Chapter XLI: Section 4: And be it further enacted, That this act shall (9)

The Texas treaty of annexation had been held in committee in
the Senate "till the national conventions of the two parties
should declare themselves. Both conventions met in Baltimore,
in May, to name candidates and avow policies. The Whigs were
unanimous as to who should be their candidate: it could be no
one but Henry Clay. Among the Democrats there was a very
strong feeling in favor of the renomination of Van Buren. But
both Clay and Van Buren had been asked their opinion about the
annexation of Texas, both had declared themselves opposed to
any immediate step in that direction, and Van Buren's
declaration cost him the Democratic nomination. He could have
commanded a very considerable majority in the Democratic
convention, but he did not command the two-third's majority
required by its rules, and James K. Polk of Tennessee became
the nominee of his party." Polk had been Speaker of the House
of Representatives, and was honorably though slightly known to
the country. The only new issue presented in the party
"platforms" was offered by the Democrats in their resolution
demanding "'the reoccupation of Oregon and the reannexation of
Texas, at the earliest practicable period'; and this proved
the makeweight in the campaign. … The 'Liberty Party,' the
political organization of the Abolitionists, commanded now, as
it turned out, more than 60,000 votes. … Had the 'Liberty' men
in New York voted for Clay, he would have been elected."

_W. Wilson,
Division and Reunion, 1829-1889,
section 73 (chapter 6)._

Polk received of the popular votes, 1,337,243, against
1,299,062 cast for Henry Clay, Whig, and 62,300 cast for James
G. Birney, candidate of the Liberty Party. Electoral vote:
Polk, 170; Clay, 105; Birney, none. George M. Dallas was
elected Vice President.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1844-1845,
The annexation of Texas and the agitation preceding it.

See TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1844-1846.
The Oregon boundary question and its settlement.

See OREGON: A. D. 1844-1846.

{3380}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845.
Preserving the equilibrium between Free and Slave States.
Admission of Iowa and Florida.

"The slave-masters … had long pretended that the equilibrium
between the free and slave States must be preserved at all
hazards, and twice had they resorted to the violent device of
arbitrarily linking two measures that had nothing in common
for that purpose,—in 1820 combining the bills for the
admission of Missouri and Maine, and in 1836 those for the
admission of Michigan and Arkansas. In pursuance of the same
purpose and line of policy, they were now unwilling to receive
without a consideration the free State of Iowa, which had
framed a constitution in the autumn of 1844, and was asking
for admission. Some makeweight must be found before this
application could be complied with. This they managed to
discover in an old constitution, framed by the Territory of
Florida five years before. Though Florida was greatly
deficient in numbers, and her constitution was very
objectionable in some of its features, they seized this
occasion to press its claims, and to make its admission a
condition precedent to their consent that Iowa should be
received. The House Committee on Territories reported in favor
of the admission of the two in a single measure. In the
closing hours of the XXVIIIth Congress the bill came up for
consideration. … The constitution of Florida not only
expressly denied to the legislature the power to emancipate
slaves, but gave it the authority to prevent free colored
persons from immigrating into the State, or from being
discharged from vessels in her ports." All attempts to require
an amendment of the Florida constitution in these particulars
before recognizing that ill-populated territory as a State,
were defeated, and the bill admitting Florida and Iowa became
a law on the 3d of March, 1845.

_H. Wilson,
History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
volume 2, chapter 1._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.
The Slavery question in the Democratic Party.
Hunkers and Barnburners.
The Wilmot Proviso.

"With Polk's accession and the Mexican war, the schism in the
Democratic ranks over the extension of American slave
territory became plainer. Even during the canvass of 1844 a
circular had been issued by William Cullen Bryant, David
Dudley Field, John W. Edmonds, and other Van Buren men,
supporting Polk, but urging the choice of congressmen opposed
to annexation. Early in the new administration the division of
New York Democrats into 'Barnburners' and 'Old Hunkers'
appeared. The former were the strong pro-Van Buren, anti-Texas
men, or 'radical Democrats,' who were likened to the farmer
who burned his barn to clear it of rats. The latter were the
'northern men with southern principles,' the supporters of
annexation, and the respectable, dull men of easy consciences,
who were said to hanker after the offices. The Barnburners
were led by men of really eminent ability and exalted
character: Silas Wright, then governor, Benjamin F. Butler,
John A. Dix, chosen in 1845 to the United States senate,
Azariah C. Flagg, the famous comptroller, and John Van Buren,
the ex-president's son. … Daniel S. Dickinson and William L.
Marcy were the chief figures in the Hunker ranks. Polk seemed
inclined, at the beginning, to favor, or at least to placate,
the Barnburners. … Jackson's death in June, 1845, deprived the
Van Buren men of the tremendous moral weight which his name
carried, and which might have daunted Polk. It perhaps also
helped to loosen the weight of party ties on the Van Buren
men. After this the schism rapidly grew. In the fall election
of 1845 the Barnburners pretty thoroughly controlled the
Democratic party of the state [of New York] in hostility to
the Mexican war, which the annexation of Texas had now
brought. Samuel J. Tilden of Columbia county, and a profound
admirer of Van Buren, became one of their younger leaders. Now
arose the strife over the 'Wilmot proviso,' in which was
embodied the opposition to the extension of slavery into new
territories. Upon this proviso the modern Republican party was
formed eight years later; upon it, fourteen years later,
Abraham Lincoln was chosen president; and upon it began the
war for the Union, out of whose throes came the vastly grander
and unsought beneficence of complete emancipation. David
Wilmot was a Democratic member of Congress from Pennsylvania;
in New York he would have been a Barnburner. In 1846 a bill
was pending to appropriate $3,000,000 for use by the president
in a purchase of territory from Mexico as part of a peace.
Wilmot proposed an amendment that slavery should be excluded
from any territory so acquired. All the Democratic members, as
well as the Whigs from New York, and most strongly the Van
Buren or Wright men, supported the proviso. The Democratic
legislature [of New York] approved it by the votes of the
Whigs with the Barnburners and the Soft Hunkers, the latter
being Hunkers less friendly to slavery. It passed the house at
Washington, but was rejected by the senate."

_E. M. Shepard,
Martin Van Buren,
chapter 11._

In the slang nomenclature which New York politics have always
produced with great fertility Hard-Shell and Soft-Shell were
terms often used instead of Hunker and Barnburner.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1846.
The Walker Tariff.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1846-1861.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1846-1847.
War with Mexico.
Conquest of California and New Mexico.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1846; 1846-1847; and 1847;
also, CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847;
and NEW MEXICO: A. D. 1846.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1847.
Calhoun's aggressive policy of agitation, forcing the
Slavery issue upon the North.
His program of disunion.

"On Friday, the 19th of February [1847], Mr. Calhoun
introduced into the Semite his new slavery resolutions,
prefaced by an elaborate speech, and requiring an immediate
vote upon them. They were in these words: 'Resolved, That the
territories of the United States belong to the several States
composing this Union, and are held by them as their joint and
common property. Resolved, That Congress, as the joint agent
and representative of the States of this Union, has no right
to make any law, or do any act whatever, that shall directly,
or by its effects, make any discrimination between the States
of this Union, by which any of them shall be deprived of its
full and equal right in any territory of the United States
acquired or to be acquired. Resolved, That the enactment of
any law which should directly, or by its effects, deprive the
citizens of any of the States of this Union from emigrating,
with their property, into any of the territories of the United
States, will make such discrimination, and would, therefore,
be a violation of the constitution, and the rights of the
States from which such citizens emigrated, and in derogation
of that perfect equality which belongs to them as members of
this Union, and would tend directly to subvert the Union
itself.
{3381}
Resolved, That it is a fundamental principle in our political
creed, that a people, in forming a constitution, have the
unconditional right to form and adopt the government which
they may think best calculated to secure their liberty,
prosperity, and happiness; and that, in conformity thereto, no
other condition is imposed by the federal constitution on a
State, in order to be admitted into this Union, except that
its constitution shall be republican; and that the imposition
of any other by Congress would not only be in violation of the
constitution, but in direct conflict with the principle on
which our political system rests.' These resolutions, although
the sense is involved in circumlocutory phrases, are
intelligible to the point, that Congress has no power to
prohibit slavery in a territory, and that the exercise of such
a power would be a breach of the constitution, and leading to
the subversion of the Union. … Mr. Calhoun demanded the prompt
consideration of his resolutions, giving notice that he would
call them up the next day and press them to a speedy and final
vote. He did call them up, but never called for the vote, nor
was any ever had. … In the course of this year, and some
months after the submission of his resolutions in the Senate
denying the right of Congress to abolish slavery in a
territory, Mr. Calhoun wrote a letter to a member of the
Alabama Legislature, which furnishes the key to unlock his
whole system of policy in relation to the slavery agitation,
and its designs, from his first taking up the business in
Congress in the year 1835, down to the date of the letter; and
thereafter. The letter was in reply to one asking his opinion
'as to the steps which should be taken' to guard the rights of
the South. … It opens with this paragraph: 'I am much
gratified with the tone and views of your letter, and concur
entirely in the opinion you express, that instead of shunning,
we ought to court the issue with the North on the slavery
question. I would even go one step further, and add that it is
our duty—due to ourselves, to the Union, and our political
institutions, to force the issue on the North. We are now
stronger relatively than we shall be hereafter, politically
and morally. Unless we bring on the issue, delay to us will be
dangerous indeed. It is the true policy of those enemies who
seek our destruction. Its effects are, and have been, and will
be to weaken us politically and morally, and to strengthen
them. Such has been my opinion from the first. Had the South,
or even my own State backed me, I would have forced the issue
on the North in 1835, when the spirit of abolitionism first
developed itself to any considerable extent. It is a true
maxim, to meet danger on the frontier, in politics as well as
war. Thus thinking, I am of the impression, that if the South
act as it ought, the Wilmot Proviso, instead of proving to be
the means of successfully assailing us and our peculiar
institution, may be made the occasion of successfully
asserting our equality and rights, by enabling us to force the
issue on the North. Something of the kind was indispensable to
rouse and unite the South. On the contrary, if we should not
meet it as we ought, I fear, greatly fear, our doom will be
fixed. It would prove that we either have not the sense or
spirit to defend ourselves and our institutions.' The phrase
'forcing the issue' is here used too often, and for a purpose
too obvious, to need remark. The reference to his movement in
1835 confirms all that was said of that movement at the time
by senators from both sections of the Union. … At that time
Mr. Calhoun characterized his movement as defensive—as done in
a spirit of self-defence: it was then characterized by
senators as aggressive and offensive: and it is now declared
in this letter to have been so. He was then openly told that
he was playing into the hands of the abolitionists, and giving
them a champion to contend with, and the elevated theatre of
the American Senate for the dissemination of their doctrines,
and the production of agitation and sectional division. All
that is now admitted, with a lamentation that the South, and
not even his own State, would stand by him then in forcing the
issue. So that chance was lost. Another was now presented. The
Wilmot Proviso, so much deprecated in public, is privately
saluted as a fortunate event, giving another chance for
forcing the issue. The letter proceeds: 'But in making up the
issue, we must look far beyond the proviso. It is but one of
many acts of aggression, and, in my opinion, by no means the
most dangerous or degrading, though more striking and
palpable.' … So that, while this proviso was, publicly, the
Pandora's box which filled the Union with evil, and while it
was to Mr. Calhoun and his friends the theme of endless
deprecation, it was secretly cherished as a means of keeping
up discord, and forcing the issue between the North and the
South. Mr. Calhoun then proceeds to the serious question of
disunion, and of the manner in which the issue could be
forced. 'This brings up the question, how can it be so met,
without resorting to the dissolution of the Union? … There is,
in my opinion, but one way in which it can be met; and that is
… by retaliation.' … Then follows an argument to justify
retaliation. … Retaliation by closing the ports of the State
against the commerce of the offending State: and this called a
constitutional remedy, and a remedy short of disunion. … The
letter proceeds with further instructions upon the manner of
executing the retaliation: 'My impression is, that it should
be restricted to sea-going vessels, which would leave open the
trade of the valley of the Mississippi to New Orleans by
river, and to the other Southern cities by railroad; and tend
thereby to detach the North-western from the North-eastern
States.' … This confidential letter from Mr. Calhoun to a
member of the Alabama legislature of 1847, has come to light,
to furnish the key which unlocks his whole system of slavery
agitation which he commenced in the year 1835. That system was
to force issues upon the North under the pretext of
self-defence, and to sectionalize the South, preparatory to
disunion, through the instrumentality of sectional
conventions, composed wholly of delegates from the
slaveholding States."

_T. H. Benton,
Thirty Years' View,
volume 2, chapters 167-168._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
Peace with Mexico.
The Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo.
The acquisition of Territory.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
Admission of Wisconsin into the Union.

See WISCONSIN: A. D. 1805-1848.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
Increased reservation of public lands for School support.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1785-1880.

{3382}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848.
The Free Soil Convention at Buffalo and its nominations.

The "Barnburner" Democrats of New York, or Free Soilers as
they began to be called, met in convention at Utica, February
16, 1848, and chose delegates to the approaching national
Democratic Convention at Baltimore. In April the Barnburner
members of the Legislature issued an elaborate address,
setting forth the Free Soil principles of the Democratic
fathers. The authors of the address were afterwards known to
be Samuel J. Tilden and Martin and John Van Buren. The
national Democratic Convention assembled in May, 1848. "It
offered to admit the Barnburner and Hunker delegations
together to cast the vote of the State. The Barnburners
rejected the compromise as a simple nullification of the vote
of the State, and then withdrew. Lewis Cass was nominated for
president, the Wilmot proviso being thus emphatically
condemned. For Cass had declared in favor of letting the new
territories themselves decide upon slavery. The Barnburners,
returning to a great meeting in the City Hall Park at New
York, cried 'The lash has resounded through the halls of the
Capitol!' and condemned the cowardice of northern senators who
had voted with the South. … The delegates issued an address
written by Tilden, fearlessly calling Democrats to independent
action. In June a Barnburner convention met at Utica," which
named Van Buren for the Presidency and called a national
convention of all Free Soilers to meet at Buffalo, August 9,
1848. "Charles Francis Adams, the son of John Quincy Adams,
presided at the Buffalo convention; and in it Joshua R.
Giddings, the famous abolitionist, and Salmon P. Chase, were
conspicuous. To the unspeakable horror of every Hunker there
participated in the deliberations a negro, the Rev. Mr. Ward.
Butler [Benjamin F., of New York], reported the resolutions in
words whose inspiration is still fresh and ringing. … At the
close were the stirring and memorable words: 'We inscribe on
our banner, Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, and Free Men;
and under it we will fight on and fight ever, until a
triumphant victory shall reward our exertions.' Joshua Leavitt
of Massachusetts, one of the 'blackest' of abolitionists,
reported to the convention the name of Martin Van Buren for
president." The nomination was acclaimed with enthusiasm, and
Charles Francis Adams was nominated for vice-president. "In
September, John A. Dix, then a Democratic senator, accepted
the Free-soil nomination for governor of New York. The
Democratic party was aghast. The schismatics had suddenly
gained great dignity and importance. … The Whigs had in June
nominated Taylor, one of the two heroes of the Mexican war. …
The anti-slavery Whigs hesitated for a time: but Seward of New
York and Horace Greeley in the New York Tribune finally led
most of them to Taylor, rather than, as Seward said, engage in
'guerrilla warfare' under Van Buren. … This launching of the
modern Republican party was, strangely enough, to include in
New York few besides Democrats."

_E. M. Shepard,
Martin Van Buren,
chapter 11._

"The Buffalo Convention was one of the more important
upheavals in the process of political disintegration which
went steadily on between the years 1844, when the 'Birneyites'
deprived Henry Clay of the electoral vote of New York, and
1856, when the Whig party disappeared, and the pro-slavery
Democracy found itself confronted by the anti-slavery
Republican organization of the North. In 1848, though the Whig
party was already doomed, its time had not yet come. The Free
Soil movement of 1848 was, therefore, premature; and moreover,
as the result afterwards showed, there was something almost
ludicrous in a combination of 'Conscience Whigs' of
Massachusetts, in revolt over the nomination of the
slave-owning General Taylor, with the 'Barnburning' Democrats
of New York, intent only upon avenging on Cass the defeat of
Van Buren. None the less the Free Soil movement of 1848
clearly foreshadowed the Republican uprising of 1856, and of
the men who took part in the Buffalo convention an unusually
large proportion afterwards became prominent as political
leaders."

_C. F. Adams,
Richard Henry Dana,
volume 1, chapter 7._

ALSO IN:
_H. Wilson,
History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
volume 2, chapter 13._

_J. W. Schuckers,
Life of Salmon P. Chase,
chapter 11._

_R. B. Warden,
Life of Salmon P. Chase,
chapter 21._

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1848-1849.
Sixteenth Presidential Election.
Inauguration and death of General Taylor.

In the Presidential election of 1848, the Democratic party put
forward as its candidate Lewis Cass; the Whigs named General
Zachary Taylor; and the Free Soil Party placed Martin Van
Buren in nomination. That the Whig Party should again have set
aside its distinguished leader, Henry Clay, caused great grief
among his devoted followers and friends. "But there were those
in it who had grown gray in waiting for office under the
banner of Mr. Clay, and whose memories were refreshed with
what was effected by the éclat of military glory under General
Jackson. It was hard, and might seem ungrateful, to abandon a
great and long-tried leader. But the military feather waved
before their eyes, and they were tempted. … It needed a
leader, or a few leaders to give the signal of defection; and
they were not wanting. One after another of the great names of
the party fell off from Mr. Clay and inclined to General
Taylor; and when the national Whig Convention met at
Philadelphia, in June, 1848, to nominate a candidate for the
Presidency, the first ballot showed that seven out of twelve
of the Kentucky delegation, against the expectations and
wishes of their constituency, had deserted Mr. Clay, and gone
over to General Taylor. The influence of this fact was
great—perhaps decisive. For if Mr. Clay's own State was
against him, what could be expected of the other States? On
the fourth ballot General Taylor had 52 majority, and was
declared the nominee. … In November following, General Taylor
was elected President of the United States, and Millard
Fillmore Vice-President. As in the case of General Harrison,
who died in thirty days after his inauguration, so in the case
of General Taylor … he, too, died in sixteen months after he
had entered on the duties of his office."

_C. Colton,
Life, Correspondence and Speeches of Henry Clay,
volume 3, chapter 4._

The popular vote cast at the election was, for Taylor,
1,360,099; Cass, 1,220,544; for Van Buren, 291,263. The
electoral vote was, for Taylor, 163; for Cass, 127; for Van
Buren, none. Millard Fillmore, elected Vice President,
succeeded to the Presidency on the death of General Taylor,
July 9, 1850.

_O. O. Howard,
General Taylor,
chapters 21-24._

{3383}

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
The Seventh Census.

Total population, 23,191,876, nearly 36 per cent. greater than
in 1840. The remnant of slavery in the northern States which
appears in this census, still lingering in New Jersey, was not
quite extinguished in the succeeding decade. The
classification and distribution of population was as follows:

North.

White. Free black. Slave. California. 91,635 962 0 Connecticut. 363,099 7,693 0 Illinois. 846,034 5,436 0 Indiana. 977,154 11,262 0 Iowa. 191,881 333 0 Maine. 581,813 1,356 0 Massachusetts. 985,450 9,064 0 Michigan. 395,071 2,583 0 Minnesota. 6,038 39 0 New Hampshire. 317,456 520 0 New Jersey. 465,509 23,810 236 New York. 3,048,325 49,069 0 Ohio. 1,955,050 25,279 0 Oregon. 13,087 207 0 Pennsylvania. 2,258,160 53,626 0 Rhode Island. 143,875 3,670 0 Utah. 11,354 0 26 Vermont. 313,402 718 0 Wisconsin. 304,756 635 0

13,269,149 196,262 262

South.

White. Free black. Slave. Alabama. 426,514 2,265 342,844 Arkansas. 162,189 608 47,100 Delaware. 71,169 18,073 2,290 District of Columbia. 37,941 10,059 3,687 Florida. 47,203 932 39,310 Georgia. 521,572 2,931 381,682 Kentucky. 761,413 10,011 210,981 Louisiana. 255,491 17,462 244,809 Maryland. 417,943 74,723 90,368 Mississippi. 295,718 930 309,878 Missouri. 592,004 2,618 87,422 New Mexico. 61,547 0 0 North Carolina. 553,028 27,463 288,548 South Carolina. 274,563 8,960 384,984 Tennessee. 756,836 6,422 239,459 Texas. 154,034 397 58,161 Virginia. 894,800 54,333 472,528

Total 6,283,965 238,187 3,204,051

The immigration in the decade preceding this census had risen
to 1,713,251 in number of persons, 1,047,763 coming from the
British Islands (mostly from Ireland), and 549,739 from other
parts of Europe.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850.
Henry Clay's last "Compromise."
Free California, and the Fugitive Slave Law.
Webster's Seventh of March Speech
and Seward's Declaration of the "Higher Law."

"In 1848 gold was discovered in California. The tide of
adventurers poured in. They had no slaves to take with them
and no desire to acquire any. In less than a year the newly
gathered people outnumbered the population of some of the
smaller states. They organized a state government with an
antislavery constitution, and demanded admission into the
Union. True, the greater part of the proposed state lies north
of 36° 30' [the dividing line of the Missouri Compromise], but
its climate, tempered by the Pacific Ocean, is of rare
mildness. If any part of the newly acquired territory should
be opened to slavery, it seemed that California was the part
best suited for it. If California repelled slavery, there was
small hope that the remainder of the new territory would
embrace it. Congress debated for ten months over the admission
of California. The threatened inequality in numbers of the
free and slave states was the central subject of contention,
and the Union seemed again in danger of disruption."

_J. S. Landon,
Constitutional History and Government of the United States,
lecture 8._

"One day toward the close of January [January 29, 1850], Henry
Clay rose from his chair in the Senate Chamber, and waving a
roll of papers, with dramatic eloquence and deep feeling,
announced to a hushed auditory that he held in his hand a
series of resolutions proposing an amicable arrangement of all
questions growing out of the subject of slavery. Read and
explained by its author this plan of compromise was to admit
California, and to establish territorial governments in New
Mexico, and the other portions of the regions acquired from
Mexico, without any provisions for or against slavery—to pay
the debt of Texas and fix her western boundary—to declare
that it was 'inexpedient' to abolish slavery in the District
of Columbia, but 'expedient' to put some restrictions on the
slave trade there, to pass a new and more stringent fugitive
slave law, and to formally deny that Congress had any power to
obstruct the slave trade between the States. Upon this plan of
compromise and the modifications afterward made in it, began
that long debate, since become historic, which engrossed the
attention of Congress and the country for eight weary months.
At the outset, many of those who had threatened 'Disunion,'
opposed 'Clay's Compromise,' because it did not go far enough,
while the 'Wilmot Proviso' men were equally resolute in
opposing it, because it went too far. Seward with many other
Northern Whigs, adhered to the 'President's Plan' [which
simply favored the admission of California and New Mexico
under constitutions which he had invited their people to
frame], as being a much more just and speedy way of solving
the problem. Avowing himself unterrified by the threats of
'Disunion,' he insisted that neither 'Compromise' nor the
'Fugitive Slave Law' was necessary, and that it was both the
right and the duty of Congress to admit the Territories as
free States, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia,
and the slave trade between the States. Southern feeling was
predominant in the Senate Chamber, as it had been for many
years. Neither of the two great parties was opposed to
slavery, and the recognized leaders of both were men of
Southern birth. … Mr. Clay's resolutions, unsatisfactory as
they were, to anti-slavery men, at first met with objections
from Southern members. One 'deeply regretted the admission
that slavery did not exist in the territories.' Several would
'never assent to the doctrine that slaveholders could not go
there, taking their property with them.' Some questioned the
validity of the Mexican decree, abolishing slavery in New
Spain, and doubted the constitutionality of any attempt on the
part of Congress to exclude it. Prognostications and threats
of 'disunion' were freely made.
{3384}
On the other hand, there began to be signs of a growing
disposition, on the part of many Northern men, to give up the
'Proviso' for the sake of peace; and to follow the lead of Mr.
Clay. Conservative Southern Whigs were quite ready to meet
these half way. Seward's position was regarded as 'ultra' by
both classes; and it not unfrequently happened that, on
questions in the Senate relating to slavery, only three
Senators, Seward, Chase, and Hale, would be found voting
together, on one side, while all the other Senators present
were arrayed against them, on the other. Newspapers, received
from all parts of the country, showed that elsewhere, as well
as at the capital, the proposed compromise was an engrossing
topic. Great meetings were held at the North in support of it.
State Legislatures took ground, for and against it. Fresh fuel
was added to the heated discussion by a new 'Fugitive Slave
Law,' introduced by Senator Mason of Virginia, and by the talk
of Southern Conventions, and 'Secret Southern Caucuses.' …
March was an eventful month. Time enough had elapsed for each
Senator to receive, from the press and people of his State,
their response, in regard to Clay's proposed compromise.
Resolutions pro and con had come from different Legislatures.
… Each of the leaders in senatorial debate felt that the hour
had come for him to declare whether he was for or against it.
… Mr. Calhoun, though in failing health, obtained the floor
for a speech. Everybody awaited it with great interest,
regarding him as the acknowledged exponent of Southern
opinion. … An expectant throng filled the Senate Chamber. His
gaunt figure and attenuated features attested that he had
risen from a sick bed; but his fiery eyes and unshaken voice
showed he had no intention of abandoning the contest. In a few
words he explained that his health would not permit him to
deliver the speech he had prepared, but that 'his friend the
Senator behind him (Mason) would read it for him.' Beginning
by saying that he had 'believed from the first that the
agitation of the subject of slavery would, if not prevented by
some timely and effective measure, end in "disunion,"' the
speech opposed Clay's plan of adjustment; attacked the
President's plan; adverted to the growing feeling that the
South could not remain in Union 'with safety and honor';
pointed out the gradual snapping, one after another, of the
links which held the Union together, and expressed the most
gloomy forebodings for the future. Three days later a similar,
or greater, throng gathered to listen to Webster's great '7th
of March speech,' which has ever since been recorded as
marking an era in his life. He rose from his seat near the
middle of the chamber, wearing his customary blue coat with
metal buttons, and with one hand thrust into the buff vest,
stood during his opening remarks, as impassive as a statue;
but growing slightly more animated as he proceeded. Calm,
clear, and powerful, his sonorous utterances, while they
disappointed thousands of his friends at the North, lent new
vigor to the 'Compromisers,' with whom, it was seen, he would
henceforth act."

_F. W. Seward,
Seward at Washington, 1846-1861,
chapter 16._

The first and longer part of Mr. Webster's speech was an
historical review of the slavery question, and an argument
maintaining the proposition, as he afterwards stated it in a
few words, that there is "not a square rod of territory
belonging to the United States the character of which, for
slavery, or no slavery is not already fixed by some
irrepealable law." The concluding part of his speech contained
the passages which caused most grief among and gave most
offense to his friends and admirers at the North. They are
substantially comprised in the quotations following,—together
with his eloquent declamation against the thought of
secession: Mr. President, in the excited times in which we
live, there is found to exist a state of crimination and
recrimination between the North and South. There are lists of
grievances produced by each; and those grievances, real or
supposed, alienate the minds of one portion of the country
from the other, exasperate the feelings, and subdue the sense
of fraternal affection, patriotic love, and mutual regard. I
shall bestow a little attention, Sir, upon these various
grievances existing on the one side and on the other. I begin
with complaints of the South. I will not answer, further than
I have, the general statements of the honor·able Senator from
South Carolina, that the North has prospered at the expense of
the South in consequence of the manner of administering this
government, in the collecting of its revenues, and so forth.
These are disputed topics, and I have no inclination to enter
into them. But I will allude to other complaints of the South,
and especially to one which has in my opinion just foundation;
and that is, that there has been found at the North, among
individuals and among legislators, a disinclination to perform
fully their constitutional duties in regard to the return of
persons bound to service who have escaped into the free
States. In that respect, the South, in my judgment, is right,
and the North is wrong. Every member of every Northern
legislature is bound by oath, like every other officer in the
country, to support the Constitution of the United States; and
the article of the Constitution which says to these States
that they shall deliver up fugitives from service is as
binding in honor and conscience as any other article. No man
fulfils his duty in any legislature who sets himself to find
excuses, evasions, escapes from this constitutional
obligation. I have always thought that the Constitution
addressed itself to the legislatures of the States or to the
States themselves. It says that those persons escaping to
other States 'shall be delivered up,' and I confess I have
always been of the opinion that it was an injunction upon the
States themselves. When it is said that a person escaping into
another State, and coming therefore within the jurisdiction of
that State, shall be delivered up, it seems to me the import
of the clause is, that the State itself, in obedience to the
Constitution, shall cause him to be delivered up. That is my
judgment. I have always entertained that opinion, and I
entertain it now. But when the subject, some years ago, was
before the Supreme Court of the United States, the majority of
the judges held that the power to cause fugitives from service
to be delivered up was a power to be exercised under the
authority of this government. I do not know, on the whole,
that it may not have been a fortunate decision. My habit is to
respect the result of judicial deliberations and the solemnity
of judicial decisions.
{3385}
As it now stands, the business of seeing that these fugitives
are delivered up resides in the power of Congress and the
national judicature, and my friend at the head of the
Judiciary Committee has a bill on the subject now before the
Senate, which with some amendments to it, I propose to
support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent. And I
desire to call the attention of all sober-minded men at the
North, of all conscientious men, of all men who are not
carried away by some fanatical idea or some false impression,
to their constitutional obligations. I put it to all the sober
and sound minds at the North as a question of morals and a
question of conscience. What right have they, in their
legislative capacity or any other capacity, to endeavor to get
round this Constitution, or to embarrass the free exercise of
the rights secured by the Constitution to the persons whose
slaves escape from them? None at all; none at all. Neither in
the forum of conscience, nor before the face of the
Constitution, are they, in my opinion, justified in such an
attempt. … I repeat, therefore, Sir, that here is a
well-founded ground of complaint against the North, which
ought to be removed, which it is now in the power of the
different departments of this government to remove; which
calls for the enactment of proper laws authorizing the
judicature of this government, in the several States, to do
all that is necessary for the recapture of fugitive slaves and
for their restoration to those who claim them. … Complaint has
been made against certain resolutions that emanate from
legislatures at the North, and are sent here to us, not only
on the subject of slavery in this District, but sometimes
recommending Congress to consider the means of abolishing
slavery in the States. I should be sorry to be called upon to
present any resolutions here which could not be referable to
any committee or any power in Congress; and therefore I should
be unwilling to receive from the legislature of Massachusetts
any instructions to present resolutions expressive of any
opinion whatever on the subject of slavery, as it exists at
the present moment in the States, for two reasons: first,
be·cause I do not consider that the legislature of
Massachusetts has anything to do with it; and next, because I
do not consider that I, as her representative here, have
anything to do with it. It has become, in my opinion, quite
too common; and if the legislatures of the States do not like
that opinion, they have a great deal more power to put it down
than I have to uphold it; It has become in my opinion quite
too common a practice for the State legislatures to present
resolutions here on all subjects and to instruct us on all
subjects. There is no public man that requires instruction
more than I do, or who requires information more than I do, or
desires it more heartily; but I do not like to have it in too
imperative a shape. … Then Sir, there are the Abolition
societies, of which I am unwilling to speak, but in regard to
which I have very clear notions and opinions. I do not think
them useful. I think their operations for the last twenty
years have produced nothing good or valuable. At the same
time, I believe thousands of their members to be honest and
good men, perfectly well-meaning men. They have excited
feelings; they think they must do something for the cause of
liberty; and, in their sphere of action, they do not see what
else they can do than to contribute to an Abolition press, or
an Abolition society, or to pay an Abolition lecturer. I do
not mean to impute gross motives even to the leaders of these
societies, but I am not blind to the consequences of their
proceedings. I cannot but see what mischiefs their
interference with the South has produced. And is it not plain
to every man? Let any gentleman who entertains doubts on this
point recur to the debates in the Virginia House of Delegates
in 1832, and he will see with what freedom a proposition made
by Mr. Jefferson Randolph for the gradual abolition of slavery
was discussed in that body. Everyone spoke of slavery as he
thought; very ignominious and disparaging names and epithets
were applied to it. The debates in the House of Delegates on
that occasion, I believe, were all published. They were read
by every colored man who could read, and to those who could
not read, those debates were read by others. At that time
Virginia was not unwilling or afraid to discuss this question,
and to let that part of her population know as much of the
discussion as they could learn. That was in 1832. As has been
said by the honorable member from South Carolina, these
Abolition societies commenced their course of action in 1835.
It is said, I do not know how true it may be, that they sent
incendiary publications into the slave States; at any rate,
they attempted to arouse, and did arouse, a very strong
feeling; in other words they created great agitation in the
North against Southern slavery. Well, what was the result? The
bonds of the slaves were bound more firmly than before, their
rivets were more strongly fastened. Public opinion, which in
Virginia had begun to be exhibited against slavery, and was
opening out for the discussion of the question, drew back and
shut itself up in its castle. I wish to know whether any body
in Virginia can now talk openly as Mr. Randolph, Governor
McDowell, and others talked in 1832, and sent their remarks to
the press? We all know the fact, and we all know the cause;
and everything that these agitating people have done has been,
not to enlarge, but to restrain, not to set free, but to bind
faster, the slave population of the South. Again, Sir, the
violence of the Northern press is complained of. The press
violent! Why, Sir, the press is violent everywhere. There are
outrageous reproaches in the North against the South, and
there are reproaches as vehement in the South against the
North. Sir, the extremists of both parts of this country are
violent; they mistake loud and violent talk, for eloquence and
for reason. They think that he who talks loudest reasons best.
And this we must expect, when the press is free, as it is
here, and I trust always will be. … Well, in all this I see no
solid grievance, no grievance presented by the South, within
the redress of the government, but the single one to which I
have referred; and that is, the want of a proper regard to the
injunction of the Constitution for the delivery of fugitive
slaves. There are also complaints of the North against the
South. I need not go over them particularly. The first and
gravest is, that the North adopted the Constitution,
recognizing the existence of slavery in the States, and
recognizing the right, to a certain extent, of the
representation of slaves in Congress, under a state of
sentiment and expectation which does not now exist; and that,
by events, by circumstances, by the eagerness of the South to
acquire territory and extend her slave population, the North
finds itself, in regard to the relative influence of the South
and the North, of the free States and the slave States, where
it never did expect to find itself when they agreed to the
compact of the Constitution.
{3386}
They complain, therefore, that, instead of slavery being
regarded as an evil, as it was then, an evil which all hoped
would be extinguished gradually, it is now regarded by the
South as an institution to be cherished, and preserved, and
extended; an institution which the South has already extended
to the utmost of her power by the acquisition of new
territory. Well, then, passing from that, every body in the
North reads; and every body reads whatsoever the newspapers
contain; and the newspapers, some of them, especially those
presses to which I have alluded, are careful to spread about
among the people every reproachful sentiment uttered by any
Southern man bearing at all against the North; every thing
that is calculated to exasperate and to alienate; and there
are many such things, as every body will admit, from the
South, or some portion of it, which are disseminated among the
reading people; and they do exasperate, and alienate, and
produce a most mischievous effect upon the public mind at the
North. Sir, I would not notice things of this sort appearing
in obscure quarters; but one thing has occurred in this debate
which struck me very forcibly. An honorable member from
Louisiana addressed us the other day on this subject. I
suppose there is not a more amiable and worthy gentleman in
this chamber, nor a gentleman who would be more slow to give
offence to any body, and he did not mean in his remarks to
give offence. But what did he say? Why, Sir, he took pains to
run a contrast between the slaves of the South and the
laboring people of the North, giving the preference, in all
points of condition, and comfort, and happiness, to the slaves
of the South. The honorable member, doubtless, did not suppose
that he gave any offence, or did any injustice. He was merely
expressing his opinion. But does he know how remarks of that
sort will be received by the laboring people of the North?
Why, who are the laboring people of the North? They are the
whole North. They are the people who till their own farms with
their own hands; freeholders, educated men, independent men.
Let me say, Sir, that five sixths of the whole property of the
North is in the hands of the laborers of the North; they
cultivate their farms, they educate their children, they
provide the means of independence. … There is a more tangible
and irritating cause of grievance at the North. Free blacks
are constantly employed in the vessels of the North, generally
as cooks or stewards. When the vessel arrives at a Southern
port, these free colored men are taken on shore, by the police
or municipal authority, imprisoned, and kept in prison till
the vessel is again ready to sail. This is not only
irritating, but exceedingly unjustifiable and oppressive. Mr.
Hoar's mission, some time ago, to South Carolina, was a
well-intended effort to remove this cause of complaint. The
North thinks such imprisonments illegal and unconstitutional;
and as the cases occur constantly and frequently, they regard
it as a great grievance. Now, Sir, so far as any of these
grievances have their foundation in matters of law, they can
be redressed, and ought to be redressed; and so far as they
have their foundation in matters of opinion, in sentiment, in
mutual crimination and recrimination, all that we can do is to
endeavor to allay the agitation, and cultivate a better
feeling and more fraternal sentiments between the South and
the North. Mr. President, I should much prefer to have heard
from every member on this floor declarations of opinion that
this Union could never be dissolved, than the declaration of
opinion by any body, that, in any case, under the pressure of
any circumstances, such a dissolution was possible. I hear
with distress and anguish the word 'secession,' especially
when it falls from the lips of those who are patriotic, and
known to the country, and known all over the world, for their
political services. Secession! Peaceable secession! Sir, your
eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. The
dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! The
breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without
ruffling the surface! Who is so foolish, I beg every body's
pardon, as to expect to see any such thing? Sir, he who sees
these States, now revolving in harmony around a common centre,
and expects to see them 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.
There can be no such thing as a peaceable secession. Peaceable
secession is an utter impossibility. Is the great Constitution
under which we live, covering this whole country, is it to be
thawed and melted away by secession, as the snows on the
mountain melt under the influence of a vernal sun, disappear
almost unobserved, and run off? No, Sir! No, Sir! I will not
state what might produce the disruption of the Union; but,
Sir, I see as plainly as I see the sun in heaven what that
disruption itself must produce; I see that it must produce
war, and such a war as I will not describe, in its two-fold
character. Peaceable secession! Peaceable secession! The
concurrent agreement of all the members of this great republic
to separate! A voluntary separation, with alimony on one side
and on the other. Why, what would be the result? Where is the
line to be drawn? What States are to secede? What is to remain
American? What am I to be? An American no longer? Am I to
become a sectional man, a local man, a separatist, with no
country in common with the gentlemen who sit around me here,
or who fill the other house of Congress? Heaven forbid! Where
is the flag of the republic to remain? Where is the eagle
still to tower? or is he to cower, and shrink, and fall to the
ground? Why, Sir, our ancestors, our fathers, and our
grandfathers, those of them that are yet living amongst us
with prolonged lives, would rebuke and reproach us; and our
children and our grandchildren would cry out shame upon us, if
we of this generation should dishonor these ensign of the
power of the government and the harmony of that Union which is
every day felt among us with so much joy and gratitude. … Sir,
nobody can look over the face of this country at the present
moment, nobody can see where its population is the most dense
and growing, without being ready to admit, and compelled to
admit, that ere long the strength of America will be in the
Valley of the Mississippi.
{3387}
Well, now, Sir, I beg to inquire what the wildest enthusiast
has to say on the possibility of cutting that river in two,
and leaving free States at its source and on it branches, and
slave States down near its mouth, each forming a separate
government? … To break up this great government! to dismember
this glorious country! To astonish Europe with an act of folly
such as Europe for two centuries has never beheld in any
government or any people! No, Sir! no, Sir! There will be no
secession! Gentlemen are not serious when they talk of
secession."

_Daniel Webster,
Works,
volume 5, page 324._

"The speech, if exactly defined, is, in reality, a powerful
effort, not for compromise or for the Fugitive Slave Law, or
any other one thing, but to arrest the whole anti-slavery
movement, and in that way put an end to the dangers which
threatened the Union and restore lasting harmony between the
jarring sections. It was a mad project. Mr. Webster might as
well have attempted to stay the incoming tide at Marshfield
with a rampart of sand as to seek to check the anti-slavery
movement by a speech. Nevertheless, he produced a great
effect. … The blow fell with terrible force, and here … we
come to the real mischief which was wrought. The 7th of March
speech demoralized New England and the whole North. The
abolitionists showed by bitter anger the pain, disappointment,
and dismay which this speech brought. The Free-Soil party
quivered and sank for the moment beneath the shock. The whole
anti-slavery movement recoiled. The conservative reaction
which Mr. Webster endeavored to produce came and triumphed.
Chiefly by his exertions the compromise policy was accepted
and sustained by the country. The conservative elements
everywhere rallied to his support, and by his ability and
eloquence it seemed as if he had prevailed and brought the
people over to his opinions. It was a wonderful tribute to his
power and influence, but the triumph was hollow and
short-lived. He had attempted to compass an impossibility.
Nothing could kill the principles of human liberty, not even a
speech by Daniel Webster, backed by all his intellect and
knowledge, his eloquence and his renown. The anti-slavery
movement was checked for the time, and pro-slavery democracy,
the only other positive political force, reigned supreme. But
amid the falling ruins of the Whig party, and the evanescent
success of the Native Americans, the party of human rights
revived; and when it rose again, taught by the trials and
misfortunes of 1850, it rose with a strength which Mr. Webster
had never dreamed of."

_H. C. Lodge,
Daniel Webster,
chapter 9._