, Herndon, p. 270; Life o f W ade, R id ­ dle, p. 192.

86

THE OREGON QUESTION

[C h . I.

Although now a foregone conclusion, Webster, who had been sent again to the Senate, gave voice to his opposition to the scheme. He objected to the admission of Texas be­ cause it was newly acquired slave territory, and he had, moreover, another reason, which he put into words of wis­ dom. “ I t is,” said he, “ of very dangerous tendency and doubtful consequences to enlarge the boundaries of this country. . . . There must be some limit to the extent of our territory, if we would make our institutions permanent. . . . I have always wished th at this country should exhibit to the nations of the earth the example of a great, rich, powerful republic which is not possessed by a spirit of ag­ grandizement. I t is an example, I think, due from us to the world in favor of the character of republican government.” 1 The diplomacy of the Polk administration, though not as secret as that of Tyler, was fully as tortuous. Polk, in his inaugural address, declared th at our title to the whole of Oregon was clear and unquestionable,2and th at he intended to maintain that title. The whole of Oregon then meant as far north as 54° 40' north latitude, now the southern boundary of Alaska. The northwestern boundary had long been in dispute between Great Britain and the United S tates; but the assertion of the President was extravagant, and savored rather of party pressure than of wise diplomacy, for the claim had not a good foundation. Both W ebster and Calhoun, whose experience in the State department gave weight t6 their judgment, were of the opinion th at to adopt the parallel of 49° would be a fair settlement of the dispute. After a certain amount of diplomatic fencing between the arose as to w ho sh ould have th e credit o f the annexation. See Benton's Thirty Years’ V iew , and Letters and Tim es o f the Tylers. 1 Speech in the Senate, D ec., 1845, W orks, vol. v. p. 56. President T yler said, in one o f his m essages advocating annexation, th at no c iv il­ ized governm ent on earth w ou ld reject the offer o f such a rich and fertile dom ain as Texas. Letters and Tim es o f the Tylers, vol. ii. p. 300. s T h is was resolved by the D em ocratic convention w h ich nom inated Polk-.

88

THE MEXICAN' WAR

[C h . I.

tained that this began hostilities; he crossed over to the east bank of the Rio Grande, and had a skirmish with a smaller American force, in which sixteen of our dragoons were killed. When this news arrived in Washington, early in May, 1846, the President sent a message to both houses of Con­ gress, stating that American blood had been spilled on Amer­ ican soil, and asked that the existence of the war might be recognized, and energetic measures taken for its prosecution. Congress, with only two dissenting voices in the Senate and fourteen in the House, immediately declared war. This una­ nimity of feeling :s not rem arkable; for as long as love of country shall remain a cardinal virtue, the effort will be made to avenge an attack on one’s countrymen. The national feel­ ing had such root that the doctrine “ Our country, right or wrong,” was proclaimed to justify the sympathies of those who believed the war in its inception to have been an out­ rage. The Mexicans thought that the war was the result of a deliberately calculated scheme of robbery on the part of the superior power.' As Birdofredom Sawin, a private in the Mexican war, was told, “ Our nation’s bigger ’n theirn, an’ so its rights air bigger.” 3 While some quiet opposition at the N orth existed,3the war in the main was very popular. I t needed no draft to fill the army; more volunteers offered than could be used. The war lasted nearly two years,* and was an unbroken series of victories. Our people would have 1 H. H. Bancroft, c it;d in W insor’s Narrative and Critical H istory, vol. vii. p. 356. “ F or myf-elf, I w as bitterly opposed to the measure [the an­ nexation o f T exas], and to th is day regard the w ar w hich resulted as one o f the m ost unjust ever w aged by a stronger against a w eaker nation.”— General Grant, P ersonal Memoirs, vol. i. p. 53. ’ B iglow Papers. * “ I m et w ith no o r e person in society w h o defended the aggression on M exican territory,” T he dissatisfaction o f m any w ith th e war “ is unbounded.”— Sir Charles L yell, 1846, Second V isit, vol. ii. p. 250. * It virtually ended, how ever, in Sept., 1847, havin g begun in May, 1846.

90

THE WILMOT PROVISO

[C h . I

be acquired from Mexico. This was the famous Wilmot proviso; it received a majority of nineteen in the House, but failed in the Se nate, as did likewise the original bill. It was charged at th j time, but probably with injustice, that the defeat of the proviso was due to the loquacity of one of its strong supporters, “ honest John Davis,” senator from Massachusetts.' A t the next session of Congress, in the following Febru­ ary (1847), the Wilmot proviso again came up. The Presi­ dent asked for an appropriation of three million dollars, secret service money, to be employed at his discretion in negotiating a treaty with Mexico. A bill was brought into the House with the desired stipulation, and to it was tacked the anti-slavery proviso, but only by a majority of nine. The Senate struck out the amendment, and passed the three-million bill, pure and simple, in accordance with the wish of the administration. The matter now went back to the House, and, by a majority of five, it receded from the Wilmot proviso. The House then passed the bill as it came from the Senate. All of the Whigs and many of the Dem­ ocrats from the free States voted for the anti-slavery amend­ ment, but every member from the slave States, except the one from Delaware, voted against it. Popular sentiment at the South was very strongly aroused in opposition to the Wilmot proviso, w hile the N orth was equally zealous in its favor. During the year 1S47 the vigorous prosecution of the war went on. From March to September Scott gained marvel­ lous victories;2 at last he took the city of Mexico, and dis1 See defence o f Dft"is, Senate speech, March, 1847; speech o f W ilm ot, F eb ., 1847; W ilson ’s Rise and F all o f the Slave P ow er, vol. ii. p. 17; per contra, see Y on H olst, vol. iii. p. 287; Congressional Globe, vol. xx v iii. p. 1251; Life and Speeches o f A. Lincoln, Bartlett, p. 64. D avis w as one o f the tw o senators w ho voted against the declaration o f war against M exico. 2 “ I f ‘ W averley’ and ‘ Guy M annering’ had m ade the nam e o f Scott im m ortal on one side o f the A tlantic, Cerro Gordo aud Churubusco had

92

THE MEXICAN WAR

[C h . I.

utation was to suffer in the effort to grapple with them, he had said: “ I pretend to see but little of the future, and that little affords no gratification. All I can scan is con­ tention, strife, and agitation.” ' The opinion of a:i unimportant member of the House has an interest for us inspired by his after-career. Abraham Lincoln, serving his first and only term in Congress, eager for distinction and stimulated by the expectations of his Illinois comrades, was an industrious member, ready in speech and prompt in action.3 He voted for the House resolution to which reference has been made, and delivered a set speech on the Mexican war, which had the merit of using plain words to express opinions shared by many of his fellow-Whigs, though not by the constituents of his prairie district. His course on this question is best de­ scribed in his own words of some years later. “ I was an old Whig,” said hi, “ and whenever the Democratic party tried to get me to vote that the war had been righteously begun by the President, I would not do it. But when they asked money or land warrants, or anything to pay the sol­ diers, I gave the s£.me vote that Douglas did.” 3 In the early pf.rt of February, 1848, a treaty of peace was negotiated by a United States Commissioner in Mex­ ico, and this afterwards received the ratification of the President and the Senate. Bv its provisions, New Mexico and Upper California* were ceded to the United States, and the lower Rio Grande, from its mouth to El Paso, was taken as the boundary of Texas. In consideration of these ac1 Curtis, vol. ii. p. 3C7. 8 Life o f Lincoln, Lam on, p. 290. 8 L incoln-D ouglas debates, Life o f Lincoln, Arnold, p. 78. • N ew M exico in clu d ed part o f the present territory o f the same name, all o f Arizona ex cep t th e southern part (w h ich w as purchased in 1853), practically all o f U tah and N evada, and part o f Colorado. Upper Cali­ fornia w as substantial! y the present State o f California. See Narrative and Critical H istory o f N orth America, AVinsor, vol. vii. p. 552, for map show ­ in g exactly the territory acquired.

94

THE CALHOUN THEORY

[Cn. I.

the intent was that slavery should be prohibited in Oregon. This gave rise to a long and earnest debate, in which the amendment was opposed with great pertinacity. The slavery extensionis ;s, however, had no idea of introducing their system of labor into Oregon, and the discussion did not so much hinge on the actual project as on the principle involved and its application to New Mexico and California; for they determined to have the territory which had been acquired from Mexico dedicated to slavery. But at the threshold of their desire they found an inherent obstacle. California and New Mexico were fre e ; and, as was pointed out during the senatorial debate, “ by the laws of nations, the laws of all conquered countries remain until changed by the conqueror. There is an express law containing the prohibition of slavery [in California and New Mexico] and this will continue until we shall change it.” 1 Yet the closet theorist, Calhoun, was equal to the emergency, and he had a political doctrine to fit the occasion. Benton called it the new dogma of the transm igratory function of the Constitution, and "he instantaneous transportation of itself in its slavery attributes into all acquired territories.” Cal­ houn denied that the laws of Mexico could keep slavery out of New Mexico and California. “ As soon as the treaty between the two countries is ratified,” said he, “ the sover­ eignty and authority of Mexico in the territory acquired by it become extinct, and th at of the United States is substi­ tuted in its place, carrying with it the Constitution, with its overriding cor trol over all the laws and institutions of Mexico inconsistent with it.” 2 The Constitution by impli­ cation recognized slavery; therefore it permitted slave-owners to take their slaves into this new territory, or, in other words, it legalized slavery.3 As a necessary deduction, the 1 Senator P helps, o f Verm ont. 5 N iles’s R egister, vol. Ixxiv. p. 61; T hirty Years’ V iew , vol. ii. p. 713. s “ It is useless to prove w h at in d eed is kn ow n to every one w h o has bestow ed the slig h te st attention to it, nam ely, that slavery is considered

96

SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES

[C h. I.

the question whether the Constitution permitted slavery in New Mexico and California was to be referred to the terri­ torial courts, with the right of appeal to the United States Supreme Court. As Thomas Corwin, in a caustic speech opposing the measure, said, “ It does not enact a la w ; it only enacts a lawsuit.” ' The bill passed the Senate, but was immediately laid upon the table in the House. Meanwhile the House had been at work on a plan for Oregon. In the early part of August, its bill providing a territorial government for Oregon, with the prohibition of slavery, passed. In the Senate, an amendment was tacked to it, extending the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean.2 It must be called to mind th at the Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery north of 36° 30' north lat­ itude and permitted it south of that line, only applied to the Louisiana purchase, of which Oregon was not a part. The purpose in view W ebster well expressed: “ The tru th is,” said he, “ that it is an amendment by which the Senate wishes to have now a public legal declaration, not respect­ ing Oregon, but respecting the newly acquired territories of California and New Mexico. I t wishes now to make a line of slavery which shall include those new territories.” 3 On a previous day he had stated that “ his objection to slavery was irrespective of lines and points of latitude; it took in the whole country and the whole question. He was op­ posed to it in every shape and every qualification; and was against any compromise of the question.” ' The bill with the amendment passed the Senate; the amendment was dis­ agreed to by the H ouse; finally, on the last day of the ses­ sion, the Senate receded from its amendment and enacted the measure establishing a territorial government for Oregon, with the express prohibition of slavery. 1 Speeches, p. 439. a T his w ou ld have perm itted slavery in w h at is now N e w M exico and Arizona, and in alm ost the southern h alf o f California. 3 W orks, vol. v. p. 303. * Congressional Globe, 1st Sess., 30th Cong., p. 10G0.

98

SLAVERY IN TIIE TERRITORIES

[C u. I.

Constitution to the territories. The consideration of this amendment gave rise to an important debate in which Web­ ster and Calhoun were prominent.1 Calhoun elaborated and explained the theory he had set forth at the previous session; but Webster, by a few trenchant questions and the assertion of some patent truths, showed plainly that the idea was im­ practicable, and completely at variance with our legislative precedents and judicial decisions. The House would not agree with the Senate; and as the amendment was tacked to the general appropriation bill, scenes of great excitement were common during the closing days of the session. H or­ ace Mann, then a representative, wrote th at blows were ex­ changed in the Senate, and two fist-fights took place in the House, in one of which blood flowed freely; and he expressed the opinion that “ had the N orth been as ferocious as the South, it is probable there would have been a general melee.” 1 Finally, however, the Senate receded from its amendment and passed the appropriation bill. The session came to an end, but nothing had been done towards the or­ ganization of governments for the territories. This and the allied question of slavery were left as a legacy to the new Congress. The necessary executive measures meanwhile devolved upon the new President, a man who came to the highest office of the state unversed in civil affairs, and untried in their orderly administration. 1 T his debate may be found in Curtis, vol. ii. p. 364. ! Q uoted by V on H olst, vol. iii. p. 454.

100

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1849

But his cabinet appointments were favorable to the Southern section of his party ; four of them were from the slave and three from the free States. The prominent members were John M. Clayton, of Delaware, Secretary of S ta te ; Thomas Ewing, of Ohio, Secretary of the In terio r; Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, Attorney-General; and Jacob Collamer, of Ver­ mont, Postmaster-General. Collamer was the only man of marked anti-slavery sentiments.1 The problem which the country had to solve called for its wisest statesmanship. I t demanded the full measure of the time and ability of the President and his advisers, but they were not able to devote their attention immediately to the exigency of the State. The executive power had passed from one political party to the other; the Demo­ crats, therefore, must be turned out of the offices to make room for the faithful Whigs. “ To the victors belong the spoils ” was a doctrine first put in practice by the Demo­ cratic party. But the Whigs were apt pupils, and as there were about fifty thousand places in the civil service,3a horde of hungry office-seekers flocked to Washington. General Taylor was a man of business habits. His long service in the army, and his experience in the management of a large plantation, had taught him th at merit and fitness were the proper and only tests that should be required of subordi­ nates, and his mind was still filled with this notion when he delivered his inaugural address. He said : “ I shall make honesty, capacity, and fidelity indispensable prerequi­ sites to the bestowal of office.” 3 Although the President had good business ideas, he was ignorant of party manage­ ment, and soon allowed himself to be guided by those who had all their lives wrought in the sphere of practical poli1 T he other m embers o f th e cabinet were M eredith o f Pennsylvania, Secretary o f th e Treasury; Crawford o f G eorgia, Secretary o f W ar; and Preston o f V irginia, Secretary o f the N avy. f 5 N ew Y ork Tribune, April, 1849. 3 N iles, v ol. Ix.xv. p. 150.

102

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1849

In this he was much assisted by his friend Weed, who had great influence, for he was one of the first to look to Gen­ eral Taylor as a presidential candidate. Their efforts were successful, and soon Seward became the directing spirit of the administration. Thurlow Weed relates with great satisfaction th at the President “ became convinced th at the significance of a zealous and patriotic movement of the people, which over­ threw Democratic supremacy, meant something more than the election of a W hig President and the appointment of a W hig cabinet.” “ I did not think it wise or just,” the President himself remarked, “ to kick away the ladder by which I ascended to the presidency; colonels, majors, cap­ tains, lieutenants, sergeants, and corporals are just as neces­ sary to success in politics as they are to the discipline and efficiency of an army.” On another occasion the President inquired of the Secretary of the Treasury “ whether you think our friends are getting their share of the offices.” The Secretary answered th at he “ had not thought of the matter in that light.” “ Nor,” rejoined the President, “ have I until recently. But if the country is to be bene­ fited by our services, it seems to me th a t you and I ought to remember those to whose zeal, activity, and influence we are indebted for our places. There are plenty of Whigs, just as capable and honest, and quite as deserving of office, as the Democrats who have held them through two or three presidential terms. Rotation in office, provided good men are appointed, is sound Republican doctrine.” 1 The Democratic newspapers of the day are full of derisive taunts a t the wholesale removals from office. The Whigs either defended them as the work of reform,2or else retorted by recriminations. Yet many of the leading Whigs were far from being satisfied. Clay complained th at the good positions went to those who had been instrumental in bring1 Life o f T hurlow W eed, vol. ii. pp. 175,176. 1 T his is th e expression o f the N e w Y ork Tribune, April 17th, 1849.

104

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1849

place he began to write “ The Scarlet Letter.” ' He lost his salary of twelve hundred dollars a year, but he gave to his country its greatest romance.' While Congress was still in session Calhoun was busy in working up a sentiment th a t should fire the Southern heart with zeal to defend the rights which were in supposed jeop­ ardy. A convention of Southern members of Congress is­ sued an address drawn up by Calhoun. In this declaration they complained of the difficulties in recovering fugitive slaves; they found fault with the systematic agitation of 1 H aw thorne and his W ife, Julian H aw thorne, vol. i. p. 340. a H aw thorne describes the enormous specim en o f th e Am erican eagle “ w h ich hovers over th e entrance o f th e custom-house," and w h ich “ a p ­ pears by th e fierceness o f her beak, and eye, and the general ten dency o f her attitude, to threaten m isch ief to th e unoffensive com m unity." “ N e v ­ ertheless, v ise n ly as she looks, m any people are seek in g, at th is very m o­ m ent, to shelter them selves under th e w in g o f the F ederal e a g le ; im agin­ in g, I presume, th at her bosom has all th e softness and snugness o f an eider-dow n pillow . B u t she has no great tenderness, even in her best o f m oods, and, sooner or later— oftener soon than late— is apt to flin g off her nestlings, w ith a scratch o f her claw , a dab o f her beak, or a rank­ lin g w ou nd from her barbed arrows. . . . B ut now , sh ou ld you g o thither to seek him , you w ou ld inquire in vain for the L ocofoco surveyor. T he besom o f reform has sw ep t h im out o f office; and a w orthier successor wears h is d ig n ity and pockets his em olum ents. . . . A rem arkable even t o f the th ird year o f m y survcyorship w as the election o f General T aylor to the presidency. It is essential, in order to a com plete estim ate o f the advantages o f official life, to v ie w th e incum bent at th e in com in g o f a h ostile adm inistration. H is position is then one o f th e m ost singularly irksom e, and, in every contingency, disagreeable, th a t a w retched mortal can possibly o c c u p y ; w ith seldom an alternative o f g o o d on either hand, alth ou gh w h at presents itse lf to him as th e w orst even t m ay very prob­ ably be th e best.” H aw thorne w rote more truly than he then kn ew . H e felt his rem oval from office keenly. T h e letter p lead in g for H illard’s in ­ fluence in favor o f th e retention o f his office, his lam entation at b ein g turned out, his appeal for re-appointm ent, w ith th e assignm ent o f cate­ gorical reasons w h y he sh ould n ot have been proscribed by the W h ig adm inistration, are pathetic, and m ake an exq u isitely phrased condem na­ tion o f the sp oils system . See letters to H illard, Life o f H aw thorne, Conway, p. 111.

106

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1849

formed the basis of similar expressions from other legisla­ tures. The excitement was especially great in Missouri. The legislature of this State had passed resolutions protesting against the principle of the Wilmot proviso, and instructing her senators and representatives to act in hearty co-opera­ tion with the members from the slave-holding States.1 This was a shaft aimed at Senator Benton, who was opposed to the extension of slavery. He accepted the challenge, re­ paired to Missouri when the Senate adjourned, and made a noble fight against the slavery extensionists. He spoke at meeting after meeting, defending his own course and mak­ ing an aggressive warfare on Calhoun and his Missouri dis­ ciples. The feeling was at fever heat in Tennessee. The address of the Democratic State Central Committee to the voters said, “ The encroachments of our Northern brethren have reached a point where forbearance on our part ceases to be a virtue.” 2 In Kentucky, Clay had written a letter intended to influence the constitutional convention about to assem­ ble, in which he favored a plan of gradual emancipation of the slaves in his State. A people’s meeting held in Trimble County, Ky., requested him to resign his place as sen­ ator in consequence of the sentiments avouched in this let­ ter.3 The question of freeing the slaves was made an issue and discussed in every county of the State, but not one avowed emancipationist was elected to the convention. The convention itself not only failed to adopt any plan of grad­ ual emancipation, but, on the contrary, the new constitution asserted, in the strongest terms, the right of property in slaves and their increase. In the cotton States the feeling was more intense than in the border States. The Yirginia resolutions were every­ where endorsed. The prevailing sentiment of South Caro­ lina was shown at a dinner to Senator Butler, when “ Slav­ 1 N iles, vol. Ixxv. p. 270.

2 Ibid., p. 373.

3 Ib id ., p. 384.

108

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1849

ery ground, and in some of the legislatures the resolutions were passed by a nearly unanimous vote.1 As a body, the Whigs were more pronounced in their views than were the regular Democrats. Greeley maintained th a t the Whigs of New York State recognized “ the restriction of slavery with­ in its present limits as one of the cardinal principles of our political faith;” 2 but the Free-soilers, comprising for the most part those who had supported Y an Buren the previous year, were strenuous in their demands that the general govern­ ment should forbid slavery where it had the power. Charles Sumner came to the front in a Free-soil convention at Wor­ cester, Mass., and wrote the vigorous address which pro­ claimed “ opposition to slavery wherever we are responsible for it,” demanded its prohibition in the new territories, and its abolition in the District of Columbia.3 The Democrats of Ohio felt very powerfully the impulse of the anti-slavery movement, and in February the legislature, by a combina­ tion of two Free-soilers, who held the balance of power, with the Democrats, elected Salmon P. Chase to the United States Senate. He was a strong opposer of slavery; was of par­ tially Democratic antecedents, and had presided over the Free-soil convention which nominated Yan Buren for the presidency. A t Cleveland an enthusiastic convention of Free-soilers was held on the 13th of July to celebrate the passage of the Ordinance of 1787. Clay was invited to be present, but declined on account of other engagements; he seemed to think, however, th at the commemoration was ill-timed as being liable “ to increase the prevailing excite­ ment.” 4 General Cass tried to stem the current of popular opinion in the West. He held that Congress had no right to legis­ late upon slavery in the territories; and, while the legislat1 N iles, vo l. Ixxv. pp. 190, 239, 399. * N ew Y ork Tribune, Oct. 3d, 1849. 3 Life and P u b lic Services o f Charles Sumner, Lester, p. 67. * W ash in gton N a tio n a l Intelligencer, Ju ly 21st, 1849.

110

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1S49

crats had generally united on the State tickets—in some States on an anti-slavery platform, in others by ignoring the national question. The New York Tribune, however, ex­ plained th a t the result of the elections in Tennessee and Kentucky was due to the fact that the Whigs “ were cried down in those States as an anti-slavery party.” 1 I t is indubi­ table th a t the N orthern sentiment was wholesome and thor­ oughly imbued with the desire to check the extension of slavery. Towards the latter part of the year speculations as to the action of Congress began to be m ade; the opinion prevailed that at the next session the question would be settled, and there was little doubt of its settlement in a manner that would satisfy Northern sentiment. I t seemed as if this feel­ ing needed only discretion in its guidance, and nerve in the assertion of its claims, to become embodied in legislative acts that should fix the vital principle at issue. Meanwhile, from action which was taking place in Cal­ ifornia, one bone of contention seemed liable to be removed. A fter this territory had been taken possession of by the Americans, it was placed under a quasi-military government, and this was continued after the treaty of peace was pro­ claimed.3 Before his inauguration General Taylor had been anxious th a t Congress should settle on some plan of government for California; he said th at “ he desired to sub­ stitute the rule of law and order there for the bowie-knife and revolvers.” 3 A month after his inauguration he sent T. Butler King, a W hig congressman from Georgia, to Califor­ nia, as a confidential agent of the administration, to assist the growing movement towards the formation of a State govern­ ment, and to work in conjunction with the military governor. California, which, when acquired, had been deemed an in­ significant province, had now become the El Dorado of the 1 N ew Y ork Tribune, Sept., 1849. 3 H istory o f the P acific States, H . H. Bancroft, vol. x v iii. p. 262. 3 Sew ard’s W orks, vol. iii. p . 444.

112

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1849

then began an emigration to California for which nowhere could there be found a likeness save in a tale of legendary Greece. The thirsters after gold, the seekers of El Dorado, were Argonauts in search of the golden fleece. Yet the re­ semblance fails when we come to consider the character of the California emigrants. While they numbered many good men, especially from the Western States,1 there were many outlaws and criminals among them. From all parts of the world outcasts and vagrants swelled the crowd th at under­ took the hardships of the dangerous journey for the sake of bettering their condition and their fortunes. In truth, the journey was one that only the hardy could endure. If the emigrant chose to go by sailing vessel from New York around Cape Horn, he had to brave the perils and discom­ forts of the most dangerous of ocean voyages. He could, indeed, go by the Isthmus of Panama, but, as the railroad was not then built, the crossing of the isthmus was attend­ ed with great hazard. Arriving at Panama, on the Pacific side, the travellers had to wait for days, and even weeks, in an atmosphere whose every breath was laden with pestilen­ tial spores. On more than one occasion, when the steam­ ship arrived which was to take them to the Golden Gate, it was found that the expectant passengers largely exceeded the capacity of the boat, and men scrambled and fought to get on board to secure their paid-for passage. There was still left the overland route. This was a wag­ on journey of more than two thousand miles, through a coun­ try of great variety in its physical features. Warm, pleasant valleys were succeeded by bleak and almost impassable moun­ tains; thence the route proceeded down into miasmatic swamps, then across forbidding alkali wastes and salt flats, baked and cracked by the sun. The travellers were stifled with heat and dust, yet were likewise sure to encounter drenching rains. I t was often necessary to cross flooded lowlands and sweeping river currents; as if the misery were 1 H . T. D avis, Solitary P laces Made G lad, p. 47.

114

TAYLOR'S ADMINISTRATION

[1849

of Monterey by the commodore of the naval ship which was stationed at that port.1 But on the whole the territory was bordering on a state of anarchy. There were no land law s; mining titles were disputed and sometimes fought over.’ A deserted wife at San Francisco complained th at there was no power to give her a legal divorce. The habit of carrying weapons was universal; drunken brawls were common; the Indians made raids on the settled communities and stole horses and cattle; the vineyards and orchards of San Jose and Santa Clara were destroyed by im m igrants; it was com­ plained that San Luis Obispo had become “ a complete sink of drunkenness and debauchery ;” ruffians united themselves in bands to rob, and the convoys from the mines were their especial p re y ; murders were common, and lynch law was put into execution not infrequently; yet murder was deemed a lesser crime than th e ft; and when law-breakers were put in prison, the alcalde was in constant fear that a mob would break in and release the prisoners.3 The cry th at went out of Macedonia for help was no louder than that which went from the majority of Californians to Congress to give them a territorial government. Yet, if Congress would not help them, they determined to help themselves. The first immi­ gration was largely from Mexico, Peru, Chili, China, and the Hawaiian Islands,4 and the food-supply of the miners came in considerable portion from this group.6 But as the Amer­ ican population increased, and as men of better antecedents joined the fortune-seekers, th at knack at political organiza­ tion which is so prominent a trait of our national character, 1 Colton, p. 17. 3 California Inter Pocula, H . H. Bancroft, chap. ix. 8 H . H. Bancroft, vol. x v iii. pp. 229, 268. Bayard T aylor’s account different, but there is no question as to w h ich authority should be fo l­ low ed. Bret H arte has exq u isitely g iv en u s th e flavor o f those rough tim es in “ T ales o f th e A rgonauts,” “ L uck o f R oaring Camp,” “ O utcasts o f P oker F la t,” etc. 4 E ldorado, Taylor, p. 100; also Bancroft. 5 A lexander’s H istory o f th e H aw aiian Islands, p. 273.

is

116

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1849

members of the convention worked diligently day and n ig h t; on the 13th of October their labors were at an end and they affixed their signatures to the Constitution.1 One month later it was adopted by the vote of the people. The legisla­ ture which it constituted met in December, and, by a com­ promise arrangement, elected John C. Fremont and William M. Gwin senators; Fremont held anti-slavery and Gwin pro-slavery opinions. When Congress met on the first Monday of December, 1849, the vastly preponderating sentiment in the free States Avas that California and New Mexico should remain free territory. On the other hand, the sentiment was equally strong in the South against any congressional legislation that should interfere with their supposed right of taking their slaves into the new territories. In other words, a popula­ tion of thirteen millions demanded that the common pos­ session should be dedicated to freedom ; a population of eight millions demanded the privilege of devoting it to slavery.2 California, by the unanimous vote of a conven­ tion regularly chosen, whose action was ratified by an honest vote of her people, had cast her lot on the side of the free States. Congress met December 3d. The House was made up strange, as w here labor w as scarce aud h ig h and g o ld plenty it m igh t seem desirable to have slaves. B ut I th in k the g ist o f th e w h ole m atter is contained iu the follow in g statem ent o f a votin g citizen : “ One o f the prom inent questions in th e election w as an expression as to w hether slavery sh all be allow ed in C alifornia; the candidate, th o u g h a L ouisian­ ian, w as opposed out and out to th e introduction o f slavery here, and so w e all voted for him . F or m yself, I was o f th e opinion o f an old m oun­ taineer, w ho, lean in g against the tent-pole, harangued th e crowd, that in a country where every w h ite man m ade a slave o f h im self there w as no use in keep in g n iggers.”—Correspondence o f the B oston Tim es, cop ied into the N e w Y ork Tribune o f Oct. 22d, 1849. 1 “ The m ost m agnificent illustration o f the w onderful capacity o f this people for self-governm ent.”— Y on H olst, vol. iii. p. 463. 1 T hese figures are sim ply round numbers, as sh ow n b y th e census o f 1850; three-fifths o f the slaves are inclu ded in the slave-State population.

118

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1S49

favorable to the South and the slave interest.' “ He loves slavery,” said Horace Mann ; “ it is his politics, his political economy, and his religion.” 2 Horace Mann had gained a ■wide and well-deserved reputation as an educator; but on the death of John Quincy Adams he was prevailed upon to fill the vacant place of representative of the Plymouth dis­ trict. He was wiser than his Ohio colleague, for he voted steadily for W inthrop “ as the best man we could possibly elect.” 3 The acme of logical adherence to a fixed idea, in spite of surrounding circumstances, was reached when Giddings and his followers voted for Brown, of Indiana, for speaker, a Democrat of the straitest sect, because he agreed to make the constitution of certain committees satisfactory to th e m ; and that, too, while, as Giddings himself said, “ Neither the moral nor political character of Mr. Brown recommended him to the favor of just and honorable men.” 4 The balloting for speaker lasted nearly three weeks, and the excitement occasioned by the protracted organization of the House boded no good for the Northern cause. Between the ballots animated discussions sometimes took place, and the Southern bluster was loud and menacing. Disunion was emphatically threatened in case the principle of the Wilmot proviso was insisted upon, or if the attem pt were made to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. Robert Toombs and Alexander Stephens, both Whigs from Georgia, were the most vehement in their threats to the N orth and their 1 “ A lth ou gh th e W h ig s and F ree-soilers are a m ajority, y e t only one from their num ber is a chairm an o f any one o f the thirty-seven com m it­ tees. O f th e other thirty-six chairmen, nineteen are L ocos from the slave States, and seventeen L ocos from th e free States. Texas, Alabam a, and South Carolina afford five chairm en; th e three m illions o f N e w Y ork only one.’’— N ew Y ork Tribune, Jan. 23d. a Life o f H orace Mann, p. 283. 3 Ibid., p. 285. * H istory o f the R ebellion, p. 302. Julian, o f Indiana, w as n ot con­ cerned in th is intrigue. H e w as ill, and w as n ot at W ash in gton at th is tim e. R oot, o f O hio, lik ew ise w ou ld n ot vote for Brown.

120

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1849

Adams, with Madison and Marshall. Seward and Chase now appeared in the Senate for the first time, while Hale entered upon his third year of service. I t is now time to describe Clay more fully. He was a man of large natural ability, but he lacked the training of a systematic education. He learned early to appreciate his heaven-born endowments, and to rely upon them for suc­ cess in his chosen career. Of sanguine temperament, quick perception, irresistible energy, and enthusiastic disposition, he was well fitted to be a party advocate, and was the greatest parliamentary leader in our history.1 H e was, how­ ever, inclined to “ crack the w hip” over those of his sup­ porters who exhibited a desire to hang back and question whither his impetuous lead would tend.3 He knew men well, but he had no knowledge of books. The gaming-table had for him allurements that he could not find in the library. According to the manners of his time, he drank to excess. His warm heart made him a multitude of friends; his im­ pulsive action and positive bearing raised up enemies; yet at his death he left not an enemy behind him.3 He was withal a man of inflexible integrity. Straitened in pecuniary circumstances during a large part of his Congressional ca­ reer, he nevertheless held himself aloof from all corruption. Other Americans have been intellectually greater, others have been more painstaking, others still have been greater benefactors to their country ; yet no man has been loved as the people of the United States loved H enry Clay. In his declining years his thoughts took on a serious cast, and he embraced the Christian religion. I t is noteworthy that he began his speech on the compromise resolutions with words not only solemn, but tinctured with religious fervor. He had not been consistent on the slavery ques­ tion ; yet when we consider that he was a slave-holder and that he represented a slave State, his impulsive outbursts 1 See B laine’s E u logy o f Garfield. a George Bancroft, Century M agazine, vol. viii. p. 479.

122

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

was certainly th at of sincere patriotism. He believed that the Union was in danger. Such was the constitution of his mind that, while he was blind to the merits of the plan of another, the benefits of his own dazzled him to the sight of all objections. He honestly felt that he was the man of all others to devise a scheme which should save the Union. I t is true that his talents as a constructive statesman were of high rank. His hope was th at this compromise would give peace to the country for thirty years, even as the Missouri Compromise had done.1 The plan was perfected by the last of January, and on the 29th Clay introduced it into the Senate in the form of a series of resolutions which were in­ tended to be a basis of compromise, and whose object was to secure “ the peace, concord, and harmony of the Union.” Their provisions were as follows: 1. The admission of California with her free Constitution. 2. As slavery does not exist by law and is not likely to be introduced into any of the territory acquired from Mex­ ico, territorial governments should be established by Con­ gress without any restriction as to slavery. 3. The boundary between Texas and New Mexico, which was in dispute, was determined. 4. Directs the payment of the bonafide public debt of Texas contracted prior to the annexation, for which the duties on foreign imports were pledged, upon the condition th at Texas relinquish her claim to any part of New Mexico. 5. Declares that it is inexpedient to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia without the consent of Maryland, of the people of the district, and without just compensation to the owners of slaves. 6. Declares for the prohibition of the slave-trade in the District of Columbia. 7. More effectual provision should be made for the rendi­ tion of fugitive slaves. 1 R ise and F a ll o f th e Confederate Governm ent, Jefferson D avis, vol. i. p. 17. See also C lay’s sp eech o f F eb. 6th, 1850.

124

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

and frank as if he were talking to a confidential friend. He was thoroughly impressed with the dangers th at beset the country. He speaks of never before having been “ so ap­ palled and so a n x i o u s h e calls his theme “ the awful sub­ ject.” As an evidence of the intense party feeling, he allud­ ed to the fact that the House had spent one whole week in the vain attem pt to elect a doorkeeper because the point at issue was “ whether the doorkeeper entertained opinions upon certain national measures coincident with this or that side of the House.” He thus described the manifestations of the excitement prevalent in the country: “ A t this mo­ ment we have in the legislative bodies of this capitol and in the States twenty odd furnaces in full blast, emitting heat and passion and intemperance, and diffusing them throughout the whole extent of this broad land.” His en­ deavor had been to “ form such a scheme of accommoda­ tion ” as would obviate “ the sacrifice of any great princi­ ple ” by either section of the country, and he believed th at the series of resolutions which he presented accomplished the object. Concession by each side was necessary, “ not of principle, but of feeling, of opinion in relation to mat­ ters in controversy between them.” The admission of Cal­ ifornia as a State would, under the circumstances, be simply the recognition of a time-honored precedent of the govern­ ment. The N orth insisted on the application of the Wilmot proviso to the rest of the territory acquired from Mex­ ico ; yet slavery did not exist there by law, and the orator in a few pregnant questions stated the case in the most powerful m anner: “ W hat do you want who reside in the free States? You want th at there shall be no slav ey in­ troduced into the territories acquired from Mexico. Well, have you not got it in California already, if admitted as a State? Have you not got it in New Mexico, in all human probability, also ? W hat more do you want ? You have ever before obtained here. T o g e t w ith in hearing o f h is v o ice I fou n d to be im possible.”— W ashington correspondence o f N ew Y ork Tribune.

126

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

there arose a strong feeling in the Northern States against lending their assistance to restore fugitive slaves. The leg­ islature of Massachusetts enacted a law, making it penal for her officers to perform any duties under the act of Congress of 1793 for their surrender. Pennsylvania passed an act for­ bidding her judicial authorities to take cognizance of any fugitive-slave case.1 The border States especially complained of the difficulties encountered in reclaiming their runaway negroes. And as it had been decided by the United States Supreme Court that the Constitution had conferred on Con­ gress an exclusive power to legislate concerning their ex­ tradition, it was demanded by those Southerners who were willing to compromise the matters in dispute th at a more effectual law for the recovery of fugitive slaves should be a part of the arrangement. So much explanation is necessary to understand Clay’s very positive expressions. “ Upon this subject,” he said, “ I do think that we have just and serious cause of complaint against the free States. . . . I t is our duty to make the law more effective; and I shall go with the senator from the South who goes furthest in making penal laws and imposing the heaviest sanctions for the re­ covery of fugitive slaves and the restoration of them to their owners.” A fter touching upon each one of his resolutions in order, Clay offered some general considerations: “ There have been, unhappily, mutual causes of agitation furnished by one class of the States as well as by the other, though, I ad­ mit, not in the same degree by the slave States as by the free States.” Yet he had “ an earnest and anxious desire to pre­ sent the olive branch to both parts of this distracted and at the present moment unhappy country.” He made an ap­ peal to both sides to do something to quiet the clamors of the nation; depicting, in lively colors, the vast extent of the 1 T birtv Y ears’ V iew , B enton, vol. ii. p. 774; M assachusetts, A cts and R esolves, 1843-45, chap. x l i x .; L aw s o f Pennsylvania, Session o f 1847, p. 207, A ct N o. 159.

12 8

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

North, the reasons of Southern discontent, and the fore­ bodings of his prophetic soul in reference to the future. He admitted that universal discontent pervaded the South. Its “ great and primary cause is th at the equilibrium between the two sections has been destroyed.” I t was the old story th a t the N orth had grown faster in population than the South. Every one knows that it was slavery which kept back the South in the race; but this Calhoun could not see, and he sought the cause in remote and unsubstantial reasons. When Calhoun said the South, he meant the slave power, and the South had not held pace with the N orth because, first, in his opinion, the Ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri Compromise had excluded her from territory th at should have been left “ open to the emigration of masters with their s la v e s s e c o n d , the tariff and internal-improvements system had worked decidedly against her interests ; and, third, the gradual yet steady assumption of greater powers by the federal government at the expense of the rights of the States had proved an inestimable injury to the South. “ The cords that bind the States together,” said the senator, “ are not only many, but various in character. Some are spiritual or ecclesiastical; some political, others social.” The strongest are those of a religious nature, but they have begun to snap. The great Methodist Episcopal Church has divided; there is a Methodist Church N orth and a Methodist Church South, and they are hostile. The Protestant organization next in size, the Baptist Church, has likewise fallen asunder. The cord which binds the Presbyterian Church “ is not en­ tirely snapped, but some of its strands have given way. That of the Episcopal Church is the only one of the four great Protestant denominations which remains unbroken and entire. . . . If the agitation goes on, the same force, acting with increased intensity, will finally snap every cord ” —political and social as well as ecclesiastical—“ when noth­ ing will be left to hold the States together except force.” It is undeniable th a t the Union is in danger. How can it be saved ? Neither the plan of the distinguished senator of

130

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

despots with absolute power, this did not lessen his wish for a like authority as a safeguard of Southern interests. In­ tellectual vagary can go to no extremer length in politics than to propound a scheme which is alike impossible of adoption, and would be utterly impracticable in operation. The constitutional amendment suggested by Calhoun was generally regarded at the South as a utopian scheme ; yet he had a following of something like fifty members' of Con­ gress, who, even if they did not subscribe to his vague ideas in the science of government, were willing to follow him to the extreme length of secession from the Union, if the dis­ pute could not be settled to their liking. These members represented fairly the feeling of their slave-holding constit­ uents. Before proceeding to the further consideration of the debate on the compromise resolutions, we should satisfy ourselves whether the Union was indeed in danger. The proceedings of Congress had certainly intensified the ex­ citement. The contest for speaker, the clashes between the representatives of the opposing views, the thr6ats on one side and defiance on the other, had added to the gravity of a situation already grave. “ Two months ago,” said Clay, “ all was calm in comparison to the present moment. All now is uproar, confusion, and menace to the existence of the Union and to the happiness and safety of the people.” ’ Yet Clay had great difficulty in making up his mind as to how much of the danger was real, and how much only ap­ parent. He writes, “ My hopes and fears alternate.” 3 Cal­ houn’s speech was as sincere as a death-bed utterance, and leaves no doubt that he believed the country on the eve of disunion. W ebster was as much perplexed as Clay. In 1 N in e senators and forty representatives, according to the N e w Y ork Tribune o f March 5th. 9 Speech o f H enry Clay, F eb . 5th. 8 Letter to T. B. Stevenson, Jan. 26th, Last Seven Years o f Henry Clay, p . 497.

132

TAYLOR'S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

“ the stale cry of disunion.” 1 Giddings thought the “ cry of dissolution was gasconade. . . . It has been the dernier ressort of Southern men for fifty years whenever they desired to frighten dough-faces into a compliance with their meas­ ures.3 In general, the Northern anti-slavery men treated the Southern threats as bravado and as hardly worth serious notice.5 Yet there was one notable exception to this uni­ versal opinion. Horace Mann believed that if the N orth insisted upon passing the Wilmot proviso for the territories, some of the Southern States would rebel.4 Still, there was an earnest feeling at the North, and especially in New Eng­ land, that if there were a risk in insisting th at slavery should go no further, it was a risk well worth taking.5 1 Senate speech, March 27th. 2 G id d in gs’s Speeches, p. 409. 3 “ Our N orthern friends are blind, absolutely blin d , to the real dangers by w h ich w e are surrounded."’— Letter o f C. S. M oreliead, W h ig represen­ tative from K entucky, to John J. Crittenden, M arch 30th, Life o f Critten­ den, vol. i. p. 363. The opinion at th at tim e o f the extrem e abolition ist w as w ell stated by T heodore Parker in a sermon delivered in 1852. H e com bated strenuously th e id ea th at there w as any dan ger o f dissolution o f th e U n ion in 1850. “ W e have,” he said, “ the m ost delicate test o f p ublic opin ion—the state o f the public funds, th e barom eter w h ic h in d i­ cates any change in th e political w eather;” but du rin g all th is discussion “ the funds o f the U n ited States d id n ot g o dow n one m ill.” “ T he South­ ern m en k n ow w e ll th a t i f the U n ion were dissolved their riches w ou ld take to itse lf leg s and run away— or firebrands, and m ake a St. D om ingo out o f South C arolin a! T hey cast off the N orth I T hey set up for them ­ selves ! T u s h ! tush ! F ear boys w ith b u g s !” * “ I really th in k i f w e in sist upon passing the W ilm ot proviso for the territories th a t th e S ou th —a part o f them — w ill r e b e l; b u t I w ou ld pass it, rebellion or not. I consider no evil so great as th at o f th e extension o f slavery.”— Letter o f Horace Mann, F eb. 6th, Life, p. 288. s “ R ather than consent voluntarily to th e extension o f th e slave in sti­ tution to one foot o f free territory— rather than surrender their principles — they [th e N orthern people] w ou ld subm it to have th e U nion severed. T his, w e believe, is th e true feelin g o f the N orth .”— Springfield Repub­ lican, F eb ., 1850, cited by the Liberator. See also Life o f Sam uel B ow les, vol. i. p. 77. “ L et the U n ion be a thousand tim es shivered rather

134

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

unconditionally for the admission of California; and they ■were indirectly given to understand th at he would approve the application of the Wilmot proviso to the territories.' As a reply to this outline of future action, the Southern congressmen threatened dissolution of the Union, when the President got angry and said that, if it were necessary, he would take the field himself to enforce the laws of his country; and if these gentlemen were taken in rebellion against the Union, he would hang them with as little mercy as he had hanged deserters and spies in Mexico.3 In the midst of the mutual recrimination accompanying this inevitable sectional controversy, there can be no better evidence as to whence came the aggression than the com­ plete change th a t had taken place in the sentiments of Gen­ eral Taylor since he had occupied the executive office. Be­ fore he was nominated for President, he had written an 1 See letter o f R. Toom bs to J. J. Crittenden, Life o f Crittenden, Cole­ man, vol. i. p. 365. Toom bs w rote, A pril 2 5 th : “ I saw G eneral Taylor and talk ed fully w ith him , and, w h ile he stated he had giv en and would give no p led ges either w ay about the proviso, he gave m e clearly to un­ derstand th a t i f it w as passed he w ou ld sign it. M y course becam e in ­ stan tly fixed. I w o u ld n o t hesitate to oppose the proviso, even to tlie ex ten t o f a dissolution o f the U nion.” 2 M emoir o f T hurlow W eed, p. 177; see also N e w Y ork Tribune o f F eb . 2 3 d ; W ilson’s R ise and F all o f the Slave P ow er, vol. ii. p. 259. H an­ n ib al H am lin wrote me, A ug. 23d, 1889 : “ In answer to your inquiry, I can inform you th at the statem ent m ade by Mr. W ilson to w h ich you refer is correct and accurate. Y ou w ill find a corroboration o f it in the Life or M emoirs o f T hurlow W eed .” W ilson said in the Senate, Ju ly 9th, 1856: “ It is said th at th e Senator from Georgia [Toom bs] and others talk ed very plain to General Taylor in 1850 about a dissolution o f th e U nion, and that G eneral T aylor intim ated to them pretty distin ctly th a t th e U nion w as to be preserved and the law s o f the country executed.” Toom bs was present and m ade an im m ediate reply to a p ortion o f W ilson ’s speech, bu t d id not in any w ay contradict th is statem ent. Congressional Globe, vol. x x x iii. p. 857. Stephens and Toom bs, in letters to the N e w Y ork H erald in 1876, d enied th is story. See N e w Y ork H erald, June 13th and A ug. 8tli, 1876. In th is connection see letter o f Stephens w ritten directly after the death o f General Taylor, Life o f Stephens, Jolin ston and Browne, p. 258.

136

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

proviso were not insisted upon for New Mexico, and slavery were allowed to remain in the District of Columbia. This by no means pleased the knot of Southern disunionists, who desired nothing better than the passage by Congress of the Wilmot proviso.1 In th at event they had well-grounded hopes that they could unite the South in their view s; then they would give their ultimatum, and, if it were rejected, they would dissolve the Union. Efforts, indeed, were made by the extreme Southern Democrats to check the slowly rising Union sentiment. Their aim was to resist the admis­ sion of California, and to make the resistance a sectional shibboleth in place of opposition to the Wilmot proviso.2 While, thus, the fear of a formal secession from the Union, such as took place eleven years later, had not at this time sufficient foundation, there was danger in the adjournment of Congress without provision for the m atters in dispute.’ The war of legislative declarations, of resolutions, of public meetings, would continue, and inflammatory writing in the press would not cease. N orthern legislative action, support­ ed by public sentiment, would not only make it difficult, but impossible, to recover a fugitive slave. On the other hand, it was probable th at most of the Southern states as retalia­ tory legislation would pass laws to prevent the sale of N orth­ ern products by retail in their limits.4 The governor of Yirginia, John B. Floyd, proposed to his legislature a sys1 N ew Y ork Tribune, F eb . 4th. See also B enton’s T hirty Y ears’ V iew . “ I am pain ed to say th at I fear th a t there are som e Southern m en w h o do n ot w ish a settlem ent.”— Letter o f C. S. M orehead, M.C. from K en tucky, to J. J. Crittenden, Life o f C rittenden, Coleman, vol. i. p. 362. 3 See N e w Y ork Tribune, F eb . 2oth and M arch 13tli; also the M obile A dvertiser, the R ichm ond Enquirer, Columbia (S. C.) Telegraph, Charles­ ton (S. C.) Courier, R ichm ond Whig, for February. 3 “ In th e Senate there are e ig h t Southern senators and in th e H ouse thirty m embers from the same section w h o are organized as disunionists and are opposed to any com prom ise w hatever lo o k in g to the perpetuity o f th e U n ion .”— W ash in gton correspondence N e w Y ork Tribune, F eb . 2d. 4 Life o f C rittenden, Colem an, vol. i. p. 363.

138

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

the latter days of the Roman republic from the like material of Cicero which has come down to us.1 As an orator, Webster has been compared in simplicity to Demosthenes and in profundity to Burke.’ This is the high­ est praise. The wonderful effect of his oratory is strikingly told by George Ticknor, who, fresh from a long intercourse with the most distinguished men in England and on the Continent, went to hear Webster deliver his Plymouth ora­ tion. Ticknor w rites: “ I was never so excited by public speaking before in my life. Three or four times I thought my temples would burst with the gush of blood;” and, though from his youth an intimate friend of Webster’s, he was so impressed that “ when I came out I was almost afraid to come near him. I t seemed to me as if he was like the mount th at might not be touched, and that burned with fire.” 3 Thomas Marshall, of Kentucky, heard the reply to Hayne, and when Webster came to the peroration he “ listened as to one inspired, and finally thought he could see a halo around the orator’s head like what one sees in the old pict­ ures of saints and martyrs.” 4 The diction of Webster was formed by a grateful study of Shakespeare and M ilton; through his communion with these masters, his whole soul was thoroughly attuned to the high1 “ H is ideas, his th ou gh ts [are] spread over every p age o f your annals for near h a lf a century. H is ideas, his th ou gh ts [are] im pressed upon and inseparable from the m ind o f his country and the spirit o f the age.” — Senate speech o f W . H . Seward, A ug. 14th, 1852. “ W hoever in after­ tim es sh all w rite th e history o f th e U n ited States for the last forty years w ill w rite th e life o f D an iel W ebster.” —E dw ard E verett, Oct. 27th, 1852. 3 Joh n Adam s, w ho w as present at the trial o f W arren H astings, and h ad heard P itt and F o x , Burke and Sheridan, w rote to W ebster, after read in g h is P lym outh o r a tio n : “ Mr. Burke is no longer en titled to the p raise—th e m ost consum m ate orator o f modern tim es.” L odge, p. 123. 3 Letter o f T icknor from P lym ou th, D ec. 21st, 1820, Life o f Ticknor, vol. i. p. 330. ‘ W illiam Schouler, Personal and P o litica l R ecollections, Boston Journal, D ec. 10th, 1870.

140

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

superstructure of a systematic education. His devoted fa­ ther mortgaged the New Hampshire farm to send him to college, and three years of laborious study of law followed the regular course at Dartmouth. Years afterwards he re­ paid his Alma M ater for her gifts when he pleaded, and not in vain, for her chartered rights in invincible logic be­ fore the most solemn tribunal of the country. Intellectually, Webster was a man of slow growth. The zenith of his power was not reached until he made the celebrated reply to Hayne, and he was then forty-eight years old. In union with this grand intellect were social qualities of a high order. His manners were charming, his nature was genial, and he had a quick sense of seemly humor. Carlyle speaks of him as “ a dignified, perfectly bred man.” 1 H ar­ riet Martineau says “ he would illuminate an evening by telling stories, cracking jokes, or smoothly discoursing to the perfect felicity of the logical part of one’s constitution.” a Ticknor, who was so impressed with the majestic delivery of the orator, speaks of his being “ as gay and playful as a kitten.” 3 The social intercourse between W ebster and Lord Ashburton, wThile they were a t work on the Washington treaty, is one of those international amenities th at grace the history of diplomacy. This treaty, by which we gained substantial advantages and England made honorable conces­ sions, was not negotiated through stately protocols, but was concluded through a friendly correspondence and during the interchange of refined social civilities. During this transac­ tion Ashburton was impressed with “ the upright and hon­ orable character” of Webster.4 As late as 1845 there might be seen engravings which were an indication of the popular notion that honesty was his cardinal virtue.6 1 Curtis, vol. ii. p. 21. 2 R etrospect o f Am erican Travel, vol. i. p. 147. 3 Letter, D ec. 23d, 1820, Life o f T icknor, vol. i. pp. 331 and 379. 4 M emoir o f E verett, W ebster’s W orks, vol. i. p. cxxiv. 5 Sir Charles L yell saw “ a m ost form idable lik en ess o f D an iel W eb-

142

TAYLOR'S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

national feeling; and he impressed upon the people every­ where, except in the cotton States, a sacred love for the Union. How well his life-work was done was seen, less than nine years after he died, in the zealous appeal to arms for the defence of the nation. In the sleepless nights before his death, no sight was so welcome to his eyes as the lantern he saw through the windows placed at the mast-head of the little shallop, in order th at he might discern, fluttering at the mast, the national flag, the emblem of that Union to which he had consecrated the best thoughts and purest ef­ forts of his life. During the last twenty years of his career Webster had a great desire to be President. Three times he was exceed­ ingly anxious for the W hig nomination, and thought his chances were good for getting i t ; but the nomination even never came to him. Indeed, he always overrated the prob­ abilities of his success. He was of that class of statesmen who were stronger before the country than before the polit­ ical convention. H ad he ever been named as his party’s choice, he would unquestionably have been a strong candi­ date ; but he never had the knack of arousing the enthusiasm of the party, which Clay possessed in so eminent degree. Nor did his frequent action independent of political consid­ erations commend him to the men who shaped the action of the party convention. George Ticknor said, in 1831, Web­ ster “ belongs to no party ; but he has uniformly contended for the great and essential principles of our government on all occasions;” ' and this was to a large extent true of him during his whole life. His tendency to break away from party trammels was shown more than once during his long career. In 1833, as we have seen," he supported with enthu­ siasm the Democratic President, and would not assent to the compromise devised by the leader of his party. But the crowning act of independence was when he remained in the

1 Life o f George Ticknor, vol. i. p. 393.

1 See p. 50.

144

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

Considering that it was only by strenuous effort that the son of the New Hampshire farmer obtained the highest rank in political and social life,1 it is hard to believe th at he was constitutionally indolent, as one of his biographers states. When sixty-seven years old it was his practice to study from five to eleven in the m orning; he was in the Supreme Court from eleven to three, and the rest of the day in the Senate until ten in the evening. W hen he had the time to devote himself to his legal practice, his professional income was large. Such, in the main, if Daniel Webster had died on the morning of the seventh day of March, 1850, would have been the estimate of his character th at would have come down to this generation. But his speech in the Senate on that day placed a wide gulf between him and most of the men who were best fitted to transm it his name to posterity. Partisan malignity has magnified his vices, depreciated his virtues, and distorted his motives. It is now time to consider this speech, which the orator himself thought the most important effort of his life.3 The most important event in the long session of Congress we are a t present considering, it was almost as momentous in the history of the country as it was in the life of Webster. It is the only speech in our history which is named by the date of its delivery, and the general acquiescence in this designation goes to show th a t it was a turning-point in the action of Congress, in popular sentiment, and in the history of the country. W ebster began: “ I wish to speak to-day, not as a Massa­ chusetts man, nor as a Northern man, but as an American. . . . I t is not to be denied th at we live in the midst of strong agitations, and are surrounded by very considerable dangers to our institutions and government. The imprisoned winds are let loose. The East, the North, and the stormy 1 E. P . W hipple, N orth A m erican Review, July, 1844. * Curtis, vol. ii. p. 529.

146

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. . . . The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South held the same sentiments—that slavery was an evil, a blight, a scourge, and a curse. . . . There was, if not an entire una­ nimity, a general concurrence of sentiment running through the whole community, and especially entertained by the eminent men of all parts of the country. But soon a change began at the North and the South, and a difference of opin­ ion showed itse lf; the North growing much more warm and strong against slavery, and the South growing much more warm and strong in its support.” The reason th at the South ceased to think it an evil and a scourge, but, on the other hand, maintained th at it was “ a great religious, social, and moral blessing,” was “ owing to the rapid growth and sud­ den extension of the cotton plantations of the South.” 1 In reply to Calhoun’s statement th at “ there has been a majority all along in favor of the North,” Webster averred that “ no man acquainted w’ith the history of the Union can deny th at the general lead in the politics of the country, for three-fourths of the period th at has elapsed since the adop­ tion of the Constitution, has been a Southern lead.” He di­ rected attention to the events that brought about the an­ nexation of Texas, referred at length to the joint resolution which allowed four more States to be formed out of her ter­ ritory ; and laid great stress upon the stipulation th a t the States which 'would be created south of the line of 36° 30'— and this embraced nearly the whole of Texas—were permit­ ted to have slavery, and •would without question be slave States. To that “ this government is solemnly pledged by law and contract . . . and I for one mean to fulfil it, be­ cause I will not violate the faith of the government. . . . Now as to California and New Mexico, I hold slavery to be ex­ cluded from those territories by a law even superior to that which admits and sanctions it in Texas. I mean the law of 1 See p. 26.

148

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

a proper regard to the injunction of the Constitution for the delivery of fugitive slaves.” I t is near the close of this speech that occurs the fine pas­ sage depicting the utter impossibility of peaceable secession. “ Sir, he who sees these States, now revolving in harmony around a common centre, and expects them to quit their places and fly off without convulsion, may look the next hour to see the heavenly bodies rush from their spheres, and jostle against each other in the realms of space, without causing the wreck of the universe.” And in his peroration, which in eloquence almost equals th at of his reply to Ilayne, he adjured the Senate and the country, “ instead of speaking of the possibility or utility of secession, instead of dwelling in those caverns of darkness, instead of groping with those ideas so full of all that is horrid and horrible, let us come out into the light of d a y ; let us enjoy the fresh air of lib­ erty and union. Never did there devolve on any genera­ tion of men higher trusts than now devolve upon us for the preservation of this Constitution, and the harmony and peace of all who are destined to live under it. Let us make our generation one of the strongest and brightest links in that golden chain which is destined, I fondly believe, to grapple the people of all the States to this Constitution for ages to come.” 1 This speech of Webster had been long and anxiously awaited. The desire was great to know what position he would take ; the curiosity was intense to know whether he would support the compromise or would join the anti-slav­ ery Whigs and approve the plan of the President. I t had been rumored th at he, in connection with some Southern sen­ ators, was intending to prepare a scheme of adjustment ;s on 1 T h e q uotations are ta k en from the speech as printed in vol. v. o f W eb­ ster’s W orks. T h e w h ole sp eech is w e ll w orth reading. 2 N ation al E ra , March 7th, 1830; R ise and F a ll o f th e Slave Pow er, vol. ii. p. 149; N e w Y ork H erald and N ew Y ork Journal o f Commerce, F eb . 28th; N e w Y ork Tribune, March 1st; Correspondence o f C. A. D ana, N e w Y ork Tribune, March 4tli.

150

•>

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

in dispute gave reason to suppose that its products would be those of the cotton States, and th at it would naturally grav­ itate towards slave institutions. While many believed that the Mexican law sufficed to preserve freedom in California and New Mexico, it nevertheless was good policy to make extraordinary appropriations for the war only on condition of an express understanding that the territory acquired should be free. But in 1850 the question had changed. California had decided for herself; and the more important half of the controversy was cut off by the action of the peo­ ple interested. There remained New Mexico.1 The very fact th a t California had forbidden slavery was an excellent reason for believing that New Mexico would do likewise. I t had now become known that while the latitude of New Mexico assigned her to the domain of slavery, the altitude of the country gave her a different climate from that of the slave States, and subjected her to different economical con­ ditions. I t was understood th at neither cotton, tobacco, rice, nor sugar could be raised, and no one in 1850 main­ tained that slave labor was profitable save in the cultivation of those products. The correspondence between W ebster and the delegate to Congress from New Mexico shows th at no one conversant with the facts had the slightest notion that slavery had any chance of being established in th a t ter­ ritory.2 The people themselves proved that no Wilmot pro1 N ew M exico th en com prised th e w esterly portions o f N e w M exico as at present bounded, and Colorado, N evada, and U tah, m ost o f Arizona, and the sou thw esterly part o f W yom ing. N arrative and Critical H istory o f Am erica, Ju stin W insor, vol. vii. p . 552. s T h is correspondence was pu blished in many o f the new spapers o f the day, and m ay be foun d in W ebster's W orks, vol. vi. p. 548. H ugh N . Sm ith, th e delegate from N ew M exico, under date o f A p ril 9th, w rote: “ N e w M exico is an e xceed in gly m ountainous country, Santa F e itse lf b e in g tw ice as h ig h as th e h ig h est point o f th e A U eghanies, and nearly all th e land capable o f cultivation is o f equal h eigh t, thou gh som e o f the valleys have less altitu de above th e sea. T he country is cold. Its g e n ­ eral agricultural products are w h ea t and corn, and such vegetab les as

\

152

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

pointed to the legislative establishment of slavery in New Mexico in 1859 as proof that Webster made in 1850 a fatal error of judgment. But the practice never actually existed in that territory, and the act of 1859 was the work of a coterie, passed for political effect.1 The historian whose sympathies are with the anti-slavery cause of 1850—and it seems clear that he can most truly write the story—can by no means commend the whole of the 7th-of-March speech. The orator dwelt upon the con­ ditions of the annexation of Texas at too great a length, for the bad bargain and the manner in which it was made were not a pleasant recollection to the North. It was not necessary to lay great stress upon the fact that more slave States could be created out of Texas, for, while it is obvious that the intention was to remind the South how well they had fared in the Union, the orator’s mode of treating the subject was of a nature to irritate the N o rth ; and all the more, because his argument could not legally be impugned. Webster’s reference to the abolition societies and their work brought a storm of indignation upon his head from people who were not used to suppress their voice or mince their meaning. Webster was wrong in his estimate of the aboli­ tionists. Yet similar judgments were common ; and for ten years more we find the same pleas against the agitating of slavery. The complete answer to this deprecation was given by Lowell for once and a l l: “ To be told th at we ought not to agitate the question of slavery, when it is that which is forever agitating us, is like telling a man with the fever and ague on him to stop shaking, and he will be cured.” 2 But what grieved the old supporters of Webster the most was his severe censure of the N orth for their action in re­ gard to fugitive slaves. The bill of Mason, which, with some amendments, he proposed to support, was a stringent 1 See Chap. X . 3 P o litica l Essays, p. 31. M onthly for Oct., 1860.

T his essay was pu blished in th e A tla n tic

154

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

Other points in this discourse occasioned much comment at the time, but the principal ones, and all th at are necessary to a comprehension of w hat will follow, have been touched upon. I t now remains to relate how the country received this speech. The Massachusetts Legislature was in session discussing the national question, but dropped the subject in its general aspect to consider their great senator’s relation to it. One member said that Webster was “ a recreant son of Massa­ chusetts who misrepresented her in the Senate.” Henry Wilson “ declared th at Webster in his speech had simply, but hardly, stated the Northern and national side of the question, while he had earnestly advocated the Southern and sectional side; th at his speech was Southern altogether in its tone, argument, aim and end.” 1 The anti-slavery Whigs and Free-soil members were anxious to instruct Web­ ster formally to support the Wilmot proviso and vote against Mason’s Fugitive Slave b ill; and a resolution with that purport was introduced by Wilson, but they had not the strength to carry it through the legislature. The speech was received in a like manner by the majority of the N orth­ ern representatives in Congress. No one of the New Eng­ land Whig members agreed with him.2 Horace Mann es­ pecially was bitter. H e writes: “ Webster is a fallen star! Lucifer descending from heaven!” “ There is a very strong feeling here [at Washington] th a t Mr. W ebster has played false to the North.” “ He has not a favorable response from any Northern man of any influence.” 3 Giddings rep­ resented the anti-slavery sentiment of Ohio when he says, “ By this speech a blow was struck at freedom and the constitutional rights of the free States which no Southern arm could have given.” 4 1 R ise and F a ll o f th e Slave P ow er, vol. ii. p. 254. 5 Curtis, vol. ii. p p . 4 2 8 ,4 4 7 ; B oston A tla s, A p ril 6th. 3 Letters o f March 8th, 10th, 14th, Life, pjj. 293, 294. 4 H istory o f th e R ebellion, p. 324.

I

156

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

speech,” writes Curtis, “ was received by probably a great majority of Mr. W ebster’s constituents, if not by a majority of the whole North, with disfavor and disapprobation.” 1 “ I think,” said Parker, “ not a hundred prominent men in all New England acceded to the speech.” 2 This was the instant outburst of opinion; but friends for Webster and his cause came with more deliberate reflections. Some prominent Democratic journals approved from the first his position,3 and there were many Whigs in New England, and especially in Boston, who were sure to follow Webster whithersoever he led. The majority, indeed, would have preferred th a t he had spoken differently, but their personal devotion induced them to espouse his side.4 His moral and intellectual influence in the free States was greater than th at of any man living, for the people had confidence th a t his gigantic intellect would discover the right, and that his intellectual honesty would impel him to follow it. The country has listened to but two men on whose words they have hung with greater reverence than on those of Web­ ster. The intellectual force and moral greatness of Wash­ ington and of Lincoln were augmented by their high office and the gravity of the existing crises. When the first excite­ ment had subsided, the friends of Webster bestirred them­ selves, and soon testimonials poured in, approving the posi­ tion which he had taken. The most significant of them was the one from eight hundred solid men of Boston, who thanked him for “ recalling us to our duties under the Constitution,” and for his “ broad, national, and patriotic views.” 6 The tone of many of the Whig papers changed, 1 V ol. ii. p. 410. 5 Sermon, Oct. 31st, 1852. 3 N otab ly th e N e w Y ork H erald and the N e w Y ork Jou rn al o f Com­ merce. * F or exam ple, George A slim un, M. C. from the Springfield, Mass., d is­ trict. Life o f Sam uel B ow les, vol. i. p. 41. 5 A m ong th e signers were George Ticknor, George T. Curtis, Benjam in II. Curtis, Rufus Choate, M oses Stuart, W . H . P rescott, and Jared Sparks. The com m unication w as dated March 25th.

158

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

subject has already been stated.1 But it is the delight of story-tellers to make W ebster the hero of exaggerated or wholly apocryphal anecdotes that tickle the ears of listeners by a tale of his rank excess. When it affects great men, the “ taint of vice whose strong corruptions inhabit our frail blood” becomes an especially toothsome morsel of gossip for those who gladly believe th at intellectual greatness is prone to the indulgence of the passions. It was a common opinion th at Webster’s intense desire for the presidency caused him to sacrifice his principles, but those who are most vehement in their charge refute them­ selves. Giddings says that Webster thought “ his only path­ way to the presidential chair lay through the regions of slavery;” but on the next page the anti-slavery apostle writes that the reaction from the speech “ prostrated in political death the giant who seemed to have directed his deadly aim at the heart of liberty.” 11 Horace Mann said the speech was a “ bid for the presidency.” s This, however, was an after-thought; for on the 8th of March he records the opinion th a t Webster “ will lose two friends a t the N orth where he will gain one at the South.” 4 Theodore Parker said that Webster “ was a bankrupt politician in desperate political circumstances, gaming for the presidency;” yet, ac­ cording to the same authority, the speech did not commend itself to “ a hundred prominent men in all New England.” 6 If one believes that Webster surrendered principle for the sake of winning the favor of the South, it must be on the ground that this man of large public experience did not un­ derstand the sentiment of the N o rth ; or that, with unex­ ampled fatuity, he hoped his position on the sectional ques­ tion would gain him the support of the South and yet not 1 See p. 143. 2 H istory o f th e R ebellion, pp. 323, 324. 8 T h is w as w ritten A pril 6tl), Life, p. 299. 4 Ib id ., p. 293. 5 Discourse, A p ril 12th, 1852, and Sermon, Oct. 31st, 1852.

160

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

sincere love for the Union, as shown through his whole ca­ reer, it is easy to see that the raain-spring of his action was the same in 1850 as it was twenty years before, when he made the reply to Hayne. His dislike of slavery was strong, but his love for the Union was stronger, and the more pow­ erful motive outweighed the o th er; for he believed that the crusade against slavery had arrived at a point where its fur­ ther prosecution was hurtful to the Union. As has been said of Burke, “ he changed his front, but he never changed his ground.” 1 The mention of Burke cannot fail, to suggest the likeness between the British statesman and the American in their last important position in public life. Burke, too, turned his back upon his old friends and supporters. He who for so many years was the strength of the Whigs now became the idol of the Tories. So complete was the change that one historian,3 more brilliant than solid in his judg­ ments, cannot account for it in any other way than th a t the reason of the statesman was tottering. Other more careful writers,3 who better comprehended Burke, see plainly th at he simply followed the laws of his blood and constitution. So it was with Webster. lie was as conservative as Burke. Both dreaded fanatics. The Union and the Constitution were to the American what the ancient and revered institu­ tions of ages and nations were to the Englishman. Both were the means of breaking up their party—the American W hig party beyond hope of revival; the English Whigs were deprived of power for a generation. P arty passion has so affected opinions about Burke th at it has remained for the present generation of Englishmen to fairly measure the worth of their greatest statesman. Never has his repu­ tation shone so brightly as to-day, and not until now has his conservatism been appreciated at its full value. I t is quite certain that we shall not be less generous in the estimate of 1 Life o f Burke, M orley, p. 245. 3 B uckle. 3 Bancroft, L ecky, and Morley.

See Morley, pp. 1 and 3.

162

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

On the 11th of March, Seward spoke. Although this was his first term in the Senate, and indeed in Congress, for he had never been a member of the House, he was by no means an unknown man. Achieving local reputation by service in the legislature, he had twice held the office of governor. The executive of New York had always been a prominent office, owing to the importance of the State and the power vested in it by the Constitution; but it was unusually so in the case of Governor Seward, for he had to do with affairs that gave him fame beyond the confines of his own State. Indeed, so inseparably was his name connected with this office th at after years of renowned service in the Senate his title still remained Governor Seward. He was a good law­ yer, and had a large practice in the United States courts. Fond of study, having an especial liking for history and philosophy, he loved the classics, and he read many of the English poets with delight; but he detested mathematics. An active Whig, always supporting the candidate of his party, he leaned decidedly to anti-slavery views. H e was a friend of John Quincy Adams, whom he regarded with re­ spect and veneration, and who had a marked influence on his turn of thought. Adams, who brooded constantly dur­ ing the last years of his life over the slavery question, said to Seward the year before he died, “ I shall be here but a little while. I look to you to do a great deal.” He had been elected senator by a large majority of the legislature, and it was well understood a t home and abroad that he was a strenuous opponent of the extension of slavery. His speech at Cleveland in 1848 had produced a profound sensa­ tion. “ Slavery can be limited to its present bounds,” he had said; “ it can be am eliorated; it can and must be abol­ ished, and you and I can and must do it.” 1 Beginning with an unanswerable argument in favor of the admission of California, he mentions the demand that 1 See Life by F . W . Seward, vols. i. and ii., and M emoir prefixed to vol. i. o f W orks.

164

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

stitution,' which regulates our authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes. The territory is a part, no inconsiderable part, of the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the uni­ verse. We are his stewards, and must so discharge our trust as to secure in the highest attainable degree their happi­ ness.” This remark about “ a higher law,'” while far infe­ rior in rhetorical force to Webster’s “ I would not take pains uselessly to reaffirm an ordinance of Nature, nor to re-enact the will of God,” was destined to have transcendent moral influence. A speech which can be condensed into an apho­ rism is sure to shape convictions. These, then, are the two maxims of this debate; the application of them shows the essential points of the controversy. Seward then proceeds at some length to rebut W ebster’s argument based on the proposition th at climate and soil would prevent the introduction of slavery into New Mex­ ico. He refers “ to the great and all-absorbing argument that the Union is in danger of being dissolved, and th at it can only be saved by compromise.” He had received “ with no inconsiderable distrust ” the warnings that had been ut­ tered with impassioned solemnity in his hearing every day for nearly three months, “ because they are uttered under the influence of a controlling interest to be secured, a para­ mount object to be gained; and th a t is an equilibrium of power in the republic. . . . The question of dissolving the Union is a complex question: it embraces the fearful issue whether the Union shall stand, and slavery, under the steady, peaceful action of moral, social, and political causes, be removed by gradual voluntary effort, and with compen­ sation; or whether the Union shall be dissolved and civil war ensue, bringing on violent but complete and immediate emancipation. We are now arrived at th at stage of our national progress when that crisis can be foreseen, when we must foresee i t . . . . I feel assured that slavery must give 1 The em phasis is m ine.

166

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

hearers. A prominent journalist, whose sympathies were with the side th at Seward advocated, thought the speech “ very dull, heavy, and prosy,” and he did not stay it out,1 for more than three hours were occupied in its delivery. I t was too long by a third. But the last two-thirds make it a great speech, and it is from that portion th at nearly all the foregoing citations are made. Seward was listened to with close and earnest attention by Webster, Clay, Calhoun, Ben­ ton, Cass, Hale, and Corwin,3 not from personal sympathy with him in his maiden effort, but because he represented faithfully the sentiment of the Empire State, and was, more­ over, regarded as the mouthpiece of the President. The latter supposition was a mistake. Nor did Seward propose at any time to speak for General Taylor in the Senate; on the contrary, he had refused a place on any important com­ mittee, lest their intimate personal relations might create the suspicion th at he acted authoritatively for the Presi­ dent.3 Indeed, the Washington organ of the President as­ sailed Seward for the sentiments expressed, and it was ac­ cordingly given out that he had lost all influence with the administration. Webster sneered at the speech.4 Clay wrote that the speech had eradicated the respect of almost all men for Seward.6 But one voice came from the South, and that was the voice of censure; in this the Northern Democratic ’ Brewer, o f the B oston A tlas. 5 W ashington correspondence N e w Y ork Tribune, March 11th. 8 M emoir prefixed to vol. i. o f W orks, p. lx x x iv . Seward had, however, consulted th e Secretary o f the Interior. On th e day that lie spoke, before g o in g to the Capitol, he w rote his w i f e : “ I sh ow ed m y notes confiden­ tia lly to Mr. E w in g, and he is satisfied.”— L ife o f Seward, v ol. ii. p. 125. 4 “ I perceive th a t m y friend W eed lam ents th at it d id n ot happen to m e to m ake such a great and glorious sp eech as Governor Seward’s. I than k him sincerely for his condolence, but Om nia non possum ut omries.” W ebster to Blatcliford, July, 1850, M emoir o f T hurlow W eed , p . 183. B u t W eed did n ot entirely approve o f th e sp eech. See letters o f Seward to him , Life o f Seward, vo l. ii. p. 129. 5 P rivate Correspondence, p. 604.

16 8

TAYLOR'S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

New York W hig regency whose sphere was practical poli­ tics. That the higher-law doctrine should be carried to its legitimate result was far from his desire; bat we shall see how this maxim became a distinction of the radicals, who accordingly looked to Seward as their leader. These four speeches are but a fraction of the congressional utterances on the question superseding all others; but they present the case in its different aspects forcibly and plainly. The four bulky volumes of the Congressional Globe contain­ ing the records of the session are for the most part a report of speeches on the subject of slavery, and an account of the various parliamentary procedures which took place before arriving at the settlement. We have heard from four men —a Southern Whig and a N orthern Whig in favor of the compromise, a Southern Democrat and an anti-slavery W hig opposed to it. The Southerners, however, who afterwards were proud to own themselves Calhoun’s disciples, had no idea of resting their case on his demand for a constitutional amendment that should maintain an equilibrium. Jeffer­ son Davis, who aspired to succeed Calhoun as a leader, gave an exposition of what they actually desired. Out of respect for Calhoun, he admitted that the amendment might event­ ually become necessary; but, in common with nearly every one of his fellow-extremists, he knew that it was a chimer­ ical idea and an impossible demand. I t was a good enough argument to keep in the background; it had a possibility of future value, for it m ight serve as one of the pre­ texts for secession. But now it must make place for a tan­ gible claim, and one th at the average Southern mind could comprehend. Davis was quite ready to state what would satisfy the South. W hat he preferred, before all, was non­ intervention—“ that is, an equal right to go into all territo­ ries—all property being alike p r o t e c t e d b u t , in default of this, “ I will agree to the drawing of the line of 36° 30' through the territories acquired from Mexico, with the con­ dition that in the same degree as slavery is prohibited north of that line, it shall be permitted to enter south of the lin e;

170

TAYLOR'S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

and bnclder.’ ” Foote continued in an exasperating manner, ridiculed the notion of Benton posing as “ the special friend of California,” and insinuated that his zeal for the State was not from “ high public reasons,” but from “ certain personal and domestic considerations.” 1 Benton retorted th at he be­ lieved personalities were forbidden by the laws of the Sen­ ate. “ And now, sir,” he said, “ I will tell you w hat I know. I know that the attacks made upon my motives to-day, and heretofore in this chamber, are false and cowardly.” The rejoinder of Foote was not less cutting than his former re­ marks. It greatly irritated Benton, who exclaimed, “ I pro­ nounce it cowardly to give insults where they cannot be chastised. Can I take a cudgel to him here ?” Calls to or­ der by the vice-president and several senators, with mollify­ ing remarks by others, terminated the incident for the day.3 On the morrow, Benton, in a personal explanation, declared his determination, if the Senate did not protect him from insult, thereafter to redress the wrong himself, cost what it might. For some time afterwards the rancor between the two gentlemen did not have a public manifestation. But on the 17th of April, when Foote was pressing his motion for the reference of Clay’s resolutions and other cognate mat­ ter to a select committee of thirteen, the pent-up enmity broke forth. Benton made the charge th at the whole ex­ citement under which the country had labored was due to the address of the Southern members of Congress,3and that “ there has been a cry of wolf when there was no w olf; that the country has been alarmed without reason and against reason.” Foote, in reply, defended the signers of the South­ ern address, said their action was “ worthy of the highest' laudation,” and that they would be held in “ veneration when their calumniators, no m atter who they mav be, will be ob­ jects of general loathing and contempt.” When the word 1 Frem ont, one o f th e senators-elect from California, w as th e son-in-law o f Benton. 5 T his w as March 26th. 8 See p. 101.

172

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

free S tates; King, Mason, Downs, Democrats, and Mangum, Bell, and Berrien, Whigs, from the slave States. Nothing demonstrated more clearly th at the question was not a par­ tisan one than the constitution of this committee. There were thirty-four Democrats and twenty-four Whigs in the Senate, yet the Whigs were given a majority of this com­ mittee. The division was not on party, but on sectional lines. I t had been tacitly understood th at there should be six members from the free and six from the slave States, and it was eminently proper that the thirteenth man should be the Nestor of the Senate, as Clay was called. The senators chosen were able, experienced, and moderate m e n ; among them there was only one advocate of the Wilmot proviso, Phelps, of Vermont, and but one Southern extremist, Ma­ son, of Virginia. The committee reported on the 8th of M ay; their recommendations and views were thus recapitu­ lated : 1. The admission of any new State or States formed out of Texas to be postponed until they shall hereafter present themselves to be received into the Union, when it will be the duty of Congress fairly and faithfully to execute the com­ pact with Texas by admitting such new State or States. 2. The admission forthwith of California into the Union, Avith the boundaries she had proposed. 3. The establishment of territorial governments, without the Wilmot proviso, for New Mexico and U ta h ; embracing all the territory recently acquired by the United States from Mexico not contained in the boundaries of California. 4. The combination of these two last-mentioned measures in the same bill. 5. The establishment of the western and northern bound­ ary of Texas, and the exclusion from her jurisdiction of all New Mexico, with the grant to Texas of a pecuniary equiva­ lent; and the section for that purpose to be incorporated in the bill adm itting California and establishing territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico. 6. More effectual enactment of law to secure the prompt

174

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

f 1850

the Whigs in the South were either opposed to it, or were silent on the subject. The supporters of the project were mainly Democrats; but in many of the States, after the in­ troduction of the compromise resolutions, they joined in the opposition. I t was patent, however, from Webster’s allusion to it in his Tth-of-March speech, that the proposed con­ vention attracted attention at Washington as a disunion move. He intimated th at if any persons should meet at Nashville “ for the purpose of concerting measures for the overthrow of this Union over the bones of Andrew Jack­ son,” the old hero “ would turn in his coffin.” By the latter part of March the feeling in favor of the convention had largely subsided, as shown by the fact that, out of sixty newspapers published in ten slave-holding States, from Ma­ ryland to Louisiana, there were not more than fifteen that gave it a decided support.1 In fact, there was little enthu­ siasm for it outside of South Carolina and Mississippi. The convention met on the 3d of Ju n e; nine States were rep­ resented. There were six delegates from Virginia, seven­ teen from South Carolina, twelve from Georgia, twenty-one from Alabama, eleven from Mississippi, one from Texas, two from Arkansas, six from Florida, and a large number from Tennessee;3 but the credentials of the delegates from most of the States were not of a character to give great weight to the proceedings of the convention. The important proposi­ tion in its address was the demand for a division of the ter­ ritory acquired from Mexico by the parallel of 36° 30', with a right to carry slaves below that line. This was called “ an extreme concession on the part of the S outh;” and if the convention represented the Southern people, it was virtually their ultimatum. But this assemblage was not a wave, but only a ripple, of Southern sentiment. I t deserves a men­ tion here more from the hopes and fears it had excited than from its active or enduring effects. 1 W ilm ington , N . C., Chronicle. C ited in B oston A dvertiser, March 23d. 2 N ation al Intelligencer, June 8th.

176

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

exposed to the sun, and to quench his raging thirst drank a large quantity of iced water. Returning to the house, he ate freely of cherries and wild fruits, and took copious draughts of iced milk. An hour after dinner he was seized with cramps, which took the form of violent cholera morbus. The usual remedies were applied, but the illness increased, until by midnight serious results were threatened. The pa­ tient continued in this condition until Saturday, the 6th, when it was deemed best to call in counsel; two other phy­ sicians were sent for, and Dr. Wood, his son-in-law, was sum­ moned from Baltimore. By Monday the skill of his doctors had checked the visible stages of cholera morbus, but typhoid fever set in, and there were signs of mental distress. He said to his medical atten d an t: “ I should not be surprised if this were to terminate in my death. I did not expect to en­ counter what has beset me since my elevation to the presi­ dency. God knows that I have endeavored to fulfil what I conceived to be my honest duty. But I have been mistaken. My motives have been misconstrued, and my feelings most grossly outraged.” He was undoubtedly brooding over an interview between himself and Stephens and Toombs, which occurred on the second day of his illness.’ I t was reported that they had called upon him as representatives of a cabal of ultra Southern Whigs to protest against his course on the slavery question, and it was said th at they warned him, un­ less his policy were changed, they would vote a resolution of censure on his conduct in the Galphin business.2 This day, Monday, the 8th, the physicians and family became much alarm ed; by evening hope was abandoned. That night and the next morning all was gloom at the executive mansion; bulletins were issued every hour, which crowds anxiously awaited with tearful sympathy for the illustrious hero in his last fight. A t ten o’clock Tuesday morning a rumor was started that the President had rallied; at one in the after­ 1 See Life o f Joh n A. Quitman, Claiborne, vol. ii. p. 32. * W hat the G alphin business w as w ill be later on explained.

H 8

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

reason to feel th at the succession of Fillmore boded ill to their scheme.* Millard Fillmore was a self-educated, self-made man, and a safe though not brilliant lawyer. He early entered into politics, became a sturdy Whig, and served several terms in the House of Representatives, where he was marked for his industry, his anti-slavery views, and his support of John Quincy Adams in the fight for the right of petition. When he took the oath of office as Vice-President, the difference between him and Seward was apparently not one of prin­ ciple, but one centring on the disposition of the offices. There was a lack of harmony between the two divisions of the party, beginning soon after the inauguration of General Taylor, but Seward acquired the ascendant, and his influence w ith the administration, as we have seen, became powerful.’ Fillmore was distinguished for his suavity of manners. He had presided over the Senate during the heated debates on the compromise measures with impartiality and dignity. His idea of the decorum proper for the presiding officer of the Senate was so high that he had confided to only one person his own view of the question which agitated Con­ gress. The debate had stirred the conservative feelings of his nature, and he had told the President privately th a t in case there should be a tie in the Senate, and it should de­ volve upon him to give the casting vote, his decision would be in favor of the scheme devised by Clay. While there was uncertainty about the policy of the new President,3Webster felt confident th at it would promote the scheme of the com­ mittee of thirteen. He w rites: “ I believe Mr. Fillmore fa­ vors the compromise, and there is no doubt th at recent

1 T h is account o f the illness and death o f President T aylor is m ade up from detailed reports at th e tim e to th e P hilad elph ia B u lle tin and N e w Y ork In dependent; from references to th e illn ess in C ongress; from allu­ sions to h is death by P resident F illm ore, a nd in the eu logies delivered in th e Senate and th e House. 2 See p. 102. 8 Life o f H orace Mann, p. 307.

180

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

ever practicable Seward men were removed and their places filled with conservative Whigs. In the meantime, a few men at Santa F6, with an eye to their own advantage, had taken steps towards the formation of a State government for New Mexico. This move was sug­ gested by the acting military governor of the territory, be­ ing in accordance with advice from General Taylor’s Secre­ tary of War. The governor called a convention, which as­ sembled May 15th, and in ten days framed a constitution for the State of New Mexico. This constitution prohibited slav­ ery; it was adopted by the people in June, the vote being 8371 for and 39 against ratification. A governor, legisla­ ture and a congressman were chosen, and in July the Legis­ lature assembled and elected senators. Before the question of the admission of New Mexico as a State could be formally brought before Congress, a territorial government had been established, and the m atter of conferring statehood on her was not considered. The project could not have received warm support, for the population was of far different char­ acter from that of California. While there were one hun­ dred thousand souls in the territory, two-fifths were Indians, three or four thousand were proud to call themselves Castil­ ians; fifteen hundred were emigrants from the United States, and the remainder were Mexicans—th at is, of the Spanish-Indian mixed race.1 To the sprinkling of Americans was due the political organization. “ Their superior intelligence and energy,” said John Bell in the Senate, “ will exercise a con­ trolling influence over the more passive and tractable Mexi­ cans and Indians.” They had, indeed, formed a carpet-bag­ ger government on a magnificent scale; and, as Clay said when it was foreshadowed that New Mexico might apply for admission as a State, “ I t would be ridiculous, it would be farcical [to admit her] ; it would bring into contempt the grave m atter of forming commonwealths as sovereign mem1 T h e population o f tlie territory, exclusive o f Indians, according to the census o f 1850, w a s : w h ite, 61,525; free colored, 2 2 ; slaves, none.

1S2

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

ern "Whigs, four Southern Whigs, and Chase, Hale, Ben­ ton, and Houston of Texas. The nays were all from the slave States, and all Democrats but three. The next day ten Southern senators, among whom were Jefferson Davis, Atchison, and Mason, presented a solemn protest against the action of the Senate in admitting California.* On the 15th of August the measure establishing a territorial government, without the Wilmot proviso, for New Mexico was passed. The vote was a light one, 27 to 10; the nays were all from the North. On August 23d the Fugitive Slave law was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, which was equivalent to its passage, by a vote of 27 to 12. The nays were eight Northern Whigs, among them W inthrop (the successor of Webster), three Northern Democrats, and Chase; there were fifteen N orthern senators who did not vote. The last of the series of the compromise measures, the abolition of the slave-trade in the District of Columbia, passed Sep­ tember 16th by 33 to 19; the nays were thirteen Southern Democrats and six Southern Whigs. The different acts embraced in the compromise were dis­ posed of more summarily in the House. The Texas Boun­ dary bill, to which was added the New Mexico Territorial bill, was passed September 6th by 108 to 97. The division was on practically the same lines as in the Senate on the Texan a c t; as, for example, every member from South Carolina and Mississippi, all Democrats, voted against i t ; and on the same side were Giddings, Horace Mann, Julian, and Thaddeus Stevens. The California Admission bill went through the next day by 150 to 56. All the nays were from the slave States, and among them were two prominent Whigs, Clingman and Toombs, who had, however, but seven party asso­ ciates. Two days later the House agreed to the Senate U tah bill. On September 12th, the Fugitive Slave law was 1 T his w as sign ed by th e tw o Senators from V irginia, South Carolina, and F lorida, and by one each from Tennessee, Louisiana, M ississippi, aud M issouri— nine D em ocrats aud one W h ig.

18 4

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

as he had paired with his colleague Seward, whose state of health had made an absence from Washington neces­ sary. The influence of the administration was powerfully felt in bringing about the result. “ Here,” writes Horace Mann, “ are twenty, perhaps thirty, men from the North in this House, who, before General Taylor’s death, would have sworn, like St. Paul, not to eat nor drink until they had voted the pro­ viso, who now, in the face of the world, turn about, defy the instructions of their States, take back their own declarations, a thousand times uttered, and vote against it.” 1 Webster was as active in his support of the compromise as when in the Senate, and his private letters at this time testify how much his heart was bound up in the success of the scheme he had advocated at so great a cost. When the affair was practically concluded, he writes: “ I confess I feel relieved. Since the 7th of March, there has not been an hour in which I have not felt a ‘ crushing’ weight of anxiety and respon­ sibility. . . . I t is over. My part is acted, and I am satis­ fied.” 2 The success of the compromise measures was due to their almost unvarying support by the N orthern Democrats and Southern Whigs, although in the House many Northern Whigs, owing to the influence of Webster, gave strong aid to all the articles except the Fugitive Slave law. In the Senate, while the conservative Northern Whigs supported the Texas Boundary bill, they did not vote for the territorial acts and the Fugitive Slave bill. The whole strength of the N orth was exerted for the admission of California and the abolition of the slave-trade in the District of Columbia; that of the South in favor of the more effectual act for the rendi­ tion of runaway slaves. The Southern ultras, with the ex­ ception of Jefferson Davis, voted for the territorial bills. The vote on the compromise measures portended a disso1 L etter o f Sept. 6th, Life o f Horace Mann, p. 322. a P rivate Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 385, Letter to H arvey, Sept. 10th.

186

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

citizens are hereby commanded to aid and assist in the prompt and efficient execution of this law, whenever their services may be required, as aforesaid, for th a t purpose.” If any person shall “ willingly hinder or prevent ” the claim­ ant from arresting the fugitive, or “ shall rescue or attempt to rescue, . . . or shall harbor or conceal ” the fugitive, such person is “ subject to a fine not exceeding one thousand dol­ lars or imprisonment not exceeding six m onths; . . . and shall, moreover, forfeit and pay by way of civil damages to the party injured by such illegal conduct the sum of one thou­ sand dollars for each fugitive so lost.” In case the commis­ sioner determined that the service of the negro was due the claimant, his fee was ten dollars, and one-half of that amount if the alleged fugitive was discharged. The mere statement of the provisions of this law is its condemnation. I t was a maxim among Eoman lawyers that if a question arose about the civil status of an individual, he was presumed to be free until proved to be a slave.1 The burden of proof lay on the master, the benefit of the doubt was on the side of the weaker party. Under this act of ours, the negro had no chance : the meshes of the law were artfully contrived to aid the master and entrap the slave. I t seems amazing th at recent legislation in Christian Amer­ ica on this vital point went backward from pagan Home, and it is almost impossible to portray the spirit of the time in a manner that shall enable us to make allowance for the men who passed this act. The Northern men who support­ ed the law or dodged the vote went counter to public senti­ ment at the North, wrhicli was decidedly against such a measure. Nor was it indispensable to prevent disunion. The cotton States might rally for an overt act of secession in case the Wilmot proviso were passed, or if slavery were abol­ ished in the district; but they would not on the fugitive slave question. Indeed, when the law passed the Senate it 1 L eck y’s H istory o f Morals, vol. i. p. 313; W ebster’s W orks, vol. v. p. 309.

188

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

and South Carolina, States which very rarely lost a slave, demanded a stricter law than Kentucky, which lost many.* A fter the act was passed Senator Butler, of South Carolina, said: “ I would just as soon have the law of 1793 as the present law, for any purpose, so far as regards the reclama­ tion of fugitive slaves;” and another Southern ultra never thought it would be productive of much good to his sec­ tion.2 Six months after the passage of the law, Seward ex­ presses the matured opinion “ that political ends— merely political ends—and not real evils, resulting from the escape of slaves, constituted the prevailing motives to the enact­ ment.” s The admission of California was a bitter pill for the Southern ultras, but they were forced to take it. The Fugitive Slave law was a taunt and reproach to th at part of the N orth where the anti-slavery sentiment ruled su­ premely, and was deemed a partial compensation. President Fillmore’s notoriety of later years came for the most part from his writing “ Approved Sept. 18th, 1850,” under the Fugitive Slave law. This infamous act has blight­ ed the reputation of every one who had any connection with it, and he has suffered with the re s t; yet it appears to me unjustly. I t would have been a rash move on the part of the President to unsettle by his veto a question which had so long distracted the country, and which Con­ gress had apparently composed, unless he could do so on constitutional grounds. Before signing the law, he request­ ed the opinion of his Attorney-General on its constitution­ a lity : this Crittenden affirmed in positive terms.* Webster, his Secretary of State, and the ablest lawyer in the country, likewise believed the law constitutional.5 I t is, therefore, 1 Rem arks in Senate, May 13th and 21st. J In Senate, F eb . 22d, 1851. “ W e have no faith in th is F u g itiv e Slave b ill.”— B e Bow's Review, N ov., 1850. 3 L etter to a M assachusetts convention opposed to the F u g itiv e Slave law, A pril 5th, 1851, W orks, vol. iii. p. 446. 4 F or th is opinion, see Life o f C rittenden, Coleman, vol. i. p. 377. 5 P rivate Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 402.

190

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

dent Taylor, and this left the Texas boundary question un­ settled. In case Texas should endeavor to assert her claim by force of arms, General Taylor determined to resist with Federal troops any invasion into New Mexico, and he doubt­ ed not that he would be successful. His military confidence was, indeed, well founded; but danger existed th at in case blood were shed, the South would take sides w ith Texas. “ The cause of Texas in such a conflict will be the cause of the entire South,” wrote Alexander II. Stephens,1 and he expressed the almost unanimous feeling of the cotton States. Overt secession, immediate disunion, were not the dangers that Clay and W ebster most feared. Both of them pro­ claimed where they would be found in any such event. Clay said in the Senate: “ I should deplore, as much as any man living or dead, th at arms should be raised against the authority of the Union either by individuals or by States. B u t. . . if any one State, or the portion of the people of any State, choose to place themselves in military array against the government of the Union, I am for trying the strength of the government. I am for ascertaining whether we have got a government or not. . . . Nor, sir, am I to be alarmed or dissuaded from any such course by intimations of the spilling of blood.” '1 The cabinet circular, written by Web­ ster in October, which he wanted sent to every official of the United States, shows clearly that he was ready to resist w ith the Avhole power of the government any overt act on the part of the S o u th ;3 and the following June he said to a Virginian audience: “ But one thing, gentlemen, be as­ sured of, the first step taken in the programme of seces-

1 To the editor o f th e N ational Intelligencer, Ju ly 4th. 2 Rem arks in the Senate, A ug. 1st. 3 T h is paper w as objected to by th e cabinet, for p o litica l reasons, and w as n ot used. I t was n ot printed till 1882. L odge, p. 331; W ebster Cen­ tennial volum e, Oct. 12th, 1882. I am in d eb ted for th is latter reference to Mr. L odge.

192

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

pose by any means an attempt to force through the Cali­ fornia bill without a settlement of the other matters in dispute; and the leaders trumped up plausible reasons for those who needed them. Unless I greatly deceive myself, these two considerations, with what has been previously urged, are sufficient to justify the compromise devised by Clay and supported by Webster.1 No one can read care­ fully the debates in which these two men took part, at the same time illuminating their public utterances by the light of their private letters, without arriving at the conclusion that the mainspring of their action was unselfish devotion to what they believed the good of their country. But their course brought censure on them both, for, in the opinion of their respective sections, Clay yielded too much to the North, and Webster too much to the South. The senator from Kentucky was abused by the South, the senator from Massachusetts condemned by the North. Clay, being a con­ summate party leader, finally rallied to his support most of the Southern W higs; Webster, lacking that art, and having to deal with a greater independence of sentiment, never won the thinkers and persuaders of the Northern Whig party to his side. In awarding this praise to the two great Unionists, does it follow th a t the muse of history must condemn the anti­ slavery Whigs and Free-soilers who opposed the compro­ mise ? By no means. I t is true that had these men co-ope­ rated with the compromisers, the scheme as finally enacted might have been more favorable to the North, and it is certain that the Fugitive Slave law could have been modi­ fied or defeated. The parting of the ways was at the Wilmot proviso. The same information which Webster and Clay had in regard to the territories was open to Seward, Chase, and their coadjutors. They must have known that 1 Clay is not responsible for th e actual F u g itiv e Slave law. T h e b ill reported from th e com m ittee o f thirteen w as a m ilder measure. A s I have before stated, he was n o t in the Senate w hen th e law w as passed.

194

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

11850

ties and more intimate social and political intercourse. The Northwest was in sentiment as well as in population a far stronger tower in 1860 than it would have been ten years earlier.1 The Northwestern States in 1850 were Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Io w a; their ten senators, and all their representatives in Congress but four, were Democrats. Considering that the slavery question in 1850 was not a party one, this is not a fact of the greatest mo­ ment, but from the subsequent political leaning of these States it is one of interest. The response of the N orth to the action of Congress was on the whole favorable. The question had been a disquiet­ ing one for two years, and the settlement caused a marked feeling of relief. In the United States an accomplished fact, a decision of the majority, has wonderful pow er; and many who objected to the compromise before its enactment became its firm friends after it was engrossed in the statutebook. Business interests and men had, in the main, favored the proposed adjustment, and were well satisfied with the conclusion of the matter, for trade loves political repose. The iron manufacturers of Pennsylvania, the cotton and woollen manufacturers of New England, had an additional reason of satisfaction. They were especially glad to see the slavery question disposed of, for now they thought Con­ gress could turn its attention to raising the duties fixed by the tariff of 1846. They had no hope of accomplishing anything at this session, for it had already continued longer than any previous sittin g ; but they thought the field was clear for action when Congress should next assemble. The people testified in the usual way their sanction of the work of their representatives. Boston seemed espe­ cially enthusiastic. A national salute of one hundred guns was fired on the Common “ as a testimonial of joy on the part of the citizens of Boston, of both political parties, at 1 T his idea w as su ggested to me by Jam es W . Bradbury, a senator from M aine in 1850, and an influential supporter o f the compromise.

196

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

"When it was known, fckat the compromise would certain­ ly be adopted, the National Intelligencer remarked th at it could fill a double sheet of forty-eight columns with ex­ tracts full of joy and gratulation from the Southern and Western papers alone at the success of the measure.’ The States of Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri were thoroughly satisfied. The Georgia convention was held in December. It was a representative b o d y ; over 71,000, or three-quarters of the voters of the State, had taken part in the election of delegates.3 While it did not wholly approve of the compromise, it would abide by it as a “ permanent adjustment of the sectional controversy.” The fifth reso­ lution stated, “ That it is the deliberate opinion of this con­ vention that upon the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave bill by the proper authorities depends the preserva­ tion of our much-loved Union.” 3 New Orleans held an enthusiastic Union meeting. In fact, the people of the South, outside of South Carolina and Mississippi, were gen­ erally satisfied with the result, and even in Mississippi a strong Union feeling existed. An adjourned meeting of the Nashville Convention was held in November; the attend­ ance was small, and the proceedings attracted little atten­ tion. The convention complained of the failure to extend the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific, of the admis­ sion of California, of the organization of the territories without protection to property of the South, of the dismem­ berment of Texas, and of the abolition of the slave-trade in the District of Columbia; it asserted the right of seces­ sion,4 but these declarations had little responsive echo beyond South Carolina and Mississippi. A large number of active and influential people at the jNorth, however, totally condemned the Fugitive Slave law. An immense Free-soil meeting at Lowell, Mass., a gathering of all parties in Syracuse, N. Y., an indignation meeting at 1 Sept. 17 th. 3 Boston A tlas, D ec. 17th.

11 N ation al Intelligencer, D ec. 14th. 4 N ational Intelligencer, N ov. 26tli.

198

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

any individual arm,which I invoke; I mean th at irresistible public opinion inspired by love of God and man, which, with­ out violence or noise, gently as the operations of nature, makes and unmakes laws. Let this public opinion be felt in its might, and the Fugitive Slave bill will become every­ where among us a dead letter.” 1 A very potent influence on political sentiment now began to be exerted on the anti-slavery side. Preachers in their pulpits, in meetings, in conference, in synod, pronounced against the Fugitive Slave act as being in conflict with the law of God.2 The great majority of the Protestant clergy of the N orth unquestionably sympathized with this senti­ ment. The working of this act was in one respect especially iniquitous. Applied to fugitive slaves, no m atter when they had escaped, it was an ex post facto law : it thus brought un­ der its provisions negroes who had been living in peace and quiet for many years at the North. There was no statute of limitations for the escaped bondman. All over the North, immediately on the passage of the act, these negroes took alarm, and thousands fled to Canada, abandoning their homes and forsaking situations which gave them a livelihood.! There was so much excitement among the negro population of Boston that the Faneuil Hall meeting before referred to pledged their colored citizens their help, advised them to stay, and to have no fear of being taken back to bondage. 1 R ise and F a ll o f the Slave Pow er, vol. ii. p. 308. a Ib id ., p. 310. 3 Life o f W illiam L loyd Garrison, vol. iii. p. 302,

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION i

•' \

‘ ’ ’A " * ' '

[1850 "

‘ ’

were each endeavoring to get a grant from the government of Nicaragua for the purpose of constructing a ship-canal, the American company seeking the aid of their own govern­ ment. The commercial question was complicated by a dif­ ference between Nicaragua and the British government. Long before our Revolution, England had a settlement at Balize, in the Bay of Honduras, and assumed a protectorate over the Mosquito Indians who occupied a strip of the coast along the Caribbean Sea. I t was claimed by England that the port of San Juan fell within the limits of this protec­ torate, but this was denied by Nicaragua. In January, 1848, two British ships of war entered the San Ju an River, stormed the fort, and gained possession of the town. A t this time, owing to the efforts which were made by the rival American and English companies, a jealous feeling ex­ isted on the part of both of “ these great maritime powers,” each being “ desirous of obtaining some exclusive advantage to itself in reference to the opening of this route of interoceanic communication.” 1 I t was absolutely necessary that there should be an understanding between the United States and Great Britain, and a treaty was concluded April 19th be­ tween Clayton and Henry Lytton Bulwer, the British Min­ ister. The purpose of the convention was stated to be “ for fa­ cilitating and protecting the construction of a ship-canal be­ tween the Atlantic and Pacific oceans ” by the Nicaragua route. Both governments pledged themselves never to ob­ tain exclusive control over said canal; never to erect fortifi­ cations commanding the sam e; and not to colonize, or as­ sume or exercise any dominion over, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast or any part of Central America. They agree to protect the company th at shall undertake the work, and they will exert the influence which they possess with the Central American governments to facilitate its construc­ tion. The United States and Great Britain will guarantee 1 The words o f Edw ard Everett, Senate, March S lst, 1853.

202

States and England drew a different meaning from several of the articles. Less than three years after its conclusion its provisions were severely criticised in the Senate ; and under the Pierce and Buchanan administrations it became a subject of controversy with England. Although, after this, the question slept for a long time, it was revived by the dis­ cussion which grew out of the undertaking of the French company to construct a canal across the Isthmus of Panama, and the policy of our government in making such a treaty was then much questioned.1 The Galphin affair has been referred to,2 and it is now time to give an account of it. The Galphin claim dated back to a time before the Revolutionary W ar, and was originally on the colony and State of Georgia. George W. Crawford, the Secretary of W ar under President Taylor, became in 1835 attorney for the claimants, with a contingent fee of one-half of the claim, and he urged it before the Georgia legislature without success. I t afterwards appears as a claim on the United States. On what ground it was turned over to the general government is irrelevant to my narrative; but in the hot August days towards the end of the Congressional session of 1848 it was carried through the House during an 1 Treaties and C onventions, Ilasw ell, p. 440; International L aw D igest, W harton, §150 f. See th e debate in the Senate, Jan. and March, 1853, especially th e speeches o f Seward, Clayton, and Everett, d efen d in g the treaty; the speech o f D ouglas, criticising it; and the rem arks o f Cass, censuring Clayton severely for h is “ unprecedented error” in com in g to an understanding w ith Bulwer, w h ich changed th e construction and “ vital p o in t” o f the treaty w ith ou t the k n ow led ge o f th e Senate. Con­ gressional Globe, vols. xxvi. and x xvii.; Seward’s W orks, vol. i. p. 376. See also article “ B ritish H onduras,” Encyclopaedia Britannica. F or th e am ­ b ig u ity in the construction o f the treaty, see Curtis’s L ife o f W ebster, vol. ii., and L ife o f Buchanan, by same author; also article “ Treaties,” in Lalor’s Cyclopaedia o f P o litica l Science, by J. Bancroft D a v is ; and d ip lo ­ m atic correspondence betw een Secretary B laine and Lord G ranville in 1881, and betw een Secretary F relin gliuysen and G ranville in 1882 and 1883. 8 See p. 176.

204

TAYLOR’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

ing inconsistent between his cabinet position and his share in the claim. Crawford testified th at he had never told the Secretary of the Treasury or the Attorney-General of his connection with the business, but that he had urged them to make a prompt disposition of the case. Meredith and John­ son 1 denied th at they had any knowledge of Crawford’s interest, which demonstrates th a t their examination of the papers on file was cursory, since these plainly showed that he was acting In the affair. Even from such a brief relation, it will be seen that this was an administration scandal of no mean proportions. It would have attracted much greater attention had the slavery question not so absorbed Congress, but, nevertheless, the relation of the cabinet ministers to the affair was a subject of severe animadversion in the House. On the day of General Taylor’s death this body was con­ sidering a resolution which disapproved of and dissented from the opinion of the Attorney-General and the action of the Secretary of the Treasury, reflected severely on the re­ lation of the Secretary of W ar to the m atter as being an improper and dangerous precedent, and implied a censure of the President for the opinion he had given Craw ford; but during the discussion the House received the news th at the condition of the President was so critical that he could not survive an hour, and it therefore adjourned. A fter his death and the appointment of a new cabinet, the subject ceased to attract attention. The affair, however, was the greatest trouble General Taylor had during his short term of office. I t was charged in the House that Crawford had plundered the public treasury, and that the President and other members of the cabinet had “ connived at and sanc­ tioned the enormous allowance.” General Taylor, in money affairs, was strictly h o nest;2 in fact, he was very sensitive on that point, and it is not to be wondered at th a t his death­ bed was disturbed by reflections on the indiscretion or dis1 T h e Secretary o f the Treasury and th e Attorney-G eneral. * Scott’s A utobiography, vol. ii. p. 390.

206

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1850

in those great ideas of responsible and popular governments on which the American constitutions themselves are wholly founded, they could not but command the warm sympathy of the people of this country. . . . The power of this repub­ lic, at the present moment, is spread over a region, one of the richest and most fertile on the globe, and of an extent in comparison with which the possessions of the House of Hapsburg are but as a patch on the earth’s surface.” Then follow well-chosen words depicting our present and increas­ ing population, our navigation and commerce, our protec­ tion to life, liberty, property, and personal rights. “ Never­ theless, the United States have abstained, at all times, from acts of interference with the political changes of Europe. They cannot, however, fail to cherish always a lively inter­ est in the fortunes of nations struggling for institutions like their own.” The style, while not of the “ spread-eagle” character, approaches it as closely as dignity and good taste would allow. Webster himself thought the letter “ boastful and rough,” but one of his excuses was that he wished to “ touch the national pride and make a man feel sheepish and look silly who should speak of disunion.” 1 The letter was received with great enthusiasm in the Senate, the sen­ timents being cordially endorsed by both parties; and al­ though hardly more than a stump-speech under diplomatic guise, it received commendation among liberal circles in England.5 The President, in his message to Congress on their re­ assembling in December, praised highly the compromise. I t was, however, true that the beneficent purpose of this series of measures had not yet been wholly realized. “ I t would be strange,” he said, “ if they had been received w ith immedi­ ate approbation by people and States prejudiced and heated by the exciting controversies of their representatives. I be­ lieve those measures to have been required by the circum­ stances and condition of the country. . . . They were adopted 1 Curtis, vol. ii. p. 537.

0 Westminster Review, Jan., 1853.

E¥p \

208

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1851

name of a gentleman.” 1 Nothing better illustrates the dif­ ference between the position of the anti-slavery statesman and the agitator than certain corrections made by Sumner in an article on slavery written by Theodore Parker for the use of a Massachusetts legislative committee. The additions of Sumner are the words in brackets. “ We regard the Fugitive Slave law as morally [not legally, but morally] in­ valid aud void; and [though binding on the conduct] no more binding on the conscience of any man than a law would be which should command the people to enslave all the tall men or all the short men, and deliver them up on claims to be held in bondage forever.” 2 The Fugitive Slave law did not work as smoothly as its supporters wished; and while Clay maintained th at it had been executed in Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, in New York City, and, in fact, everywhere except in Boston, other sena­ tors from the South declared that its operation left much to be desired. N ot only had two runaway negroes been spirited away from Boston to England, but Mason, of Virginia, told of what happened to a neighbor who had pursued two slaves to Harrisburg, Pa., where he had had them arrested. The owner finally recovered his property. But it was only after a tedious delay of two months, during which time he and his 1 Life o f Emerson, Cabot, p. 578, Em erson’s address at Concord, May 8d, 1851. “ Cette lo i [th e F u g itiv e Slave law ] est on ce m om ent la pierre d ’achoppem ent contre laquelle le compromu est toujours prfes de se briser.”— Prom enade en AtnGrique, AmpiSre, tom e i. p. 408. 2 The b ook referred to, c ontaining th is essay, w as Parker’s ow n, and is in th e B oston P u b lic Library. In Parker’s ow n pen cil han d w ritin g on th e m argin I fin d : “ these in [ ] add ed by Sum ner.” T he article was w ritten March, 1851. I take th is opportunity o f saying th at in th e prep­ aration o f th is w ork I have used freely th e Boston P u b lic Library, the Athenaeum, the C ollege Library o f Harvard U niversity, th e A stor Library o f N e w Y ork, the Congressional Library o f W ash in gton, th e Case and P u b lic Libraries and th e library o f th e H istorical Society o f Cleveland. I desire to recognize th e in tellig en t aid o f Mr. Brett, the librarian o f the P u b lic Library o f C leveland, aud to acknow ledge m y indebtedness to Mr. Frederic Bancroft, the librarian o f the D epartm ent o f State.

210

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1851

to the custody of the deputy marshal, he was detained in the United States court-room in the court-house, situated in the heart of the city. A mob of colored men broke into the room, took off the alleged fugitive, who soon got to Canada, beyond the clutches of the United States law, and, owing to the time-honored decision of Lord Mansfield, be­ came a freeman. W hen Theodore Parker heard of the arrest he went immediately down to Court Square, intend­ ing to help in the rescue, but the act had been accomplished before he arrived. He writes in his journal: “ This Shadrach is delivered out of his burning, fiery furnace without the smell of fire on his garments. . . . I think it is the most noble deed done in Boston since the destruction of the tea in 1773.’’ This rescue created a great deal of excitement, and nowhere more than among the law-givers at Washing­ ton. The President immediately issued a proclamation which appealed in the usual terms to all good citizens, com­ manding all civil and military officers to assist in putting down any combinations whose purpose was to resist the law, and to aid in the arrest of those who had set the law at de­ fiance. No practical result came from the energetic action, of the administration. Five of the rescuers were indicted and tried, but, as the jury could not agree, they were not con­ victed. The incident demonstrated that in Massachusetts the Fugitive Slave law would only be enforced with difficulty. Undoubtedly the vast majority of the citizens of Boston had a passive, if not an active, sympathy with the officers of the government; but every one well understood th at back of this negro mob which rescued Shadrach was a vigilance committee composed of men of influence and good position. This committee had an efficient organization, and aimed to prevent the arrest of fugitives, or, when they were seized, to give them legal aid and interpose every lawful obstacle to their rendition.1 1 T h is account I have m ade up from th e debate in the Senate on the subject in F eb .,1851; from the Life o f W ebster, by C u rtis; R ise and F a ll o f

212

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1831

them. “ But then there is a melancholy propriety in this,” he said; “ when the court-house is in chains, Faneuil Hall may well be dumb.” Among the speakers were Henry Wil­ son and Thomas W. Higginson, and William Lloyd Garrison addressed another assemblage. The burden of all these meetings was a protest against the Fugitive Slave law and severe denunciation of all who were concerned in the arrest PR O C L A M A T IO N !! TO A LL

THE GOOD PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS! Be it kn ow n that there are now T O R E E S L A V E -IIU N T E R S OR K ID N A P P E R S IN BOSTON

L ookin g for their prey.

One o f them is called

“DAVIS.” H e is an unusually ill-lo o k in g fellow , about five feet e ig h t inch es h ig li, w ide-shouldered. H e has a b ig m outh, black hair, and a g o o d deal o f dirty bushy hair on th e low er part o f his face. H e has a Rom an n o s e ; one o f his eyes has been k n ock ed out. H e look s lik e a Pirate, and k n ow s h ow to be a Stealer o f Men. The n e x t is called EDWARD

BARRETT.

H e is about five feet six inches h igh , th in and lank, is apparently about thirty years old. H is nose turns up a little . H e has a lon g m outh, lo n g th in ears, and dark eyes. H is hair is dark, and h e has a bunch o f fur on h is chin. H e had on a blue frock-coat, w ith a velvet collar, m ixed pants, and a figured vest. H e wears his shirt collar turned dow n, and has a black string— not o f hem p— about h is neck. T h e third ruffian is nam ed R O B E R T M. B A C O N , alias J O H N D . B A C O N . H e is about fifty years old, five feet and a h a lf h ig h . H e has a red, intem perate-look in g face, and a retreating forehead. H is hair is dark, and a little gray. H e wears a black coat, m ixed pants, and a purplish vest. H e look s sleepy, and y e t m alicious. G iven at Boston, th is 4th day o f April, in th e year o f our Lord, 1851, and o f the Independence o f th e U n ited States th e fifty-fourth.* God save the Commonwealth o f M assachusetts!

214

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1851

sion that four per cent, premium might have been obtained from the Rothschilds, so th at the government had not done as well by about $30,000 as it might have done. This gave Allen an opportunity to object decidedly to the Secretary of State having anything to do with the pecuniary concerns of the government, because he held his place “ less as a servant and stipendiary of the government than a servant and sti­ pendiary of bankers and brokers.” Allen said there was undoubted authority for the statement that when the Presi­ dent offered Webster the position of Secretary of State he wrote to Boston to know what would be done for him in a financial way. An arrangement had then been made with the bankers and brokers of Boston and New York by which $25,000 should be raised for him in each city as a compensa­ tion for taking the position in the cabinet; that the amount was collected in New York, but that it fell somewhat short iu Boston, for “ gentlemen in Boston had bled so freely on former occasions of a similar character th at it was difficult to raise the full amount.” In fact, Allen continued, our Sec­ retary of State was the pensioner of Wall Street and State Street, and this lucrative contract with these bankers gave them a chance to recoup themselves at the government’s cost. This charge was baseless, and it was felt on all sides of the House to be a shameful one. Although neither Web­ ster himself nor his friends interposed any obstacle to a full inquiry into the matter, the House, by the overwhelming vote of 119 to 35, refused to consider a resolution providing for the appointment of a committee of investigation, and passed the appropriation, which, however, for want of time, failed in the Senate. A t the next session all amendments putting any limitations on the administration as to the man­ ner of payment were rejected, and the appropriation pure and simple passed both Houses. This completely vindicated Webster. The bit of truth in the scandal was the fact that, some weeks after he had taken the position of Secretary of State, a gift of money for the extraordinary expenses of his table was presented him by some men from Boston; but

21 6

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1851

countries it has become a governmental axiom that the in­ crease in the revenue of the post-office department and the decline of rates of postage is a true mark of growth in civ­ ilization. The Congress which adjourned March 3d, 1851, took a step in this direction. The rates of postage at the organization of the post-office department were, for a single letter (that is, a single piece of paper), from eight to twentyfive cents, according to the distance, with a minimum distance of forty miles and a maximum of five hundred. These charges had been twice reduced, and on the opening of this session of Congress the postage for a letter not exceeding one-half ounce in weight was five cents under three hundred miles; over three hundred miles, ten cents; and to the Pacific territories, via Panama, forty cents. The revenues of the Postmaster-General’s department exceeding the expenditures, he therefore recommended a reduction in the inland letter postage to three cents. The President concurred in this recommenda­ tion, and the subject was soon taken up by Congress. That body appreciated that the rapid extension of steam trans­ portation for the past two years, with the abundant prom­ ise of further progress in th at direction, was certain to result in a great reduction in the cost of the service. I t was stated during the discussion that, while ten cents was the postage on a letter from Detroit to Buffalo, a barrel of flour was carried between the two cities on the same conveyance for the same money.* The bill which passed Congress made the rate for a prepaid letter, not weighing over half an ounce, three cents for under three thousand m iles; six cents for over that distance. The most exciting event of the summer was the expedi­ tion to Cuba under the lead of Lopez. This adventurer had engaged, in two unsuccessful attempts to give freedom to his adopted country, and with dauntless spirit was ready to head another enterprise. He fell in with a clique of 1 T hat is, by steam boat. and D etroit.

There w as then no railroad betw een Buffalo

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1851

nize with the invaders; all the, officers of the Spanish navy in the West Indies were favorable to the patriotic cause. The landing of General Lopez and his followers would be the signal for a general uprising; an easy victory was as­ sured ; it would only remain for the Congress to dictate terms. Those who were so fortunate as to share in this expedition as officers would receive confiscated sugar-plantations, well furnished with slaves; even the common sol­ diers were each to get the sum of five thousand dollars. Sympathy for the acquisition of Cuba was very strong at the South, and the promoters played upon this feeling. It was thought by the least sanguine of them that if a fairly successful demonstration were made, public sentiment would be so aroused th at the United States would lend their as­ sistance, or at any rate would not interfere with additional expeditions; for the object of the patriots was to establish a republic, or annex Cuba to our country on favorable terms. The Secretary of State, however, appreciated fully what honest neutrality m ean t; and, as he had stated in the Sen­ ate the year previous,1 Spain had well-grounded reasons to count on our friendship, for we had at different times given her assurances that if she would abstain from the voluntary surrender of Cuba to a European power, “ she might be assured of the good offices and the good-will of the United States . . . to maintain her in possession of the island.” Nor did the President shrink from his duty. The invaders first purposed to start from Savannah, but this was prevented by the energetic action of the government. That the ship­ load of adventurers finally got away from New Orleans was not due to negligence at Washington, but to the dere­ liction in duty of the collector of the port from whence they set sail. On the early morning of August 3d, the steamer Pampero left New Orleans, with Lopez and nearly five hundred m e n ; they were mostly ill-informed youths, and the majority of them were American citizens. When the 1 May 21st, 1850.

220

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1851

to Spain, where it was understood they would, be put to work in the mines.1 In the meantime a crowd of adventurers had come to New Orleans and were anxiously awaiting news from Lopez; if the intelligence were favorable, another expedition would be fitted out, and this they intended to join. The Cuban question was the sole topic of discussion on the streets, in the cafes and bar-rooms, of this excitable Southern city, then at the zenith of its importance. Spurious despatches giving accounts of victories by Lopez appeared in the New Orleans Delta, whose editor was the chief promoter of the enterprise, and whose faith and money were alike engaged. There was enough opposition to the prevailing opinion to increase the earnestness with which the side of the filibusters was advocated. The newspaper La TJnion espoused w'ith vigor the Spanish cause, and vehemently denounced the Ameri­ cans. The excitement had risen to fever heat when the news arrived, on August 21st, of the shooting of Colonel Crittenden and fifty of his companions. I t was at the same time learned that many of the unhappy victims had written letters to their friends, leaving them in the care of the Cap­ tain-General, who had forwarded them by the secretary of the Spanish consul at New Orleans. The letters arrived on the same steamer that brought the woful intelligence; and it was reported that they were detained and had not been given up when asked for. This stirred up a mob to 1 My authorities, in ad d ition to w h at have been cited, for th is account are tw o letters o f Colonel C rittenden—-one to Dr. L ucien H ensley, th e other to his uncle, th e Attorney-General— both o f them w ritten ju st before he w as sh o t; a letter from P h ilip V an V ech ten , a lieutenan t under Lopez, w ho wTas pardon ed ; th e personal narrative o f C. N . H ow ell, w ho accom ­ panied the .ex p ed itio n ; Commander C. T. P la tt’s official despatch to the N avy D epartm ent from H avana, dated Sept. 1 st; M em orias sobre el E stad o P o litico , Gobierno y A d m in istration de la Isla de Cuba, por el T eniente-G eneral D on Jose de la Concha, M adrid, 1853; A nnual M essage o f P resident Fillm ore, D ec. 2d, 1851; C incinnati Commercial, cited by N ation al Intelligencer o f Oct. 4 t h ; Life o f W ebster, Curtis.

222

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1851

iard as justly as he did the Austrian added to the laurels he had already won in the State department. Enthusiastic meetings of sympathy with Cuban independence and the cause of the filibusters had been held in Nashville, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and New York City; the cotton States did not need to express their feeling, for every one knew that they were decidedly for Cuba. When the historian reflects th at our State department has some­ times been influenced against its better judgment by strong popular sentiment, he writes a grateful page in recording that the astute and experienced Lord Palmerston unreserved­ ly praised the note addressed by Webster to the Spanish Minister. He called it “ highly creditable to the good faith and sense of justice of the United States government,” and said that the Secretary “ more rightly consulted the true dignity of the country by so handsome a communication than if the acknowledgment of wrong and the expression of regret had been made in more niggardly terms.” When Congress met, an appropriation was made, on the recom­ mendation of the President, to indemnify the Spanish con­ sul and other Spanish subjects at New Orleans for their per­ sonal loss.1 In the autumn of this year there were two important illustrations of the working of the Fugitive Slave law. Gorsuch, a resident of Maryland, with his son, several friends, and a United States officer, all well armed and bearing the warrant of the commissioner a t Philadelphia, went to Christiana, Lancaster County, Pa., in search of two fugitives who had escaped three years previously. Arriv­ ing at a house about two miles from the village where they supposed the negroes were secreted, they demanded their 1 R eport o f account o f the riot by the D istrict A ttorney and Mayor o f N e w Orleans to the State D epartm ent, Senate docum ents, 1st Sess., 32d C ong., vol. i . ; debate on the subject in Congress, Congressional Globe, vol. x x i v . ; N ew Orleans Bee, cited by the N ew Y ork Tribune, Sept. 1st; Life o f W ebster, Curtis, vol. ii.

224

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1851

associate, hearing th at warrants were issued for them, vol­ untarily surrendered themselves. The prisoners were taken to Philadelphia and indicted for treason. Castner Hanaway was first tried ; prominent among his counsel was Thaddeus Stevens, and Justice Grier, of the United States Su­ preme Court, presided. His charge was so clearly in favor of the prisoner that the jury speedily agreed upon a verdict of not guilty. One of the negroes was tried, but not con­ victed ; the rest were not brought to trial.1 The other case is th at of the “ Jerry rescue,” which took place at Syracuse, N. Y. On the first day of October, Jerry McHenry, an athletic mulatto and industrious mechanic, who had been living in th at city for several years, was claimed as a fugitive slave by a man from Missouri. Jerry had made one ineffectual attem pt to escape, and the cour­ age which he displayed, together with the one-sided charac­ ter of the proceedings incident to a claim made under the Fugitive Slave law, aroused active sympathy for the negro from the citizens and sojourners of Syracuse. The city was full of people, for on that day were held a meeting of the county agricultural society and the Liberty party’s annual convention. Jerry was imprisoned overnight in the policeoffice to await the conclusion of the examination on the morrow. He had, unknown to himself, many ardent friends, among whom were the Rev. Samuel May and Gerrit Smith. May,3who had charge of the Unitarian Society of Syracuse, was a rare combination of perfect courage and gentleness of spirit. Gerrit Smith, a great-hearted man, and a deep

1 T h e U nderground Railroad, W illiam Still, particularly the account cited from the P en n sylvan ia F reem an, a local new spaper, e d ited by a Quaker, p. 349. T he N e w Y ork Independent, Sept. 18th and 25th ; not­ ably a letter from R ev. Mr. Gorsuch, a son o f the m an w h o w as k illed , w h ich purports to be a reliable narrative o f the blood y affray; also R ise and F a ll o f the Slave P ow er, vol. ii. p. 327. T he fight took place Sept. 11th. 3 See p. 05.

226

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1851

est character, like Samuel May and Gerrit Smith, should lead a mob of earnest, unarmed men to resist the execution of it. Most of the anti-slavery men would not advise resistance to the la w ; the law-abiding sentiment of the N orth was strong, and did not sympathize with forcible opposition to those in­ vested with public authority; but to fair-minded men it was clear that the attem pt to carry into effect the Fugitive Slave act in many parts of the N orth would simply be kicking against the pricks. During the year the South had gained in union feeling. The compromise measures, as wre have seen, were generally satisfactory outside of South Carolina and Mississippi. In May a convention of Southern Rights associations of South Carolina, held at Charleston, resolved in favor of secession, with or without the co-operation of other Southern States.1 This feeling was then apparently strong throughout the State, since of thirty newspapers, only two were opposed to secession.2 The election in October showed th at the South­ ern Eights convention and the newspapers had not repre­ sented the sentiment of the people, or else that between May and October a great change had taken place in public opin­ ion. The issue was made in the election of delegates to a State convention. One set of delegates opposed action by South Carolina alone; the other set were unconditionally in favor of secession. Two-thirds of the delegates chosen be­ longed to the former party, and in the country at large this was regarded as a Unionist victory; and well it might be, for to vote co-operation with the other Southern States meant to abide by the Union.8 In Mississippi a very exciting and significant canvass took place between Jefferson Davis and Senator Foote. One had been a strong opponent, and the other an ardent supporter, of the compromise measures in the Senate, and they now 1 N a tio n a l Intelligencer, May 13th. 8 Y on H olst, vol. iv. p. 34. 5 Tribune Alm anac, 1852, p. 43; N ew Y ork Independent, Oct. 23d, 1851.

228

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1851

were considered the handsomest men in the Senate. A fa­ vorite child of fortune, kind friends ever stood ready to give their h elp ; opportunities were made for him. Sumner was not a great law yer; the bent of his mind was towards poli­ tics rather than law. Possessed of strong moral feelings, politics especially attracted him on account of the moral element that now entered into public questions. From an early day he had hated slavery; the Liberator was the first paper he had ever subscribed for, having read it since 1835, yet he was opposed to Garrison’s doctrines on the Constitu­ tion and the Union. A W hig until 1848, he then became a Free-soiler, and by a well-managed coalition of the Freesoilers and Democrats he was this year elected senator.1 Benjamin F. Wade, also a son of New England, was in character of the rugged heroic type. Born of poor parents, he worked on the western Massachusetts farm in the sum­ mer, and had only the common schooling of two or three months in the winter. His religious education was wholly under the guidance of his pious m other; he read the Bible with diligence, and knew the Westminster Catechism by heart. When twenty-one, he went to Ohio and took up his home on the Western Reserve. The problem then writh him was how to get a living in this new rough country. He worked as a drover and as a common laborer; but finally deciding to adopt law as a profession, he studied in a law­ yer’s office, was admitted to the bar, and was fortunate in forming a partnership with Joshua R. Giddings, a leading lawyer in northeastern Ohio. Only by a strong effort of the will was Wade able to overcome his constit utional diffi­ dence in public speaking, which at the outset threatened to defeat his intention of becoming an advocate; but he grew to be a vigorous speaker. 1 F or a detailed account o f this coalition, see relation o f H enry W ilson, w h o w as one o f th e prim e movers. R ise and F a ll o f th e Slave P ow er, chap. x x v ii. T h is estim ate o f Sumner I have m ainly derived from E dw . L. P ierce’s M emoir and L etters o f Charles Sumner.

230

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1851

of the compromise measures, and their political classifica­ tion in contrast with th at of the last Congress affords a good idea of public sentiment at the time. There were in this House one hundred and forty Democrats, eighty-eight Whigs, and five Free-soilers.1 There was almost no change in the delegation from the slave S tates; the Democrats had lost two seats, which the Whigs had gained. But at the North, the Whigs had lost twenty-four, while the Democrats had gained twenty-six members.3 Two causes had contrib­ uted to effect this result. In some districts the Democrats won because they were more earnest than the Whigs in the advocacy of the compromise; in other districts Whigs lost their seats because they had supported the compromise or had failed to vote against the Fugitive Slave law. Of twentyeight Northern Democrats who had voted for th a t act, fif­ teen were candidates for re-election, of whom twelve were returned. Only three Northern Whigs had voted for the b ill; one of them was a member of the present House. On the first day of the session a debate took place in the House as to which party was the more faithful to the com­ promise. The Democratic caucus had laid on the table a resolution endorsing those measures, while the W hig caucus, in a formal declaration, had approved them. Neither ac­ tion had any significance; it was simply clever political fencing. To this complexion had it, however, com e: every article of the compromise was regarded as a finality at the N orth except the Fugitive Slave law', while the touchstone of fidelity to the settlement of 1850 was opposition to the repeal of the Fugitive Slave act and willingness to support the strict execution of it. The President, in his annual message, reflected fairly the tendency of public opinion. “ The agitation,” said he, 1 T h is is the classification o f the N e w Y ork Tribune ; that o f the Con­ gressional Globe is 142 D em ocrats, 91 W h igs. F or th e classification o f the Thirty-first Congress, see p. 110 et seq. 3 The D em ocrats had gained the tw o m embers from California.

232

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1851

vied with the people. The deep-blue sky, the clear, brilliant atmosphere, the crisp yet mild air of the December day, seemed to set off fitly the enthusiasm of the multitude. Kos­ suth and his party left Staten Island at eleven o’clock on the steamer Vanderbilt, which had come for him in the charge of the reception committee of the New York Com­ mon Council. As the boat steamed by, Governor’s Island fired a salute of thirty-one guns, New Jersey one hundred and twenty, and then guns were fired on every side. As the Vanderbilt passed the navy-yard, the war-ships North Carolina and Ohio saluted, and all the ferry-boats whistled. On nearly all the vessels—steamers and smaller craft—in the bay, Hungarian and United States flags floated together. New York had never seen a finer sight. One hundred thou­ sand people were waiting on the B attery ; Castle Garden was full to overflowing. W hen Kossuth could be seen, a tumultuous roar broke fo rth ; when he landed, it seemed, said one reporter, as if the shout would raise the vast roof of the reception h a ll; the cheer continued uninterruptedly for fifteen minutes. The mayor, who was primed with a speech, in vain besought silence. A t last, from sheer ex­ haustion of the crowd, the uproar ceased; the address of welcome wTas m ade; but when Kossuth rose to reply, the en­ thusiasm again burst out. Only those near him could hear a word, yet he went through the form of speaking, and writ­ ten copies of this carefully prepared declaration of his selfimposed errand were furnished the reporters. The speech over, Kossuth, mounted on Black Warrior, a war-horse which had been in many battles of the Florida and Mexican wars, reviewed the troops that had turned out to escort him. Then the procession began to move. Besides the military display there was a large number of civic bodies, and it took an hour to pass a given point. When Kossuth’s carriage entered Broadway, an inspiring sight met his eyes. All the shops and houses were decorated, many of them with mot­ toes of sympathy for Hungary and welcome for her gov­ ernor, as everybody called him. The street wras jammed

234

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1851

the revolution was here to tell us th at the mighty movement had been not crushed, but only delayed. In his speech he frankly avowed his object. “ I come here,” he said, “ to in­ voke the aid of the great American republic to protect my people, peaceably, if they may, by the moral influence of their declarations, but forcibly if they must, by the physi­ cal power of their arm—to prevent any foreign interference in the struggle about to be renewed for the liberties of my country.” He explained why it was th at he had such hopes of the United States. “ Your generous act of my libera­ tion is taken by the world for the revelation of the fact that the United States are resolved not to allow the despots of the world to trample on oppressed humanity.” I t was soon Avell understood th at he expected the United States and Eng­ land would combine to prevent the interference of Russia in Austro-Hungarian affairs, and that he wanted to raise in this country one million dollars on Hungarian bonds, payable when the independence of the country should be achieved. I t is quite certain that if, in these December days, a popular vote of New York City could have decided the foreign policy of the nation, it would have been in favor of intermeddling in European affairs, for the metropolitan people had seemingly lost their heads. On the evening of Kossuth’s arrival, there was a torchlight procession in his honor; some of the ban­ ners had legends proposing intervention by the United States in behalf of oppressed liberty in E urope; others denoted re­ gret for neglect in the past, and bore the inscription, “ May our future atone for the p a s t!” On the Monday morning following his arrival the New York Tribune maintained that while non-intervention in European affairs was the correct principle, there might be circumstances when our own interests, as well as our duty in the family of States, would command us to step beyond the straight line of this policy. Most of the New York press were favorable to Kossuth, and the editor of the journal which was the most active in exposing the folly of the craze was denounced as “ a mercenary and time-serving political

236

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1851

ter from Webster, coldly declining to attend on account of public duties, was received with hisses and groans. Toasts were responded to by Bancroft, H enry J. Raymond, Parke Godwin, Henry W ard Beecher, and Charles A. Dana. Two days after this banquet, the New York Democratic Central Committee presented Kossuth the resolutions which they had adopted. They declared that the time for American neutral­ ity had ceased, and promised th at “ at the tap of the drum one hundred thousand armed men will rally around the American standard to be unfurled on the field when the issue between freedom and despotism is to be decided.” A large meeting in Plymouth Church raised twelve thousand dollars for the Hungarian cause, and a dramatic benefit was given at Ni bio’s Garden for the fund. An imposing reception by the bar of New York, and an afternoon entertainment by the ladies at the Metropolitan Opera House were a fitting close of the honors which had been showered on the Hungarian hero in this hospitable city. I t was, indeed, a curious spectacle to see the descendants of sober-blooded Englishmen and phlegmatic Dutchmen roused to such a pitch of enthusiasm over a man who was not the benefactor of their own country, and whose only title to fame was that he had fought bravely and acted wisely in an unsuccessful revolution. I t is evident that we were even then an excitable people.1 1 J. J. Ampfere, Prom enade en AmGrique, speaks o f the reception o K ossuth at N e w Y o r k : “ J e vois que dans cette ivresse d e 'N e w Y ork entrait pour beaucoup ce besoin d’excitation , d e m anifestations bruyantes, qui est le seul am usem ent v if de la m ultitude dans un pays oft l ’on ne s’amuse gubre. Ce vacarme est sans consequence et sans dan ger; tou t cela se borne, com m e m e le d isait un hom m e d ’esprit. it lacher la vapeur ( ‘ let out the steam ’), ce qui, com m e on sait, ne cause poin t les explosions de la m achine, m ais les previent.”— Tom e ii. p. 53. “ T he Am erican is shrew d and k e e n ; his passion seldom obscures his r ea so n ; he keeps his head in m om ents when a Frenchm an, or an Italian, or even a German, w ou ld lose it. Y e t he is also o f an excitable temper, w ith em otions capa­ b le o f b ein g qu ick ly and strongly stirred. . . . Moreover, the A m ericans

238

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

hard things said of Kossuth in this Senate than have been said of him in all Europe, except by the bribed and hireling prints of some of the despots of the Old World.” I t was, however, resolved to give him a cordial welcome to the cap­ ital. There was anxiety in the State department in regard to his reception. “ I t requires great caution,” wrote Web­ ster, “ so to conduct things here when Mr. Kossuth shall ar­ rive as to keep clear both of Scylla and Charybdis;” 1 and “ his presence here will be quite embarrassing. . . . I hope I may steer clear of trouble on both sides.” 2 Kossuth, after an enthusiastic reception at Philadelphia and Baltimore, ar­ rived at Washington on the 30th of December; he was met at the station by Seward and Shields, of the Senate commit­ tee. A large crowd awaited his arrival and greeted him with demonstrations of respect. A t noon the Secretary of State called upon him. Webster wrote th at Kossuth was a gentleman “ in appearance and dem eanor; he is hand­ some enough in person, evidently intellectual and dignified, amiable and graceful in his manners. I shall treat him with all personal and individual respect; but if he should speak to me of the policy of 1intervention,’ I shall ‘ have ears more deaf than adders.’ ” 3 The next day Kossuth was presented to the President, and later in the week he dined at the White House.4 ’ Letter to H aven, D ec. 23d, Private Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 497. 2 L etter to P aige, D ec. 25th, ibid., p. 499. 3 Letter to Blatchford, D ec. 30th, ibid., p. 501. 4 Amp&re assisted at th is dinner, and w rites: “ La, j ’ai 6tS tfimoin d ’une nouvelle scfene de ce drame de la venue de K ossuth en Amdrique, don t j ’avais vu a N ew Y ork, il y a quelques sem aines, l ’exp osition si brillante et en apparence si plein e de prom esses; . . . n i avant, ni pen­ dant, ni aprfes le diner, il n ’a ete fait, it ma connaissance, aueune allusion a la cause de la H ongrie. Je n’ai vu que de la politesse pour l ’liom me, mais nulle expression a haute v oix de sym pathie pour sa cause. . . . K ossuth, qui a le tort d ’aimer les costum es de fantaisie, portait une Ifivite de velours noil-, et m’a semblg beaucoup m ains im posant dans cette tenue que quand il haranguiat, appuy& sur son grand sab le, dans la salle de Castle Garden, d N ew Y ork.”— Prom enade en Amerique, tom e ii. p. 98.

240

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

speech he made a strong argument for the independence of Hungary, based on her distinctive nationality and the homerule principle. The House had passed without debate the joint resolution to welcome K ossuth; but when a motion was made for the appointment of a committee to introduce him to the House, the different feelings in regard to the Hungarian hero were strikingly manifest. By the many instrumentalities which the rules of the House put in their power, members tried to prevent the consideration of the resolution, and it was not until the day of Kossuth’s arrival at Washington th at the subject was fairly brought before this body. Then for many days the representatives strove and wrangled over the ques­ tion ; amendments were offered, counter-motions were made, until finally, when the 5th of January had come, and it was stated that the Hungarian purposed leaving on the ninth, the majority rose in their might, suspended the rules and adopted the resolution. The form of reception was the same as in the Senate, and it took place without incident. Soon after Kossuth left for the West, and visited several cities, where there was great curiosity to see the lion of the day; crowds turned out to greet him and showed some en­ thusiasm, but it was patent before he left Washington that his mission had failed. Indeed, from the moment that he avowed his expectations, it was apparent everywhere, ex­ cept in New York City, th at his hope for a pronunciamento in favor of intervention, should Russia take a hand here­ after in the affairs of Hungary, was utterly v a in ; and a very short time after his departure sufficed to bring the citi­ zens of the metropolis around to the opinion of the rest of the country. By the middle of January a correspondent wrote that the excitement had wholly died down, and the name of Kossuth was rarely heard in New York. One vote taken in the House of Representatives had decided signifi­ cance. An amendment to the resolution of welcome had been offered, providing th at the committee on the reception of Kossuth should be instructed to inform him th at the

24 2

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

was no desire to put forth our strength. But there was grim truth in the rebuke by Clemens, of Alabama, when he reminded certain senators who were willing to fight, if neces­ sary, for liberty in Europe that “ but recently a bitter sec­ tional conflict was raging in our midst, which threatened at one time to shatter our Confederacy into atoms; th at the embers of that strife were still unquenched, and that it was the part of wisdom to secure internal peace before we en­ gaged in external war.” Horace Mann and others of his persuasion were mainly wrong when they attributed to the influence of the slave power the opposition to Kossuth which came from the South.1 No one was a more enthusiastic champion of the Hungarian than Senator Foote, a devoted supporter of Southern institutions. I t was he who exclaimed: “ A t such a moment, does it behoove the American people to join the side of despotism, or to stand by the cause of freedom i We must do one or the other. We cannot avoid the solemn alternative presented. . . . Those who are not for freedom are for slavery.” a Hale tried to drag the slavery question into the debate, but his political friends frowned upon his endeavor; for Seward and Cass, Sumner and Shields, went hand in hand in the affair. In the House, a member from N orth Carolina charged that the abolitionists had taken the lead in the matter, and, while this accusation added some­ what to the heat of the debate, there is no doubt that most of those who objected to conferring the proposed honor on Kossuth did so because he had assailed the non-intervention doctrine of Washington. The heroic play which began in New York changed into a farce when Congress came to audit the hotel bill of the Hungarian governor and his suite. The bill, amounting to nearly four thousand six hundred dollars, was considered by the Senate enormous in its magnitude. The senators 1 Life o f H orace Mann, p. 356. 1 Rem arks in Senate, D ec. 3d, 1851.

244

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

two bodies which assembled with a fresher mandate from the people than had the representatives in Congress. The Democratic convention was held on June 1st at Baltimore, and the prominent candidates were Cass, Douglas, Buchan­ an, and Marcy. Cass was now nearly seventy years old, but temperate habits and a regular life had preserved his native vigor. A son of New England, his education had been main­ ly acquired in the academy of Exeter, N. EL,his native place. In early life he came West, and as governor of Michigan ter­ ritory from 1813 to 1831 his administration of affairs was marked with intelligence and energy.1 His experience dur­ ing this term of office with the British stationed in Canada, who constantly incited the Indians to wage war on the set­ tlers of the Northwest, caused him to imbibe a hatred of Eng­ land which never left him, and whose influence is traceable throughout his public career. He held the war portfolio under Jackson, later was Minister to France, and had now for several years represented Michigan in the Senate. His anglophobia and his readiness to assert vigorous principles of American nationality made him popular in the N orth­ west. He tried a solution of the slavery question in the Nicholson letter, written a few months before he was select­ ed as the candidate of the Democratic party in 1848. In this letter he invented the doctrine which afterwards became widely known as the doctrine of popular sovereignty. He maintained that Congress should let the people of the terri­ tories regulate their internal concerns in their own w a y ; and that in regard to slavery the territories should be put upon the same basis as the States. Douglas was only thirty-nine years old, being remarkably young to aspire to the highest office in the State. Clay had reached the age of forty-seven when he became a candidate for the presidency, and Webster was forty-eight when he

1 See a paper read by Prof. A. C. M cL aughlin before th e American H is­ torical A ssociation, Dec., 1888, “ T he Influence o f Governor Cass on the D evelopm ent o f th e N o r t h w e s t s e e also his Life o f Cass.

246

FILLMORE'S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

England. lie believed in the manifest destiny of the United States. He thought th at conditions might arise under which it would become our bounden duty to acquire Cuba, Mexico, and Central America. He was called the representative of young America, and his supporters antagonized Cass as the candidate of old-fogyism. His adherents were aggressive, and for months had made a vigorous canvass on his behalf. A Whig journal ventured to remind Douglas th a t vaulting ambition overleaps itself, but added, “ Perhaps the little judge never read Shakespeare, and does not think of this.” 1 James Buchanan was born in Pennsylvania in 1791. He had a fair school and college education, studied law, soon ac­ quired a taste for politics, was sent to the legislature, served as representative in Congress ten years, and was elected three times senator. In the Senate he distinguished him­ self as an ardent supporter of President Jackson. He was Secretary of State under Polk, but since the close of that administration had remained in private life. He wTas a gen­ tleman of refinement and of courtly manners.3 Marcy was a shrewd New York politician, the author of the phrase “ To the victors belong the spoils.” 8 He had been judge, United States senator, and three times govern­ or. He held the war portfolio under Polk, but the con­ duct of this office had not added to his reputation, for it had galled the administration to have the signal victories of the Mexican war won by Whig generals, and it was cur­ rently believed that the W ar Minister had shared in the

qui n’y a pas encore 6t6 represente, voudra a, son tour avoir son pr6sident. L ’esprit de M. D ou glas m e sem ble, com m e sa parole, vigoureux, ardent, ce qui en fait un representant trfes-fidfele des populations energiques qui grandissent entre la foret e t la prairie.”— Prom enade en Am erique, J. J. Amp&re, tom e ir ^ s iG . 1 P ik e, in N e w Y ork Tribune, cited by Y on H olst, vol. iv. p. 165. Ir th is characterization o f D ou glas I have used the L ives o f D ou glas bj Sheahan and b y H . M. F lin t. 1 See L ife o f Buchanan, Curtis. 3 F o r th e speech in w h ic h M arcy used th is expression, see T he Lives o f the Governors o f N e w York, p. 564.

248

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

plause. The voting began on the third day of the conven­ tion, and seventeen ballots were th at day taken. Douglas gained considerably at the expense of Cass, but it looked improbable th at any of the three favorites could secure the nomination, which seemed likely to go to a dark horse. The merits of several others were canvassed, and among them Franklin Pierce. On the fourth day Douglas stead­ ily increased until the twenty-ninth ballot, when the votes w ere: for Cass, 27; for Buchanan, 93; for Douglas, 91; and no other candidate had more than 26. On the morning of the fifth day, on the call of the States for the thirty-fourth ballot, the Virginia delegation retired for consultation, and coming back cast the fifteen votes of their State for Daniel S. Dickinson, of New York. This was received with favor. Dickinson was a delegate; he immediately took the floor and said: “ I came here not with instructions, but with ex­ pectations stronger than instructions, th at I would vote for and endeavor to procure the nomination of that distinguish­ ed citizen and statesman, General Lewis Cass.” After say­ ing he highly appreciated the compliment paid him by “ the land of Presidents, the Ancient Dominion,” he declared, em­ phatically : “ I could not consent to a nomination here with­ out incurring the imputation of unfaithfully executing the trust committed to me by my constituents—without turning my back on an old and valued friend. Nothing th at could be offered me—not even the highest position in the govern­ ment, the office of President of the United States—could compensate me for such a desertion of my trust.” ' On the next ballot, Virginia cast her fifteen votes for Franklin Pierce, and then Cass reached his greatest strength, receiving 131. As the weary round of balloting continued, Pierce gained slowly, until, on the forty-eighth trial, he re­ ceived 55, while Cass had 73, Buchanan 28, Douglas 33, and Marcy 90. On the forty-ninth ballot there was a stam­ pede to Pierce, and he received 282 votes to 6 for all oth1 Letters and Speeches, D ickinson, vol. i. p. 3T0.

250

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

before the expiration of his term, and, coming home, de­ voted himself with diligence to the practice of his profes­ sion. He was a good lawyer and a persuasive advocate before a jury. He declined the position of Attorney-Gen­ eral offered him by Polk, the appointment of United States senator, and the nomination for governor by his own polit­ ical party. He enlisted as a private soon after the out­ break of the Mexican war, but, before he went to Mexico, was commissioned as brigadier-general, and served under Scott with bravery and credit. He was a strong supporter of the compromise measures. An eloquent political speaker, graceful and attractive in manner, his integrity was above suspicion, and he was also deeply religious. He had not the knack of making money, and the fact received favorable mention that while long in public life, and later enjoying a good income from his profession, he had not accumulated ten thousand dollars. Such was the man who had been chosen by the reunited Democratic party to lead it on to assured victory. I t could only be said that he was a respectable lawyer, politician, and general, for he had tried all three callings, and in none of them had he reached distinction. There can be no bet­ ter commentary on the fact that he was not a man of mark than the campaign biography written by his life-long friend, Nathaniel Hawthorne. The gifted author, who had woven entrancing tales out of airy nothings, failed, when he had his bosom friend and a future President for a subject, to make an interesting narrative. The most graceful pen in Amer­ ica, inspired by the truest friendship, labored painfully in the vain endeavor to show that his hero had a title to great­ ness ; and the author, conscious that his book was not valu­ able, never consented to have the “ Life of Pierce” included in a collected edition of his works.1 Yet the book, in truthfulness and sincerity, was a model for a campaign life. Hawthorne would not set down one word 1 See the N ew Y ork C ritic, Sept. 28th and N ov. 23d, 1889.

252

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1862

seemed, for the candidature of Pierce had been carefully nursed and his interests were in competent hands. The idea of putting him forward originated early in the year among the New England Democrats, who deemed it quite likely that Cass, Douglas, and Buchanan would fail to se­ cure the coveted prize. The favorite son of New Hamp­ shire was eligible, as the State had been steadfastly Demo­ cratic, and Pierce was undoubtedly the most available man in New England. Several conferences were held to decide upon a plan of action, and it was determined that New Hampshire should not present his name nor vote for him until some other State had started the movement.1 Pierce was privy to much of this negotiation, and it is said that the delicate matter of his excessive conviviality was talked over with him, and that he promised to walk circumspectly should he become President. A t all events, a letter written by him a few days before the convention shows a change of feeling from his expression of January in regard to the nomination f and if his personal objections still remained, they were overruled in the interest of the New Hampshire and New England Democracy. Pierce promptly accepted the nomination, “ upon the platform adopted by the con­ vention, not because this is expected of me as a candidate, but because the principles it embraces command the appro­ bation of my judgment, and with them I believe I can safely say there has been no word nor act of my life in conflict.” ’ The W hig convention met at Baltimore June 16th, in the same building that the Democrats had used, and it was noticed that greater taste had presided over the decoration of the hall than two weeks before. Among the delegates 1 A ccount o f E dm und Burke, one o f the editors o f th e W ashington Union, o f th e events th at led to the nom ination o f Pierce, cited by the N e w Y ork Tribune o f N ov. 28th, 1853, from th e N ation al E ra. T he Bos­ ton A tla s said, June 7th, 1852, that, w h ile P ierce’s nom ination w ou ld sur­ prise th e country, it w as not w h olly a surprise to m any in the secrets o f the Dem ocratic p a r ty ; also conversation w ith J. W . Bradbury. s Life o f Pierce, Bartlett, p. 247. 3 Ib id ., p. 258.

254

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

the United States as a settlement in principle and substance of the dangerous and exciting questions which they em­ brace. . . . We insist upon their strict enforcement . . . and we deprecate all further agitation of the question thus set­ tled.” Rufus Choate rose to advocate this resolution. His appearance was striking; tall, thin, of a rich olive complex­ ion, his face was rather th at of an Oriental than an Ameri­ can. Raven locks hanging over a broad forehead, and pierc­ ing dark eyes, complete the picture. He had represented Massachusetts in the Senate, but his greatest triumphs had been won in the forum. His speech this day was the first example of that brilliant convention-oratory which animates and excites the hearers, and its beauty and power may still be felt when the issue that inspired this impassioned oration is dead. He said: “ W hy should we not engage ourselves to the finality of the entire series of measures of compro­ mise ?. . . The American people know, by every kind and de­ gree of evidence by which such a truth ever can be known, that these measures, in the crisis of their time, saved this nation. I thank God for the civil courage which, at the hazard of all things dearest in life, dared to pass and defend them, and ‘ has taken no step backward.’ I rejoice that the healthy morality of the country, with an instructed con­ science, void of offence towards God and man, has accepted them. Extremists denounce all compromises ever. A las! do they remember such is the condition of humanity that the noblest politics are but a compromise, an approximation —a type—a shadow of good things—the buying of great blessings at great prices? Do they forget th at the Union is a compromise, the Constitution—social life—that the har­ mony of the universe is but the music of compromise, by which the antagonisms of the infinite Nature are composed and reconciled? Let him who doubts—if such there be— whether it were wise to pass these measures, look back and recall with what instantaneous and mighty charm they calmed the madness and anxiety of the h o u r! How every countenance, everywhere, brightened and elevated itse lf!

256

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

whole was adopted by a vote of 227 to 66. The nays were all from the North, and all were supporters of Scott. The convention was now ready to ballot. Fillmore and Webster were of course in full sympathy with the platform, and it now became an important question—was Scott satis­ fied with the Fugitive Slave law ? He was the candidate of the Seward Whigs, and many strong anti-slavery men were enthusiastic in his favor; yet to be nominated he must have Southern votes, and carry Southern States to be elected. Goaded to it by an insinuation of Choate, Botts, before the vote on the platform was taken, produced a letter from Scott which could be interpreted to mean that he was a strong friend of the compromise measures. On the first ballot Fillmore had 133, Scott 131, and Web­ ster 29 votes. Webster had votes from all the New Eng­ land States except Maine, and five votes outside of New England ; but from the South, none.' Fillmore received all the votes from the South except one given to Scott by John Minor Botts, of Virginia. Scott had all the votes from the N orth except those given to Webster and sixteen to Fillmore.3 For fifty ballots there was no material change; thirty-two votes were the highest number Webster reached. On the fiftieth ballot, Southern votes began to go to Scott, and on the fifty-third he had enough of them to secure the nomination, the ballot standing: Scott, 159; Fillmore, 112; Webster, 21.’ In the Whig convention a majority nominated. I t is apparent th at the conservative Whigs m ight have controlled the nomination, for the strength of Fillmore and Webster united on either one was sufficient. Fillmore was the second choice of Webster’s friends, and, in the opinion

1 N e w H am pshire four, Verm ont three, M assachusetts eleven, R hod Island tw o, C onnecticut three, N ew Y ork tw o, W isconsin three, Califor­ nia one. ’ T w enty Years o f Congress, Blaine, vol. i. p. 101. ’ On the last ballot V irginia gave Scott eigh t, Tennessee and M issouri each three votes.

258

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

Seward and would not quit Scott. They plied the Maine delegates, who coldly refused their aid to the greatest son of New England, for the defeat of Webster was a consum­ mation as devoutly wished for as the success of Scott. Powerful and almost tearful appeals were made to Dawes and Lee to give their votes for Webster, if only for one bal­ lot, in order that the Massachusetts delegation might be unanimous; but they absolutely declined to do so, and voted for Scott to the end. I t was then impossible to secure the requisite number of Northern votes, and the Southern dele­ gates, unless they could be assured that their accession would nominate Webster,1 would not leave Fillmore. Either before the convention met or immediately on its assembling, a tacit bargain had been made between the Northern managers for Scott and some Southern delegates. I t is evident from the debates in Congress that Scott had influential supporters at the South, many of whom did not scruple to declare their preference,2 and while the congres­ sional politicians might have been willing to take him with­ out platform or personal pledges, they knew it was idle to think of carrying a Southern State for him unless the con­ vention should declare the Fugitive Slave law a finality. It was therefore arranged th at in case the Scott men should 1 See an article en titled “ D o in g s o f th e C onvention ” in the Boston Courier, June 25th, o f w hich th e editor said th is article was “ furnished by a gentlem an w h ose character and stan d in g in th is com m unity are a guarantee for its fidelity and fairness.” T h is article w as attributed to Choate and to a Mr. Sw an, but it w as probably written by W illiam H ay­ den, a delegate, and a former ed itor o f the B oston A tla s. T h e Spring­ field Republican o f June 28th copied th e article entire, and s a id : “ W e are assured by another M assachusetts d elegate that, so far as it goes, its statem ents are strictly true.” See also L ife o f Choate, Brown, p . 279, and R em iniscences, P eter H arvey, p. 239. “ It was stated by th e chairman o f the M ississippi delegation th a t nine-tenths o f the Southern d elegates were w illin g to leave F illm ore and g o for W ebster, although th ey were deterred from d oin g so for fear that w hen their phalanx w as broken, enough d el­ egates w ould go to Scott to nom inate him .” —B oston D a ily A dvertiser. 2 See Congressional Globe, vol. xxiv. p. 1077 ct scq., also p. 1159.

260

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

won the populace, why was not Scott, a greater general than either, an eminently strong candidate ? Fillmore took his defeat with equanimity, but to Webster the action of the convention was the eclipse of the bright hopes with which he had long deluded himself. The ac­ count given by his Boswell1 of the great man’s interview with Choate immediately after the convention is inexpressi­ bly sad. The deep grief exhibited on that handsome face, the studied avoidance of the subject of which his mind was too full for utterance, at the silent meal of which the three partook, and then the hour’s private conversation, made the scene linger long afterwards in the memory of Choate as the most mournful experience of his life.3 The words of the Preacher, “ Vanity of vanities, all is vanity,” must have come to the great statesman with a force felt only by deep and strong natures. Had he served the law or literature3with half the zeal with which he served the public, he would not in his age have been left naked to his enemies. W hat a comment it is on the disappointments th at hedge about po­ litical life that the author of the reply to Hayne and of the Bunker Hill and Plymouth orations should sigh in vain for the position to which so many mediocre men have been called! I t is easy to censure ambition like Webster’s, yet we know that unless, in a democracy, the best statesmen de­ sire the highest office in the State, political dry rot has set in—a fact which it is our fashion to ignore when we moral­ ize on the desire for the presidency that lays such strong hold of our public men. Many writers who believe that Webster sold himself to the South gloat over the fact that

> P eter H arvey, L od ge so calls him , p. 95. s H arvey, p. 195. 3 “ I m a k e no progress tow ards accom p lish in g an object w hich has en g a g ed m y contem plations for m any years, A H istory o f th e C onstitution o f th e U n ited States and P resident W ash in gton’s A dm inistration. T h is project has lo n g had existen ce as an id ea ; and as an idea I fear it is lik ely to d ie.”— W ebster to Edw ard Everett, N ov. 28th, 1848, P rivate Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 289.

202

FILLMORE'S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

Scott’s letter of acceptance was published a few days after the adjournment of the convention. “ I accept,” he wrote, “ the nomination with the resolutions annexed.” 1 The ac­ tion of the convention was coldly received by the Whigs. Those who liked the platform did not like the candidate, and those who were warm for the candidate objected de­ cidedly to the platform.3 Many th o u g h t: the voice is J a ­ cob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau. Seward was the political juggler, or Mephistopheles, as some called him, and the result was regarded as his triumph. The no­ tion prevailed that Scott, if he became President, would be controlled by Seward, and this was certain to hurt the can­ didate at the South. Seward therefore, five days after the nomination, took the unusual course of writing a public let­ ter, in which he said he would not ask or accept “ any pub­ lic station or preferment whatever at the hands of the Pres­ ident of the United States, whether that President were Winfield Scott or any other man.” 9 Some of the prominent W hig newspapers of Georgia de­ clined to sustain Scott, because his election would mean Freesoilism and Sewardism.* An address was issued on the 3d of July by Alexander H. Stephens, Robert Toombs, and five other Whig representatives, in which they flatly refused to support Scott because he was “ the favorite candidate of the Free-soil wing of the Whig party,” and he had not clearly said that he regarded the compromise measures as a final­ ity.6 The business men of New York city disliked the nom1 The letter w as published in the N a tio n a l Intelligencer o f June 29th. It is dated June 24th. H e received his official notification th e 22d. 'J T he phrase “ W e accept th e candidate, but sp it upon the platform ,” becam e very com m on am ong Northern W higs. s Sew ard’s W orks, vol. iii. p. 416. T he letter is dated June 26th. 4 T he A ugusta Chronicle and th e Savannah Republican. The Savannah News d islik ed th e nom ination exceed in gly. 5 Yon H olst, vol. iv. p. 208; M cC luskey’s P olitica l T ext-book, p. 682. Three o f the signers were from Georgia, tw o from Alabam a, one each from M ississippi and V irginia.

264

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

While the candidacy of Scott repelled the most conserva­ tive Whigs, the platform made it impossible for the Freesoilers to come to his support. They held a convention in August and nominated Hale for President and Julian for Vice-President. They epigrammatized their principles in the words “ Free soil, free speech, free labor, and free men.” The drift of anti-slavery opinion, as well as its varying shades, is illustrated by the fact that Henry Wilson, Charles F. Adams, of Massachusetts, and Giddings supported Hale, while Wade, Seward, and Greeley advocated the election of Scott. All of these men were of Whig antecedents. The Democrats soon recovered from the surprise of Pierce’s nomination, and began to feel a genuine enthusiasm for their candidate, and for their declaration of principles. They were joyful to have the party reunited; they were certain that the platform represented the prevailing senti­ m ent; and when they had read up about Pierce, they were satisfied that he was not a vulnerable candidate. The men who were prominent before the Baltimore convention did not delay the announcement that they would give Pierce their cordial support. The New York Evening Post, which upheld powerfully the Free-soil movement of 1848, and whose editor had strong anti - slavery views, now advo­ cated Pierce, and was followed by other journals which got their cue from the metropolitan organ.1 The argument of the Post, that the Democratic candidate and platform were really more favorable to liberty than the Whig, was somewhat strained; the editor failed to look the situation squarely in the face.2 He was, however, acting in perfect harmony with the prominent New York Democrats who had, four years previously, bolted the regular nomination. Van Buren himself had announced that he should vote for Pierce.3 Yet it was perfectly evident that anti-slavery men 1 Life o f W illiam Cullen Bryant, G odw in, vol. ii. pp. 43, 62. 5 See especially an article cited in N a tio n a l Intelligencer o f J uly lB tli. 3 Letter o f July 1st, Life o f Pierce, Bartlett, p. 295.

266

FILLMORE'S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

bate on the subject is interesting from the fact of one of the senators from Mississippi1 stating that a convention of his State had solemnly declared that the repeal of this law would be regarded as sufficient ground for the dissolution of the Union. This, he said, was no idle threat. While it was true that his people did not think this act of any essen­ tial benefit, as slaves from Mississippi seldom escaped, and when they did the cost and trouble of recapturing them amounted to more than their value, yet the repeal “ would be an act of bad faith,” and show that the N orth would not live up to any bargain. One of the senators from Georgia2 followed in a similar strain. His State stood pledged to dis­ solve the ties which bound her to the Union the moment the Fugitive Slave law was repealed, and this interdependence he pointed impressively by quoting the prophetic saying of the pilgrim s: “ W hile stands the Coliseum, Rom e shall stand ; W hen falls th e Coliseum , Rom e shall fall.”

Although Sumner failed to get a hearing this day, he was resolved to speak before the session came to an end. Five days before the final adjournment an amendment to one of the appropriation bills was under consideration, which pro­ vided for the payment of extraordinary expenses incurred in executing the laws of the United States. I t was plain that the intent was to have the general government bear the cost of capturing runaway negroes. Sumner moved that the Fugitive Slave act be excepted from the operation of this amendment, and that the act itself be repealed. This gave him the opportunity to speak on the question, which, in his view, far transcended the importance of President-making. “ I could not,” he said, “ allow this session to reach its close, without making or seizing an opportunity to declare myself openly against the usurpation, injustice, and cruelty of the late enactment by Congress for the recovery of fugi1 Brooke.

268

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

The orator impressively added: “ Sir, the existing slave act cannot be enforced without violating the precept of Washington. Not merely uneasy sensations among welldisposed persons, but rage, tumult, commotion, mob, riot, violence, death, gush from its fatal, overflowing fountains. Not a case occurs without endangering the public peace.” He closed with an application of the higher-law doctrine to the subject. “ The slave act violates the Constitution and shocks the public conscience. W ith modesty, and yet with firmness, let me add, sir, it offends against the divine law. No such enactment can be entitled to support. As the throne of Clod is above every earthly throne, so are his laws and statutes above all the laws and statutes of man.” ' This was Sumner’s first elaborate oration in the Senate. He spoke for four hours in an elegant and finished manner.2 I t was the speech of a lawyer, a scholar, an historian, and a moralist, for he had the equipment of them all. To intel­ lectual strength and moral feeling was joined the physical courage that dared anything. Here was a new and danger­ ous foe of slavery. Clemens, of Alabama, with a levity cer­ tainly not shown by his Southern associates, thought the speech unworthy of notice; “ the ravings of a maniac,” he said, “ may sometimes be dangerous, but the barking of a puppy never did any harm.” Hale complimented the ora­ tor ; he had placed himself “ side by side with the first ora­ tors of antiquity, and as far ahead of any living American orator as freedom is ahead of slavery.” Chase declared that the speech “ will be received as an emphatic protest against the slavish doctrine of finality in legislation which two of the political conventions recently held have joined in forc­ ing upon the c o u n t r y t h i s speech “ will mark an era in American history.” Horace Mann wrote hom e: “ The 26th of August, 1852, redeemed the 7th of March, 1850.” 3 For Sumner’s amendment there were only four votes, viz.: ’ These quotations are from vol. x xv. Congressional Globe. 2 Life o f Horace Mann, p. 381. s Ib id ., p. 381.

270

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

battle as near as possible to the classic spot of Lundy’s Lane. The gathering hosts could not assemble on the battle-field where Scott had so gallantly and successfully fought, for that was in C anada; they therefore came together' at Ni­ agara Falls. Delegations arrived from many States. Two hundred and twenty officers and soldiers of the war of 1812 were present, and some of them had also taken part in the battle which they were now glad to celebrate. The meet­ ing lasted two days; the number present varied decidedly, according as the count was Democratic or Whig, but no doubt remains that it was an imposing assemblage. Thos. Ewing, of Ohio, acted as president of the day, and among the speakers were Henry W inter Davis, Greeley, and Robert C. Winthrop. The New York Tribune judged that it sur­ passed the most enthusiastic of the Harrison meetings of 1840.’ Nevertheless, this was a quiet campaign. There was no principle at stake. The New York Tribune, which could not accept the W hig platform, and yet in deference to its position as a party organ kept it«s anti-slavery views in the background, dragged into the canvass the tariff question. Elaborate articles constantly appeared in its columns, advo­ cating the principle of protection, and endeavoring to prove that the economic interests of the people would be better cared for by the Whigs than by the Democrats. The Trib­ une quoted the approval of Pierce by the London Times, “ as a valuable practical ally to the commercial policy” of England,2 and added, let Americans “ choose between the British and American candidate.” In another issue, with an eye to an important part of the foreign vote, the editor asks:

1 July 29th. T he m eeting was Ju ly 27th and 28th. a Tribune., Ju ly 21st. “ W e greatly prefer General P ierce to either G en­ eral Cass, Mr. D ouglas, or Mr. Buchanan; . . . to descend to m inor par­ ticulars in his p olitical creed, he is at once a man o f N e w E nglan d and yet a d ecid ed cham pion o f free trade.” — London Times, June 24th, cited in N ew York H erald, July 9th.

272

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

South, strangely enough, Pierce was charged with being an abolitionist, though garbled extracts from an imperfect re­ port of a speech were all th at could give color to this impu­ tation. He was also accused of being opposed to religious liberty. There had been until recently a provision in the New Hampshire constitution that certain State offices should be held only by Protestants. I t was said that Pierce did not desire the removal of this religious test, while, in truth, he had made continued efforts for that very object.1 His utterances in general had not been of the kind to attract large attention, but it was evident from his public letter of May 27th that he was inclined to side with the South rather than with the N orth on the sectional question;2 and it is a perfect indication of public sentiment at the N orth that this most serious objection to Pierce was little used. The charge against Scott which had the greatest influence on the result has been already alluded t o : he was the Sew­ ard candidate and tinctured with Free-soilism. Accused of Nativism, the basis for the charge was a letter more than ten years old to the American party men of Philadelphia. “ I now hesitate,” the general had written, “ between exSome th in k th at F ran k ’s a fig h tin g man, A n d som e th in k he is not. ’T is said th at -when in M exico, W h ile lead in g on his force, H e took a sn dd en fain tin g fit, A n d tum bled off h is horse. “ B ut gallan t Scott has m ade his mark On m any a blood y plain, A nd patriot hearts beat h igh to greet T he C h ief o f L undy’s Lane. A n d Chippew a is classic ground, Our B ritish neighbors kn ow , A n d i f you ’d hear o f later deeds, Go ask in M exico.” — From T heodore Parker’s Scrap-book, Boston P u b lic Library. 1 Life o f Pierce, H aw thorne, p. 123. 2 Life o f Pierce, B artlett, p. 246.

274

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

paign. A scurrilous letter from Concord, charging Pierce with gross intemperance, having appeared in the New York Tribune, the editor the next day apologized for its insertion, and said that had he known its character, it would not have been printed; he added that while General Pierce was not “ a temperance man in our sense of the term, we know noth­ ing with regard to his habits that should subject him to pub­ lic reprehension.” 1 M artin Van Buren w ro te: “ The Whig nominee, in that chivalrous spirit which belongs to his char­ acter, has commenced his first political campaign with a frank admission of the private worth and claims to public confidence of his opponent—-a concession which I am very sure General Pierce will be at all times ready to recipro­ cate.” 2 Hawthorne, in his campaign life of Pierce, spoke of Scott as “ an illustrious soldier, indeed, a patriot, and one indelibly stamped into the history of the past.” 3 The New York Herald, which supported Pierce, said: “ For the pri­ vate reputation of General Scott, as well as for his military character, we have always had the highest regard and deep­ est veneration. He is a hero—the pink of chivalry in his profession; and as a gentleman in social life, he is without stain or blemish.” * The elation of the Whigs at the success of their big Lundy’s Lane meeting was of short duration, for the August State elections were favorable to the Democrats. The Freesoil convention followed hard upon and its nominations augured ill for the Whigs. While this party called itself the Free - soil Democracy, it was patent th at it would this year draw away more Whigs than Democrats in the doubt­ ful States of New York and Ohio. The September elec­ tions afforded the Whigs no comfort. They cast about how the tide of public sentiment might be turned, and it was de­ termined th at General Scott should make a tour of the coun­ try and show himself to the people, in the hope that his mag1 N ew Y ork Tribune, June 11th. 8 L ife o f Pierce, H aw thorne, p. 137.

s Life o f Pierce, Bartlett, p. 294. 4 Sept. 26th.

276

FILLMORE'S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

a spirited and manly speech to a deputation of Germans, denying th at he had hanged fifteen of their countrymen in Mexico. In all of his many addresses, Scott steered clear of politi­ cal questions; he thanked the people for their hearty greet­ ings; he praised their cities and their States. Ohio was “ the Empire State of the W est;” Kentucky was “ famous for the valor of her troops and for the beauty of her daugh­ ters ;” Indiana was “ one of the great Northwestern States— one of the States most devoted to the Union—one of its main props and supports.” A t Madison, Ind., he again had compliments for our adopted as well as our native-born citizens. “ I have,” he said, “ heard several times since ] landed on your shores the rich brogue of the Irish and the foreign accent of the German. They are welcome to my ear, for they remind me of many a well-fought and hard-wor field on which I have been nobly supported by the sons of Germany and of Ireland.” Remaining over Sunday in this city, he showed his liberality by attending mass at the Cath olic church in the morning, and the service of the Episco pal church in the evening. Scott left Ohio on his return trip just before the Octobei State election. Pennsylvania and Indiana voted on the samt day for State officers. All three went Democratic, and this indicated beyond doubt that Pierce would carry them ir November, which would make his election certain. The Whig cause was not helped by the stumping tour of theii candidate. Scott was far from happy in his off-hand ad dresses; all but one were commonplace and some affordec fit subjects for ridicule. The New York Herald publishec them as a Democratic campaign document under the title o: “ The Modern Epic. Fifty-two Speeches by Major-Genera Winfield Scott, embracing a Narrative of a Trip to the Blu( Licks and back to Washington in Search of a Site for a Mil itary Hospital. The Iliad of the Nineteenth Century.” 1 1 In th is relation o f the tour o f General Scott, I have carefully comparec

278

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

ical question. I t is true th at a part of this settlement was a slave-catching bill, obnoxious to the North ; but as it was a part of the bargain, it must be enforced in good faith. The benefit in politics, thought the majority, seldom comes un­ mixed. W ith the great good of forever settling the slavery question, it is surely only a small ill th at the constitutional provision for the rendition of fugitive' slaves shall be carried out. Thus thought, after the election, nearly everybody who voted for Pierce; and the majority of voters for Scott did not differ widely from this opinion. The business interests of the country were on the side of the Democrats. The Tribune complained th at the mercan­ tile Whigs of New York City either kept away from the polls or voted for Pierce, because they would not endorse the Seward candidate.1 Trade was good, the country was very prosperous, and this state of affairs would likely con­ tinue under settled political conditions, of which there ap­ peared to the commercial interests greater promise under Democratic than W hig rule. The Democratic party seemed to have a noble mission confided to it. It had control of the Senate and the House, and the country had now given into its charge the execu­ tive department. It had gained the confidence of the peo­ ple because it professed to be the party essentially opposed to the agitation of slavery; because it was the party of pac­ ification ; and because it insisted upon observing sacredly the compromises of the Constitution, and all other compromises. For a proper understanding of our history, the events of the decade between 1850 and 1860 must be considered in their bearing on the success of the Republican party in the latter year. One of the most important causes that led to this re­ sult was the publication of “ Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” Of the literary forces th at aided in bringing about the immense revolution in public sentiment between 1852 and 1860, we 1 N ew Y ork Tribune, N ov. 8th.

280

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

The author had been satisfied to gain four hundred dol­ lars a year by her pen, but she had now written a book of which there were sold three thousand copies on the first day of publication, and in this country over three hundred thou­ sand within a year. England received the story with like favor—the sale went on in the mother country and her col­ onies until it reached the number of one and a half million copies.* The book was soon translated into twenty different languages.3 The author was now the most famous woman in A m erica; she had gained a competence and secured un­ dying glory. The effect produced by the book was immense. W hittier offered up “ thanks for the Fugitive Slave law ; for it gave occasion for ‘ Uncle Tom’s Cabin.’ ” Longfellow thought it was one of the greatest triumphs in literary history, but its moral effect was a higher triumph still. Lowell described the impression which the book made as a “ whirl of excite­ ment.” 3 Choate is reported to have said : “ That book will make two millions of abolitionists.” 4 Garrison wrote the au th o r: “ All the defenders of slavery have let me alone and are abusing you.” 6 Sumner said in the Senate: “ A woman, inspired by Christian genius, enters the lists, like another Joan of Arc, and with marvellous powers sweeps the chords of the popular heart. Now melting to tears, and now in­ spiring to rage, her work everywhere touches the conscience, and makes the slave-hunter more hateful.” ”

* L ife o f H. B. Stow e, pp. 160 and 190. It is n ot kn ow n w h at has been the total sale in th e U n ited States since its publication. See L ife-W ork o f the A uthor o f U n cle T oni’s Cabin, McCray, p. 120. “ A n im m ense edi­ tion o f U n cle Tom , prepared for Sunday-schools, has been pu blished in E n glan d .” —Lieber to H illard, A pril, 1853, Life and Letters o f Lieber, p. 261. 1 Life o f H. B. Stow e, p. 195. * Ib id ., p. 327. 4 N ew Y ork Independent, A ug. 26th, 1852. ‘ Life o f H. B . Stow e, p. 161. “ Speech on th e F u g itiv e S lave law , A ug. 26th, 1852, Congressional Globe, vol. x x v . p. 1112. Em erson said, in 1858: “ W e have seen an American wom an w rite a novel, o f w h ich a m illion copies were sold, in

282

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

book was received with such fervor th at the pope felt obliged to prohibit its circulation in his dominions.1 Never but once before had a novel produced such an ex­ citement. One cannot fail to be struck with the likeness between the impression occasioned by Rousseau’s story and that made by “ Uncle Tom.” K ant became so engrossed in the perusal of the “ Nouvelle Heloi'se” th a t he failed, for the only time in his life, to take his accustomed afternoon walk ;3 and Lord Palmerston, who had not read a novel for thirty years, read “ Uncle Tom’s Cabin” three times, and, instead of making a flippant criticism, which one might have expected from a statesman who shocked grave men by his levity, he admired the book, “ not only for the story but for the states­ manship of it.” 3 The “ Nouvelle Helo'ise” spoke for the liberty and dignity of the peasant, implying th at he as well as the king was a m an; while “ Uncle Tom ” pleaded for the liberty of the slave. The one had its part in the social revolution of 1789, and the other had an influence on the political revolution of 1860. The dramatic strength of the story was not lost upon the theatrical managers. I t soon appeared on the stage in Bos­ ton, and the first time th at Mrs. Stowe, then a woman of forty-one, ever went to the theatre was when she saw a dramatization of her own immortal work. She was sensi­ bly moved at the exquisite interpretation of Topsy by Mrs. Howard, and by the acting of little Cordelia Howard, who struck the audience with wonder, and drew tears from the most callous by a lifelike impersonation of little Eva.* In New York the play proved the theatrical success of the sea-

in Germany has read U ncle T om ’s Cabin.”— Letter o f M otley, D ec. 23d, 1852, M otley’s Letters, vol. i. p. 148. 1 Am erican Alm anac, 1854, p. 348; N ew Y ork H erald, May 31st, 1853. 3 Life o f Rousseau, John M orley, vol. ii. p. 33. 8 L ife-W ork o f the Author o f U n clc T om ’s Cabin, McCray, p. 109. 1 Ib id ., p. 121.

284

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

at Topsy and weep at the hard fate of Uncle Tom.1 Cer­ tainly the inhabitants of this brilliant city knew less and cared less for the oppressed black than did their neighbors across the Channel, and the interest which they took in this portrayal of life among the lowly is an earnest tribute to the dramatic character of the work.2 Some writers have depreciated the political effect of “ Un­ cle Tom’s Cabin ” because the results were not immediate. “ I t deepens the horror of servitude,” wrote George Ticknor, “ but it does not affect a single vote.” 3 In reviewing the election of 1852 one could not then have written other­ wise.1 I t is probably true th at the seed sown by works of fiction germinates slowly. The “ Nouvelle Heloi'se ” and “ Em ile” were published nearly a generation before the French Revolution began. Because many people of France applauded the democratic sentiment implied by the words in the “ Nouvelle Heloi'se”—“ I would rather be the wife of a charcoal-burner than the mistress of a k in g ” — they did not hurl Pompadour from her seat of power; and al­ though “ Uncle Tom’s Cabin” was directed against the Fu­ gitive Slave law, it did not effect its repeal. The great influence of Mrs. Stowe’s book, however, was shown in bringing home to the hearts of the people the conviction that slavery is an injustice; and, indeed, the im­ pression it made upon bearded men was not so powerful as its appeal to women and boys. The mother’s opinion was a potent educator in politics between 1852 and 1860, and boys in their teens in the one year were voters in the 1 Life o f H. B. Stow e, p. 192; B ibliograph ical A ccount o f U n cle Tom ’s Cabin, prefaced to ed ition o f 1887, p. xlvi. s T he hold i t still has (in 1890) on the Am erican stage is sim ilar evi­ dence. It is one o f those plays th a t each generation m ust see. T he book is still w id ely read, as every book seller and librarian know s. In 1888 and 1889 it h eaded the list in fiction in greatest dem and at th e N e w Y ork free circulating library. The C ritic, vol. xii. p. 156; The N ation , vol. 1. p. 222. 3 D ec. 20th, 1852. Life o f George Ticknor, vol. i. p. 286. 4 See p. 278.

286

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

of all, the discourse of Socrates in the Phasdo, a boon to humankind. The mind of Webster was perfectly clear, and when all earthly striving was over, his true nature shone out in the expression of thoughts that filled his soul. Speaking of the love of nature growing stronger with time, he said: “ The man who has not abandoned himself to sensuality feels, as years advance and old age comes on, a greater love of mother Earth, a greater willingness and even desire to return to her bosom and mingle again with this universal frame of things from which he sprang.” ' Two weeks be­ fore he died, he wrote what he wished inscribed on his mon­ ument : “ Philosophical argument, especially that drawn from the vastness of the universe in comparison with the appar­ ent insignificance of this globe, has sometimes shaken my reason for the faith that is within m e ; but my heart has assured and reassured me that the Gospel of Jesus Christ must be a divine reality.” The day before his death, he said with perfect calmness to his physician: “ Doctor, you have carried me through the night, I think you will get me through to-day; I shall die to-night.” The doctor honestly replied : “ You are right, sir.” 3 His family, friends, and servants, having assembled in his room, he spoke to them “ in a strong, full voice, and with his usual modulation and emphasis: ‘ No man who is not a brute can say that he is not afraid of death. No man can come back from that bou rn ; no man can comprehend the will or works of God. That there is a God, all must ac­ knowledge. I see him in all these wondrous works, him­ self how wondrous!’ ” 3 Eloquent in life, Webster was sublime in death. He took leave of his household one by one, addressing to each fitting words of consolation. He wanted to know the gradual steps towards dissolution, and calmly discussed them with his phy­ sician. A t one time, awaking from a partial stupor which preceded death, he heard repeated the words of the psalm 1 Curtis, v o l.ii. p. 668.

’ Ibid., p . 696.

s Ibid., p. 697.

288

FILLMORE'S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

The coffin was borne to the tomb by six of the neighboring farmers, and the multitude followed slowly and reverently. To the Marshfield farmers and Green Harbor fishermen Webster was a companion and a friend; by them he was mourned sincerely as one of their own fellowship. I t could not be said of him that a prophet is not without honor save in his own country. One man in a plain and rustic garb paid the most eloquent of all tributes to the mighty dead: “ Daniel Webster, the world without you will seem lone­ some.” 1 A Massachusetts orator of our day has truly said: “ Massachusetts smote and broke the heart of Webster, her idol, and then broke her own above his grave.” ’ On Sunday, the 31st of October, one week after his death, nearly all the preachers of the N orth delivered sermons on the life and death of Daniel Webster.’ In the main, they were highly eulogistic. If, indeed, a preacher permitted himself to speak of the failings of the great man, it was in such a manner as one might in all gentleness speak of the frailty of a dear departed friend. To this there was one notable exception—the sermon of Theodore Parker, delivered in the Boston Melodeon. The preacher appeared to want the good which Webster did interred with his bones and the evil to live after him. Even had the discourse been true, it was, considering the occasion, indecent. But in it there was much of error. The current gossip of Boston and the pun­ gent tales of Washington correspondents were crystallized into a serious utterance and given the stamp of a scholar. 1 Curtis, vol. ii. p. 704. “ A s for th in k in g o f Am erica w ith ou t W eb­ ster, it seem s lik e th in k in g o f her w ith ou t Niagara, or th e M ississippi, or any other o f the m agnificent natural features w h ich had belonged to her since I grew up, and seem ed lik ely to endure forever.” —L etter o f J. L. M otley, from Dresden, D ec. 23d, 1852, M otley’s Correspondence, vol. i. p. 149. * J. D. Long, W ebster Centennial, vol. i. p. 165. s There were more than one hundred and fifty sermons on th e death o f W ebster printed in pam phlet form. M emorandum o f Theo. Parker on bound collection o f them in B oston P u b lic Library.

290

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

Parker was, said Emerson, “ a man of study fit for a man of the world.” 1 Though sympathizing for many years with the abolitionists, it was not until after the passage of the Fugitive Slave law that he devoted himself heartily to their work. He was the pastor, the especial friend and counsel, of runaway negroes. His efforts in their behalf were untir­ ing. A t the time of the Shadrach rescue he wrote in his diary : “ These are sad times to live in, but I should be sorry not to have lived in them. It will seem a little strange one or two hundred years hence th at a plain humble scholar of Boston was continually interrupted in his studies, and could not write his book, for stopping to look after fugitive slaves —-his own parishioners!” 2 Parker was bitter and harsh towards his opponents, for years of religious contention fitted him for the part of the political iconoclastic reformer. Deeming Webster responsible for the Fugitive Slave law, he could not do otherwise than magnify the vices and belittle the virtues of this great statesman. Parker spoke every Sunday to two or three thousand peo­ ple in the Melodeon or the Music Hall, and exercised great influence. He had none of the graces of o rato ry ; it was the pregnant m atter of his discourse that held his large audi­ ence captive. His sermon on Webster moulded many opin­ ions. Of all indictments it is the most severe. I t would, indeed, be deplorable if it presented the true character of the man who had received so much honor from his country­ men, and it is gratifying that fewer men now believe the charges than when the sermon was delivered; th a t instead of acknowledging “ its analytical justice, its fidelity,” ! it is regarded as the raving of an honest fanatic. Parker and Wendell Phillips may be said to be the ex­ ponents of abolitionism in the decade of 1850-60. They do

1 L ife o f Parker, F rotliingham , p. 549. * F eb. 21st, 1851, Life and Correspondence o f T heo. Parker, W eiss, vo ii. p. 105. a E xpressions o f the New H am pshire Independent (D em .), 1852.

292

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

composition as a sermon that I ever heard delivered.” 1 In this same year Everett became editor of the North Amer­ ican Review; he was then and afterwards a frequent con­ tributor, and shared with many other gifted minds the honor of making this quarterly a monument of American scholar­ ship and fair-minded criticism. He was elected representa­ tive and served ten years in Congress. He made a diligent and conscientious member, for he knew thoroughly what it was his business to know ; his name is connected with many important measures, but his service was rather useful than brilliant. Afterwards the people chose him governor of his commonwealth for three terms, and for a fourth he was only defeated by one vote. He did not grieve, however, at quit­ ting active politics, for he had again the yearning of a scholar for Europe. Webster, writing to him in Italy, spoke of the enjoyment “ that Italy tenders to the taste of the cul­ tivated,” and especially “ to you, so full and fresh with his­ tory and the classics.” a This same year W ebster became Secretary of State, and was able to secure for his friend the appointment of minister to England. No American ever divined or appreciated Europe better than Everett, yet he was as intensely national in feeling and expression as were those Western politicians who paraded their contempt of Europe on the stump and in Congress. His friend Hillard even criticised his orations for their vaunting strain in regard to our country and institutions. Knowing thoroughly many tongues, this true patriot still could sa y : “ The sound of my native language beyond the sea is a music to my ear beyond the richest strains of Tus­ can softness or Castilian majesty.” Everett returned to the United States in 1845, and one year later was chosen president of Harvard College. He retained the position three years, until obliged to resign it on account of ill-health. 1 Memoir o f John Q uincy A dam s, vol. iv. p. 58. s P rivate Correspondence, vol. ii p. 101.

294

FILLMORE'S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

While Everett’s greatest triumphs were gained on the platform before the cultivated people who naturally assem­ bled to hear him, and with whom he felt in perfect accord, yet when called to more active duty he acquitted himself with credit. Entering upon his brief service in the State department, he was immediately obliged to take up the Cuban question and give an answer to official notes from England and France. These two nations had proposed a tripartite convention with the United States, by virtue of which the three powers should guarantee the possession of Cuba to Spain and jointly and severally disclaim, now and forever, all intention to obtain possession of that island. In his reply Everett’s endeavor was, “ to assert a line of princi­ ple and of policy which would be generally approved by the country; which would show that it was possible to reconcile the progressive spirit and tendency of the country and of the age with the preservation of the public faith, with the sanctity of the public honor, and with the dictates of an en­ lightened and liberal conservatism.” 1 Never had the success of a Secretary of State been more complete; and yet the Cuban question was an extremely delicate one to handle. The South had for years been anx­ ious to acquire Cuba, and this desire was now increased by the disappointment at the outcome of the Mexican conquests, for slavery, on both economical and political grounds, needed expansion. On the other hand, the majority of the N orth­ ern people were opposed to the acquisition of more slave have, in th is characterization o f Everett, draw n from E verett’s W orks, vol. i. and i i i . ; article by George S. H illard, N orth Am erican R eview, Jan., 1837; article by C. C. F elton , N orth A m erican Review, Oct., 1850; article on E dw ard Everett, in A p pleton s’ Cyclopaedia o f Biography, by S. A . A llib o n e ; article in Encyclopaedia Britannica, by Rev. E. E. H a le ; F orn ey’s A necdotes o f P ublic Men, vol. ii. “ X ceu x qui douteraient qu’on p ilt rencontrer aux Etats-TJnis le typ e parfait du scholar et du gentlem an, je citerais M. E d. Everett, qui v it a Cam bridge.” — Prom enade en AmCrique, Ampfere, tom e i. p. 45. 1 Statem ent by Everett, speech in the Senate, March 21st, 1853.

296

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

to the past, calling it “ the undoubted operation of the law of our political existence,” as being a name less harsh than the other to European ears; and then, in a burst of national enthusiasm, he said : “ Every addition to the territory of the American Union has given homes to European destitution, and gardens to European want.” ‘ The commendation of this letter was general, and from both parties.2 Cass said in the Senate: “ It is marked by a lofty, patriotic, American feeling. I have seldom seen a doc­ ument more conclusive in its argument, or more beautiful in its style or illustrations;” 3 and Douglas testified th at it was “ applauded by the almost unanimous voice of the American people.” 4 When Fillmore, in his last message, said that he had dis­ charged the arduous duties of his high trust “ with a single eye to the public good,” he was believed by everybody ex­ cept by some of the Seward Whigs and the abolitionists. The slavery question and the sectional differences weighed heavily on his mind, and he felt that it was a duty of his high office to attem pt their solution. He proposed in his last message to Congress a scheme of negro colonization, and advocated its adoption; he believed that there was the path in which might be solved the difficulties which were raised by slavery and the antagonism of race. This part of his message was suppressed by the advice of his cabinet; but even had this not been done, there is no reason to sup­ pose that the plan would have been adopted bv Congress.

1 E verett to the Comte de Sartiges, D ec. 1st, 1852, Senate Docum ents, 2d Sess., 32d C ong., D oc. 13. ’ “ Mr. E verett’s letter has been received by Congress and th e country as a very able exposition o f the A m erican sentim ent in regard to Cuba.” — H arper's Magazine, F eb ., 1853. See also New Y ork H erald, Jan. 7th, 1853. 3 Jan. 15th, 1853. T he letter w as w ritten Dec. 1st, 1852, but w as not given to Congress and the public till Jan. 5th, 1853. 'S e n a te , March 16th, 1853.

298

FILLMORE'S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

ury. While a senator, Corwin had become attorney for Dr. Gardiner, who had a claim against Mexico. I t was one of those claims that, by the treaty of 1848, were to be adjudi­ cated and paid by the United States. Less than a year after being employed as attorney, Corwin, in conjunction with his brother, bought an interest in the claim for which they ac­ tually gave $22,000. On the accession of Fillmore he was offered the Secretaryship of the Treasury, but he would not accept it until he had disposed of his interest in this and other claims. He therefore made in good faith an uncon­ ditional transfer of his share. The m atter would probably have never been noticed had not the Gardiner claim turned out to be “ a naked fraud upon the treasury of the United States,” 1 and had not Corwin realized for his share in the transaction a handsome profit. A personal and political enemy charged that the transfer of this interest was a blind, and the inference followed that Corwin had used his influ­ ence as Secretary of the Treasury with the board of commis­ sioners, which had the adjustment of these claims, to have passed a fraudulent claim in which he was directly inter­ ested. The matter attracted considerable attention in Con­ gress and in the country. Committees of investigation were appointed both by the Senate and the House. The House committee, a majority of whom were Democrats, reported that there was no evidence to show that Corwin knew that the claim was fraudulent; they virtually said that his trans­ fer was unconditional and made in good faith. The subject gave rise to an animated debate in the House, in which the defenders of the Secretary of the Treasury had altogether the better of the argument.2 The reputation which Corwin 1 Report o f the H ouse Com m ittee o f In vestigation. 2 See especially speeches o f A ndrew Johnson and O lds o f Ohio at­ ta c k in g Corwin, and those o f Barrere o f Ohio, Chapman o f C onnecti­ cut, and A. H . Stephens in his defence, vol. xxv ii. Congressional Globe, Jan., 1853; for the report o f the H ouse com m ittee and a large am ount o f testim ony, see Reports o f Com m ittees, 2d Sess. 32d Cong., Rep. N o. 1.

300

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1852

sometimes degenerated into coarseness. He was the bestknown man in O hio; everybody called him Tom. A for­ mal resolution of a Whig State convention proclaimed him “ a man of the people, and a champion of their rights,” and declared, amid the enthusiastic acclaim of the multitude, “ we esteem him, and we love him.” But Corwin was more than a w itty stump-speaker. He was a good lawyer, who thought deeply on the principles of government and political questions. His friends had hopes that he might even reach the presidency; but he destroyed his political prospects by an indiscreet though brave speech in the Senate in February, 1847, on the Mex­ ican war.1 I t was a scathing arraignment of the policy of conquest, a severe invective against the “ destiny doctrine,” and a fierce retort to the statement of Cass, “ We want room.” “ If I were a Mexican,” said Corwin, “ I would tell you, ‘Have you not room in your own country to bury your dead men ? If you come into mine, we will greet you with bloody hands and welcome you to hospitable graves.’ ” 2 I t is incon­ sistent, but it is the inconsistency of a vigorous nationality, to condemn this utterance of Corwin as an unpatriotic expres­ sion to utter during a war in which his country was en­ gaged, while we praise the parallel saying of Chatham dur­ ing our Revolution, and print it in every schoolboy’s book of oratory.8 Corwin’s position on the compromise of 1850 was the same as that of Clay and Webster, and he suffered, as did

1 Corwin “ is a truly kin d, benevolent, and g ifted man. H e seem s to forego all liope o f the presidency, ju st n ow at least.”— Seward to h is wife, from W ashington, Jan. 23d, 1848, Life o f Seward, F . W . Seward, vol. ii. p. 62. 5 See Corwin’s Sp eeches; also m em oir prefixed to th em ; P u b lic Men and E vents, S a r g e n t; R em iniscences, B e n : P erley Poore. s “ I f I were an American, as I am an Englishm an, w h ile a foreign troop w as land ed in m y country I never w ou ld lay dow n m y arm s—never— n e v e r -n e v e r 1"

302

FILLMORE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1853

more. The judgment on him was made up at a time when the Fugitive Slave law had become detestable, and he was remembered only for his signature and vigorous execution of it. After Johnson had been President, it was asserted, with the taste for generalization th at obtains in politics, that all of our Vice-Presidents who succeeded to the presi­ dential office turned out badly. This was maintained until the wise administration of President A rthur became con­ fessedly an exception to the ru le ; yet the plaudits for Ar­ thur were not more general than were those for Fillmore at the close of his administration. Fillmore retained as strong a hold on his party as did the o th er; both were candidates for renomination, and showed great strength in their party conventions. In a just estimate, therefore, of our Vice-Presidents who have become Presidents, we should class Fillmore with A r­ thur, and not with Tyler and Johnson.

304

SLAVERY

[C h. IV.

they were hired out—a common custom in Eastern Virginia —he was well satisfied th at the wages for common laborers were twenty-five per cent, higher in Virginia than in New York.' W hat was true of Virginia was substantially true of the other border slave States. I t should have been clear that, in the portion of the South where the climate was un­ suitable for cotton-raising, slavery was an economical failure; and before the war, as at present, this conclusion necessarily followed the inquiries of an impartial observer. If there had been any justification for slavery it must have been found in the cotton, rice, or sugar regions. refer to O lm sted’s books, T he Seaboard Slave States, T exas Journey, A Journey in the Back Country, and T h e Cotton K ingdom , th e last based on the three others. T h is gentlem an m ade several journeys through the slave States betw een 1850 and 1857, travellin g over a large part o f country on horseback, w hich g a v e him unusual facilities for seein g the life o f the people. H is aim was to see th in gs as they were and describe them truthfully. H e has adm irably succeeded, aud his books are in ­ valuable to one m aking a study o f this subject. In review ing A Journey in the B ack Country, Jam es R. L ow ell wrote in the A tla n tic M onthly for N ov., 1860: “ N o more im portant contribu­ tions to contem porary Am erican history have been m ade than in this volum e and the tw o th at preceded it. W e know o f no b ook that offers a parallel to them excep t Arthur Y ou n g’s Travels in France. To discuss the question o f slavery w ithou t passion or even sentim ent seem ed an im possibility; y e t Mr. O lm sted has sh ow n th at it can be done, and, hav­ in g no theory to bolster, has contrived to tell us w hat he saw, and not w h at he w ent to see— th e rarest achievem ent am ong travellers.” This w as a happy com parison o f the review er, for there was a great resem ­ blance between Y ou ng and O lm sted iu tastes, manner o f observing, and im partiality o f judgm ent. B u t th e m ost im portant resem blance L ow ell could not kn ow in 1860. Both wrote on the eve o f a great convulsion. One was the greatest historical event o f th e eigh teenth century, and the other w ill probably be adjudged the greatest o f the nin eteen th century. G eorge W in. Curtis, in the A tla n tic M onthly for A u g., 1863, m akes the statem ent th at first o f all the literature on the subject o f slavery are, “ in spirit aud com prehension, the m asterly, careful, copious, and patient works o f Mr. O lm sted.” The ep ith et o f “ that w ise and hon est traveller,” w hich Joh n Morley applied to Y oung, may lik ew ise be said o f Olmsted. 1 Cotton K ingdom , vol. 3. p. 118.

306

COST OF KEEPING SLATES

[C h . IV.

with the dogs the crumbs which fell from the kitchen table.' In comparison with slaves who had plenty, the prison con­ victs of the N orth had a greater variety of food, and it was not so coarse.” “ Ninety-nine in a hundred of our free labor­ ers,” Avrote Olmsted, “ from choice and not from necessity, live, in respect to food, at least four times as well as the average of the hardest-worked slaves on the Louisiana sug­ ar plantations.” 3 The negroes on the large cotton planta­ tions of the Southwest fared no better. A Louisiana cottonplanter furnished De Bow an itemized estimate of the cost of raising cotton, in which the expense of feeding one hundred slaves, furnishing the hospital, overseer’s table, etc., was put down at $750 for the year. This was $7.50 for each one, or, in other words, the cost of food for the slave was less than cents per day.4 The overseers everywhere endeavored to bring the keeping of the slaves down to the lowest pos­ sible figure. This was a large item in the cost of cotton production; and on the large plantations, where in some cases as many as five hundred slaves were worked, economy in feeding these human cattle was studied with almost sci­ entific precision. The supply of food to the slaves was made a subject of legislation. Louisiana required that meat should be furnished, but this law became a dead letter. N orth Carolina fixed the daily allowance of co rn ; in the other States the law was not specific, but directed in gen­ eral terms th at the provisions should be sufficient for the health of the slave. I t was in the line of plantation parsimony th at the clothes furnished the field hands should be of the cheapest material and as scant as was consistent with a slight regard for de-

1 Life o f Frederick D ouglass, by him self, p . 22; see also pp. 45, 61 108. ! Cotton K in gd om , vol. ii. p. 241. ’ Ibid., p. 239; D espotism in Am erica, H ildreth, pp. 5 8 ,6 0 ; Slave State! o f America, B uckin gham , vol. i. pp. 87, 134. * D e B ow ’s R esources o f the South and W est, vol. i. p. 150.

30 8

THE NEGRO AS PROPERTY

[C h . IV.

rant, frequently intemperate, always despotic and brutal. Their value was rated according to the bigness of the cotton crop they made, and, with th at end in view, they spared not the slave. The slaves always worked under the lash. “ It is true,” said Chancellor Harper, in his defence of slavery, “ that the slave is driven to labor by stripes.” 1 W ith each gang went a stout negro driver whose qualification for the position depended upon his unusual cruelty; he followed the working slaves, urging them in their task by a loud voice and the cracking of his long whip. That the negroes were overtasked to the extent of being often permanently in­ jured, was evident from the complaints made by the South­ ern agricultural journals against the bad policy of thus wast­ ing human property. An Alabama tradesman told Olmsted that if the overseers make “ plenty of cotton, the owners never ask how many niggers they k i l l 5 and he gave the further information th at a determined and perfectly relent­ less overseer could get almost any wages he demanded, for when it became known that such a man had made so many bales to the hand, everybody would try to get him.3 In the rich cotton-planting districts the negro was univer­ sally regarded as property. When the newspapers men­ tioned the sudden death of one of them, it was the loss of money th a t was bewailed, and not of the light which no Promethean heat can relume. Olmsted found th a t “ negro life and negro vigor were generally much less carefully economized than I had always before imagined them to be.” 4 Louisiana sugar-planters did not hesitate to avow openly that, on the whole, they found it the best economy to work off their stock of negroes about once in seven years, and then buy an entire set of new hands.6 An over1 Pro-slavery A rgum ent, p. 34. ’ T he same man, how ever, expressed th e opinion th a t “ n iggers is gen ­ erally pretty w ell treated, considerin’.” Cotton K ingdom , vol. ii. p. 184. ’ Ib id ., p. 180. ‘ Ibid., p. 191. ‘ Frances K em ble’s Journal, p. 28 j S ociety in Am erica, H. Martineau,

810

WOMEN UNDER SLAVERY

[C h. IV.

to man.1 General Sherman, who was for a time stationed at New Orleans and later lived more than a year in Louisi­ ana, states that the field slaves were treated like animals.2 Fanny Kemble noticed th at those who had some intelli­ gence, who were beyond the brutish level, wore a pathetic expression — a mixture of sadness and fear.3 Frederick Douglass, himself a slave and the only negro in his neigh­ borhood who could read, relates the effect of unceasing and habitual toil on one in whom there was a gleam of knowl­ edge : “ My natural elasticity was crushed; my intellect languished; the disposition to read departed; the cheerful spark that lingered about my eye died o u t; the dark night of slavery closed in upon me, and behold a man transformed to a brute.” 4 An observer who visited an average rice plantation near Savannah was impressed with the fate of the field hands : “ Their lot was one of continued toil from morning to night, uncheered even by the hope of any change or prospect of improvement in condition.” ° Harriet Martineau wrote : “ A walk through a lunatic asylum is far less painful than a visit to the slave quarter of an estate.” 6 This state of affairs is perfectly comprehensible; it was an accessory of the system. I t was Olmsted’s judgment that a certain degree of cruelty was necessary to make slave labor generally profitable.7 The institution bore harder on the women than on the men. Slave-breeding formed an important part of planta­ tion economy, being encouraged as was the breeding of ani­ mals. “ Their lives are, for the most part, those of mere a n im a ls w r o te Fanny Kemble, “ their increase is literally mere animal breeding, to which every encouragement is 1 See Cotton K ingdom , vol. i. pp. 142, 245; vol. ii. p. 202. 2 N orth A m erican Review, O ct., 1888. s Frances K em ble’s Journal, p. 98. 1 L ife o f F rederick D ouglass, p. 119. 6 Slave States o f Am erica, B uckingham , vol. i. p. 133. * Society in Am erica, vol. i. p. 224. 7 Cotton K ingdom , vol. i. p. 354.

312

COTTON AND SLAVERY

[Ca IV.

and there was economic foundation for the statement, so arrogantly made, that “ Cotton is king.” The profits of cotton-growing in a new country were very large. H arriet Martineau, who visited Alabama in 1835, was told that the profits were thirty-five per cent. One planter whom she knew had two years previously invested $15,000 in land, which he could then sell for $65,000; but he expected at this time to make fifty or sixty thousand dol­ lars out of his growing crop.' Land was so plenty th at no one took any pains to prevent its exhaustion, and when a good yield of cotton could no longer be had, the land was abandoned, and more virgin soil was purchased. When Olmsted visited the South, Mississippi and Louisiana were the States which oifered the largest returns. He visited one Mississippi plantation where live hundred negroes were worked, the profit in a single year being $100,000.3 The rich country tributary to Natchez, as well as that along the Yazoo River, was all owned by large proprietors, none of whom were worth less than $100,000, and the property of some was popularly estimated by millions. The ignorant newly-rich seemed to be as large an element of society in Mississippi as they were in New York.3 A Southern law­ yer truly describes a phase of the cotton industry. Wealth was rapidly acquired by planters who began with limited means, and whose success was due to their industry, econ­ omy, and self-denial. They devoted most of their profits to the increase of their capital, with the result that in a few years, as if by magic, large estates were accumulated. “ The fortunate proprietors then build fine houses, and surround themselves with comforts and luxuries to which they were strangers in their earlier years of care and toil.” 4 An unwise and wasteful conduct of the business, however, 1 Society in Am erica, vol. i. p. 228. 2 Cotton K ingdom , vol. ii. p. 83. ’ Ibid., pp. 158,159. * Letter to H arper's Weekly, F eb ., 1859, quoted in Cotton K in gdom , vol. ii. p. 158.

314

COTTON AND SLAVERY

[Ch. IV.

of the staple, which was always in brisk and increasing de­ mand. The Southerners maintained th a t their wealth was due to their peculiar institution; that without slavery there could not be a liberal cotton supply.1 This assertion has been effectually disproved by the results since emancipation, while even in the decade before the war it could with good and sufficient reason be questioned. It was apparent to the economist that the rich gifts of nature, the concentration of capital and the combination of laborers accounted for the fruitful returns of cotton-planting. I t was patent th at with free white labor better results could be obtained.2 It is quite true, however, that the practical question did not lie between slave labor and free white labor, but between the negro bondman and the negro freeman. Northern and Eng­ lish observers, for the most part, staggered when confronted with the horns of the dilemma; yet they certainly amassed sufficient facts to venture the assertion that if the slaves were freed, cotton-planting would be as remunerative to the mas­ ter as before, and th at the physical condition of the laborer would be improved. The demand for cotton and negroes went hand in h an d ; a high price of the staple made a high value for the human cattle. A traveller going through the South would hear hardly more than two subjects dis­ cussed in public places—the price of cotton and the price of slaves.3 This kind of property was very high in the decade before 1 “ The first and m ost obvious effect [o f abolition o f slavery] w ould be to p u t an end to the cultivation o f our great Southern staple.”— Chancel­ lor Harper, Pro-slavery Argum ent, 1852, p. 86. “ T he average annual yield [o f cotton] during th e tw enty years previous to 1861 w as 1,335,000,000 pou nd s; du rin g the tw enty-three years from 1865 to 1886 it w as 2,207,000,000 pounds, an increase o f 65.3 per cent.”— T he U n ited States, W h it­ ney, p. 383. The crop o f 1850 was 2,233,718 bales, value $105,600,000. T he crop o f 1880 w as 5,757,397 bales, value §275,000,000. 2 T his subject is th orough ly discussed in A Journey in th e B ack Coun­ try, O lm sted, p. 296, and in his T exas Journey, p. x iii. See also Cotton K ingdom , vol. ii. p. 202. 3 See Cotton K ingdom , vol. i. p. 51.

316

SLAVE-BREEDING ♦

[Ch. IV. • '

isheci.” Yet the financial remedy was not adopted by Washington; he made a rule neither to buy nor sell slaves.1 Jef­ ferson, although in easy circumstances when he retired from the presidency, could not make both ends meet on his Monticello estate, and died largely in debt.2 Madison sold some of his best land to feed the increasing number of his negroes, but he confessed to H arriet Martineau th a t the week before she visited him he had been obliged to sell a dozen of his slaves.3 We may be certain it was with great reluctance that the gentlemen of Virginia came to the point of breed­ ing negroes to make m oney; but it was the easiest way to maintain their ancient state, so they eventually overcame their scruples. Even before Madison died, the professor of history and metaphysics in the college at which Jefferson was educated wrote in a formal pap er: “ The slaves in Vir­ ginia multiply more rapidly than in most of the Southern S tates; the Virginians can raise cheaper than they can b u y ; in fact, it is one of their greatest sources of p r o f i t a n d the w riter seemed to exult over the fact that they were now “ exporting slaves ” very rapidly.* He wrote his defence of slavery in 1832, and then thought that Virginia was annu­ ally sending six thousand negroes to the Southern market.5 For the ten years preceding 1860 the average annual impor­ tation of slaves into seven Southern States from the slavebreeding States was not far from twenty-five thousand.6 In Virginia the number of women exceeded th at of men, and ■ Bancroft, vol. vi. p. 179. See also letter o f W ash in gton, p rinted in the Athenceum, July l l t l i , and cited by th e N e w Y ork N a tio n , Ju ly 30tl), 1891. 2 Life o f Jefferson, Morse, p. 335. 3 R etrospect o f W estern Travel, vol. i. p. 192. 4 Prof. D ew , Pro-slavery Argum ent, pp. 362, 370. H e afterwards be­ came P resident o f W illiam and Mary College. 5 Ib id ., p. 378. 6 Cotton K in gdom , vol. i. p. 58, note. See Slavery and Secession, Thos. E llison, p. 223. T he slave - exportin g States w ere Maryland, Vir­ ginia, K entucky, N orth Carolina, T ennessee, and M issouri; see also P ik e ’s F irst B low s o f the C ivil W ar, pp. 386, 392.

318

SLAVES WERE CHATTELS

[Ch. IV.

should be allowed to marry again. The answer was in the affirmative, because the separation was civilly equivalent to death, and the ministers believed “ that in the sight of God it would be so viewed.” I t would not be right, therefore, to forbid second marriages. It was proper that the slaves should act in obedience to their masters and raise up for them progeny.' The negro women lacked in chastity; it is true this was a natural inclination of the African race, but th at this tendency should be fostered was an inevitable re­ sult of slavery. “ Licentiousness and almost indiscriminate sexual connection among the young,” said Olmsted, “ are very general.” 2 Slaves were chattels.3 They could be transferred by a simple bill of sale as horses or c attle; they could even be sold or given away by their masters without a writing.4 The cruelty of separating families, involved by the business of selling slaves who were raised expressly for market, or by the division of negroes among the heirs of a decedent, or their forced sale occasioned by the bankruptcy of an owner, appealed very forcibly to the North. It especially awak­ ened the sympathy of Northern women, who counted for much in educating and influencing voters in a way that finally brought about the abolition of slavery. These sep­ arations were not infrequent, although they were not the general rule. There was a disposition, on the score of selfinterest, to avoid the tearing asunder of family ties, for the reason that if slaves pined on account of parting from those to whom they had become attached, they labored less obedi­ ently and were more troublesome. Humane masters would, whenever possible, avoid selling the husband apart from the 1 G oodell’s American Slave Code, p. 109; M emorials o f a Southern Planter, Sm edes, p. 77. 2 Seaboard Slave States, O lm sted, p. 132. * Iu Louisiana and K en tucky th ey w ere in some cases considered real estate, but they d id not partake enough o f the qu ality o f real property to prevent their being sold off from an estate. See G oodell, pp. 34,25, 71, 75. * D e Bow's Review, vol. viii. p. 69.

320

SLAVE AUCTIONS

[C h. IV.

only a phase and not the universal rule. The detailed, mi­ nute, and celebrated account of a slave auction at Richmond by William Chambers, the publisher, of Edinburgh, is un­ doubtedly a fair example of what many times occurred. A t one establishment there were ten negroes offered for sale. The intending purchasers examined the slaves by feeling the arms of all and the ankles of the women; they looked into their mouths and examined carefully their hands and fingers. One of the lots was a full-blooded negro woman with three children. “ H er children were all girls, one of them a baby at the breast, three months old, and the others two and three years of age. . . . There was not a tear or an emotion visible in the whole party. Everything seemed to be considered a m atter of course; and the change of owners was possibly looked forward to with as much indifference as ordinary hired servants anticipate a removal from one em­ ployer to another.” Chambers took an offered opportunity to converse with the woman, who told him she had been parted from her husband two days, and that her heart was almost broken at the thought of the lasting separation. The writer continues: “ I have said that there was an entire absence of emotion in the party of men, women, and chil­ dren thus seated, preparatory to being sold. This does not correspond with the ordinary accounts of slave sales, which are represented as tearful and harrowing. My belief is th at none of the parties felt deeply on the subject, or at least that any distress they experienced was but momentary— forget th e large tears that started to her eyes as she saw her tw o children sold aw ay from her.” “ W ho w as th e greatest orator you ever heard ?” ask ed Josiali Quincy o f Joh n R andolph. “ T he greatest orator I ever heard,” rep lied Ran­ dolp h, “ w as a woman. She was a slave. She w as a m other, and her rostrum w as th e auction-block.”— F igu res o f the P ast, p. 212. See account o f L ew is H ayden, K ey to U n cle Tom ’s Cabin, p. 155; A n ti­ slavery M anual (1837), p. 109; Slave States o f Am erica, B uckin gham , vol. i. p. 183; also R etrospect o f W estern T ravel, M artineau, vol. i. p. 235.

322

JEFFERSON ON THE NEGROES

[Ch. IV.

tion. His blood boiled with indignation to see a human being, though with a black skin, sold “ just like a horse at Tattersall’s y e t he closed his narrative with : “ I t would not have been difficult to speak strongly on a subject which appeals so greatly to the feelings; but I have preferred tell­ ing the simple truth.” Jefferson, who hated slavery and who studied negroes with the eye of the planter and philosopher, thus compared them with the w hites: “ They are more ardent after their fem ale; but love seems with them to be more an eager de­ sire than a tender, delicate mixture of sentiment and sensa­ tion. Their griefs are transient. Those numberless afflic­ tions which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt and sooner for­ gotten with them.” 1 A careful study of the slaves of the generation before the civil war must lead to the same con­ clusion.2 The earnest and educated women of the N orth un­ consciously invested the negroes with their own fine feelings, and estimated the African’s grief at separation from her family by what would be their own at a like fate. The sell­ ing of a wife away from her husband, or a mother away from her children, appeared to their emotional natures sim­ ply horrible. I t seemed a cruel act, for which there could be no excuse or mitigation. It was a vulnerable part of the system; the abolitionists, attacking it with impetuosity, gained the sympathy of the larger portion of thinking N orthern women. This earnestness was not simulated, for the injustice likewise appealed strongly to the emotional temperaments of the abolitionists. Garrison identified him­ self so closely with the negroes, whose cause he had made

1 N otes ou V irginia, Jefferson's W orks, vol. viii. p. 382. * See account o f a slave auction at R ichm ond in Travels o f Arforedson Anti-slavery Manual, p. 114; also K ey to U n cle Tom ’s Cabin, p: 152; Olm­ sted ’s Seaboard Slave States, p. 5 5 6 ; Prom enade en Amgrique, J. J. Ampfere, vol. ii. p. 115. “ T he negro [in Africa] kn ow s not love, affec­ tion, or jealousy.”— Cited by Herbert Spencer, Sociology, vol. i. p. 663. “ The negro race d o not understand kissing.”—Ibid., vol. ii. p. 17.

324

THE DOMESTIC SLAVE-TRADE

[C h . IV.

storekeeper of New Orleans, who was likewise a colonel, at the request and for the amusement of his many acquaint­ ances got up a raffle, and the prizes were a dark-bay horse, warranted sound, with a trotting buggy and harness, and “ the stout mulatto girl Sarah, aged about tw enty-nine years, general house-servant, valued at nine hundred dollars and guaranteed.” 1 There might be seen now and then in the New Orleans papers an advertisement of a lot of pious negroes.3 A curious notice appeared in the Religious Her­ ald, a Baptist journal published in Richmond: “ Who wants thirty-five thousand dollars in property ? I am desirous to spend the balance of my life as a missionary, if the Lord permit, and therefore offer for sale my farm—the vineyard adjacent to Williamsburg . . . and also about forty ser­ vants, mostly young and likely, and rapidly increasing in numbers and value.” 3 By actual count made from the ad­ vertisements in sixty-four newspapers published in eight slave States during the last two weeks of November, 1852, there were offered for sale four thousand one hundred ne­ groes.4 The good society of the South looked upon slave dealers and auctioneers with contempt. Their occupation was regarded as base, and they were treated by gentlemen as the publicans were by the Pharisees. The opening scene of “ Uncle Tom’s Cabin” was criticised as inaccurate, for it showed a Kentucky gentleman entertaining at table a vul­ gar slave-dealer.6 The utter scorn with which such men 1 N ew Orleans True D e lta , Jan. 11th, 1853, cited in K ey to U n cle Tom ’s Cabin, p. 182; N ew Orleans Picayune, Jan., 1844; Second V isit to Am er­ ica, L yell, vol. iL p. 126 ; K ey to U n cle Tom ’s Cabin, p. 134 et seg., w here copies o f large numbers o f sim ilar advertisem ents m ay be found. See description and illustration o f an auction in the rotunda o f th e St. Louis H otel, N e w Orleans, o f estates, pictures, and slaves. Slave States o f Am erica, B uckingham , vol. i. p. 334. 2 Retrospect o f W estern Travel, M artineau, vol. i. p . 250. “ N ew Y ork Independent, March 21st, 1850. 1 K ey to U ncle Tom ’s Cabin, p. 142. 6 N o tes on U ncle Tom ’s Cabin, Stearns, p. 145.

326

THE FLOGGING OF SLAVES

[Ch. IV.

but they were never hanged; more frequently, however, as the violent act was usually witnessed only by negroes, no proof could be obtained,1 and the perpetrator was not even arrested. When negroes themselves committed a capital crime, there were instances of burning them to death at the stake.’ One finds, however, notice of plantations on which the slaves were never whipped. Ampere, who had no sympathy with slavery, visited a German who owned a plantation near Charleston, and who, having no cruelty or tyranny in his nature, appeared to be literally oppressed by his blacks. He was so humane th at he would not whip his slaves. The slaves showed him little gratitude, and labored sluggishly and with great carelessness. When he went into a cabin where the negresses were at work cleaning cotton, he con­ fined himself to showing them how badly their task was done and explaining to them the considerable damage which their negligence caused him. His observations were re­ ceived with grumbling and sullenness. Ampere saw in this case an excellent argument against slavery. H ad the gen­ tleman hired his laborers he would have dismissed them if they did not work to his liking; but under the Southern system his choice lay simply between whipping them or be­ coming a victim to their idleness.3 Masters like this were

1 See p. 309. 2 See Cotton K ingdom , vol. ii. pp. 348, 354. “ T h at slaves have ever b een burned alive has been in d ign an tly denied. T he late J u d g e Jay told m e that he had evid en ce in his possession o f negro burnings every year in th e last tw enty.” See also N ew Y ork Weekly Tribune, Oct. 3d, 1857; A n ti­ slavery H istory o f the John Brown Year, p. 205; D ebate in the H ouse o f Representatives, March 8th, 1860; N e w Y ork Tribune, March 12th, 20th, and A ug. 24th, 1860. T he grave historian R ichard H ildreth so abhorred slavery that, before w ritin g h is serious w ork, D espotism in Am erica, he gave to the press anonym ously a novel, T he W h ite Slave, in w h ich he describes w ith fidelity the burning o f a negro at th e stake, w ho w as a fu g itiv e and a murderer, see chap. xlv. s Prom enade en Amferique, J. J. Ampfere, tom e i. p. 114.

328

SOUTHERN SENTIMENT ON TEACHING THE SLAVES

[Ch . IV.

more positive brutality prevailed. A careful examination of the slavery literature will hardly fail to lead to the con­ clusion that the flood of light which the abolitionists threw upon the practice influenced the slave-owners to mitigate its most cruel features.1 The thesis that slavery is a posi­ tive good began to be maintained after 1831, but no amount of arrogant assertion could prevent the advocates of slavery from being put on the defensive. Their earnest endeavors to convince Northern and foreign visitors of the benefits of the system show their appreciation of the fact that it was under the ban of the civilized w orld; and this very necessity of justifying their peculiar institution made them desirous of suppressing, as far as possible, what they themselves admit­ ted to be its evils. The ideas about the education of negroes were not every­ where alike, and there were other defences of their being kept in ignorance than the one which I have mentioned. A Georgia rice and cotton planter said that “ the very slight­ est amount of education, merely teaching them to read, im­ pairs their value as slaves, for it instantly destroys their con­ tentedness ; and since you do not contemplate changing their condition, it is surely doing them an ill service to destroy their acquiescence in it.” 2 The Georgia gentleman was only partly right. A mass of advertisements of slaves for sale shows that knowledge made them more valuable, although it 1 See, for exam ple, Baltim ore Am erican, quoted in Slavery and Color, W . Chambers, p. 173. Seward m ade a v isit to Culpepper Court-house and w rote his w ife, D ec. 14th, 1857: “ It is quite m anifest th a t th e lo n g de­ bate about slavery has m ade a deep im pression on th e m inds and hearts o f the more refined and generous portion o f the fam ilies in V irginia. T he word ‘ sla v e s’ is seldom used. T hey are ‘ servants,’ ‘ hands.’ They are treated w ith kindness, and th ey appear clean, tid y, and com fortable. I happened to fall in upon a h u sk in g frolic on Mr. P en d leton ’s planta­ tion, and i t w as ind eed a merry and noisy scene. M y v isit w as very pleasant. Mrs. P en d leton is a lad y you w ould respect and love. She is sad w ith cares and responsibilities w'hich she has too m uch conscien­ tiousness to cast off.”— Life o f Seward, vol. ii. p. 331. * K em ble, p. 9.

330

FREDERICK DOUGLASS

[C h . IV

relates that he had to teach his fellow-slaves on the planta tion by stealth, and that when the secret was discovered hi school was broken u p ; he was told, moreover, that if hi were striving to be another N at Turner he would very speed ily meet th at negro’s fate.1 Douglass himself had been taugh to read while a boy by his Baltimore mistress, whose house servant he w as; but he relates that, though eager to learn and though the teacher was proud of the rapid progress o the pupil, when the master came to hear of this instruction further progress was peremptorily forbidden, because it wa thought learning would spoil the best negro in the world b> making him disconsolate and unhappy.” And tfiere were exceptions even to the crass ignorance o field hands. Olmsted visited a Mississippi plantation wher< all the negroes knew how to read : they had been taught bi one of their number, and with the permission of the owner They were well fed, and did good, honest work. The maste was growing rich from the fruits of their labor, and, thougl illiterate himself, was proud of his instructed and religiou slaves.3 Closely allied with the subject of education is th at of re ligious nurture. It must be borne in mind that the South ern people were very pious, and held strictly to the orthc dox faith. Liberal religious movements made no headway among them. If anything were needed to make the name of Garrison and Parker more opprobrious in the South, i

1 Life o f F red. D ouglass, p. 105. 2 Ib id ., p. 70. Sarah G rim ke received a severe rebuke for teaching her little negro m aid to read. The Sisters G rim ke, Birnev, p. 15 “ Slavery and k n ow led ge cannot live together. To enligh ten th e slav is to break his chain. . . . H e cannot be left to read in an enlighl ened age w ith ou t endan gering h is m aster; for w hat can he read whici w ill not g iv e at least som e h in t o f his w rongs? Should h is eye clianc to fall on the Declaration o f Independence, h ow w ou ld th e truth glare o: him ‘ th at all men are born free and equal?’ ”— C hanning on Slavery, j 75. ’ Cotton K ingdom , vol. ii. p. 70.

332

CONDITION OF TIIE SLAVES

[Cii. IV,

often hard, they were assured that if they remained faith­ ful and steadfast, their reward hereafter would be exceed­ ing great.1 Following the teaching of the fathers of the church, they took pains to impress upon the slaves that while they suffered from the fall of Adam, they labored likewise under the curse of Canaan; th at to this were due their black skin and hard hands; that these were manifes­ tations of God’s displeasure, and pointed them out as proper subjects of slavery.2 The slaves were fond of religious exercises. Even the arid discourses of the white clergymen were a relief from their monotonous daily toil, while to attend upon the ex­ hortations of one of their own color gave unalloyed de­ light. Yet there did not seem to be in the minds of the slaves any necessary connection between religion and mo­ rality. An entire lack of chastity among the women, and an entire lack of honesty among the men, did not prevent their joining the church and becoming, in the estimation of their fellow-slaves, exemplary Christians. It is obvious that if the white preachers inculcated these virtues, such preach­ ing, when accompanied with the averment th at slavery was a necessary relation between the blacks and the whites, must be without effect; for to the slaves an absolute condition of the system seemed to be th a t the labor of the man and the person of the woman belonged to the master. No mor­ alist would undertake to preach honesty to men who did not ' A ragged old negro w h om O lm sted m et in M ississippi show ed that such preaching had taken root by discoursing th u s : “ R ou gh tare’s good enough for d is w orld. . . . D is w orld ain’t noth in ’ ; d is is hell, d is is hell to w h at’s a-com in’ a r te r .. . . I reckon de Lord has ’cep ted o f me, and I ’specs I shall be saved, dou gh I don’t look m uch lik e it. . . . D e Lord am m y rock, and he sh all not perw ail over m e ; I w ill lie dow n in green past­ ures and take up m y bed in hell, y et w ill not h is m ercy circum w ent m e.” —Cotton K ingdom , vol. ii. p. 90. a K em ble, p. 5 7 ; Life o f F rederick D ou glass, p. 155. A curious yet characteristic catechism for slaves w as pu blished in th e Southern Episco­ p a lia n , and cited in the N e w Y ork Weekly Tribune, June 10th, 1854.

334

THE HOUSE-SERVANTS

[Ch. IV

man’s recollection that “ the family servants were treated a well as the average hired servants of to-day.” 1 That thes remarks were in a measure true of some houses in the Soutl cannot be denied, but there is abundant testimony to shov th a t these statements by no means represent the averag condition of household slaves.2 This is what we should es pect, for the relation described by Olay was an inherent im possibility, and the assertion of General Sherman is refutei by the fact that the servant of to-day has a check upon th master in his privilege of quitting the service. For the sake, however, of putting this aspect of slaver; in its fairest light, I am glad to refer to the observations o two English travellers. Buckingham thought that the cor dition of the “ slaves of the household was quite as con fortable as that of servants in the middle ranks of life i: England. They are generally well-fed, well-dressed, atter tive, orderly, respectful, and easy to be governed, but mor by kindness than by severity.” 3 Sir Charles Lyell was o the opinion th at the house-slaves had many advantage “ over the white race in the same rank of life in Europe.” A witty English novelist, struck with the fact that, unde the system, a good cook or an honest butler could not b tempted away by an offer of higher wages, said th at negr slavery in America was a charming domestic institution. The existence of mulattoes, quadroons, and of slaves faire still than these, calls attention to the fact of the mixtur of the white and negro races. This union was betwee; the white man and the negr ess.5 The giving birth to colored child by a white woman was almost unknown ; th 1 N orth Am erican Review, Oct., 1888. 2 See A Journey in th e B ack Country, O lm sted, p. 288. 3 T he Slave States o f Am erica, B uckingham , vol. i. p. 131. 1 Second V isit, Sir Charles L yell, vol. i. p. 263; see also H om es o f N e w W orld, F . Bremer, vol. i. p. 277. 5 “ The tell-tale faces o f children, g lo w in g w ith their m aster’s bloor but doom ed for their mother’s sk in to slavery.” — Sum ner’s speech on th Barbarism o f Slavery.

336

THE MORALS OF SLAVERY

[Cn. I1

ily by killing the offending white, but such cases are ran If, indeed, the desire to revenge the injury had been commoi the negro’s feelings would have been held in check by tli certainty of punishment; for when such murders were con mitted, execution was prompt, generally according to lync law, and the offender was occasionally burned at the stake The practice of gentlemen seeking illicit pleasure amon the slaves of their households and estates introduced int the best society of the South a discordant element whic one cannot contemplate without feeling profound pity fc the suffering of many noble and refined women whose 1< was cast in a country where such a system prevailed. . planter’s wife is only “ the chief slave of a harem,” declarei in the bitterness of her heart, the wife of a lordly slav holder.1 “ We Southern ladies are complimented with tl: name of wives,” said a sister of President Madison, “ bi we are only the mistresses of seraglios.” 2 H arriet Mart neau wrote that in the Southwestern States “ most hear rending disclosures were made to me by the ladies, heat of families, of the state of society, and of their own intoler ble sufferings in it.” 3 Madison avowed to her th at thei was great licentiousness on the Virginia plantations, “ ar that it was understood that the female slaves were to b come mothers at fifteen.” 4 It had become a proverb ar a byword th at “ the noblest blood of Virginia runs in tl: veins of slaves.” 6 Fanny Kemble writes that almost evej Southern planter admitted one or several of his fema slaves to the close intimacy of his bed, and had a “ fami] more or less numerous of illegitimate colored children.’ A planter told O lm sted: “ There is not a likely-lookir black girl in this State th at is not the concubine of a whi man. There is not an old plantation in which the gran 1 Society in Am erica, M artineau, vol. ii. p. 118. 2 G oodell’s Am erican Slave Code, p. 111. 3 Society in America, vol. i. p. 304. 4 Ib id ., vol. ii. p . 118. 5 G oodell, p. 84. 0 K em ble, pp. 15 and 23; see also p. 140.

338

THE MORALS OF SLAVERY

[Ch . H

for refinement and cultivation, told a story of which a fa vorite slave, a very pretty mulatto girl, was the heroine A young man came to stay at her house and fell in lov with the girl. ‘ She came to me,’ said the lady, ‘ for prc tection, which I gave her.’ The young man went away but after some weeks he returned, saying he was so mucl in love with the girl th a t he could not live without her ‘ I pitied the young man,’ concluded the lady, ‘ so I sol< the girl to him for fifteen hundred dollars.’ ” 1 This phase of the morals of slavery may be best studie< at New Orleans. The occupation of this city by three dis tinct nationalities had given it a cosmopolitan air such a was seen in no other city of the country before the war The graceful qualities of the Latin race were blended witl the manly virtues of the Anglo-Saxon stock. The city wa a centre of wealth, and the abode of refinement, elegance and luxury." The Spanish and French mixed their bloo< freely with the negroes, and the result at New Orleans wai the production of beautiful quadroons and octoroons whicl reached their highest type in the female sex. Such girl were frequently sent to Paris to be educated. They wen generally healthy in appearance, and often very handsome they were remarked for a graceful and elegant carriage and showed exquisite taste in dress; their manners wen relined; in short, they were accomplished young womei who would, perhaps, have been fitted for the highest society in the land, had it not been for the taint of African blood They could not m arry with a white m an; paying the uni versal homage to the superiority of the Caucasian race

1 Society in Am erica, vol. ii. p. 123. 3 “ X la N ou velle Orleans, nous avons retrouvfi avec plaisir 1’op franijais et la societC franijaise. U n bal chez M. Slid ell est ce que j ’ai vi ju sq u ’ici de plus parisien cn Amfirique. D ans trois salons sc pressait ui inonde fort brillant. U ne certaine grfice creole se remarquait chez plu sieurs des belles danseuses que j ’adniirais: le m tla n g c du sang frangai e t du sang anglo-saxon avait produit de trfes-beaux rgsultats.” —Prome nade cn AmCriquc, J. J. AmpSre, tome ii. p. 153.

THE MULATTOES

340

[C h. IV

cent, of the population, which he was quite ready to believe and from this he drew a conclusion very favorable to tin morals of the Southern States. He writes : “ If the statis tics of the illegitimate children of the whites born her* could be compared with those in Great Britain, it migh lead to conclusions by no means favorable to the free coun try. Here (i. e., in the Southern States) there is no possi bility of concealment; the color of the child stamps upor him the mark of bastardy, and transmits it to great-grand children born in lawful wedlock; whereas, if in Europe then was some mark or indelible stain betraying all the delin quencies and frailties, not only of parents, but of ancestors for three or four generations back, what unexpected dis closures should we not witness!” 1 De Tocqueville and Lyell, however, wrote before anj count was taken of mulattoes in our decennial census. Such an enumeration was first made in 1850, and a compar ison of the figures of 1850 and 1860 shows that the mixture of blood was greater than De Tocqueville and Lyell imag ined, while yet it did not reach the proportions th at might be supposed from many statements occurring in the aboli tion literature. It must be understood that, as the mulatto is the product of a union between the white and the black, the term, as used in the census repoi’ts, was intended to com prise those having a mixture of white blood from one-hali to seven-eighths, but not designed to cover the issue of con nections between mulattoes and blacks where there would be a preponderance of African blood. In the slave States, in 1850, ten per cent, of the colored people were mulattoes, and the proportion was twelve per cent, in I860.3 The su 1 Second V isit to the U n ited States, vol. i. p. 271. 8 D e T ocqueville travelled in th is country in 1831-33, and L yell made his second v isit in 1845-46. 1S50.

I860.

3,093,605 348.895

3,697,274 518,360

T otal colored population, 3,442,500

4,215,634

3 B lack s . M ulattoes

P r o p o rtio n . 1S50. 1860.

89.86 10.14

87.70 12.30

342

THE MORALS OF SLAVERY

[C h . IV.

at Richmond he had an interview with the governor of V ir­ ginia, in which the latter spoke of the danger of amal­ gamation at the North ; “ and when,” as Seward himself re­ ports the conversation, “ I told him th at commerce of the races was less frequent there than in the South, he forgot the question and extolled that commerce as freeing the white race from habits of licentiousness.” 1 The discussion of this defence is the part of the moralist, not of the histo­ rian. Our concern is simply with the facts. The most scathing review of this practice may be found in H arriet Martineau’s chapter on the “ Morals of Slavery,” which oc­ curs in “ Society in America.” Some notion of this part of her book may be had when I mention that all the refer­ ences but one which have been made to it in the present consideration of the m atter were drawn from this chapter.2 The treatise is admirably written. I t is not that of a one­ sided agitator who searches only for facts which will square with his theory, but it is the work of a student of social science who has gathered facts with care, and only drawn legitimate deductions. It was this chapter th at brought down on the author that indiscriminate abuse in which the critics vied with one another in making ungenerous allu­ sions to her infirmity of deafness, and insulting references to her maidenhood; for it was an offence to put the finger upon the plague-spot. One of the authoritative apologists of slavery admits that Miss Martineau was correct. The chapter on “ Morals of Slavery,” writes W. Gilmore Simms, “ is painful because it is full of truth. . . . It gives a collection of statements, which are, no doubt, in too many cases founded upon facts, of the illicit and foul conduct of some among us who make their slaves the victims and the instruments alike of the most licentious passions. . . . We do not quarrel with Miss Mar-

1 Life o f W . H. Seward, vol. i. p. 777. 2 The one on p. 336, to vol. i . ; th is chapter occurs in vol. ii.

344

THE POOR WHITES

[Cn. IV.

I have spoken of the effect of slavery on the slaves and slave-holders, but there was another large class in the South that must be considered. The poor whites were fre e ; they had the political privileges of the planters, but their physi­ cal condition was almost as bad, and their lack of education almost as marked as th at of the negroes. Yet they assert­ ed the aristocracy of color more arrogantly than did the ric h ; it was their one claim to superiority, and they hugged closely the race distinction. Driven off the fertile lands by the encroachments of the planter, or prevented from occu­ pying the virgin soil by the outbidding of the wealthy, they farmed the worn-out lands and gained a miserable and pre­ carious subsistence. As compared with laborers on the farms or in the workshops of the North, their physical situ­ ation was abject poverty, their intellectual state utter igno­ rance, and their moral condition grovelling baseness.1 Nor did this proceed entirely from the fact th a t they were forced to work the barren, unproductive lands. Olmsted drew an instructive comparison between the poor whites of Georgia and the inhabitants of Cape Cod. In all New England the sterility of the soil of the cape was a proverb; yet this care­ ful observer declared th a t “ there is hardly a poor woman’s cow on the cape th at is not better housed and more com­ fortably provided for than a majority of the white people of Georgia.” He has shrewdly appreciated the peculiar character common to the people of Cape Cod and the “ sandhillers ” and “ crackers ” of Georgia. “ In both,” he writes, “ there is frankness, boldness, and simplicity; but in the one it is associated with intelligence, discretion, and an expansion of the mind, resulting from considerable education; in the other, with ignorance, improvidence, laziness, and the preju­ dices of narrow minds.” s

1 F or the contrast o f illiteracy and com m on in telligen ce N orth and South, see Cotton K in gdom , vol. ii. p. 331. * O lm sted’s Seaboard Slave States, p. 538. The difference is thoroughly discussed, and th e inducem ents to a seafaring and fishing life are considered.

346

THE SOUTHERN OLIGARCHY

[C h. IV.

and more than seven millions, bond and free,1 labored for them or were subservient to their interests. Yet these fig­ ures by no means represent the exclusive character of the slave-holding oligarchy. In the enumeration of slave-hold­ ers were included many men from the laboring class who by unusual industry or economy had become possessed of one slave or perhaps more, but who politically and socially belonged only to the class from which they had sprung.2 Of the large planters owning more than fifty slaves, whose elegance, luxury, and hospitality are recited in tales of trav­ ellers, over whose estates and lives has shone the lustre of romance and poetry, there were less than eight thousand.3 They were the true centre of the oligarchy. Around them clustered the few educated people of the country, also the high societies of the cities, composed of merchants, doctors, lawyers, and politicians; which society was seen to the best advantage in New Orleans, Charleston, and Richmond. In ­ cluding all these, the total number must have been sm all; but it was for them th at slavery existed. W hat has been here adduced is sufficient to show that slavery was certainly not for the advantage of the negro. No one seriously main­ tained that there were any benefits in the system for the poor w hites; since it degraded labor, and therefore degraded the white man who had to work with his hands.4 It is one of the striking facts of our history that these despised peo­ ple fought bravely and endured much for a cause adverse to

1 The total population o f the slave States for 1850 was 9,569,540—com ­ posed o f w h ites, free colored, and slaves. 3 T h e holders o f one slave were 68,820; o f more than one and les than five, 105,683— more than h a lf o f the w h ole number, w h ich w'as 347,525. 3 D e B ow ’s U. S. Census R e p o r t; O lm sted’s Cotton K in gd om , vol. i. p. 20. 4 F or a full account o f the poor w hites, see O lm sted’s Seaboard Slave States, p p. 5 0 5 ,5 0 8 ,5 1 4 ; K em ble, pp. 76 and 146; Cotton K ingdom , vol. i. p. 22; K ey to U n cle T om ’s Cabin, p. 185; H elper’s Im p en d in g Crisis, passim.

348

THE SOUTH Iff POLITICS

[Ch . IV.

ance in office was the proper reward of those who had shown capacity and honesty. The absurd practice which prevailed at the North, of rotating their representatives in the lower house in order to make room for as many as pos­ sible of those who had political claims, never gained foot­ hold in the South. This was, indeed, one reason why the South won advantages over the North, in spite of its infe­ rior numerical strength.1 I t is not surprising that the Southerners shone in the political sphere. Their intellect tended naturally to public affairs; they had the talent and leisure for politics which a landed aristocracy is apt to have under a representative government; and when the slavery question assumed im­ portance at Washington, their concern for shaping the course of national legislation became a passion, and seemed necessary for the preservation of their order. But it was only in law and politics th at the South was eminent. She did not give birth to a poet, nor to a philosopher after Jef­ ferson, and his philosophy she rejected. She could lay claim only to an occasional scientist, but to no great historian; none of her novelists or essayists who wrote before the war has the next generation cared to read.2 Whoever, thinking of the opportunities for culture in the ancient world given by the existence of slavery, seeks in the Southern com­ munity a trace even of that intellectual and artistic devel­ opment which was the glory of Athens, will look in vain. Had the other causes existed, the sparse settlements of the South, the lack of a compact social body,5 made utterly im-

1 T h is superiority is boastfully asserted in D e B ow ’s R esources, vol. iii p. 63. 8 A partial exception m ust be m ade o f W . G ilmore Sim m s. A new e d i­ tion o f his books was pu blished in 1882, and his revolutionary tales are still read b y schoolboys, although to noth in g lik e th e exten t th at Coo­ per’s novels are read. “ T he South has no literature,” said Rufus Choate, R ecollections, Parker, p. 265. 3 In 1852, Mrs. D avis rejoiced in “ our m ail tw ice a w eek .” M emoir o f Jefferson D avis, vol. i. p. 475.

350

LACK OF SCHOOLS

[Ca. IV.

nor an engraving or copy of any kind of a work of art of the slightest merit.” 1 The lack of schools was painfully apparent. The defi­ ciency in the rudiments of education among the poor whites and smaller slave-holders was recognized, and attracted at­ tention from the Southern newspapers, and occasionally from those high in office. Much vain declamation resulted, but no practical action. Indeed, the situation was one of diffi­ culty. To plant schools in a spai’sely settled country, among a people who have not the desire of learning and who do not appreciate its value, requires energy, and this energy was lacking. Nevertheless, there must have been among the slave-holding lords a secret satisfaction that the poor whites were content to remain in ignorance;3 for in the decade before the war great objections were made to schoolbooks prepared and published at the North, and yet there were no others. In the beginning of the abolitionist agi­ tation, Duff Green, perceiving th a t the benefits of slavery 1 Cotton K in gdom , vol. ii. p. 285. T h is w h ole chapter, “ T h e C ondition and Character o f the P rivileged Classes o f th e South,” should be read by every one w h o is interested in the social state o f th at section before the war. See also D espotism in Am erica, H ildreth, p. 147. L ieber w rote from Colum bia to H illard, May, 1851: “ E very son o f a fool here is a great statesm an, m editatin g on the relations o f State sov­ ereignty to th e U n ited States governm ent; but as to roads, com m on schools, glass in the w indow s, food besides salt meat, as to cheerily jo in ­ in g in th e general chorus o f progress, w hat is th at for D on R anudo de Colobrados, o f South Carolina— out at elbow s, to be su r e ; but then, w hat o f th at ?”— Life and Letters, p. 254. 2 “ W e im agine that th e propriety o f sh ootin g a Y an k ee schoolm aster, w hen cau gh t tam pering w ith our slaves, has never b een questioned by any in te llig en t Southern man. T his w e tak e to be the unw ritten law o f the South. . . . L et all Y ankee schoolm asters w ho purpose in v a d in g the South, endow ed w ith a strong nasal tw ang, a lo n g Scriptural nam e, and W ebster’s lexicograp hic book o f abom inations, seek som e m ore congenial land , w here their lives w ill be m ore secure than in 1 th e vile and hom i­ cidal slave States.’ ’’— Richm ond E xam iner, 1854, cited in a pam phlet en titled A Bake-pan for D oughfaces, pu blished at B urlington, V t., by C. G oodrich.

352

CRITICISM OF NORTHERN LITERATURE

[Ch. IV.

Review complained that these books contained poems of Cowper and speeches of Webster which Southern children should not read, and he was certain that if parents knew their whole contents “ they would demand expurgated edi­ tions for the use of their children.” All schoolboys know that the kind of books complained of contain, for the most part, the choice selections of English literature—works that have survived owing to their elevation of thought and beauty of expression. Such attacks were a condemnation of literature itself, for from Homer down the master-spirits of many ages have reprobated slavery. History, as well as literature, needed expurgation before it was adapted to the instruction of Southern youth. Peter Parley’s “ Pictorial History of the United States ” was com­ plained of, because the author, although a conservative W hig and far from being an abolitionist, deemed it neces­ sary, in the course of his narrative, to mention slavery, the attempts at colonization, and the zeal with which some peo­ ple labored “ in behalf of immediate and universal emanci­ pation.” 1 I t was likewise necessary to prepare the historical reading of adults with care. In an editorial notice in De Bow's Review of the current number of Harper’’s Magazine, which had a large circulation at the South, it was suggested that the notice of the Life of Toussaint “ had been better left out, so far as the South is concerned.” 2 To what absurdi­ ties did this people come on account of their peculiar insti­ tution! Toussaint, as a brilliant historian of our day has told us, exercised on our history “ an influence as decisive as that of any European ruler.” 3 He was one of the im­ portant links in th a t chain of historical events of which Napoleon and Jefferson were the others, th at gave us Louisiana and New Orleans. These comments which have been cited are not taken 1 See D e Bow's Review, vol. xx. p. 74. 3 See ibid., vol. x. p. 492. 3 H enry A dam s’s H istory o f the U n ited States, vol. i. p. 378.

354

THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH

[Ch. IV.

If we contrast the North and the South in material prosper­ ity, the South will appear to no better advantage than it does in respect of intellectual development. Yet the superiority of the N orth in this regard was by no means admitted. The thinking men of the South felt, if this were proved, a serious drawback to their system would be manifest. We find, therefore, in the Southern literature many arguments to show that the contrary was tr u e ; most of them take the form of statistical demonstrations, in which the census fig­ ures are made to do strange and wondrous duty. Parson Brownlow, of Tennessee, in a joint debate at Philadelphia, where he maintained th at American slavery ought to be per­ petuated, brought forward an array of figures which dem­ onstrated to his own satisfaction that the material prosper­ ity of the South was greater than that of the N o rth ; at the time he was speaking it seemed to him th at his section was smiling with good fortune, while the Northern industries were crippled by the loss of Southern trade and by the finan­ cial panic of 1857.1 A favorite method of argument was to make a comparison between two representative States. Georgia and New York were contrasted in the light of the census of 1850, with the result of convincing the Southern mind that in social, political, and financial conditions Geor­ gia was far superior to New York.2 A paper was read be­ fore the Mercantile Society of Cincinnati to demonstrate that, as between Maryland and Massachusetts, Yirginia and New York, Kentucky and Ohio, the slave States were the more prosperous. “ Virginia,” says the author, “ instead of being poor and in need of the pity of the much poorer pop­ ulation of the North, is perhaps the richest community in

Southern and Southw estern States is given at $750,000, in a total o f $16,000,000; in the first-nam ed figures are inclu ded B altim ore and Louis­ v ille, w h ich w ere by far th e m ost im portant p u b lish in g cities in th e South. 1 D ebate betw een B row nlow and Pryne at P hilad elph ia, 1858, pp. 258 and 265. 2 D e B ow ’s Industrial Resources, vol. iii. p. 122.

356

THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH

[Cu. IV.

South,1 and sometimes the greater growth in wealth and population of the N orth would break in upon the mind of Southern thinkers with such force th a t they could not hold their peace.2 Sometimes the truth would be owned, but its dissemination was prevented, for fear that the admission of it would furnish arguments to the abolitionists.3 Two of the most careful observers who ever considered the differences between the South and the N orth are unim­ peachable witnesses to the greater prosperity of the latter. Washington noted, in 1796, that the prices of land were higher in Pennsylvania than in Virginia and Maryland, “ although they are not of superior quality.” One of the important reasons for the difference was th at Pennsylvania had passed laws for the gradual abolition of slavery, which had not been done in the other two States ; but it was Wash­ ington’s opinion that “ nothing is more certain than that they must, at a period not far remote,” take steps in the same direction.4 De Tocqueville was struck with the external contrast be­ tween the free and the slave States. “ The traveller who floats down the current of the Ohio,” he wrote, “ to the point where that river joins the Mississippi may be said to sail between liberty and slavery; and he only needs to look around him in order to decide in an instant which is the more favorable to humanity. On the Southern bank of the river the population is thinly scattered; from time to time one descries a gang of slaves a t work, going with indolent air over the half-desert fields; the primeval forest unceasing­ ly reappeal’s ; one would think that the people were asleep; man seems to be idle, nature alone offers a picture of activ-

1 See a thou ghtfu l article in th e A ugusta Chronicle, cited in N iles’s R egister, A pril, 1849, vol. lx x v . p. 271. 5 See citation from R ichm ond Enquirer, Cotton K in gdom , vol. ii. p. 365 also R ichm ond W hig, cited in Life o f Garrison, vol. i. p . 252. 3 See proceedings in regard to an address to th e farmers at a V irginia agricultural convention, Cotton K ingdom , vol. ii. p. 366. 4 Sparks, vol. xii. p. 326.

358

THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH

[C h. IV.

Nor will the diversity of climate account in any consider­ able degree for the difference between the South and the N orth in material prosperity and intellectual development. The climate of Virginia and Kentucky was like th at of Penn­ sylvania and O hio; yet the contrast was seen in a marked degree between those communities. The climate of the slave States as a whole was not warmer than that of Italy or Spain, and those countries have been the seat of an ener­ getic and intellectual people.’ An illustration showing that the physical conditions of the South did not require slavery was seen in the German colony settled in Texas. By 1857 the Germans made up nearly one-half of the white popula­ tion of Western Texas, and constituted a community apart. They believed in the dignity of labor; those who had not land were willing to work for the proprietors, and those who had capital would not purchase slaves. They were industri­ ous, thrifty, fairly prosperous, and contented. They brought from their homes some of the flowers of civilization, and were an oasis in the arid desert of slavery. Olmsted had a hap­ pier experience among these people than in his journey from the Mississippi to the James, where he failed to see the com­ mon indications of comfort and culture.” Among the Ger­ mans of Texas, he wrote, “ you are welcomed by a figure in blue flannel shirt and pendent beard,” quoting T acitus; you see “ Madonnas upon log w a lls c o f f e e is served you “ in tin cups upon Dresden saucers;” and you hear a symphony of Beethoven on a grand piano.3 These Germans loved mu­ sic and hated slavery. In 1854, after their annual musical festival at San Antonio, they resolved themselves into a po-

1 “ Contem plated in the mass, facts do not countenance th e current id e th at great h eat hinders progress.” — Sociology, H erbert Spencer, vol. i. p. 19. “ H ig h degrees o f moral sentim ent control th e unfavorable influ­ ences o f c lim a te ; and som e o f our grandest exam ples o f men and o f races com e from the equatorial regions— as th e genius o f E g y p t, o f In dia, and o f Arabia.”— Em erson’s Lecture on C ivilization. 5 See p. 349. 3 O lm sted’s T exas Journey, p. 430.

360

THE SOUTHERN ARISTOCRACY

[Ch. IV.

mony of English gentlemen and ladies, few of whom have any sympathy with slavery, is almost unanimous in this re­ spect. They bear witness to the aristocratic bearing of their generous hosts. Between the titled English visitors and the Southern gentlemen there was, indeed, a fellow-feel­ ing, which grew up between the two aristocracies separated by the sea. There was the concord of sentiments. The Southern lord, like his English prototype, believed th at the cultivation of the soil was the finest and noblest pursuit.1 But nearly all educated Englishmen, whether belonging to the aristocracy or not, enjoyed their intercourse with South­ erners more than they did the contact with the best society at the North, on account of the high value which they placed on good manners. The men and women who com­ posed the Brook Farm community, and the choice spirits whom they attracted, were certainly more interesting and admirable than any set of people one could meet in Rich­ mond, Charleston, or New Orleans ;2 but society, properly so called, is not made up of women with missions and men who aim to reform the world. The little knot of literary people who lived in Boston, Cambridge, and vicinity were a fellowship by whom it was an honor to be received; but these were men of learning and wisdom; they were “ inac­ cessible, solitary, impatient of interruptions, fenced by eti­ quette and few of them had the desire, leisure, or money to take part in the festive entertainments which are a neces­ sary accompaniment of society. When the foreign visitors who came here during the gen­ eration before the war compared Northern and Southern

1 “ Y ou know I am en gaged entirely on my estates at present, and solely occu pied , thank God ! in the finest and noblest pursuit— th e cu lti­ vation o f the soil.”— Letter o f F. W . P ickens, o f South Carolina, to Jam es Buchanan, Life o f B uchanan, Curtis, vol. i. p. 608; see also M emorials o f a Southern Planter, Sm edes, p. 115. s “ J e ne trouve pas ft la N ou velle Orleans la m6me v ie intellectu elle, le mSme niouvenient scientifique qu'ii Boston, 5 N e w Y ork, a P h ilad el­ ph ia.”— J. J. AmpSre, Prom enade en Amferique, tom e ii. p. 155.

362

“ UNCLE TOM’S CABIN”

[C h. IV.

Accustomed to irresponsible power over his dependants, he could not endure contradiction, he would not brook opposi­ tion. When one lord ran against another in controversy, if the feelings were deeply engaged the final argument was the pistol. The smaller slave-holders, influenced partly by the same reason and partly actuated by imitation of the aristocracy, settled their disputes in like manner, but more brutally, for they also used the bowie-knife in their encoun­ ters. The poor whites aped their betters. The consequence was a condition of society hardly conceivable in a civilized, Christian, Anglo-Saxon community. In the new States of the Southwest, it was perhaps explainable as incident to the life of the frontier; but when met with in the old communi­ ties of Virginia and the Carolinas, it could admit but of one inference—that it was primarily due to slavery.1 But slav­ ery itself and these attendant phenomena were survivals in the South, more than in any other contemporary enlight­ ened community, of a passing militant civilization.2 I have endeavored to describe slavery and its effects as it might have appeared to an honest inquirer in the decade before the war. There was no difficulty in seeing the facts as they have been stated, or in arriving at the conclusions drawn. There was a correct picture of the essential features

' My authorities for th is descrip tion o f th e m anners o f th e South are O lm sted’s C otton K in gdom and Seaboard Slave States; K em ble’s Journal; M artineau’s Society in Am erica; Buckingham 's Slave States o f A m erica; M ackay’s Life and L iberty in Am erica; D e B ow ’s R esources; B asil H all’s N orth Am erica; Am erica and the Am ericans, by A ch ille Murat; P ro-slav­ ery A rgum ent; D e Boio's R eview ; Prom enade en Amferique, J. J. Ampfere. “ L ’influence de l ’esclavage, combinfie avec le earactfere anglais, explique les moeurs et l’gtat social du Sud.” —D e la Dfimocratie en Amerique, vol. i. p. 46. See also Hurrygraphs, N . P . W illis, p. 302. 2 F or d istin ction betw een m ilitant and industrial organizations, s H erbert Spencer’s Sociology, p assim ; also D ata o f E thics, p. 135, where Spencer w rites: W h ile m ilitancy “ is dom inant, ow nership o f a slave is honorable, and, in the slave,su b m ission is praisew orth y;” bu t as ind us­ trialism “ grow s dom inant, slave-ow ning becom es a crime, and servile obe­ dience excites contem pt.”

364

“ UNCLE TOM’S CABIN”

[Cn. IV

the abuses in slas'ery mentioned in the book out of then own knowledge; and on speaking of some bad master anc wishing to express his tyrannical character and barbaroui conduct, they would say, ‘ He is a real L e g r e e o r , ‘ He ii worse than Legree.’ ” 1 A Southern Presbyterian preache] who published a book of speeches and letters to maintaii th a t “ slavery is of God,” and ought “ to continue for th( good of the slave, the good of the master, and the good o: the whole American people,” said: “ I have admitted, anc do again admit, without qualification, that every fact ir ‘ Uncle Tom’s Cabin ’ has occurred in the S o u t h a m again he speaks of it as “ that book of genius, true in al its facts, false in all its impressions.” 3 The great desire o! the author to be impartial was evident from the portrayal of slave-holders ; the humane and generous men were ever more prominent in the story than the inhuman ones. She did justice to the prevailing and correct sentiment at tin South that Northerners were harder masters than Southerr men, by making Legree, whose name became a synonym foi a brutal slave-holder, a son of New England. Mrs. Stowe was felicitous in her description of the negrc character. There was a fitness in the secondary title of the book, “ Life among the Lowly.” I t was the life she had studied with rare human sympathy, and in its portrayal the author’s genius is seen to the best advantage. Some critics objected th at Uncle Tom was an impossible character, anc that the world, in weeping at the tale of his ill-treatmenl and sufferings, exhibited a mawkish sentimentality. Bui the author knew his prototype.3 Frederick Douglass alsc describes a colored man whose resemblance to Uncle Ton: was “ so perfect th a t he might have been the original ol Mrs. Stowe’s Christian hero.” 4 Rev. Noah Davis, who wrote 1 Soutli-side V iew o f Slavery, N ehem iah Adams, p. 158. 2 Slavery Ordained by G od, Ross, pp. 5, 38,53. 8 P reface to new edition o f U ncle Tom ’s Cabin, p. vii. 4 Life o f D ouglass, p. 94.

36 6

SOUTHERN DEFENCE OF SLAVERY

[Ch. IV.

preciated that at the South, owing to the great number of negroes, the problem would be a far different one. There was, therefore, considerable sympathy with the opinion of McDuffie, that if the slaves were freed and made voters, no rational man could live in such a state of society.1 Basil Hall, who travelled in this country in 1827 and 1828, believed that the slave-holders were “ a class of men who are really entitled to a large share of our in d u lg e n c e th a t no men were more ready than were most of the American planters to grant “ th at slavery is an evil in itself and eminently an evil in its c o n se q u e n c e sb u t to do away with it seemed “ so completely beyond the reach of any human exertions th at I consider the abolition of slavery as one of the most profit­ less of all possible subjects of discussion.” 3 The difficulty did not escape the philosophic mind of De Tocqueville. “ I am obliged to confess,” he wrote, “ that I do not regard the abolition of slavery as a means of putting off the struggle between the two races in the Southern States. . . . God for­ bid th at I should justify the principle of negro slavery, as some American writers have done; but I only observe that all the countries which formerly adopted th a t execrable principle are not equally able to abandon it at the present time.” 3 Owing, however, to the efforts which Southern statesmen made for the extension of slavery, it became necessary to maintain the proposition that slavery is a positive good. The logic of the abolitionists likewise had influence in goad­ ing the Southern reasoners to this position. “ Twenty years ago,” wrote W . Gilmore Simms, “ few persons in the South undertook to justify negro slavery, except on the score of necessity. Now, very few persons in the same region ques­ tion their perfect right to the labor of their slaves; and, more, their moral obligation to keep them still subject as 1 Life o f Garrison, vol. ii. p. 62. 3 B asil H a ll’s N orth Am erica, vol. ii. p. 62. 3 D e la Dem ocratic en Am^rique, vol. ii. p. 338.

368

SOUTHERN DEFENCE OF SLAVERY

[C h. IV.

people? W hat are they, th at they should subject us to the question ? . . . The Southern people form a nation, and, as such, it derogates from their dignity th a t they should be called to answer at the tribunal of any other nation. When that call shall be definitely or imperatively made, they will answer with their weapons, and in no other language than that of war to the knife.” 1 Dew, the professor of history, metaphysics, and political law at William and Mary College, Virginia, propounded two questions: “ Can these two distinct races of people, now liv­ ing together as master and servant, be ever separated ?” and “ will the day ever arrive when the black can be liberated from his thraldom and mount upward in the scale of civil­ ization and rights, to an equality with the white ?” 2 He answered both of these questions with a decided negative; his article, full of deductions from history and law, and abounding in wealth of illustration, essayed to prove that any such consummation was either undesirable or impossible. He narrowed the question to Virginia; but the inference was plain that what applied to Virginia could with greater force be urged in reference to most of the other slave States. The author arrived at this conclusion : “ There is slave prop­ erty of the value of $100,000,000 in the State of Virginia, and it matters but little how you destroy it, whether by the slow process of the cautious practitioner, or with the fright­ ful despatch of the self-confident quack; when it is gone, no m atter how, the deed will be done, and Virginia will be a desert.” 3 We can only regard with pitv these arguments that were retailed in the select circles of the South, and used to per-

1 Pro-slavery Argum ent, p. 184. 5 Ibid., p. 287. s Ibid., p. 384. T his essay o f Prof. D ew w as a review o f the debate in th e V irgin ia legislature, 1831-32 (see p. 57), attracted m uch attention, and had great influence on pu blic sentim ent in V irginia at the tim e. T he argum ent w as regarded as convincin g, and ■worthy o f p u blication in con­ nection w ith essays o f a later date.

370

SOUTHERN DEFENCE OF SLAVERY

[Ch . IV.

petition,’ and ask in their way for food; are they the less property ?” 1 So long as Southern reasoners maintained th at the negro race was inferior to the Caucasian, their basis was scientific truth, although their inference th at this fact justified slav­ ery was cruel as well as illogical. But the assertion th at the negro does not partake of the nature of mankind is as repugnant to science as it is to common-sense. The chim­ panzee is not so near in intellect to the blackest Congo as is this negro to Daniel Webster. The common possession of language creates a wide gulf between man and the high­ est of the other animals.2 The chief argument in favor of slavery was drawn from the Bible. The Mosaic law authorized the buying and hold­ ing of bondmen and bondmaids; it was therefore argued that if God’s chosen people were not only permitted but enjoined to possess slaves, slavery must certainly be an in­ stitution of the Deity. Texts of approval from the New Testament were more difficult to find. Although slavery in the Boman empire was an obtrusive fact, Christ was silent on the subject. The apologists of slavery made the utmost of Paul’s exhortation to servants to obey their mas­ ters ; yet of all the writings of the apostle of the Gentiles, the one of chief value to these special pleaders was his shortest epistle. I t was used as a triumphant justification of the Fugitive Slave law. Paul sent back the runaway slave Onesimus to his master Philemon, the inclination to retain him being outweighed by the justice of his owner’s claim.3 The most weighty scriptural argument, however, was that 1 Stu dies on Slavery, by John F letcher, p. 183. T his book h ad reached th e fifth thousand w hen the Independent noticed it, A ug. 26th, 1852. 5 “ W h at is it that separates m ind from nature— th at g iv es hum an in­ telligen ce an existen ce o f its ow n, d istin guished from general existen ce ? . . . Is it n ot langu age ?”—R eligion o f P hilosoph y, Perrin, p. 246. 3 See an article in D e Bow's Review, en titled Slavery and the Bible, vol. ix. p. 281.

372

SOUTHERN DEFENCE OF SLAVERY

[Ch. IV.

“ Cursed be Canaan [the son of H am ]; a servant of ser­ vants sball.he be unto his brethren.” Blessed be Shem, and blessed be Japheth, and Canaan shall be their servant. N or was the influence of this argument confined to the South. I t seemed to many Christians at the N orth th a t it was flying in the face of Providence to wish a change in the divinely ordered relation of master and slave between the descendant of Japheth and the descendant of Ham. Stranger yet does it seem to us, who are willing to accept the conclusions about the origin of race which have been arrived at by the patient and brilliant investigators of our day, that Emerson, who was one to go beyond the letter and grasp the spirit, should have been so profoundly swayed by the Mosaic explanation of the blackness of the negro. “ The degradation of that black race,” he said, “ though now lost in the starless spaces of the past, did not come without sin.” 1 But the biblical argument in favor of slavery did not remain unchallenged. Between 1850 and 1860, the anti­ slavery people received large accessions from Christian min­ isters and teachers, and with as firm faith in the inspira­ tion of the Bible as the Southern religionists, they took up the gauntlet and joined issue on the chosen ground. W hether the Bible and the Christian religion sanctioned slavery, was a prominent topic in the joint debates th at were held in Northern cities. The anti-slavery literature is full of such discussions. From a logical point, there is no question that the Northern reasoners had altogether the better of the argument.2 The spirit of Christianity was certainly op­ posed to slavery; under the Eoman empire it had amelior­ ated the condition of the slaves, and during the middle ages

1 M emoir o f Emerson, Cabot, p. 428. 3 See especially D ebate betw een B row nlow and Pryne, and Blanchar and R ic e ; The Church and Slavery, by A lbert Barnes. F o r th e refuta­ tion o f the Ham argum ent, from the Unitarian point o f view , see Life o f Parker, W eiss, vol. ii. p. 81.

374

EUROPEAN OPINIONS

[Ch. IV.

planter, maintained th at the slaves were happier than the laborers in the large English manufacturing towns and than European peasants in general; but he likewise wrote that slavery, when viewed from afar, has quite a different physiognomy from th at which presents itself when viewed on the sp o t; “ that which appears rigorous by law becomes lenient by custom.” 1 The opinions of these foreign travellers, with the excep­ tion of the Scotch weaver who supported himself by manual labor and only saw the lower society, were greatly influ­ enced by the generous hospitality of Southern gentlemen. H arriet Martineau had found that hospitality so remarkable and grateful that she appreciated the lurking danger in it of blinding many to the real evils of slavery. In those spacious country-houses everything was so “ gay and friendly,” there was “ such a prevailing hilarity and kindness,” that one for­ got the misery on which this open-handed way of living was based.2 The liberality and heartiness of Southern enter­ tainments made a powerful impression on Lyell, who has left a graceful testimony of “ the perfect ease and politeness with which a stranger is made to feel himself at home.” ’ The character in which the slave-holding lord wished to appear to the world is well illustrated by a fanciful account in The Southern Literary Journal of a visit by a nineteenthcentury Addison to Sir Roger de Coverley’s plantation. The Carolina de Coverley is described as having all the virtues of the famous English knight, whose faithful old do­ mestics, grown gray-headed in the service, are paralleled by p. 74. Ampfcre arrived at the conclusion th at th e lo t o f the slaves w as not very hard (see tom e ii. p. 142), but he is severe on those w h o attem pt to ju stify slavery, see p. 148. T hackeray wTrote from R ichm ond in 1853: “ T he negroes don’t sh ock me, or e x cite m y com passionate feelin gs at a l l ; they are so grotesque and happy th a t I can’t cry over them . T h e little black itaips are trottin g and grin n in g about the streets; wom en, w ork­ men, w aiters, all w ell fed and happy.”— Letters, p. 168. 1 Am erica and the Am ericans, pp. 67 and 77. s Society in Am erica, vol. i. p. 229. 3 Second V isit, vol. i. p. 245.

376

FEAR OF SLAVE RISINGS

[C h. IV.

all, found many readers. The desire to read “ Uncle Tom’s Cabin” was too great to be crushed by the usual efforts at repression.1 I t must, however, be confessed that reason enough existed for the denial of free speech and a free press. The first duty of a society is self-preservation. W hether or not the danger of slave insurrections was great, it is certain th a t the fear of them was real and ever present. “ I speak from facts,” said John Randolph, “ when I say that the night bell never tolls for fire in Richmond, th at the frightened mother does not hug her infant the more closely to her bosom, not knowing w hat may have happened. I have myself witnessed some of the alarms in the capital of Virginia.” 8 De Tocqueville was struck by the inevitable danger of a struggle between the blacks and whites in the slave States. While he found the subject discussed freely at the North, it was ignored at the S outh; yet the tacit foreboding of servile insurrection in th a t community seemed more dreadful than the expressed fears of his Northern friends.3 Men in the slave States were wont to deny the danger,4but Fanny Kemble testified that all Southern women to whom she had spoken about the m atter admitted that they lived in terror of their slaves.0 Never elsewhere had she known “ anything like the pervad­ ing timidity of tone,” and it was her belief th a t the slave1 See letter o f F raucis Lieber, F eb. 3d, 1853: “ Apropos o f sla v ery : U ncle Tom ’s Cabin sells here [in Columbia, S. C.] rapidly. One book seller tells m e that he cannot supply th e dem and w ith sufficient rapidity.”— Life aud Letters, p. 257; see also O lm sted’s C otton K ingdom . 2 H ouse o f R epresentatives, D ec., 1811. 3 “ D ans les fitats du Sud, on se t a it ; on ne parle p oin t de l ’avenir aux etran gers; on evite de s’en expliq uer avec ses a m is; chacun se lc cache, pour ainsi dire, 5 soi-mGme. Le silence du Sud a quelque chose de plus effrayant que les craintes bruyantes du N ord.” — D e la D em ocratic en Amferique, v ol. ii. p. 334. 4 See K em ble, p. 295; Pro-slavery A rgum ent, p. 74; Society in Amer­ ica, vol. ii. p. 120. 5 See K em ble, p. 295.

378

FUGITIVE SLAVES “

r*

[Ch. IV.

-'■

A good deal of currency was given to stories of slaves who escaped and afterwards came to their old masters and voluntarily surrendered themselves.1 Clay grew eloquent when he told of a slave in his own family, who, having been enticed away, “ addressed her mistress, and begged and im­ plored of her the means of getting back from the state of freedom, to which she had been seduced, to the state of slav­ ery, in which she was so much more happy.” 2 There is no doubt that similar instances occurred, but the very promi­ nence given to isolated cases shows that they were the ex­ ceptions and not the rule. The small number of fugitive slaves was sometimes urged to show that the dissatisfaction with the servile condition was not general. Only about one thousand negroes escaped yearly into the free States, and only about two thousand were annually manumitted.3 Yet this argument was fallacious. The count of fugitives who reached the North cannot be taken to measure the number of negroes who escaped from their masters. In the cotton States the chance of getting to the land of freedom was small, yet slaves frequently ran aw ay ; they were often caught alive by the dogs, occasionally shot, and sometimes they remained for months in the swamps, or in mountain­ ous regions kept secreted among the hills.4 The number of all sorts of fugitives, however, was small compared with the negroes who yearned for freedom, but, owing to insurmountable obstacles, were deterred from mak­ ing the attempt. Frederick Douglass, one of the brightest and most intelligent of slaves, held notions of geography so vague and indistinct th a t the eastern shore of Maryland, 1 See R etrospect o f W estern Travel, vol. i. p. 242. ' Speech on the com prom ise resolutions, Last Y ears o f H enry Clay, p. 330. 3 T he num ber o f fu g itiv es escaping into the free States in 1850 w as 1011, or one in each 3105 held in b on dage; in 1860, 803, or one to about 5000. T w enty thousand slaves were supposed to have baen m anum itted betw een 1850 and 1860. U n ited States Census Report. * See Cotton K in gdom , under “ R unaway Slaves.”

380

CALHOUN AND JEFFERSON DAYIS

[C h. IV.

heir of Jefferson,1and if he had continued to hold the nation­ al views with which he started in public life, he might have done much to shatter the system th at he consecrated his later years to uphold.’ The mantle of Calhoun fell on Jefferson Davis, who translated into action the logic of his master. The judgment of posterity is made up: it was an unrighteous cause which the South defended by arm s; and at the tribunal of modern civilization, Calhoun and Davis must be held accountable for the misery which resulted from this appeal to the sword. I t is true that had Calhoun espoused the cause of free­ dom, his influence would have been less; he would not have been idolized as the Southern hero and have received the af­ fectionate devotion of his aristocratic order.3 Calhoun and Davis were leaders because in them the feelings of the South­ ern oligarchy found the ablest expression. I t is therefore fitting that the judgment which is meted out to the South­ ern leaders should be shared by their followers who failed to grapple with the problem sincerely and boldly, and fore­ most of these were the slave-holding lords. The smaller proprietors, who imitated their betters, were not guiltless; but the most lenient judgment should fall upon the poor whites, who were hoodwinked into fighting for a cause which, though deemed holy, was in reality an instrument in their own degradation. Yet, while making these reflec­ tions, the historian cannot forget th at in the heat of the conflict the great leader could say: “ Both [the N orth and

'T h is is poin ted out by H enry Adam s. “ A radical dem ocrat, less liberal, less cultivated, and m uch less genial than Jefferson, Calhoun was the true heir to h is intellectual succession.” — H istory o f the U n ited States, vol. i. p. 154. 1 H arriet M artineau has an interesting passage on Calhoun, Retro­ spect, vol. i. p. 2 41; see also conversation betw een Calhoun and John Q uincy Adam s, March, 1820, Memoirs o f J. Q. Adam s, vol. v. p. 10. * “ Calhoun sw ays South Carolina by pam pering her vanity.”—Francis Lieber, Life and Letters, p. 171.

382

REFLECTIONS

[C h. IT .

them at Liberia, undoubtedly proved a salve to the tender consciences of m any; but as a means of putting an end to the evil, its operations were a fit subject of ridicule. Garri­ son charged that seven times as many slaves were annually smuggled into the South as had been transported to Africa in fifteen years by the Colonization Society.1 The Southern lord would not make the sacrifice of his ease to examine the question honestly. Lyell, who was in­ clined to be partial to the South, was of the opinion that steps ought long ago to have been taken towards the grad­ ual emancipation of the slaves.5 Jefferson Davis and his fellow-planters, who were fond of books and delighted in the study of ancient history, might have read in the year 1857 an impressive lesson; and had their minds been open to the reception of the truth, the words of Mommsen would have appeared to them the highest philosophy; for he furnished an example of a social system strikingly similar to that the Southern lords extolled; he drew the parallel and let the consequence be seen. “ Riches and misery,” wrote the his­ torian of Rome, “ in close league drove the Italians out of Italy, and filled the Peninsula partly with swarms of slaves, partly with awful silence. It is a terrible picture, but not one peculiar to Italy ; whenever the government of capital­ ists in a slave State has fully developed itself, it has deso­ lated God’s fair world in the same way. . . . All the arrant sins that capital has been guilty of against nation and civil1 Life o f Garrison, vol. i. p. 295. “ Mr. M adison, th e president o f the colonization society, gave m e his favorable view s o f it. Mr. Clay, the vice-president, gave me his. So d id alm ost every clergym an and other m ember o f society w hom I m et for som e months. . . . B u t I am firmly persuaded th a t any clear-headed man, sh u ttin g h im self up in h is closet for a day’s stu d y o f the question, . . . can com e to no other conclusion than th at th e schem e o f transporting the colored population o f the U n ited States to the coast o f A frica is absolutely absurd; and i f it were n ot so, w ou ld be absolutely pernicious.” — H . M artineau, Society in America, vol. i. p. 346. “ It is a tub throw n to th e w hale.”— Ibid., p. 349. 2 L yell’s Second V isit, vol. i. p. 208.

CHAPTER Y F k a n k l in P i e k c e , the youngest man who up to this time had taken the presidential oath, was inaugurated March 4th, 185B. The ceremony was more imposing than usual, and was witnessed by the largest number of strangers who had ever gathered in Washington to assist at the installation of a new chief magistrate. When he took the oath he did not, as is ordinary, use the word “ swear,” but accepted the consti­ tutional alternative which permitted him to affirm that he would faithfully execute the office of President of the United States. Nor did he kiss the book, as was the Southern fash­ ion, but laid his left hand upon the Bible and held his right hand aloft, having previously bared his head to the falling snow. He did not read the address, but spoke without man­ uscript or notes in a clear and distinct voice, with a graceful manner. The inaugural was a well-turned literary composi­ tion, delivered by an effective speaker, and made a striking impression upon the many auditors.1 He began: “ My coun­ trymen ! It is a relief to feel that no heart but my own can know the personal regret and bitter sorrow over which I have been borne to a position so suitable for others rather than desirable for myself.” This was an allusion to the sudden taking-away of his only living child, a bright boy of thirteen, by a railroad accident which happened in the early part of January. The boy, to whom Pierce was devotedly attached, was travelling with his father and mother, when his brains were dashed out before their eyes. Some Whig journals criticised this allusion as being a trick of the orator 1 N ew Y ork H erald, March 5tli, 1853; N ation al Intelligencer.

386

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1853

protected. Aristocratic cabals and money combinations cer­ tainly fared better at the hands of the Whigs, but a party whose support was largely derived from those elements did not, the Democrats thought, deserve popular success. The Whigs had twice elected a President, but it was by means of the trick of playing upon the universal fancy for mili­ tary prestige. I t was now the general Democratic feeling that the installation of Pierce into office was a restoration simply of the power and patronage justly due the Demo­ crats. The inaugural was well received; it was generally satis­ factory to the business interests. The disposition always exists on the part of the successful party to hail their new chief as a paragon of wisdom or virtue; nor, in the first days of the administration, do the defeated party bear rancor, but are willing to look on with charity, feeling that the new President deserves a fair chance. Especially was this the case when Franklin Pierce took the reins of government. He was very popular on election day, and so overpowering had been his success th at he was still more popular on the day of his inauguration. If the general acclaim augured well for the prosperity of the new administration, few Pres­ idents have started with auspices so favorable. Yet the anti-slavery Whigs, and a few anti-slavery Democrats whose principles were stronger than their desire to see the old party cemented, could not but tremble for their country when they saw in this cautious exposition of principle and announcement of programme that the President, whose hold on the people was apparently so powerful, did not regard human slavery as an evil, but was anxious to acquire more slave territory. It did not allay their apprehensions when he said th a t the new territory should be obtained “ with a view to obvious national interest and security, and in a man­ ner entirely consistent with the strictest observance of na­ tional faith for the intrigue by which Texas was annexed was too fresh in their minds. It was patent th at the South­ ern men who composed the slavery propaganda, while strict-

388

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1853

interview between Pierce and Dix took place, and as it was quite evident that the President-elect desired to be relieved from his obligation, Dix at once released him.' F ar different was the treatment of Jefferson Davis, who early received an offer of the position of Secretary of War. lie at first declined the appointment,8 but Pierce was so earnest in his solicitations that Davis came to Washington the day after the inauguration, and was finally prevailed upon to accept the position.3 This appointment, highly sat­ isfactory to the Southern states-rights men, and in the main agreeable to the South, was decidedly objectionable to the Union party in Mississippi.4 One frequently heard the remark at the N orth that Davis was the only member of the cabinet who had opposed the compromise measures of 1850. The difference in the treatment of Dix and of Davis, both of whom had similar personal claims on Pierce, was evidence that the extreme Southern faction of the party would receive more consideration than the N orthern Dem­ ocrats who were tinctured with Free-soilism. The cabinet nominations were not sent to the Senate until three days after the inauguration. The President appointed William L. Marcy, of New York, Secretary of S ta te ; James Guthrie, of Kentucky, Secretary of the T reasury; Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, Secretary of W a r ; James C. Dobbin, of N orth Carolina, Secretary of the N av y ; Robert McClel­ land, of Michigan, Secretary of the Interior; James Camp­ bell, of Pennsylvania, Postmaster-General; and Caleb Cush­ ing, of Massachusetts, Attorney-General. The courteous action of Dix in permitting Pierce to re­ tract the offer of the State portfolio did not relieve him from all embarrassment in regard to the leading position in 1 Life o f J. A . D ix , by M organ D ix , vol. i. p. 271. a D avis’s w ife urged h im to d ecline the offer. M emoir o f Jefferson D avis, by his w ife, vol. i. p. 476. 3 Life o f Jefferson D avis, A lfriend, p. 89. 4 Casket o f R em iniscences, F oote, p. 90.

390

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1853

in the House of Representatives a t the age of thirty-seven. He was fortunate in having a liberal training that made him well fitted for the political arena. A graduate of West Point, he had served as lieutenant in the Blackhawk and other Indian wars. He then resigned his commission and for eight years, from the age of twenty-seven to thirty-five, he lived in retirement on his cotton plantation, superintend­ ing the work in the manner common to the Southern plant­ er, but for the most part devoting himself to a systematic course of reading and study, for which his taste amounted to a passion. When he quitted the life of a recluse to en­ gage in the affairs of State he was a man of culture, well read in the classical writers of England, and deeply versed in political history and economy. His maiden speech in the House of Representatives at­ tracted the attention of John Quincy Adams, who said : “ That young man is no ordinary man. He will make his mark yet, mind me.” Davis served as colonel in the Mexican war. His admir­ ers asserted that his brilliant movement at Buena Yista car­ ried the day, and that his tactical conception was worthy of a Caesar or a Napoleon. He was afterwards United States senator for four years, resigning the position in 1851 to make the contest for governor of Mississippi as state-rights candidate against Foote, who led the Union party.1 After his defeat he remained in private life until called forth by Pierce, with whom he held friendly personal relations. He was now in his forty-fifth year, and one could see th a t he was gradually reaching the position to which he aspired—a posi­ tion which by 1860 he attained—that of leader of the South­ ern people, and successor of John C. Calhoun.2 Cushing owed his appointment primarily to the fact that 1 See p. 226. 8 In this characterization o f D avis Ijliave used Life o f D avis, by A lfriend; Life o f D avis, by P o lla r d ; Our L iv in g R epresentative Men, by John Sav-

392

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1853

While well versed in the ancient languages, he could also speak fluently several modern tongues, and it was noted that at diplomatic dinners, while the Secretary of State could converse only in his own vernacular, the Attorney-general carried on conversation with all the ambassadors in their proper languages. Thoroughly acquainted with the best English literature, he yet read every new book, and remem­ bered what he read.1 A writer of books and an honored contributor to the stately North American Review, he wrote, while Attorney - general, an editorial nearly every day for the Washington Union, the organ of the administration. His habits were temperate, his health robust, he had wealth both inherited and earned, and he was altogether an agree­ able member of society. It is, indeed, a pity to mar the portrait of such a man, but it cannot be denied that he lacked moral sense. Ad­ mired by everybody for his learning and ability, he was trusted by few. Nor was it due alone to his political incon­ sistency that he forfeited the confidence of his fellow-men. Starting in public life a Whig, he apostatized with Tyler, and remained a Democrat. Other men have changed their politics, yet have retained their reputation for sincerity. But it was the general opinion th at personal interest and not principle accounted for Cushing’s political unsteadiness. When he was a candidate for governor of Massachusetts, James Russell Lowell struck the popular note in the follow­ ing verses: “ Gineral C. is a

'

'! 's'

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1853

one of their number, and, while it vies in interest with any romance, it is simply the truthful tale of an unassuming “ S a m a r i t a n 1 but the fascination of the book lies in the accounts of the conversation and action of the men and women whom the approach of death made sincere. The premonitory symptoms of yellow fever were not unmistakable, nor such as to cause intense anxiety; they were the same th a t precede the most ordinary diseases. It began with a cold, a hardly perceptible chill, an aching in the head, an apparently insignificant fever, and, a little later, pains in the back ensue. These warnings were made light, of by the laboring poor. Those who lived from hand to mouth could not afford to lie by on account of ill feelings, which strong men living in a malarious climate learn to slight. In such cases, the poison of the insidious disease had coursed through the veins of the body before the man took to his bed or called a physician. Only about one-half of those attacked with yellow fever recovered; an apparent cessation of the ravages of the disease was with many but a premonition of a fatal issue. The weather was unfavorable, being characterized by sudden changes; there was much rain, and for ten days July seemed like January. Woollens were worn, people slept under blankets, windows were kept shut, and the thinblooded lighted their fires. The death-rate increased. On the last day of July there were* one hundred and thirtyseven deaths from yellow fever, and in August the num­ ber of victims became constantly greater until the 21st, which, by common consent, was called the black day of the plague. Two hundred and thirty deaths from yellow fever were reported that day, but the actual number was nearer three hundred—a daily mortality more than double the ordinary weekly death-rate of New Orleans. 1 D iary o f a Samaritan, by a Member o f the H oward A ssociation o f N ew Orleans. T he writer was W . L. R obison, a gentlem an o f g o o d social and business position and h ig h character. (Harper & Brothers, 1860.)

40 6

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1853

ful, brave, and untiring, he simply adds another to the many tributes to the character of the American medical profes­ sion. The yellow fever of 1853 was the most aggravated type ever known. The doctors early recognized this fact, and appreciated th at different treatment was required from that which had hitherto been in vogue. Cupping, which in former epidemics had been deemed indispensable, was now only employed in rare cases, and even then with the greatest caution. The differences in treatment among the native physicians were not very material except on one p o in t; and that was as to whether quinine should be a d -, ministered, and if so, whether in large or small quantities. The physicians not only worked nobly, but with rare good sense. In the presence of the appalling scourge, they felt that petty wrangles were unworthy of their profession, and adjourned their disputes until the epidemic was over, when they carried them on in the columns of newspapers and magazines instead of in the sick-chamber or hospital. The “ Samaritan,” who seems to have been a man of dis­ cernment and good judgment, made some curious observa­ tions. The only quarrel he reported was the case of two German doctors who, by a mistake, were asked to visit the same patient. Both prescribed; each condemned the treat­ ment of the o th e r; and each, at every visit, threw the medi­ cine of his rival into the street. The poor patient could not venture to decide between the two, and therefore took the physic of neither, but drank copiously of iced water. He was soon beyond danger and convalesced rapidly. Two patients in a hospital had their cots changed by some accident, and as the doctor prescribed by number, the con­ valescent got the medicine of the one who had been sick but thirty-six hours, while he in turn took physic which, according to the directions of the faculty, was neither proper nor useful until the disease had been eight days in progress. Both patients finally recovered. A physician who had a diploma from the college of medi­ cine at Paris came to the hospital stricken with the disease,

408

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1853

His walk led him among the poor, but he found people of education and refinement; he gave succor to a woman from France whom he thought more beautiful than the Venus of Praxiteles; he witnessed among destitute families the strong­ est attachments, the most bitter grief at separations, and the most heroic self-sacrifice; he saw Christians die with hero­ ism, and infidels without fear. The “ Samaritan ” was espe­ cially struck with the carelessness of an Italian soldier who, though sick unto death and perfectly conscious, remained in gay spirits, and attempted to cheer his companions in the hospital by his philosophy. He spoke of quitting life as los­ ing “ a thing which none but fools would keep,” and when enjoined to sleep, replied, “ Sleep! have we not all eternity to sleep in ?” The most incongruous circumstance which came under the “ Samaritan’s ” observation was the case of an old man who was employed as a hospital nurse. The sick who were past recovery had for him a serpent-like fascination: when there was agony in the face or when the body writhed in contor­ tions, he would chuckle; when the fatal symptom of the black vomit manifested itself, he grinned with a strange de­ light ; and the death-rattle was music to his ear. I t turned out that the man had suffered from misfortune, deceit, and ingratitude, and had become a hater of his kind, to whom remained no joy but that of seeing his fellow-man in trouble and in pain. When all attempt to conceal the truth became useless, and the full horror of the situation broke upon the people of New Orleans, dismay and despair succeeded for a while levity and hope. The newspapers, as if to atone for their first silence, now spoke of nothing but the epidemic; the editors studied the history of former plagues, and in their articles imitated the many graphic accounts found in litera­ ture, which are remembered, not so much for their historical and scientific value, as for the thrilling interest which the writers have transfused into their narratives. The one item of news anxiously awaited was the daily bulletin of the

410

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1853

which is almost semi-fluid at the depth of two or three feet, added to the difficulty. The living brought the remains of their relatives and friends to the cemeteries, but men could not be had to dig the graves. The white laborers seemed to have disappeared; they were either dead, sick, or tending the sick. In some cases the mourners dug the graves for their own dead, and when the task was completed threw aside the spades, dropped on their knees, and solemnly repeated a fu­ neral prayer. A t times a dozen or more processions would meet at the cemetery ; abuse of the authorities and strife for precedence marred sadly the impressiveness of the place and occasion. Quarrels became so frequent that it was necessary to detail a strong police force to preserve order at the grave­ yards. But most horrible of all were the cases of the poor who had no friends, or of families who were all victims of the pestilence and were buried by the city authorities. The dead coming faster than they could be interred, seventy coffins were at one time left on the ground exposed to the powerful action of the August sun. The bodies swelled, the roughly constructed board coffins of the corporation burst open, and the poisonous effluvia were wafted by breezes from the lake over the stricken city. The attention of the public was drawn to this hideous scene; it called forth notices from the journals; the turgid style of the editors in describing this cumulation of horrors shows the excitement under which they labored. Order, however, was soon restored and a system adopted which prevented the recurrence of such dreadful incidents. The chain-gang was ordered to the work by the m ayor; negroes were hired at five dollars per hour and an unstinted supply of strong liquor to bury the dead. Trenches, seven feet wide and one hundred feet long, were dug, into which the coffins were closely packed three to four feet deep, without intermediate earth.1 The pits made by the corporation were not more than two feet 1 D iary o f a Samaritan, p. 151.

412

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1853

the pillow of the dying, and speaking words of comfort to the mourners. An excess of zeal led many to overwork, and these became an easy prey to the epidemic. Those who received aid from the Howard Association were nearly all Catholics, so that the “ Samaritan ” saw much of the la­ bor and devotion of the priest, who was on duty from early morn until late at n ig h t; caring nothing for comforts, and seemingly above fatigue; working for the glory of his church and the relief of those in her communion; holding the crucifix before the eyes of the dying, and always on hand in the hospital to administer the rite of extreme unc­ tion. “ The sympathy of the priest and the dying penitent was complete.” Thus wrote the “ Samaritan,” who felt deep gratitude for the assistance he received from ministers of a religion not his own. On one occasion, in response to an urgent request, he visited one of those unhappy women whom the more favored of their sex call the scourge, and whom philosophers have called the safeguard, of society. She had fallen a vic­ tim to the plague, but worse than the rage of the fever was her bitter remorse as she thought of the life she had quitted to become an inmate of a house of sin. She felt th at her peace could not be made with Heaven until she had confessed and received absolution from a priest of the church, and she begged th a t such a one might be brought to her. The “ Samaritan ” went in search of a priest, and stated to him clearly who the woman was and in what manner of house she lived, expecting that objection would be m ade; but the good father quickly responded: “ Such as you speak of have my readiest service, for truly do they stand in need of the consolations of religion.” The priest shrived the patient, feeling rewarded that he had given peace to the soul of an­ other Magdalene, and he could not murmur that, while the Angelus was ringing, she passed away. When September came the weather changed and the fever was more successfully treated. But this epidemic lasted longer than its predecessors; sixty days was the usual term,

414

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1853

The prevalence of the yellow fever in the Southern cities excited much sympathy a t the North, but it was not mixed with apprehension, for every one felt confident that the epi­ demic would be confined to the South. Political repose and signal activity in trade characterized the year. One of the victories of peace was the Industrial exhibition in the Crys­ tal Palace at New York. It was a private enterprise, sug­ gested by the London exhibition of 1851, and called by the high-sounding name of a World’s Fair. The edifice was ad­ mirable. George William Curtis called it Aladdin’s palace because of the light elegance in its architectural lines, which were “ worthily surmounted and crowned by the dome.” “ It is,” he adds, “ a dome of Oriental characteris­ tics. But there is nothing in architecture more pleasing. It seems to have been borne in upon a zephyr, and the slightest breath would lift it away. Blown like a bubble in some happy moment of a Jinn’s inspiration, it floats over the whole, imparting an aerial grace, not to be com­ prehended without being seen.” ' Barely has there been a more creditable result to a specuby w h ich F lorence lost 96,000 souls.” — H istory o f Florence, M achiavelli. “ In F loren ce there died o f the black plague 60,000; in V enice, 100,000; in Paris, 50,000; in L ondon, at least 100,000. . . . In all Germany, according to a probable calculation, there seem to have d ied only 1,244,484 inhabitants; th is country w as, how ever, m ore spared than others. Italy, on the contrary, w as m ost severely visited . It is said to have lost h a lf o f its inhabitants. . . . T he w h ole period during w h ic h th e black death raged w ith destructive violence in Europe was, w ith th e excep­ tion o f Russia, from the year 1347 to 1350. . . . O f all th e estim ates o f the num ber o f lives lost in Europe, the m ost probable is th at altogether a fourth part o f the inhabitants were carried off. It m ay be assumed w ith ou t exaggeration that Europe lost during the black death 25,000,000 o f inh abitants.” — H ecker on th e B lack D eath, B u ck le’s Com m onplace B ook, p. 557. T he plague o f 1349 “ probably k ille d a third o f th e popu­ lation ” o f E ngland. T h e E conom ic Interpretation o f H istory, T horold Rogers, p. 22. See also article o f A ndrew D . W hite, P opular Science M onthly, Sept., 1891. 1 H arper's Magazine, N ov., 1853, p. 844.

416

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1853

own ground. . . . The true success of the exhibition lies in its justification of the American pride. We have grown tired of hearing that we were such a great nation; but the Crystal Palace inclines us to tolerate the boast. I t will teach us the high-minded humility we want, by showing us what actual and undeniable successes we have achieved. Lyons and Manchester and Paris and Vienna must look to their laurels.” 1 The material progress of the country was, indeed, great. Railroads were building everywhere. The extension of the system was bringing the rich grain-fields of the prairies into easy communication with the seaboard; and as the iron rails were laid westward, the comforts and luxuries of civilization were brought within the reach of the pioneers. But the op­ eration of the railroads left much to be desired. Travelling was attended with danger. In the first eight months of the year sixty-five fatal railroad accidents occurred, one hundred and seventy-seven persons were killed, and three hundred and thirty-three injured.’ These accidents were for the most part charged against the carelessness of the officials, the greed of the directors, and the desire of the public for high speed. “ Our fast age is growing rapidly faster,” wrote the moralist of the tim e;3 and while the journals and maga­ zines inveighed against the railroad management, and each casualty caused a fresh outburst of indignation, this was succeeded by indifference, and nothing was done to remedy the evil. It could hardly be denied, therefore, that a disre­ gard of human life characterized the nation. Contemporaneous with the glorification of our industries by the Crystal Palace exhibition came a vigorous assertion from the Secretary of State of the power and protection afforded by American nationality, which caused deep exultatation. Martin Koszta, a Hungarian, took part in the un1 E d itor’s Easy Chair, H arper's M agazine, N o v ., 1853, p. 844. 2 N ew Y ork H erald, quoted by I)e Bow's R eview, Oct., 1853, p. 429. 3 H arper's Magazine, July, 1853, p. 272.

418

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1853

is a state-paper carefully considered and clearly expressed; and while it may be criticised as raising too many questions, the main reason for refusing Austria’s request is cogently argued, and, to an American, his position seems irrefutable. This manifesto had a remarkable reception, not confined to section or party, and for the moment Marcy was certainly the most popular man in the United States. From a careful and precise statement of the facts, the Secretary of State shows th at “ Koszta was seized without any rightful authority.” And although he had not yet be­ come a naturalized citizen, he had established his domicile in the United States and become thereby clothed with the national character; “ he retained that character when he was seized at Sm yrna; . . . he acquired the right to claim protection from the United States, and they had the right to extend it to him.” The course of Captain Ingraham was fully justified, the disavowal of the acts of American agents refused, the satisfaction asked for by Austria respectfully declined, and the request to put no obstacles in the way of the delivery of Koszta to the Austrian consul-general at Smyrna was denied. Marcy made one declaration which has the flavor of the stump-speech, but it was of a nature to thrill the American heart with delight, for never had the national aggressiveness been so strong as at this time. “ Whenever,” he wrote, “ by the operation of the law of na­ tions, an individual becomes clothed with our national char­ acter, be he a native-born or naturalized citizen, an exile driven from his early home by political oppression, or an emigrant enticed from it by the hopes of a better fortune for himself and his posterity, he can claim the protection of this government, and it may respond to that claim without being obliged to explain its conduct to any foreign pow er; for it is its duty to make its nationality respected by other nations and respectable in every quarter of the globe.” Yet there was little of buncombe about Marcy’s paper. His im­ portant point was well taken and has been sustained by em­ inent American authorities on international la w ; and his

420

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1853

would have been an herculean task for a wise man, but the inherent difficulty of the situation was increased by the President’s lack of executive ability. He would make up his mind in the morning and change it in the afternoon. He would receive an applicant for office effusively, put on his most urbane manner, listen to the claim with attention, giving the aspirant for public place every reason to feel that the position was surely his. For Franklin Pierce could not say n o ; and when he was not able to give a direct promise, he would give an implied one. This failing caused him trouble without end. In more than one case the same im­ portant office was promised to two different men, and indi­ rect assurances of executive favor were ahnost as numerous as visitors at the White House. It was a common saying that Pierce treated everybody w ith the same marked kindness and seeming- confidence.1 People soon perceived that the President lacked firmness, and by the time th at Congress assembled there had arisen general distrust of his capacity. No one could deny that he had grown less by his elevation, like a little statue on a great pedestal. In New York State, Pierce was accused of being tinctured w ith Free-soilism, because in the distribution of the patron­ age his personal affiliations had led him to lean to the fac­ tion of Softs. Marcy’s influence, moreover, was very appar­ ent and was exercised in a manner to take care of the faction of which he was the admitted chief. But in Massachusetts the liberty-loving Democrats were alienated; for Cushing, who unquestionably had the ear of the President, had written a letter which gave no uncertain sound on the slavery question. “ If,” wrote the Attorney-General, “ there be any purpose more fixed than another in the mind of the Presi­ dent and those with whom he is accustomed to consult, it is that that dangerous element of abolitionism, under whatever 1 “ T he President has a very w in n in g w ay in his manners.”— Seward to his wife, March 30tb, 1853, Life o f Seward, vol. ii. p. 202.

422

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1853

for the Whigs, but the combined Democratic vote was thirty thousand in excess of that received by the W hig candidates. As a partial set-off, Tennessee, which Scott had carried, now elected a Democratic governor, and some States gave in­ creased Democratic majorities as compared with the presi­ dential year. Thus, the Democrats had not only the execu­ tive and a large majority in Congress, but they had the governors and the legislatures of nearly every State. The President in his message to Congress mentioned that negotiations were on foot with Great Britain to settle a dis­ pute about the fisheries and certain embarrassing questions which had arisen between the two governments regarding Central America. The relations with Spain were touched upon lightly, and no inkling was given of the scheme of which the minds of the President and his Southern advisers were full. There being a surplus of revenue over expendi­ tures, it was Pierce’s opinion th at the reduction of the tariff was a m atter of great importance, and he asked a careful and candid consideration of the plan of the Secretary of the Treasury, which was “ to reduce the duties on certain arti­ cles, and to add to the free list many articles now taxed, and especially such as enter into manufactures, and are not large­ ly, or at all, produced in this country.” He also recom­ mended to Congress that it should aid by all constitutional means the construction of a railroad to the Pacific coast. This Congress would have been notable for a reduction of the tariff, and still more notable for giving a start to a railroad across the continent, had there not been in the Senate a man powerful enough to change the course of his­ tory. The Democratic party now occupied high vantage-ground. I t certainly never entered the heads of that party’s mag­ nates that anything could endanger its supremacy in the government for many yeai*s; and he would have been in­ deed a rash Whig who cast a doubt on the prediction that the Democrats had secured for themselves a long lease of power. The nearly unanimous opinion of the country was

424

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

confided to him, but out of that little glory was to be had.1 He had written a public letter stating his intention to retire from active politics on the completion of his mission,3 but his rivals regarded those expressions as conventional rather than sincere. A private letter written by Buchanan soon after his arrival in England is evidence that he mentally re­ served a loop-hole through which he might evade this posi­ tive declaration. “ I have neither the desire nor the inten­ tion,” he w rote,44again to become a candidate for the presi­ dency. On the contrary, this mission is tolerable to me alone because it will enable me gracefully and gradually to retire from an active participation in party politics. . . . But while these are the genuine sentiments of my heart, I do not think I ought to say that in no imaginable state of cir­ cumstances would I consent to be nominated as a candi­ date.” 3 General Cass had not yet given up all hope of the presi­ dency, and there was considerable rivalry between him and Douglas, as they were both representatives of the N orth­ west. Douglas was the boldest of all the aspirants, and on the 1st day of January, 1854, of the five candidates for the Democratic succession he was the least popular with the South. He had not grown in favor since 1852, when he had the smallest following from that section in the convention which nominated Pierce. Although Douglas had married a Southern lady and had agreeable personal relations at the South, the politicians did not trust him. It may be that they thought he was too practical a champion of free labor, for he liked to boast of his early poverty and the fact that when a boy he had worked at a trade. The result of the previous convention, however, had taught Douglas th at he could not be nominated without the aid of Southern votes. He might get nearly the whole support of the West and he might hope for assistance from New York, but he could ex1 Life o f Buchanan, Curtis, vol. ii. p. 02 et ante. s Ibid., p. 93. 3 Letter to Ben: P crley P oore, Rem iniscences, vol. i. p. 437.

.11

426

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

be overestimated. The territory of Nebraska comprised what is now 1 the States of Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Montana, part of Colorado, and Wyoming. I t was part of the Louisiana purchase, and contained four hundred and eighty-five thousand square miles, a territory more than ten times as large as New York, and larger by thirty-three thou­ sand square miles than all the free States then in the Union east of the Rocky Mountains. In this magnificent domain were less than one thousand white inhabitants; but as soon as it should be opened to settlement by proper legislation, there was certain to be a large immediate increase of population.11 This report of Douglas began with the announcement of the discovery of a great principle which had been established by the compromise measures of 1850. They “ were intend­ ed to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere adjustment of difficulties arising out of the recent acquisition of Mexican territory. They were de­ signed to establish certain great principles, which would not only furnish adequate remedies for existing evils, but, in all time to come, avoid the perils of similar agitation by with­ drawing the question of slavery from the halls of Congress and the political arena, committing it to the arbitration of those who were immediately interested in, and alone respon­ sible for, its consequences. . . . A question has arisen in re­ gard to the right to hold slaves in the territory of Nebraska, when the Indian laws shall be withdrawn and the country thrown open to emigration and settlement. . . . It is a dis­ puted point whether slavery is prohibited in the Nebraska country by valid enactment. . . . In the opinion of those ' In 1890. s One o f the objections m ade to the organization o f th e territory was on account o f insufficient population, bu t it w as not w ell taken. D o u g ­ las was w ell informed on th is point, and sh ow ed clearly th a t i f the re­ strictions in favor o f the In dians were rem oved, there w ould be a large influx o f settlers. Benton, w h o opposed the Nebraska bill o f D ouglas, w as positive that a territorial governm ent o u gh t to be at once estab­ lished for N ebraska. See H arper’s Magazine, D ec., 1853, p. 121.

42 8

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

of their admission.” This language was borrowed from the Utah and New Mexico bills, which were a part of the compromise of 1850. Three days after the bill was first printed another section was added, which incorporated into the bill these closing propositions of the committee’s re­ port. Douglas professed to have discovered a way by which the slavery question might be put to rest. But everybody North and South, as well as Douglas himself, knew th at this report would certainly open up again the agitation. The country was at peace. Business was good; evidences of smiling prosperity were everywhere to be seen. The spirit of enter­ prise was ram pant; great works were in progress, others were projected. Political repose was a marked feature of the situation. The slavery question seemed settled, and the dream of the great compromisers of 1850 seemed to be real­ ized. Every foot of land in the States or in the territories seemed to have, so far as slavery was concerned, a fixed and settled character. The obnoxious part of the compromise to the North, the Fugitive Slave law, was no longer resisted. Another era of good feeling appeared to have set in. The earnest hope of Clay, that the work in which he had so large a share would give the country rest from slavery agi­ tation for a generation, did not seem vain. There has been restored, said the President in his message, “ a sense of re­ pose and security to the public mind throughout the con­ federacy.” This quiet was ruthlessly disturbed by the re­ port of Douglas, which, although it professed in one part not to repeal the Missouri Compromise, closed with a prop­ osition which certainly set it aside. The Missouri Com­ promise forever prohibited slavery in w hat was now the territory of Nebraska. Douglas proposed to leave to the inhabitants of Nebraska the decision as to whether or not they would have slavery. From the circumstances under which the Missouri Compromise was enacted, from the fact that it received the seal of constitutionality from an impar­ tial President and a thoroughly representative cabinet, it

rr r •Tryr? ?

430

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

with confidence be affirmed th at the action of the Illinois senator was a bid for Southern support in the next Demo­ cratic convention. In truth, Douglas might have used the words of Frederick the Great when he began the unjust war against Austria for the conquest of Silesia: “ Ambition, interest, the desire of making people talk about me, carried the day, and I decided ” to renew the agitation of slavery. Douglas subsequently, veiling his own ambition under the wish to promote the interests of the Democratic party, con­ fessed in part the tru th of this impeachment. He said “ that his party, in the election of Pierce, had consumed all its powder, and therefore, without a deep-reaching agitation, it would have no more ammunition for its artillery.” 1 Yet it was patent to every one—and none knew it better than Douglas, for he was the ablest politician of the party—that the Democrats needed to make no fresh issue; that to let things drift along and not turn them into new channels was the safest course, and that appeals to past history were the best of arguments. An economical administration, a reduc­ tion of the tariff, a vigorous and just foreign policy, were certain to keep the Democrats in power as long as man could foresee. There was, it is true, one element of uncer­ tainty. The factious quarrel in New York had led to defeat at the last State election; but the party was so strong that even without the Empire State it could retain its ascendency in the nation, and there was, moreover, good reason to hope that this trouble would be patched up before another presi­ dential election. To become the acknowledged and dominating leader of so strong a party seemed to an ardent partisan an object worthy of any exertion and any sacrifice. I t was the ambition of Douglas to hold the same position among the Democrats that Clay had held among the Whigs. Clay attained that position by being the originator of important legislative 1 K app, G eschichte der Sklaverei, qu oted by V on H olst, vol. iv. p. 313. T his w as in the fall o f 1855.

432

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

tion. The Illinois senator, in April, 1856, denied both of these imputations,1 and all the circumstances support the truth of this denial." Douglas was a man of too much independence to suffer the dictation of Atchison, Toombs, or Stephens. He always wanted to lead, and was never content to follow. Immediately on the publication of the report the anti­ slavery people of the North took alarm. The newspapers which were devoted to freedom saw the point at once and made clear the scheme which was in progress. One journal said it was a “ proposition to turn the Missouri Compromise into a juggle and a c h e a t i t was “ presented in so bold and barefaced shape that it is quite as much an insult as it is a fraud.” 3 Another called it an overt attem pt to over­ ride the Missouri Compromise.4 Another termed the proj­ ect low trickery, which deluded the South with the idea that it would legalize slavery in Nebraska, and at the same time cheated the N orth “ with a thin pretence of not repealing the existing prohibition.” 5 The anti-slavery press respond­ ed more quickly than the people whose sentiment they both represented and led. The people of the South were as much surprised at the report as those of the North. N ot count­ ing upon Douglas as one of their adherents through thick and thin, they at first viewed the proposition with distrust, 1 Congressional Olobe, vol. x x x iii. p. 393. 2 In 1886, Jefferson D avis, in a letter to a friend, s a id : “ So far as I know and believe, D ou glas and A tchison never were in such relation to each other as w ou ld have caused D ou glas to ask A tchison’s help in preparing the bill, and I th in k the w h ole discussion show s that D ou g la s originated the bill, and for a year or tw o vaunted him self on its patern ity.”— Me­ moir o f Jefferson D avis, by his w ife, vol. i. p. 671. 3 N ew Y ork E vening Post, Jan. 7th, 1854. 4 N ew Y ork Tribune, Jan. 11th, 1854. 5 N ew Y ork Independent, Jan. 7th. The H erald, w h ich approved o f the report o f D ouglas, s a id : “ Senator D ou glas’s report has created a great sensation am ong the ab olition ists and their aiders and abettors in th is city. A lready the Post and Tribune— and the Times w ill soon follow w ith the other ab olition ist organs— are out in full sw oop against the re­ port.”

434

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

the Nebraska act which expressly affirmed the slavery re­ striction of the Missouri Compromise. A few days after Dixon had surprised the Senate, Doug­ las called to see him and invited him to take a drive. The conversation turned upon the subject which was uppermost in their minds, and, to the great delight of Dixon, the Illi­ nois senator proposed to take charge of his amendment and incorporate it in the Nebraska bill. As Dixon reports the familiar talk, Douglas in substance said: “ I have become perfectly satisfied that it is my duty, as a fair-minded na­ tional statesman, to co-operate with you as proposed in se­ curing the repeal of the Missouri Compromise restriction. I t is due to the S outh; it is due to the Constitution, hereto­ fore palpably infracted; it is due to th at character for con­ sistency which I have heretofore labored to maintain. The repeal, if we can effect it, will produce much stir and com­ motion in the free States of the Union for a season. I shall be assailed by demagogues and fanatics there, without stint or moderation. Every opprobrious epithet will be ap­ plied to me. I shall probably be hung in effigy in many places. I t is more than probable that I may become per­ manently odious among those whose friendship and esteem I have heretofore possessed. This proceeding may end my political career. But, acting under the sense of duty which animates me, I am prepared to make the sacrifice; I will do it.” Dixon relates th at Douglas spoke in an earnest and touching m anner; the Kentucky senator was deeply affect­ ed and showed emotion in the reply th at he made. “ Sir,” he said, “ I once recognized you as a demagogue, a mere party manager, selfish, and intriguing. I now find you a warm-hearted and sterling patriot. Go forward in the path­ way of duty as you propose, and though all the world de­ sert you, I never will.'''’ 1 It was a pretty comedy. The words of Douglas are those of a self-denying patriot, and not those of a man who was ! Letter o f D ixon , Life o f D ou glas, p. 172.

436

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

this territory. This was certainly his opinion in 1850, when he maintained that “ the Missouri Compromise had no practical bearing upon the question of slavery—it neither curtailed nor extended it an inch. Like the ordinance of 1787, it did the South no harm, the North no good.” 1 And in the same speech he expressed the opinion that the Ne­ braska territory would be forever free, and out of it would be formed at least six free States. I t was rumored at the time, and was always believed by many of the friends of Doug­ las, that what finally decided him to shape the bill in accord­ ance with Dixon’s views was because he had reason to believe that if he did not take th at step Cass would forestall him, sup­ port the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and thereby gain an important advantage in the race for the Democratic nomi­ nation.2 Douglas had written his report and prepared his first bill without any consultation with the President, but the rising tide of Northern sentiment against the measure, and the cer­ tainty that the murmur would become a roar, admonished him that nothing could be safely omitted which would aid the passage of the act through both houses of Congress. He felt confident that success in the Senate was certain, but the power and influence of the administration might be necessary to insure a majority in the House. He sought, therefore, the assistance of the President. Pierce, through his own organ, the Washington Union, which faithfully rep­ resented his opinions,3 had approved the report of the com' Speech on the com promise measures, March 13th, 1850. T his w as a view presented to me by ex-Senator Bradbury, o f Maine. Cass regarded the rumor o f enough im portance to deny it in open Senate. “ I am aware,” he said, “ it was reported that I intended to propose the repeal o f the M issouri Com prom ise; but it w as an error. My intentions were w h olly m isunderstood.”— Congressional G lobe,\o\. x x ix . p. 270. See also the St. Louis Democrat, quoted in the N ew Y ork Tribune o f Jan. 3 0 th ; also W ash in gton Union, Jan. 19th, referred to in N icolay and H ay’s H is­ tory o f L incoln, C entury M agazine, vol. xi. p. 699. 3 “ W h ile I w as one o f the editors o f the N ational D em ocratic organ

5

438

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

to the reading of the bill, gave attention to the arguments of Douglas explanatory of the proposed alteration, and in the end promised t h » ; Import of the administration.' We may feel certain, however, th at it was the persuasion of Davis at the private interview which induced the President to give his approval. He could not have forgotten that, less than two months previously, when in his message he men­ tioned that in regard to the slavery and sectional question there had been “ restored a sense of repose and security to the public mind throughout the confederacy,” lie had added, “ That this repose is to suffer no shock during my official term, if I have power to avert it, those who placed me here may be assured.” On this Sunday he had the power to ful­ fil the solemn pledge he had given the nation and its repre­ sentatives ; but his hankering after a renomination made him easily susceptible to the influences which were brought to bear upon him. Douglas had reckoned wisely when he applied to Davis for help in gaining the President. There were two oppos­ ing influences in the administration, one represented by the Secretary of State and the other by the Secretary of War, and Douglas knew that in this affair it was Davis th at he should call upon. Pierce loved and trusted Davis,3 who had, moreover, the backing of the Southern Democracy, which the President was now anxious to conciliate in order to effectually contradict reports current in the South that the administration was tinctured with Free-soilism. Yet Pierce was also solicitous for the support of Marcy in this ' The R ise and F a ll o f the Confederate G overnm ent, Jefferson D avis, vol. i. p. 2 8 ; Life o f D avis, A lfriend, p. 9 4 ; Life o f D avis, P ollard, p. 4 9 ; M emoir o f Jefferson D avis, by h is w ife, vol. i. p. 669. See also W ashington correspondence o f the N ew Y ork Courier an d E n qu irer, March 2 5 th ; N e w Y ork H erald, Jan. 24th. 2 A t the end o f his term o f office, P ierce said to D avis: “ I can scarcely bear the parting from you, w h o have been strength and solace to m e for four anxious years, and never failed m e.”— M emoir o f Jefferson D avis, by h is w ife, vol. i. p. 530.

440

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

in western Missouri with the avowed object of making Ne­ braska slave territory.1 In that portion of the State there were fifty thousand slaves, worth perhaps twenty-five mill­ ions of dollars, and the interests of their owners seemed to demand that the contiguous country should be devoted to slavery. Senator Atchison urged this view warmly, showing that the only obstacle to their wishes lay in the Missouri Compromise. Coming to Washington on the opening of Congress, he felt that he had an aggressive sentiment be­ hind him which demanded the repeal of the slavery restric­ tion.3 Ilis eyes, and those of his constituents, were cast longingly on the country which is now Kansas, and in which they hoped slavery might gain the foothold it had in Mis­ souri. The Missouri border abounded in adventurous spirits who Were ready for any enterprise; Atchison and his fellow slave-holders were confident that if the restriction were re­ moved, these men could be used to advantage in establishing a slave State. Kansas was all they wanted, and the territory, if divided, would be easier to manage. That all this was known to the Southern Democrats and Whigs in Congress and to Senator Douglas is indisputable. The supporters of the Nebraska bill came together so frequently in caucus and conference3 that, if all the features of the situation were not discussed, they must certainly have been well un­ derstood. Indeed, the expectation that Kansas would be­ come a slave State was openly expressed on the floor of the House.4 It follows plainly enough, therefore, that the di­ vision of the territory was in the interest of slavery; and if Douglas had not been brought to the point of actually • Spring’s Kansas, p. 24. See a very notew orthy article in the N ew Y ork Tribune o f N ov. 12th, 1853. 2 Spring's Kansas, p. 24. 8 See speech o f Senator Benjamin, May 8th, 1860. 1 “ I w ill not now detail my reasons, b ut I have a strong faith th a t K a n ­ sas w ill become a slave State."—Zollicoffer, W h ig representative from Ten­ nessee, May 9th, quoted by V on H olst.

442

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

tions from Sumner and Gerrit Smith.1 These men signed it, as did also Edward Wade and Alexander De W itt, repre­ sentatives from Ohio and Massachusetts. All of the signers were Free-soilers. Like so many political manifestoes, com­ posed in the midst of agitating events and under the influ­ ence of powerful emotion, the Appeal of the Independent Democrats is strong in expression; but few partisan docu­ ments will stand so well the test of time. It expresses earnest feeling, but it relates truthful history. The histori­ cal argument is incontrovertible. The reasoning is earnest, but the writers felt that, having history and justice on their side, they needed only to make fair statements, and that the straining of any point was unnecessary. Viewing it in the calm light of the present, criticism is silent. H ad the lan­ guage been less strong, the writers would not have shown themselves equal to the occasion. It is a brave, truthful, earnest exposition. It should be remarked that all of the address except the postscript was written before Douglas introduced his sub­ stitute of January 23d, and has reference to the report and first bill of the committee on territories. The Appeal states at the outset that, should the project receive the sanc­ tion of Congress, it “ will open all the unorganized territory of the Union to the ingress of slavery.” Therefore, “ We arraign this bill as a gross violation of a sacred pledge; as a criminal betrayal of precious rig h ts; as part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from a vast unoccupied region immigrants from the Old World and free laborers from our own States, and convert it into a dreary region of despotism inhabited by masters and slaves.” The history of the Mis­ souri Compromise is then related,2 and the truthful state­ ment is made: “ For more than thirty years—during more than half the period of our national Constitution—this com1 Life o f Chase, Schuckers, p. 140; H istory o f the R ebellion, G iddings, p. 300 ; L ife o f W ade, R idd le, p. 225. 5 See Chap. I.

444

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

the free States. The field had been well prepared for the sowing of this seed. Connected with the journals of this time were many able and earnest men full of enthusiasm for a righteous cause. Almost without exception, the conspic­ uous editors at the North took ground from the first against the Nebraska act, and their papers abounded in sharp criti­ cisms of the author of the measure and in entreaties to the friends of freedom not to permit the consummation of the infamy. Some regarded the measure with anger, others with grief, and all with apprehension. The public mind was in a state that could not fail to be profoundly affected by an au­ thoritative and impressive protest from Washington. I t is true th at the Free-soil congressmen had not a large political following; but their arguments were so cogent th at they convinced and roused many men who had been accustomed to regard the authors of the Appeal with mistrust. If the politicians at Washington, wrote one earnest journalist, have any doubt about the public opinion, let them put their ears to the ground and they “ will hear the roar of the tide com­ ing in.” 1 When Douglas came into the Senate on the morning of January 30th, he was a prey to angry excitement, and shortly after his entrance he took the floor to open the de­ bate on the Kailsas-Nebraska bill. The reason of his rage was soon apparent. I t was caused by the Appeal of the In­ dependent Democrats and by the indications of public sen­ timent which had already reached Washington, and which Douglas was inclined to attribute wholly to the prompting of this address. In deference to the wishes of Chase and Sumner, he had postponed the consideration of the bill for six days, and now he charged Chase with having come to him “ with a smiling face and the appearance of friendship,” begging for delay, merely in order to get a wide circulation for the Appeal and forestall public opinion before an exposi­ tion of the measure was made by its author. The address, 1 N e w Y ork E vening P ost, Feb. 3il, 1854.

446

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

Douglas stated that by the Missouri Compromise of 1820 a geographical line had been established, north of which slavery was prohibited, and south of which it was permitted. When New Mexico and California were acquired, a logical adherence to that principle required the extension of this line to the Pacific Ocean. On his motion in 1848, the Senate had adopted such a provision; but it failed in the House, be­ ing defeated “ by Northern votes with Free-soil proclivities.” 1 This refusal to extend the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean gave rise to a furious slavery agitation, which continued until it was quieted by the compromise measures of 1850. In th at series of acts, the principle established w as: “ Congressional non-intervention as to slavery in the territories; that the people of the territories . . . were to be allowed to do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery, subject only to the provisions of the Constitution.” Al­ though the only territorial bills which were a part of the plan of 1850 were those organizing Utah and New Mexico, yet the Missouri Compromise line, in all the unorganized territory not covered by those bills, was superseded by the principles of th at compromise. “ We all know,” said the senator, “ that the object of the compromise measures of 1850 was to establish certain great principles, which would avoid the slavery agitation in all time to come. Was it our object simply to provide for a temporary evil? Was it our object just to heal over an old sore and leave it to break out again ? Was it our object to adopt a mere miserable expe­ dient to apply to th at territory, and that alone, and leave ourselves entirely at sea, without compass, when new terri­ tory was acquired or new territorial organizations were to be made ? Was that the object for which the eminent and venerable senator from Kentucky [Clay] came here and sacrificed even his last energies upon the altar of his country? Was that the object for which Webster, Clay, and Cass, and all the patriots of th at day, struggled so long 4 See p. 96.

448

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

manifestations of public sentiment averse to the measure frighten Douglas. “ This tornado,” he said, “ has been raised by abolitionists, and abolitionists alone.” The senator made an argument based on the fact th at the boundary lines of New Mexico and Utah, as constituted, an­ nulled the Missouri Compromise in a part of the territory to which it applied. While this at the time was considered ingenious reasoning, it was effectually refuted by Chase and Everett, and Douglas did not allude to it in his speech which closed the debate; nor was this the argument he relied on in the many defences he made of his present course in after­ years. When Douglas sat down, Chase obtained the floor and made a defence of the Appeal of the Independent Demo­ crats. They meant exactly what they said; it was not an occasion for soft w ords; they considered the Missouri Com­ promise a sacred pledge, and its proposed abrogation “ a criminal betrayal of precious rights.” “ W hat rights are precious,” demanded the senator, “ if those secured to free labor and free laborers in that vast territory are not ?” The attem pt of Douglas to shield himself under the teg is of Clay and Webster was not overlooked ; the Illinois senator knew it to be a strong point, and in after-years elaborated it into a statement that he had given the “ immortal Clay,” lying on his death-bed, a pledge th at his energies should be devoted to the vindication of the principle of leaving each State and territory free to decide its institutions for itself, and he had also given the same pledge to the “ godlike W ebster.” 1 On the day when this justification was first broached, Chase must have felt that if he held his peace, the stones would cry out against it, and he emphatically asserted : “ When the senator vouches the authority of Clay and Webster to sus­ tain him, he vouches authorities which would rebuke him could those statesmen speak from their graves.” On the 3d of February, Chase made his mark in an elab1 Spcech at B loom in gton, 111., 1858, Life o f D ou glas, F lin t, p. 125.

450

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

generation; a compact which has been universally regarded as inviolable, N orth and S outh; a compact the constitu­ tionality of which few have doubted, and by which all have consented to abide.” The ground on which it is proposed to violate this compact is supposed to be found in the doc­ trine that the restriction of the Missouri Compromise is superseded by the principles of the compromise measures of 1850. This is a “ statement untrue in fact and without foundation in history.” I t is, continued the senator, “ a novel idea. A t the time when these measures were before Congress in 1850, when the questions involved in them were discussed from day to day, from week to week, and from month to month, in this Senate Chamber, who ever heard that the Missouri prohibition was to be superseded ? W hat man, at what time, in what speech, ever suggested the idea that the acts of that year were to affect the Missouri Com­ promise %. . . Did Henry Clay, in the report made by him as chairman of the committee of thirteen, or in any speech in support of the compromise acts, or in any conversation, in the committee or out of the committee, ever even hint at this doctrine of supersedure? Did any supporter or any opponent of the compromise acts ever vindicate or condemn them upon the ground th at the Missouri prohibition would be affected by them? Well, sir, the compromise acts were passed. They were denounced North and they were de­ nounced South. Did any defender of them at the South ever justify his support of them upon the ground th at the South had obtained through them the repeal of the Missouri prohibition ? Did any objector to them at the N orth ever even suggest, as a ground of condemnation, th at that prohi­ bition was swept away by them ? No, s ir ! No man, North or South, during the whole of the discussion of those acts here, or in that other discussion which followed their enact­ ment throughout the country, ever intimated any such opin­ ion.” After effectually refuting the argument of Douglas drawn from the constitution of the boundaries of New Mexico and Utah, and giving an account of the anti-slavery

452

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

ments are lucid, his arguments unanswerable. He seems to feel a profound regret that the question of slavery should be agitated again; but his strong moral nature had burning convictions, and he was bound to express them. The mat­ ter is made plain, history is truthfully related, his reasoning is careful, and the conclusions irresistible. Wade, Seward, and Sumner made powerful speeches against the bill. Their point of view was the same as that of Chase. All thought slavery an evil whose power must be circumscribed, and all looked to a time when it should be eradicated. The line of argument which they pursued was substantially the same as th at of Chase, but each had a pe­ culiar following in the country, to whom their arguments were addressed as well as to the Senate. The rasping lan­ guage of Wade offended some Eastern critics,1but the farm­ ers of Northern Ohio, whom he represented, loved plain speaking, and were glad th at their senator did not mince his words when he protested against a rank injustice. He had a ready wit, and, while his set speech was soon forgotten, a retort that he made during the debate is still remembered. In it there lurked a strong argument, and it states incisively the difference between the apologists and the assailants of slavery. Badger, of N orth Carolina, had rehearsed the ancient argu­ ment for the dilution of slavery, and in a feeling manner had asked: “ Why, if some Southern gentleman wishes to take the nurse who takes charge of his little baby, or the old woman who nursed him in childhood, and whom he called ‘ Mammy ’ until he returned from college, and perhaps after­ wards too, and whom he wishes to take with him in his old age when he is moving into one of these new territories for the betterment of the fortunes of the whole family—why, in the name of God, should anybody prevent it?” Wade was glad to answer this question. “ The senator,” he said, “ en­ tirely mistakes our position. We have not the least objec1 See W ash in gton correspondence N e w Y ork Tim es, F eb . 6th.

454

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

therefore, to sign the Appeal of the Independent Demo­ crats.1 Yet Seward made some pregnant assertions th at may not be omitted in an account of this debate. If, said he, it had been known that the Missouri Compromise was to be abro­ gated, directly or indirectly, by the compromise of 1850, not a representative from a non-slaveholding State would have at that day voted for it, while every senator from the slaveholding States would have given it his support. Nor, he as­ serted, does it weaken my opposition to this measure “ to be told that only a few slaves will enter into this vast region. One slave-holder in a new territory, with access to the ex­ ecutive ear at Washington, exercises more political influence than five hundred freemen.” 2 Sumner spoke to the cultured people of Massachusetts, to the professors and students of colleges, and to clergymen of advanced political views. The moral side of the question appealed to him forcibly, and he approached it inspired by the same sentiment that had moved Chase. His illustrations delighted scholars, and his quotations pleased lovers of litera­ ture ; but the speech lacked the cogency th at distinguished the effort of the Ohio senator. No doubt can remain in the minds of impartial men th at the speech of Chase was the greatest which was made in either House in opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska bill. I t was so regarded by Douglas. Five years afterwards, in speaking of the senatorial debates on this subject, he said: “ Seward’s and Sumner’s speeches were mere essays against slavery. Chase was the leader.” 3 In eloquent periods Sumner depicted the nature of the question which now agitated the country. He showed that 1 Life o f Chase, Schuckers, p. 160. Many W estern papers pu blished th e A ppeal w ith Sew ard’s nam e sign ed to it. T h e Tribune said, w hen the A ppeal was m ade, “ Seward was at hom e in Auburn in consequence o f serious illness in his fam ily, and accordingly neither sign ed it, nor had any k n ow led ge o f it w hatever.” —N ew Y ork Weekly Tribune, F eb . 11th. 2 Seward’s W orks, vol. iv. p. 442. ’ C onstitutional and Party Q uestions, J. M. Cutts, p. 123.

456

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1864

which curiosity in regard to his position was mingled with interest, for it had been reported that he would favor the bill.1 But all doubts regarding Everett’s position were soon dispelled as he gradually unfolded his argument, which, though expressed in too courtly phrase to suit the radical spirits, was very forcible. Being of a deprecatory nature, it would hardly have fitted the leader of the opposition.2 Yet it appealed to men whom the more radical utterances of Chase, Wade, and Sumner could not reach, and it was of great importance as reflecting, and at the same time mould­ ing, a certain public sentiment.3 Everett showed conclusively, by an argument drawn from the letter of the acts and from the very nature of the legis­ lation itself, that the principle of non-intervention on the part of Congress in the question of slavery was not enacted in the territorial bills of 1850. Furthermore he asked: “ Iiow can you find in a simple measure applying in terms to these individual territories, and to them alone, a rule which is to govern all other territories w ith a retrospective and with a prospective action ? Is it not a mere begging of ' E verett w as a true conservative. “ Y ou are quite r ig h t,” he w rote Greeley in 1862, “ in ca llin g me a ‘ conservative,’ but I am so, not from any bigoted attachm&nt to the past or to the established, as such. W e should all strive to preserve w h at is g o o d as w ell as contest w h at is evil. . . . F ew men succeed in liv in g up to their ideal o f character, but I have tried to obey th e apostolic rule in both parts— ‘ to prove ali t h in g s : hold fast th at w h ich is g o o d .’ ” T h is letter was called out by a com plim entary biographical notice th at Greeley had w ritten for the N ew Y ork Ledger, and a copy o f it w as kin dly furnished me by Mr. Gordon L. Ford, o f B rooklyn, w h o ow ns the original. I take th is occasion to say that I have been under m any ob ligation s to Mr. Ford, and to h is son, Mr. P aul L. F ord . 2 See W ash in gton correspondence N ew Y ork 7'imes, F eb. 8th ; see also N ew Y ork Ecening Post, especially letter from B oston c ritic isin g this speech, pu blished March 11th. 3 The N e w Y ork Courier and E n qu irer called th is sp eech o f E verett the m ost brilliant and effective effort o f the session. E ditorial o f Feb. 9th. T he W ashington correspondent o f the N ew Y ork Tribune sp oke o f his “ eloquent, im pressive, and truthful w ords,”

458

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1

eminently proper for a philosophic historian, but wh: sounded strange enough in the midst of a heated deba He said : “ I share the opinions and the sentiments of 1 part of the country where I was born and educated. . But in relation to my fellow-citizens in other parts of 1 country, I will treat . . . their characters and feelings w tenderness. I believe them to be as good Christians, as gc patriots, as good men as we are.” The speeches in the Senate in favor of the Kans Nebraska bill were not, with the exception of those Douglas, remarkable. There was considerable curiosity regard to the position of Cass. Although in the early p: of January it was reported that he would take advanc ground in favor of the repeal of the Missouri Compromi an opinion became current, after Douglas had in substar incorporated the Dixon amendment in his bill, that Cass v a wavering and would vote against the Kansas-Nebraska a< “ He,” wrote a prominent Democratic representative fr< New York City, “ evidently looks upon the whole mo ment, and the manner in which it has been made, as a d picable piece of demagogism on the part of Douglas, thou lie does not like to say so.” 2 John Van Buren had ho] that Cass might be induced even to head the opposite “ There are but two men,” he wrote to Clemens, “ who c do any good in this crisis—one is General Cass, the otl yourself. If you will agree to the Nebraska bill of last yet it will be promptly and triumphantly passed.” 4 Cass vot for one of the amendments with which Chase badgei Douglas, and he explained th at he did so because he did i like the phraseology of the bill. In order to meet this < jection, Douglas still further amended his bill so that t 1 Sec correspondence N e w Y ork Courier an d E nquirer, Jau. 31st. a Letter o f M ike W alsh, N ew Y ork H erald, Feb. 13th.

3 See p. 425. 4 John Van Buren to ex-Senator Clemens, Feb. 3d, 1854, N e w Y< Evening Post, F eb . 11th.

460

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

V

seen a truer basis of government than th at established the one hundred and one Pilgrims when they landed Plymouth. The Southern Democrats, however, believed in the view s and purpose in u rging th at com promise [the com prom ise o f 1 w e are m orally sure th a t no idea o f repealing or ‘ su p e rsed in g ’ the souri Comprom ise entered into h is m ind. Others m ay have been d in his con fid en ce; but he deceived no man, and he discussed the \ subject freely w ith us, and ever regarded it as one w herein th e terri [i. e., Utah and N ew M exico] were to inure to free labor, and that the tical business w as to save the South from all needless and w an ton h iation .” 3 A g o o d exam ple o f th is may be seen in the able paper, th e N e w Journal o f Commerce. T he remarks in the text w ill not apply to the Y ork H erald, w hich advocated th e bill in a positive and flippant mn

466

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

President to veto it, if passed, were adopted with demon­ strations of intense feeling.1 Boston likewise had two meetings in Faneuil Hall to xDroO test against the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The radical gathering was addressed by Theodore P a rk e r; the conservative meeting was composed largely of the same ele­ ment that had assembled together to endorse Webster's 7th-of-M arch speech, and was presided over by Samuel Eliot, the Boston representative who had voted for the Fugi­ tive Slave law.3 These meetings which have been mentioned were simply a representation of what was taking place all over the North. In every city and every town, people of the same mind came together and expressed their sentiments. The newspapers had columns in each issue which were entitled “ The Yoice of the Free States on the Nebraska Question,” 3 or “ The Yoice of the North, No Slavery Extension,” 4and these were devoted to brief accounts of public meetings the tenor and action of which were always the same. A t last one journal which had devoted a great deal of space to these expressions of opinion felt impelled to s a y : “ If the Evening Post were three times as large as it is, and were issued three times a day, we should still despair of finding room for any­ thing like full reports of the spontaneous gatherings which are every day held throughout the N orth and W e s t” to protest against the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act.8 Up to the 15th of March two to three hundred large popular meetings had been held to denounce the bill, while there had not been at the North half a dozen gatherings to sustain it.' “ We have never known,” said the Richmond Whig, “ such unanimity of sentiment at the N orth upon any ques1 N e w Y ork T im e s; N ew Y ork Tribune. s T h e Liberator ; N e w Y ork Tribune, F eb. 24th. 3 N ew Y ork Evening Post. * N ew Y ork Tribune. 6 Cited by the Liberator, April 7tl). 6 N e w Y ork Courier, March 15th, cited and verified by the W ash in gton N ational Intelligencer o f M arch 18th.

468

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

Petitions and memorials against the Kansas-Nebraska act poured in to Congress. “ We know not,” said the Liberator, '• how many remonstrances have been sent to Congress from all parts of the free States against the passage of the Ne­ braska b ill: we only know th at we cannot keep pace with th em ; while the first memorial, approving the bill, has yet to be presented to that body.” 1 “ Sir,” said a great man at Washington to a friend, “ every ten signatures to a remon­ strance against this bill make a pale face at Washington.” ’ Those who lmVe read the preceding chapter will not ex­ pect any such display of sentiment in favor of the measure at the South as there was against it at the North. There had, indeed, been exciting political contests a t the South, but they were generally connected with the strife of candi­ dates for office, at which time interest in the struggle had been aroused by impassioned appeals from the stump. But a healthy public opinion which was not worked up by poli­ ticians, and which manifested itself in engrossing private dis­ cussion, in countless letters to the newspapers, in large popu­ lar meetings, and in petitions to Congress without number, was almost absolutely unknown at the South.3 A portion of the Southern press and a large part of the Southern aris­ tocracy, who were the only people that did any political thinking in their section, were; at first disposed to regard this measure of Douglas as a gift of the Greeks. I t is true that, in 1848, Calhoun had originated the doctrine th a t the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, and Southern thinkers had embraced th at th eo ry ; but Calhoun himself had never proposed its abrogation; and, indeed, at the previ­ ous session of Congress, Atchison, who was one of the chief

th e affirmative vote in both branches m ade up less th an on e-h alf o f the legislature. 1 April 14th. * N ew Y ork E vening P ost, F eb . 20th. a The South does not speak by petition s to Congress, said T o o m b s; “ she speaks through her representatives and senators.”— Senate, May 2oth, 1854.

47 0

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

are resolved to maintain it, peaceably if we can, foi'cibly if we m u s t a n d it may confidently be stated that when the Kansas-Nebraska bill was understood to be of benefit to slavery, Southern sentiment at that moment became concen­ trated in its favor.1 “ The South flies to the bill,” wrote Francis Lieber from South Carolina, “ as moths to the candle.” 2 The legislatures of the slave States were slower to act than those of the North. Before the bill passed the Senate, only Georgia had spoken. H er House unanimously, and the Senate with only three dissenting votes, adopted resolutions strongly in favor of the bill, and instructed her delegation to vote in Congress accordingly. In Tennessee the Senate en­ dorsed the principles of the Kansas-Nebraska act, but the House laid a similar resolution on the table.3 Not until after the bill had passed the United States Senate did the legislatures of Mississippi and Louisiana adopt resolutions approving it.4 And now the day had come when a vote on the bill was to be taken. The Senate met on the 3d of March at the usual hour, and an animated discussion of the measure con­ sumed the afternoon and evening. The floor was full and the galleries were crowded when Douglas rose, a half an hour before midnight, to close the debate. He offered to waive his privilege in order that they might proceed to v o te; but many senators protested, and begged him to go on. The importance of the occasion and the influence which this speech might have on his future career might well make even as ready a speaker as Douglas tremble when he thought what he must confront. The bill had passed to a third read1 Charleston Courier, F eb. 16th. The R ichm ond WAf17said, March 1 4 th : “ The South are united for the rem oval o f the Missouri restriction.” 3 Life and Letters o f F rancis Lieber, p. 269. 3 N ew Y ork Courier, March 15th, cited and corrected by th e N ational Intelligencer o f March 18th. 4 N a tio n a l Intelligencer, April 1st and 4th.

472

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

obstacles might be found in the way of its free exercise. I t is only for the purpose of carrying out this great funda­ mental principle of self-government that the bill renders” the Missouri restriction inoperative and void. Douglas then went on to show, by extracts from his speeches, that as he thought now, so had he thought in 1850; and at that time the legislature of his State believed that the principle should be so applied.' We are contend­ ing, he maintained, for “ the great fundamental principle of popular sovereignty;” and as the Missouri restriction is in­ consistent with that principle, it ought to be abrogated. In­ stead of the opponents of this bill talking about “ the sanc­ tity of the Missouri Compromise and the dishonor attached to the violation of plighted faith, . . . why do they not meet the issue boldly and fairly and controvert the sound­ ness of this great principle of popular sovereignty in obedi­ ence to the Constitution ?” It is because “ the doctrine of the abolitionists—the doctrine of the opponents of the Ne­ braska and Kansas bill and of the advocates of the Missouri restriction—demands congressional interference with slav­ ery, not only in the territories, but in all the new States to be formed therefrom. It is the same doctrine, when applied to the territories and new States of this Union, which the British government attempted to enforce by the sword upon the American colonies. I t is this fundamental principle of self-government which constitutes the distinguishing feature of the Nebraska bill. . . . The onward march of this great and growing country,” he continued, made it necessary for the committee on territories to give a government to Ne­ braska ; and then we met this question of slavery. It could be settled on the principle of 1820, which was congressional interference, or on the principle of 1850, which was non­ interference. “ We chose the latter for two reasons: first, because we believed that the principle was rig h t; and, sec­ ond, because it was the principle adopted in 1850, to which 1 See A p p en d ix, Congressional Qlobe, vol. x x ix . p. 327.

474

PIERCE'S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

country. He had been burned in effigy in all the abolition towns of Ohio because they believed the misrepresentations of Chase; he had been hanged in effigy in Boston, owing to the influence of Sum ner; but that he considered an honor, for this same Boston had closed Faneuil Hall to the immor­ tal Webster. A remonstrance had been presented to the Senate in which he was called “ a traitor to his country, to freedom, and to God, worthy only of everlasting infam y;” and he had even received insulting letters from Ohio, rejoic­ ing at his domestic bereavements,1 and praying th at still greater calamities might befall him. The state of public sentiment of which these were the manifestations was, the senator averred, due to the misrepresentations of his oppo­ nents, and particularly to those which were contained in the Appeal of the Independent Democrats. In spite of his warmth of argument and vehemence of at­ tack, Douglas showed the most perfect courtesy to his an­ tagonists. When Seward, Chase, or Sumner, to whom he especially addressed himself, desired to interrupt him to cor­ rect a statement or briefly reply to an argument, Douglas cheerfully yielded the floor; but every rejoinder showed that in debate he was more than a match for any one of these senators. The politeness with which he complied with their requests for a hearing, and the force of his answers, caused Seward to burst out, in admiration, “ I have never had so much respect for the senator as I have to-night.” In the course of his speech, Douglas took up Everett’s argument, and showed by the construction he put upon W ebster’s 7th-of-M arch speech that he could twist the language of the clearest of speakers to his purpose as well as he could distort the facts of history. While the suavity of Douglas during the whole night was remarkable, he did not propose to let Chase and Sumner off as easily as he had Seward and Everett. Their charge that his measure was offered as a bid for Presidential votes was 1 The w ife o f D ouglas d ied Jan. 19th, 1853.

476

PIERCE'S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

Bell of Tennessee, W higs; and Chase and Sumner, Freesoilers.1 As the senators went home on this sombre March morn­ ing, they heard the boom of the cannon from the navy-yard proclaiming the triumph of what Douglas called popular sovereignty. Chase and Sumner, who were devoted friends, walked down the steps of the Capitol together, and as they heard the thunders of victory, Chase exclaimed: “ They celebrate a present victory, but the echoes they awake will never rest until slavery itself shall die.” 2 Before the bill passed, an amendment of Badger of North Carolina was incorporated in it to the effect that nothing in the act should be construed to revive the old Louisiana law which protected slavery in the whole of that territory. An amendment of Clayton was likewise adopted ; this provided that only citizens of the United States should have the right of suffrage and of holding office in the territories, it be­ ing intended to work against emigrants from Europe who might settle there. This amendment was only carried by a vote of 22 to 20; and it is noticeable, as indicating the feeling towards the foreign population, that all the sen­ ators but one who favored this amendment were from the slave States, and all who opposed it were from the free States, Douglas voting with Chase, Seward, Sumner, and Wade. 1 It w ill be noted th at E verett’s name does not appear in the negative. H e rem ained in the Senate until half-past three o ’clock in the m orning, but was ill and could n ot remain longer. N a tio n a l Intelligencer, M arch 4th, and E verett's explanation, March 7th. H e sh ow ed excessive sensi­ tiveness to attacks th at were m ade upon him for his failure to v ote against the bill. A certificate soon appeared, sign ed by Seward, W ade, F ish , Sm ith, and F oot, v o u ch in g his in ab ility to be present. T h is d id not help the m atter. See N ew Y ork E ten in g Post, A pril 10th, 11th, and l o t h ; also R em iniscences o f a Journalist, C. T. Congdon, p. 278, w h ich undoubt­ edly refers to Everett. See also private letters o f Seward, Life o f Sew ­ ard, vol. ii. p. 225. Clayton was also ill, but w ou ld have v o ted again st th e b ill; he stated h is reasons in the Senate,M arch 7th. 2 L ife o f Chase, Schuckers, p. 156.

478

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854-

op of the Episcopal Church headed the memorial, and it was subscribed by a majority of the clergymen of New YorkCity.1 This petition attracted no attention, and it was or­ dered to lie upon the table in the usual manner. But the next day Everett presented a remonstrance against the pas­ sage of the Nebraska bill, signed by three thousand and fifty clergymen of all denominations and sects in the differ­ ent States of New England. There were in that section of country three thousand eight hundred ministers,2 and this memorial was therefore the expression of the sentiments of a very large proportion of the whole number.3 The petition was couched in strong language. I t said : “ The undersigned, clergymen of different religious denom­ inations in New England, hereby, in the name of Almighty God, and in his presence, do solemnly protest against the passage of what is known as the Nebraska bill. . . . We pro­ test against it as a great moral wrong, as a breach of faith eminently unjust to the moral principles of the community, and subversive of all confidence in national engagements; as a measure full of danger to the peace and even the exist­ ence of our beloved Union, and exposing us to the righteous judgments of the Almighty.” 4 1 A m ong the names subscribed to it were : J. M. W ainw right, Stephen II. T yng, G. T. B edell, Isaac Ferris, George B. Cheever, II. S. Storrs, Jr., Theo. L. Cuyler, Sam uel O sgood, Henry W . B ellow s, Thom as K. Beecher. The Independent said th a t i f there had been tim e to circulate the peti­ tion more w idely, m any more nam es w ou ld have been obtained. The Independent, March 23d. 2 See E verett’s statem ent, Congressional Globe, vol. x x v iii. p. 617. 3 A m on g the nam es subscribed to th is m emorial w ere: Lym an B eecher; M anton Eastburn, E piscop al bishop o f M assachusetts; 0 . A. B artol; T heo­ dore Parker; T. D. W oolsey, Pres, o f Y ale C ollege; F . W ayland, Pres, o f Brown U n iv ersity ; Mark H opkins, Pres. W illiam s C o lle g e ; Edw ard H itch ­ cock, Pres. A m herst C ollege; G. Burgess, E p iscop al bishop o f M aine; Horace B ushnell, H artford ; E. Ballou, M ontpelier. See th e L ib era tw , April 14th. * T he petition w as dated March 1st, and the purpose w as to present it to the Senate before th e b ill passed.

480

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

their political action conform to the behests of the moral law. The slavery question had a moral as well as a polit­ ical side. The ministers would have been recreant to their calling had they not proclaimed from their pulpits what the spirit of their religion prompted them to speak. This wide­ spread agitation from the pulpit is a striking evidence of the deeply stirred-up feeling at the North. I t was patent that the preachers spoke to willing listeners, and th at their congregations would stand by them in the position they had taken. The bill now went to the House of Representatives, and the first action of this body showed that it paid atten­ tion to the uprising of popular sentiment which the Senate had depreciated and disregarded. On the 21st of March, the Senate KansasNebraska bill came up in order, and Rich­ ardson,1 who was thoroughly devoted to Douglas and his interests, moved that it be referred to the committee on territories, of which he was the chairman. Cutting, a mem­ ber from New York City, and who belonged to the faction of “ Hards,” at once moved th at it be referred to the com­ mittee of the whole on the state of the Union, and demand­ ed the previous question. He stated that he was in favor of the principle of the b ill; but the representatives owed it to the country to consider this “ grave and serious question ” carefully, to correct whatever imperfections there were in the measure as it had come from the Senate, and to make plain to the people of the N orth w hat was intended by this legislation; for it was undeniable that, “ since its introduc­ tion into Congress, the N orth would seem to have taken up arms, and to have become excited into a sort of civil insur­ rection.” In spite of the protest of Richardson th at such a reference of the bill “ would be killing it by indirection,” Cutting’s motion prevailed by a vote of 110 to 95. This action was a defeat for the friends of the measure, and es­ pecially incensed Breckinridge, of Kentucky, who said that, 1 R ichardson w as from Illinois.

482

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

The vacillation of the President undoubtedly gave uneas­ iness to the supporters of the measure. When under the influence of Davis and Cushing, he was an enthusiastic friend of it, and expressed himself warmly in favor of the princi­ ple of the b ill;1 when chilled by the doubts of Marcy, he wavered. “ You ask me,” wrote Dix, “ what General Pierce’s opinion is. I do not know. Some say he is for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise—others as confi­ dently that he is against it.” a The result of the New Hamp­ shire election might well make him halt between the two opinions. His native State, which had given him a hand­ some majority for President, was now only carried with great difficulty by the Democratic governor; and, what was of more importance, the lower House of the legislature was so strongly anti-Nebraska that it would insure the choice of two opposition senators in the place of Norris and Williams, who had voted for the Kansas-Nebraska act. But, in spite of internal dissensions and the unsteadiness of the Presi­ dent, the authoritative public expressions of the adminis­ tration were all one way. It was announced th at the pat­ ronage would be used in the interest of those representatives who voted for the b ill; 3 and the morning after the House had consigned it to the committee of the whole, the organ declared that the Kansas-Nebraska project had become a prominent measure of President Pierce’s administration. “ If it be defeated in the House, it will, it must be admit­ ted, be a defeat of the administration.” 4 Important ap­ pointments were withheld in order that they might be used to reward the constant friends of the b ill; alluring bait was held out to those who were lukewarm, and threats were

1 See letter o f Jerem iah Clem ens to F ranklin Pierce, March 24th, Washington Union, March 26th. 2 Letter o f D ix to J. C. Curtis, F eb . 25th, Memoirs o f J. A. D ix, vol. i. p. 285. 3 Washington Union, March 7th, quoted by Y on H olst. a Washington Union, March 22d.

484

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

these bills. The question was put eighteen times, and each time the majority voted with their leader. The House Kan­ sas-Nebraska bill was then reached, when Richardson pro­ posed as a substitute a bill which was the same as the Senate act, with the exception of the Clayton amendment. This was, the next two days, debated in committee. On Thurs­ day, May 11th, Richardson obtained the floor almost imme­ diately after the reading of the journal, moved that the de­ bate close the next day at twelve o’clock, and on that motion called for the previous question. A t this, the pent-up feel­ ing of the opponents of the measure broke forth. They im­ plored Richardson for more tim e; they protested against this summary closing of debate as rank injustice. An in­ formal discussion was permitted by the speaker, in order to see whether an understanding could not be arrived a t; but the feeling was so intense that heated expressions were not avoided, and the breach became wider. One member roused the wrath of others by calling the bill a “ swindle.” Alex­ ander II. Stephens expressed the willingness of the majority to give the minority a reasonable time for debate, provided they would then allow a vote to be taken ; but he emphatic­ ally declared that if factious opposition were made, it would be met “ as factious opposition in this House has always been met.” Lewis D. Campbell1cried, amidst shouts of approval: “ I will resist the further progress of this bill by all the means which the rules of the House place in my power, even though gentlemen may call it faction.” Then filibustering under the leadership of Campbell began. Motions to adjourn, motions to adjourn to a fixed time, motions for a call of the House, followed one another. Then a member would ask to be excused from voting, and a friend would move that he be excused; and on all these motions the yeas and nays were called for. In short, all kinds of dilatory motions were used with skill by men who thoroughly understood the rules of the House, and they were supported by a determined 1 O f Ohio.

486

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

ceeding to reply when he was called to order by Seward, of Georgia. It must be understood that this discussion was by unanimous consent, no debatable question being before the House, and no member could speak if called to order by an­ other. The interposition of Seward was unfair, and cries of order went up from all parts of the hall. Above the confu­ sion could be heardr-iihe voice of Campbell: “ I shall resist this measure to the bitter end. I say so, never minding the gentleman who calls me to order.” Amidst repeated shouts of “ Order!” Seward retorted: “ There are other places instead of this where personal difficulties may be settled.” Confusion was now confounded. Members crowded around Campbell. Many got on the tops of the desks. Above the din Campbell vehemently exclaimed: “ I tell you, gentle­ men, that I shall resist this measure with all the power that I can to the bitter end.” Members still continued to crowd around Campbell, and it was reported that weapons were drawn, and th a t an attem pt was made to use one by Edmundson, of Virginia. The speaker did his best to pre­ serve order; he prayed all lovers of order to assist him, and he commanded the sergeant-at-arms to use the emblem of authority. The sergeant-at-arms, advancing with the mace of the House, arrested Edmundson, compelled members to resume their seats, and was successful in partially restoring order. The speaker then cut off all further attempts at dis­ cussion, and, as soon as possible, put the motion of Richard­ son, and declared the House adjourned. By his prompt action he undoubtedly prevented a bloody affray. I t de­ serves to be noted that among the gentlemen who effectu­ ally assisted the speaker in preventing a disgraceful brawl were Aiken and Keitt, of South Carolina. The sitting came to a close at twenty-seven minutes before midnight, the House having been in continuous session nearly thirty-six hours.1 1 See Congressional Globe, W ash in gton correspondence N e w Y ork Cour­ ier an d E nquirer, N ew Y ork Times, and N ew Y ork H erald.

488

PIERCE'S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

than had ever been made on any previous m easure;1 and before the bill came to a vote this number was increased to one hundred.2 The discussion proceeded quietly the remaining days of the week, the House holding long sessions. On Saturday, the 20th, the members came together at nine o’clock. The debate closed soon after twelve; the opposition badgered the majority the rest of the day by offering amendments and speaking to them under the five-minute rule. On Mon­ day, May 22d, the House met and went immediately into committee. Stephens then moved to strike out the enact­ ing clause of the bill, avowing th at his object was to cut off all amendments, and have the bill reported to the House so that a vote might be taken on it. This unusual proceeding caused a great sensation. Indeed, Stephens had great diffi­ culty in getting the leaders to agree to this mode of action.3 One member declared th at it was apparent the majority purposed to ride rough-shod over the minority. Another, in the midst of the excitement, called upon his friends not to vote upon the question, and cried : “ Oppose tyranny by rev­ olution!” The motion to sti’ike out the enacting clause was, however, agreed to. The committee rose and reported to the House. Then ensued a stubborn contest. The minority used every means in their power to prevent a v o te; but the management of Richardson , was skilful, and he had Doug­ las at hand to prompt him. The House refused to concur in the report of the committee, which struck out the enact­ ing clause of the bill. Well might Stephens write, “ I took the reins in hand, applied whip and spur, and brought the

1 Congressional Globe, vol. x x v iii. p. 1161. ■ W ash in gton Sen tin el, quoted by N ew Y ork H erald, May 23d. In the H ouse, 45 speeches were m ade for the bill, 55 against; in the Senate, 17 for, 11 against. T otal num ber o f set speeches to May 21st, 128. 3 Life o f A lexander H . Stephens, John ston and Browne, p. 277. 4 Cam pbell afterwards (Jun e 27th) said th at th e course o f R ichardson on th e N ebraska b ill w as “ open, frank, and m anly.”

490

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

1 1854

words which were remembered as long as Douglas was a candidate for the presidency.1 As the House bill had left out the Clayton amendment, it was necessary that it should go to the Senate before becom­ ing a law. An interesting debate of two days occurred, in which important revelations were made of the efforts used to dragoon a few objecting Southern Whigs into support of the measure. The difference, moreover, in the construction of the act by its friends became again apparent. Judged by the succeeding events, the most remarkable expressions came from Sumner, for he had an insight into the future. This bill, he said, “ is at once the worst and the best bill on which Congress ever acted. I t is the worst bill, inasmuch as it is a present victory of slavery. . . . I t is the best bill, . . . for it prepares the way for that ‘ All hail hereafter,’ when slavery must disappear. It annuls all past compro­ mises with slavery, and makes all future compromises im­ possible. Thus it puts freedom and slavery face to face, and bids them grapple. Who can doubt the result ?” The bill, as it had come from the House, was ordered to a third reading by a vote of 35 to 13, and passed the Senate May 25th. It was approved by the President May 30th. I t is safe to say that, in the scope and consequences of the Kansas-Nebraska act, it was the most momentous measure that passed Congress from the day that the senators and representatives first met to the outbreak of the civil war. It sealed the doom of the Whig p a rty ; it caused the forma­ tion of the Republican party on the principle of no exten­ sion of slavery; it roused Lincoln and gave a bent to his great political ambition.2 I t made the Fugitive Slave law a 1 Benton said th at the clause “ It b ein g .th e true in ten t and m eaning o f this act, etc.,” was “ a little stum p speech injected in the belly o f the b ill.” 5 Life o f L incoln, H erndon, p. 361; Life o f Lincoln, Arnold, p. 115. H e w rote to a friend : “ I was losin g interest in politics w hen the repeal o f the M issouri Compromise aroused me again .”— E. B. W ashburne on Lin­ coln, R em iniscences o f A. Lincoln, N orth Am erican P u b lish in g Company.

492

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

ing his party and injuring his country. He made up his mind quickly; confiding, like all spoiled children of fortune who have been endowed with rich natural gifts, in his in­ tuitive judgment, he thought that he had no need of close application and methodical reasoning. “ His library was never clear from dust,” said a friend and follow er;1 and Greeley, who in these days denounced him without stint,3 wrote truly after his death that, if Douglas had been a hard student, “ it would have been difficult to set limits to his power.” 3 He, like his greater Illinois rival, was a fine math­ ematician,4but he did not, like Lincoln, wrestle in manhood with the problems of Euclid for mental discipline.6 He hardly knew any history but that of his own country; he cared not to learn of the development of the world, except when Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon were on the stage of action, and of them he could not read too much.8 Of all the descriptions of Douglas at this time, none seem to seize the essential characteristics of the man so well as that of a journalist whose soul was wrapped up in the anti­ slavery cause. The writer was impressed with his “ pluck, persistency, and muscular self-assurance and self-assertion.” To see and hear him was to “ comprehend the aptness of that title of ‘Little Giant.’ ” Never was a characteristic name better applied. The historian must sympathize with the regret expressed by this journalist that one who cham­ pioned bad measures with such indomitable ability was not upon the right side; and the thought cannot fail to come, “ of what infinite value this remarkable man might have 1 S. S. Cox, E ulogy, July, 1861. 2 “ W e presume th at three more tricky and m anaging p o litician s d o n ’t live than Pierce, C ushing, and Soul 6. I f w e were to add a fourth, we should o f course name S. A. D ou glas.”—N ew Y ork Tribune, May 13th, 1854; evid en tly w ritten b y Greeley. 3 R ecollections o f a Busy Life, p. 358. 4 See A tla n tic M onthly, vol. viii. p. 203. 6 H erndon’s L ife o f Lincoln, p. 308. 6 A tla n tic M onthly, vol. viii. p. 2 0 6 ; F orn ey’s A n ecdotes o f P u b lic Men.

494

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

In comprehensive views he was a true representative of the West. No public man has ever had more of the spirit of the boundless prairie or has been such a faithful type of the resistless energy that characterizes the city of Chicago. He understood the West, but it is plain that he had not thought out the results of the repeal of the Missouri Com­ promise, for he seemed to have little apprehension of the political revolution that was destined to take place in his beloved section of country.' On January fst, 1854, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa were Democratic S tates; 2 all their senators were Democrats; of twenty-nine representatives only five were Whigs. None but Indiana remained reliably Democratic. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa at once became Republican, and Illinois would have immediately ranged herself at their side had it not been for the strong personal influence of Douglas. Some writers and many men who were contemporary with the event have maintained that the civil war would not have taken place had it not been for the abrogation of the Missouri Compromise. This will probably not be the mature verdict of history. The more the subject is studied, the more profound will appear the prophetic saying of John Quincy A dam s: “ I am satisfied slavery will not go down until it goes down in blood.” 3 Yet it must be adjudged that Douglas hastened the struggle; he precipitated the civil war. The North was now in a ferment. At the Connecticut State election in April the Democrats had failed to elect him fam iliarly. H avin g seen him frequently when a child , m y ow n rec­ ollection o f his personal appearance and m anner o f sp eak in g from the stum p is vivid . 1See h is speech, May 35th, 1854. 2M innesota w as not a State. “ W hat gain had freedom in th e adm is­ sion o f Iow a in to the U nion? A re Alabam a and M ississippi more de­ voted to the despotic ideas o f A m erican panslavism than are Indiana and Illin ois N ew Y ork Tribune, March 29th, 1854. 3Life o f Seward, vol. i. p. 672. T h is remark was m ade in 1843.

>»-oa.v?®-'.

496

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

who had heretofore severely criticised Garrison, Phillips, Parker, and their methods, now flocked to hear them, and were glad to listen to the arguments of these earnest men.' It was at once urged by the press and from the platform that an effort should be made to have Kansas enter the Union as a free State, and a systematic movement was be­ gun with this end in view. The author of the bill was regarded with execration; his middle name was Arnold, and this suggested a comparison to Benedict Arnold. The term which is used in every Christian land as a synonym of traitor was likewise applied to him, and one hundred and three ladies of an Ohio village sent him thirty pieces of silver.3 He could travel, as he afterwards said, “ from Boston to Chicago by the light of his own effigies.” Horace Bushnell, a noted preacher in Hartford, applied to Douglas the bitter prophecy of the Hebrew prophet: “ Tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble h im ; therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy and utterly to make away many, yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.” A jour­ nal which had opposed the Kansas-Nebraska measure with pertinacity asked, in derision, “ Who names Douglas for the next President now?” 3 Not a response came from the North. “ Never was an act of Congress so generally and so unanimously hailed with delight at the South” as was the Kansas-Nebraska act, wrote Alexander Stephens six years after its passage/ This may be accepted as a fact, although there were some exceptions to the almost universal acclaim. Many people in New Orleans did not like i t ; such, also, ap1 Life o f Garrison, vol. iii. pp. 407, 4 08; N ew Y ork Tribune. See B ell’s speech in the Senate, Congressional Olobe, A p pend ix, vol. x x ix . p. 943. 2 T he Liberator, vol. xxiv. p. 43. s N ew Y ork Times, May 23d. 4 Life o f A lex. H. Stephens, Johnston and Browne, p. 360, letter o f May 9th, 1860.

498

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

sanguine, and even if the Kansas-Nebraska act did not rec­ ognize the Calhoun dogma, it did at any rate make a quie­ tus of the Wilmot proviso doctrine. As the establishment of a principle it was of great benefit to the South; for when the bill was introduced negotiations were in progress which were expected to result in the accession of an important piece of territory from Mexico. That Cuba would be ours by the close of the year was not deemed an unwarranted expectation. Nor was it a wild dream to expect that be­ fore many years the United States would extend to the isthmus. The acquisition of Mexico, Central America, and Cuba, to be cut up into slave States, was an object worth striving for, and the Kansas-Nebraska act seemed to assert a principle that could properly be applied if this territory were gained to achieve such a consummation. The better the measure was understood, the more complete seemed the humiliation of the North, and the greater reason there ap­ peared for the exultation of the South. “ The Fugitive law did much to unglue the eyes of men, and now the Nebraska bill leaves us staring,” said Emerson.1 The repeal of the Missouri Compromise emphasized every argument against the Fugitive Slave act, and gave to the story of “ Uncle Tom’s Cabin” the force of solid reasoning. The uprising against this law of 1850 is a well-known fact of the decade between 1850-60, but the distinction between the excitement which followed its passage and that which grew out of the Kansas-Nebraska act is not always care­ fully borne in mind. Yet the difference is of transcendent importance. The excitement of 1850 and 1851 was transi­ tory. It was vehement while it lasted, for the abolitionists and extreme anti-slavery men prompted it, but all their ag­ itation did not prevent the public mind from settling into the conviction that the Fugitive Slave law was only one un­ palatable article of a good contract. Public opinion at the N orth in 1852 was well expressed by the Democratic and 1 N ew Y ork Evening Post, March 8th.

500

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

affirmed by a full bench of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, only one justice dissenting.1 “ If the Nebraska bill should be passed, the Fugitive Slave law is a dead letter throughout New England,” wrote a Southerner from Boston to a friend.2 “ As easily,” he continued, “ could a law prohibiting the eating of codfish and pumpkin-pies be enforced as that law be executed.” The events which followed hard upon the action of the House of Representatives showed that the stranger had ac­ curately judged the drift of opinion. On the evening of the 24th of May, Anthony Burns, a negro who had escaped from servitude about three months previously, was arrested in the heart of Boston. The next morning he was taken manacled to the United States Court­ room for examination by Commissioner Loring. The news of his arrest had not got into the papers, and the proceed­ ings would have been summary had not Richard H. Dana, Jr., a prominent lawyer of anti-slavery opinions, chanced to pass the court-house at about nine o’clock and received an intimation of what was going on. He entered the court­ room and offered Burns his professional services. The ne­ gro declined them. “ It is of no use,” he said; “ they will swear to me and get me back; and if they do, I shall fare worse if I resist.” 3 Meanwhile, Theodore Parker and other gentlemen who had accidentally heard of the arrest had entered the court-room, and Parker had a conference with Burns. He told the frightened fugitive th at he was a min­ ister, that by a meeting of citizens he had been appointed the special pastor of fugitive slaves, and he asked whether Burns did not want counsel. The negro replied: “ I shall 1 3 W isconsin Reports, ed ited by Abram D . Sm ith, p p. 1-144. T he case w as carried to the Supreme Court o f the U n ited States and the decision o f the W isconsin Suprem e Court reversed. Chief-.Justice T aney gave the decision. See 21 H ow ard, p. 506. 2 Letter dated F eb. 18th, N a tio n a l Intelligencer, Feb. 28th. 3 R. H. Dana's Diary, Life by C. F . Adam s, vol. i. p. 265.

502

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

sion; and when Wendell Phillips rose to speak, they were in that state which orators delight to see when they would urge their fellow-men to violent deeds. Phillips had the manner of Brutus, but his words were like those of Mark Antony, fitted to stir up mutiny. “ See to it,” he said, “ that to-morrow, in the streets of Boston, you ratify the verdict of Faneuil Hall, that Anthony Burns has no master but his God. . . . Will you adhere to the case of Sims and see this man carried down State Street between two hun­ dred men? . . . Nebraska, I call knocking a man down, and this is spitting in his face after he is down.” Thus Phillips went on, the audience hanging breathless on his every word. When he had finished, Theodore Parker delivered a wild, incoherent, and vindictive harangue. “ Men and brothers,” Parker said, “ I am an old man ; I have heard hurrahs and cheers for liberty many tim es; I have not seen a great many deeds done for liberty. I ask you are we to have deeds as well as words ? . . . Gentlemen, there was a Boston once, and you and I had fathers—brave fathers; and mothers who stirred up fathers to manly deeds. . . . They did not obey the stamp-act. . . . You know what they did with the tea.” He ended with the proposition that when they adjourned it should be to meet the next morning at nine o’clock in Court-house Square. “ To-night,” shouted a hun­ dred voices in reply. The excitement was now intense. The people were in a tumult. Above the roar of voices might be heard cries, “ To the court-house!” ' “ To the Re­ vere House for the slave-catchers!” Parker tried in vain to still the storm he had raised, but he could not get a hear­ ing. Phillips then ascended the platform and a few wellchosen words sufficed to allay the tumult. He had almost persuaded the audience to disperse quietly, when a man at the entrance of the hall shouted: “ Mr. Chairman, I am just 1 The U n ited States leased a portion o f the court-house. im prisoned in th e jury-room o f the U n ited States Court.

Burns was

504

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

[1854

beleaguered fortress.” 1 Every window was guarded by Massachusetts or United States soldiery. Only one door of the court-house was open, and at th at was stationed a strong force of city police. None but functionaries could enter without a permit from the marshal. The counsel for the fugitive made a strong defence. Burns was undeniably the slave of the claimant, although the proofs were clumsy, and on technical grounds he might have been set free. The United States officers, however, were determined to win. On the 2d of June, Commissioner Loring adjudged the ne­ gro to his owner. The most instructive act in the whole drama was now to be played. The fugitive slave must be sent out of Boston. The city was full of people; during the whole week men from the suburban towns and from all parts of Massachu­ setts had been flocking into Boston. The President had just signed the Kansas-Nebraska act. There was earnest indignation against Congress, the President, and the United States authorities of B oston; but these Massachusetts men were, for the most part, on a peaceful errand bent. The United States district attorney, the marshal, and the mayor of the city were determined, however, to be prepared for a mob and an attem pt at rescue. A large body of city police and twenty-two companies of Massachusetts soldiers guard­ ed in detachments the streets through which Burns and his guard must pass. The streets were cleared by a company of cavalry. The procession was made up of one United States artillery battalion, one platoon of United States marines, the marshal’s civil posse of one hundred and twenty-live men guarding the fugitive, two platoons of ma­ rines, a field-piece, and one platoon of marines as a guard to the field-piece. Windows along the line of march were draped in m ourning; from a window opposite the old Statehouse was suspended a black coffin on which were the words, “ The funeral of l i b e r t y f u r t h e r on was an Amer1 A n thon y Burns, Stevens, p. 80.

PIERCE’S ADMINISTRATION

506

[1854

celebrated all over the world for the respect it yielded to law, and for obedience to those clothed with authority; in a community where the readiness of all citizens to assist the authorities had struck intelligent Europeans with amaze­ ment—it now required to execute a law a large body of deputy marshals, the whole force of the city police, eleven hundred and forty soldiers with muskets loaded, supplied with eleven rounds of powder and ball and furnished with a cannon loaded with grape-shot. If anything were needed to heighten the strangeness of the situation, it may be found in the fact that the marshal’s deputies were taken from the dregs of society, for no reputable citizen would serve as a slave-catcher. As the men of Boston and the men of New England re­ flected on what had taken place, they were persuaded, as they had never been before, that something was rotten in the United States, and th at these events boded some strange O eruption to our State.1 Nor was the significance of the transaction entirely lost upon the South. “ We rejoice at the recapture of Burns,” said a fiery organ of the slavery propaganda, “ but a few more such victories and the South is undone.” s '

1 “ T he tables under the F u g itiv e Slave law are b egin n in g at la st to turn against th e law and in favor o f hum anity. There is deep and pain­ ful suspense here.”— Sew ard to his w ife from W ashington, May 28th. Life o f Seward, vol. ii. p. 230. 2R ichm ond E nqu irer, cited in the Independent, June 8th.

END OF VOL. I.