History of the United States, v.1, by James Ford Rhodes, 1910 [c1892].

Chapter 2, Part 2: Webster’s Speech Discussed through Northern Sentiment

The speech produced a wonderful sensation; none other in our annals had an immediate effect so mighty and striking. The reply to Hayne and the reply to Calhoun have more permanent value, and their influence has been lasting; the 7th of March speech dealt with slavery, and when the slavery question ceased to be an issue the discourse of Webster lost all but the historical interest. A careful reading of the speech now fails to disclose the whole reason of its harsh reception at the North. It is probable that the matured historical view will be that Webster's position as to the application of the Wilmot proviso to New Mexico was statesmanship of the highest order. In 1846,1847, and 1848, the formal prohibition of slavery in the territory to be acquired, or which was acquired from Mexico, seemed a vital and practical question. The latitude of the territory
in dispute gave reason to suppose that its products would be those of the cotton States, and that it would naturally gravitate 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 people interested. There remained New Mexico.1 The very fact that California had forbidden slavery was an excellent reason for believing that New Mexico would do likewise. It 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 conditions. It was understood that neither cotton, tobacco, rice, nor sugar could be raised, and no one in 1850 maintained that slave labor was profitable save in the cultivation of those products. The correspondence between Webster and the delegate to Congress from New Mexico shows that no one conversant with the facts knew that slavery had not the smallest chance of being established in that territory.2 The people themselves proved that no Wilmot proviso
__________________
1 New Mexico then comprised the westerly portions of New Mexico as at present bounded, and Colorado, Nevada, and Utah, most of Arizona, and the southwesterly part of Wyoming. Narrative and Critical History of America, Justin Winsor, vol. vii. p. 552.
2 This correspondence was published in many of the newspapers of the day, and may be found in Webster's Works, vol. vi. p. 548. Hugh N. Smith, the delegate from New Mexico, under date of April 9th, wrote: "New Mexico is an exceedingly mountainous country, Santa F6 itself being twice as high as the highest point of the Alleghanies, and nearly all the land capable of cultivation is of equal height, though some of the valleys have less altitude above the sea. The country is cold. Its general agricultural products are wheat and corn, and such vegetables as grow in the Northern States of this Union. It is entirely unsuited for slave labor. Labor is exceedingly abundant and cheap. It may be hired for three or four dollars a month, in quantity quite sufficient for carrying on all the agriculture of the territory. There is no cultivation except by irrigation, and there is not a sufficiency of water to irrigate all the land.
"As to the existence at present of slavery in New Mexico, it is the general understanding that it has been altogether abolished by the laws of Mexico; but we have no established tribunals which have pronounced as yet what the law of the land in this respect is. It is universally considered, however, that the territory is altogether a free territory. I know of no persons in the country who are treated as slaves, except such as may be servants to gentlemen visiting or passing through the country. I may add that the strongest feeling against slavery universally prevails throughout the whole territory, and I suppose it quite impossible to convey it there, and maintain it by any means whatever."

was needed, for in convention assembled in May they formed a State government, and declared for the absolute prohibition of slavery. It seems that Webster had studied this territorial question more deeply, knew the facts better, and saw clearer than his detractors.1 It certainly is no lack of consistency in a public man to change his action in conformity with the change in circumstances. The end desired was to have California and New Mexico free; and if that could be gained by the action of these communities, it was surely as well as to have it determined by a formal act of Congress. To insist upon a rigid principle when it is no longer applicable or necessary is not good politics; yet great blame has been attached to Webster because he did not now insist on the Wilmot proviso. Anti-slavery writers have
___________
1 Senator Hale, who opposed the compromise, and at this time criticised severely Webster's course, said in the Senate, July 9th, 1856: "Wise or unwise," the compromise measures of 1850 "had succeeded in an eminent degree in restoring peace to the country." And when Congress assembled, Dec, 1853, "it was literally true, I believe, at the time, ... as Mr. Webster said, that there was not a single foot of territory on the continent where this great question was not settled by what I think Mr. Webster termed an irrepealable law."—Congressional Globe, vol. xxxiii p. 846.

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.'

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 conditions 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 North; 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 abolitionists. 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 all: "To be told that 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 North for their action in regard to fugitive slaves. The bill of Mason, which, with some amendments, he proposed to support, was a stringent
________________
1 See Chap. X.
2 Political Essays, p. 31. This essay was published in the Atlantic Monthly for October, 1860.

measure; and while Webster's own idea was that the fugitive ought to have a jury trial in case he denied owing service to the claimant,' there is no doubt that he would have voted for the Mason bill pure and simple, or, had he been in the Senate at the time, for the actual Fugitive Slave law passed in September, rather than that the compromise should fail. It was thus that the country regarded, and rightly, his position. Webster's remarks on this subject are those of an advocate bound to the letter of the law, fettered by technicality and overborne by precedent. He does not take a broad, statesmanlike view, drawn indeed from the written law, but adapted to changing sentiments and keeping pace with the progress of the century; he who had taught us to seize the essential and eternal principles underlying the record is not true to the standard which he himself erected. Webster could see "an ordinance of Nature," and the "will of God" written on the mountains and plateaus of New Mexico, but he failed to see an ordinance of Nature and the will of God implanted in the hearts of men that led them to refuse their assistance in reducing to bondage their fellows, whose only crime had been desire for liberty and escape from slavery. These feelings in the minds of men of Massachusetts were, in Webster's opinion, "local prejudices" founded on "unreal ghostly abstractions." 2 He could detect the "taunt and reproach" to the South in the Wilmot proviso, but could not discover that a rigorous fugitive slave act was equally a taunt and reproach to the North.
________________
1 See Fugitive Slave bill introduced by Webster, June 3d, 1850, Works, vol. v. p. 373. See his letter of November 11th, 1850, where he states that if he had been in the Senate when the present Fugitive Slave law passed, he "should have moved, as a substitute for it, the bill proposed by myself." Private Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 402.
2 Remarks in Boston, April 29th, Curtis, vol. ii. p. 438. These expressions are cited from the celebrated Revere House speech, which may be found in full in Life of B. R. Curtis, vol. i. p. 117. The argument as to the duty of Massachusetts is strong.

Other points in this discourse occasioned much comment at the time, but the principal ones, and all that are necessary to a comprehension of what will follow, have been touched upon. It 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 Massachusetts who misrepresented her in the Senate." Henry Wilson "declared that 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; that 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 Webster formally to support the Wilmot proviso and vote against Mason's Fugitive Slave bill; 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 Northern representatives in Congress. No one of the New England Whig members agreed with him.2 Horace Mann especially was bitter. He writes: "Webster is a fallen star! Lucifer descending from heaven!" "There is a very strong feeling here [at Washington] that Mr. Webster has played false to the North." "He has not a favorable response from any Northern man of any influence." 3 Giddings represented 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 Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, vol. ii. p. 254.
2 Curtis, vol. ii. pp. 428,447; Boston Atlas, April 6th.
3 Letters of March 8th, 10th, 14th, Life, pp. 293, 294.
4 History of the Rebellion, p. 324.

A public meeting in Faneuil Hall condemned the action of Webster. Theodore Parker, who was one of the principal speakers, said: "I know no deed in American history done by a son of New England to which I can compare this but the act of Benedict Arnold. . . . The only reasonable way in which we can estimate this speech is as a bid for the presidency."1 In the main, the Northern Whig press condemned the salient points of the speech. The New York Tribune was especially outspoken, and doubted whether Webster would carry with him a Northern Whig vote.2 A large proportion of the Whig newspapers of New England 3 felt obliged to dissent from the opinion of him whose arguments they had heretofore received with avidity and spread with zeal. It was regarded as an indication of great weight when the Boston Atlas, whose editor was a warm personal friend of Webster, combated unreservedly the important positions of the 7th-of-March speech; and although this respectful criticism was expressed in emphatic terms, the editor spoke more in sorrow than in anger.4 Those of the Whig journals who, after the flush of surprise, came to their leader's support could only advocate his principles in a lukewarm manner; and it was evident that devotion to Webster, and not to the cause he had made his own, was the spring of their action.4 Nearly all the religious papers of the North vented their disapproval.6 Whittier, in a song of plaintive vehemence called "Ichabod," mourned for the "fallen" statesman whose faith was lost, and whose honor was dead.

Curtis and Theodore Parker, who agree in nothing else, are of the same mind about public sentiment. "This
________________
1 Speech of March 25th.
2 March 9th and 11th.
3 Nine-tenths of them, according to the Boston Atlas.
4 See the editorial of April 6th.
5 Notably the Boston Advertiser, the Boston Traveller, and the Springfield Republican. See for the latter, Life of Bowles, vol. i. p. 78.
6 See a list of them in the Liberator of April 12th.

speech," writes Curtis, "was received by probably a great majority of Mr. Webster'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 that 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 that of any man living, for the people had confidence that 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 Webster. The intellectual force and moral greatness of Washington and of Lincoln were augmented by their high office and the gravity of the existing crises. When the first excitement had subsided, the friends of Webster bestirred themselves, and soon testimonials poured in, approving the position 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."5 The tone of many of the Whig papers changed,
_______________
1 Vol. ii. p. 410.
2 Sermon, October 31st, 1852. 'Notably the New York Herald and the New York Journal of Commerce.
3 For example, George Ashmun, M. C. from the Springfield, Mass., district. Life of Samuel Bowles, vol. i. p. 41.
4 Among the signers were George Ticknor, George T. Curtis, Benjamin R. Curtis, Rufus Choate, Moses Stuart, W. H. Prescott, and Jared Sparks. The communication was dated March 25th.

some to positive support, others to more qualified censure. The whole political literature of the time is full of the discussion of this speech and its relation to the compromise. It is frequently said that a speech in Congress does not alter opinions; that the minds of men are determined by set political bias or sectional considerations. This was certainly not the case in 1850. Webster's influence was of the greatest weight in the passage of the compromise measures, and he is as closely associated with them as is their author. Clay's adroit parliamentary management was necessary to carry them through the various and tedious steps of legislation. But it was Webster who raised up for them a powerful and much-needed support from Northern public sentiment.

At the South the speech was cordially received; the larger portion of the press commended it with undisguised admiration.' Calhoun complimented Webster for many of his declarations. Senator Foote, of Mississippi, was warm in his praise; while Jefferson Davis afterwards said that it contained so little for the South that he "never could see why it was republished in the Southern States." 2

We must now consider the justice of the altered verdict on the character of Webster, which dates from the 7th of March. I have already spoken of him at length; but his vigorous personality fills such a vast space of his time that in dwelling upon his attitude towards the question which distracted the country, and the attitude of the country towards him, we are studying in the best manner the history of the period. Tradition has even been unkinder to him than history. It is generally believed that in his later years he was daily flustered with brandy, and that he trod the path of the gross libertine. The truth on this delicate
___________________
1 See many extracts from Southern papers in the Liberator of April 5th, May 3d and 10th; also Webster's reference thereto in the Senate, March 25th, Curtis, vol. ii. p. 420.
2 January 26th, 1860, Congressional Globe, p. 599.

subject has already been stated.1 But it is the delight of story-tellers to make Webster 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 that intellectual greatness is prone to the indulgence of the passions.

It was a common opinion that Webster's intense desire for the presidency caused him to sacrifice his principles, but those who are most vehement in their charge refute themselves. Giddings says that Webster thought "his only pathway 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." 2 Horace Mann said the speech was a " bid for the presidency."3 This, however, was an after-thought; for on the 8th of March he records the opinion that Webster " will lose two friends at the North 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, according to the same authority, the speech did not commend itself to "a hundred prominent men in all New England."5 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 understand the sentiment of the North; or that, with unexampled fatuity, he hoped his position on the sectional question would gain him the support of the South and yet not
_____________
1 See p. 143.
2 History of the Rebellion, pp. 323, 324.
3 This was written April 6th, Life, p. 299.
4 Ibid., p. 293.
5 Discourse, April 12th, 1852, and Sermon, October 31st, 1852.

lose him that of the free States. The charge lies in a misconception of his character. While his desire for the presidency was ardent, he demanded the nomination from his party as a right rather than begged it as a favor. In truth, if we carefully estimate the public utterances of Webster we shall see that the charge of flagrant inconsistency is unjust. Of all the criticisms of his action from anti-slavery men, that of Emerson was the least uncharitable and the most truthful. The philosopher could appreciate the conservatism of the statesman, and could understand that the point of view of the one might be widely different from that of the other.1 If we contrast simply his former sentiments on slavery with the treatment of it in the 7th-of-March speech, the imputation of inconsistency may, indeed, seem reasonable.2 But that is only to look on one side of the question; for if we reflect on Webster's veneration for the Constitution and his
___________________
1 "Mr. Webster, perhaps, is only following the laws of his blood and constitution. ... He is a man who lives by his memory; a man of the past, not a man of faith and hope. All the drops of his blood have eyes that look downward, and his finely developed understanding only works truly and with all its force when it stands for animal good; that is, for property. He looks at the Union as an estate, a large farm, and is excellent in the completeness of his defence of it so far. What he finds already written he will defend. Lucky that so much had got well written when he came, for he has no faith in the power of self-government. . . . In Massachusetts, in 1770, he would, beyond all question, have been a refugee. He praises Adams and Jefferson, but it is a past Adams and Jefferson. A present Adams or Jefferson he would denounce."—Memoir of Emerson, Cabot, p. 581.
2 Webster himself denied that there was any inconsistency. See his statement in his 7th-of-March speech, and his remarks in the Senate, March 25th, in reply to Hale. The following he wrote to inhabitants of Maine in May: "Gentlemen,—One of the exciting questions of the present moment respects the necessity of excluding slavery by law from the territories lately acquired from Mexico. If I believed in any such necessity, I should, of course, support such a law. I could not do otherwise consistently with opinions very many times expressed, and which opinions I have no inclination to change, and shall not change." Curtis, vol. ii. p. 480.

sincere love for the Union, as shown through his whole career, it is easy to see that the main-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 powerful motive outweighed the other; for he believed that the crusade against slavery had arrived at a point where its further 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,2 more brilliant than solid in his judgments, cannot account for it in any other way than that the reason of the statesman was tottering. Other more careful writers,3 who better comprehended Burke, see plainly that he simply followed the laws of his blood and constitution. So it was with Webster. He was as conservative as Burke. Both dreaded fanatics. The Union and the Constitution were to the American what the ancient and revered institutions of ages and nations were to the Englishman. Both were the means of breaking up their party—the American Whig party beyond hope of revival; the English Whigs were deprived of power for a generation. Party passion has so affected opinions about Burke that it has remained for the present generation of Englishmen to measure fairly the worth of their greatest statesman. Never has his reputation shone so brightly as to-day, and not until now has his conservatism been appreciated at its full value. It is quite certain that we shall not be less generous in the estimate of
_______________
1 Life of Burke, Morley, p. 245.
2 Buckle.
3 Bancroft, Lecky, and Morley. See Morley, pp. 1 and 3.

our great conservative. Until the closing years of our century, a dispassionate judgment could not be made of Webster; but we see now that, in the war of the secession, his principles were mightier than those of Garrison.1 It was not " No Union with slave-holders," but it was "Liberty and Union" that won. Lincoln called the joint names his watchword,2 and it was not the liberty or abolitionist, but the Union party that conducted the war.

Burke likewise suffered calumny in his private life. He received large gifts of money from a rich and noble lord, even as Webster had contributions from the merchants of State Street, and Burke was also accused of getting money in discreditable ways.3

In thinking of the intellectual greatness of Webster, we are reminded of an American whose grasp was wide, who stamped his print upon his time, and yet not until our generation has historic justice been done to his memory. When Webster eulogized Alexander Hamilton with that graphic and familiar comparison that has now become an estimate of his work which no one disputes, it was considered a brave and noble act to speak so warmly of a man whom few cared to honor.4
__________________
1 Webster's "great argument was behind every bayonet, and was carried home with every cannon-shot in the war which saved the Union."— George F. Hoar, at Plymouth, August 1st, 1889. "The great rebellion of 1861 went down hardly more before the cannons of Grant and Farragut than the thunder of Webster's reply to Hayne."—Gov. J. D. Long, January 15th, 1882.
2 History of Nicolay and Hay, Century Magazine, vol. xxxviii. p. 413.
3 It was said that at the time Burke changed his political opinions he was "overwhelmed with pecuniary embarrassments from which there seemed no outlet in opposition."—History of England, Lecky, vol. v. p. 460. But Lecky has no doubt of the sincerity of Burke's convictions. 4 "He smote the rock of the national resources, and abundant streams of revenue gushed forth. He touched the dead corpse of the public credit, and it sprang upon its feet."—Webster's Works, vol. i. p. 200. "I admire your gallantry (and good conduct, too) in vindicating and eulogizing the fame and character of Hamilton. Few men at this day are magnanimous to dare it."—Letter of Joseph Gales to Webster, March 27th,1831, Curtis, vol. i. p. 399.

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 that after years of renowned service in the Senate his title still remained Governor Seward. He was a good lawyer, 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. He was a friend of John Quincy Adams, whom he regarded with respect and veneration, and who had a marked influence on his turn of thought. Adams, who brooded constantly during 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 at home and abroad that he was a strenuous opponent of the extension of slavery. His speech at Cleveland in 1848 had produced a profound sensation. "Slavery can be limited to its present bounds," he had said; "it can be ameliorated; it can and must be abolished, 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 Memoir prefixed to vol. i. of Works.

there shall be a compromise of the questions which have arisen out of slavery before California shall be allowed to become a State; and emphatically declares: "I am opposed to any such compromise, in any and all the forms in which it has been proposed;" for what do we of the North "receive in this compromise? Freedom in California." But as "an independent, a paramount question," California " ought to come in, and must come in, at all events. . .. Under the circumstances of her conquest, her compact, her abandonment, her justifiable and necessary establishment of a Constitution, and the inevitable dismemberment of the empire consequent upon her rejection, I should have voted for her admission even if she had come as a slave State."

In regard to the fugitive slave question, "I say to the slave States, you are entitled to no more stringent laws; and that such laws would be useless. The cause of the inefficiency of the present statute is not at all the leniency of its provisions;" it is the public sentiment at the North, which will not support the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave act. "Has any government ever succeeded in changing the moral convictions of its subjects by force? But these convictions imply no disloyalty. We reverence the Constitution, although we perceive this defect, just as we acknowledge the splendor and the power of the sun, although its surface is tarnished with here and there an opaque spot. Your Constitution and laws convert hospitality to the refugee from the most degrading oppression on earth into a crime; but all mankind except you esteem that hospitality a virtue. ... If you will have this law executed, you must alleviate, not increase, its rigors."

When Seward came to the territorial question, his words created a sensation. "We hold," he said," no arbitrary authority over anything, whether acquired lawfully or seized by usurpation. The Constitution regulates our stewardship; the Constitution devotes the domain (i. e. the territories not formed into States) to union, to justice, to defence, to welfare, and to liberty. But there is a higher law than the Constitution,' 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 universe. We are his stewards, and must so discharge our trust as to secure in the highest attainable degree their happiness." This remark about "a higher law" while far inferior 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 aphorism 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 Webster's argument based on the proposition that climate and soil would prevent the introduction of slavery into New Mexico. He refers "to the great and all-absorbing argument that the Union is in danger of being dissolved, and that it can only be saved by compromise." He had received " with no inconsiderable distrust" the warnings that had been uttered 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 paramount object to be gained; and that 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 compensation; or whether the Union shall be dissolved and civil war ensue, bringing on violent but complete and immediate emancipation. We are now arrived at that stage of our national progress when that crisis can be foreseen, when we must foresee it.... I feel assured that slavery must give
______________
1 The emphasis is mine.

way;. . . that emancipation is inevitable, and is near; that it may be hastened or hindered; and that whether it shall be peaceful or violent depends upon the question whether it be hastened or hindered; that all measures which fortify slavery, or extend it, tend to the consummation of violence; all that check its extension and abate its strength tend to its peaceful extirpation. But I will adopt none but lawful, constitutional, and peaceful means to secure even that end; and none such can I or will I forego. . . . There is no reasonable limit to which I am not willing to go in applying the national treasures to effect the peaceful, voluntary removal of slavery itself. . . . But you reply that, nevertheless, you must have guarantees; and the first one is for the surrender of fugitives from labor. That guarantee you cannot have... because you cannot roll back the tide of social progress. You must be content with what you have." Nevertheless, " there will be no disunion and no secession." Senator Seward closed with an appeal for the maintenance of the Union; he pictured the invocation of countless generations that would be the future inhabitants of this region, demanding sure and complete freedom over the territory for which they were now legislating.1

In a portion of the discourse there are many glittering generalities, and pedantic references to Bacon, Montesquieu, and Burke, which add little to the power of the reasoning. Nor are the transitions naturally made. In classic style, it is far inferior to Webster's oration; in terse and severe precision of language he does not equal Calhoun, and he fails to stick to the question in hand as closely as Clay. The first part of the speech, the argument in favor of the admission of California, is divided into categorical propositions, which again are subdivided into points after the manner of an old-fashioned sermon. This is not a pleasing form for an oration calculated to gain the attention of the
_______________
1 This speech of Senator Seward may be found in vol. i. of his Works, p. 51.

hearers. A prominent journalist, whose sympathies were with the side that 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. It was too long by a third. But the last two-thirds make it a great speech, and it is from that portion that nearly all the foregoing citations are made. Seward was listened to with close and earnest attention by Webster, Clay, Calhoun, Benton, Cass, Hale, and Corwin,2 not from personal sympathy with him in his maiden effort, but because he represented faithfully the sentiment of the Empire State, and was, moreover, 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 committee, lest their intimate personal relations might create the suspicion that he acted authoritatively for the President.3 Indeed, the Washington organ of the President assailed Seward for the sentiments expressed, and it was accordingly 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.5 But one voice came from the South, and that was the voice of censure; in this the Northern Democratic
______________
1 Brewer, of the Boston Atlas.
2 Washington correspondence New York Tribune, March 11th. 3 Memoir prefixed to vol. i. of Works, p. lxxxiv. Seward had, however, consulted the Secretary of the Interior. On the day that he spoke, before going to the Capitol, he wrote his wife: "I showed my notes confidentially to Mr. Ewing, and he is satisfied."—Life of Seward, vol. ii. p. 125.
4 "I perceive that my friend Weed laments that it did not happen to me to make such a great and glorious speech as Governor Seward's. I thank him sincerely for his condolence, but Omnia non possumus omnes." Webster to Blatchford, July, 1850, Memoir of Thurlow Weed, p. 183. But Weed did not entirely approve of the speech. See letters of Seward to him, Life of Seward, vol. ii. p. 129.
5 Private Correspondence, p. 604.

press for the most part coincided. The New York Tribune, however, said that the speech represented the feeling of the great State of New York; and this was true of the majority of the Whigs, for later in the year, in State convention assembled, they commended by formal resolution the course of their senator.1

Seward's reasoning on the fugitive slave question was incapable of refutation; later events plainly demonstrated the force of his position. His unerring foresight as to what would happen to slavery in case the Union were dissolved is an unfolding of the idea planted in his mind by his political exemplar, John Quincy Adams.2 But his confident assertion that" there will be no disunion and no secession" is a revelation of that serene optimism that was a characteristic of Seward throughout his whole career. The burning assertion that" there is a higher law than the Constitution" would in ordinary times have simply been the averment of a noble abstraction as old as Roman law, and, although it was applied to the territorial question by the senator, the religious and philanthropic people of the country soon seized upon it as justifying resistance to the Fugitive Slave law. The remark undoubtedly received a far wider application than its author purposed. Of all the anti-slavery partisans in Congress, Seward was perhaps the last man one would have suspected of soaring to such a moral height and laying down a principle that should warrant opposition to the law. At any rate, the expression would have seemed more natural in the mouth of Chase or Hale, in that of Giddings or Horace Mann. For Seward did not disdain the arts of the machine politician. He believed that a shrewd distribution of the patronage was a great assistance even to a party of moral ideas. His influence with the administration was great enough to control the dealing-out of the offices of the North, and he made an efficient member of the
___________
1 New York Tribune, March 12th and October 3d.
2 See especially Life of Seward, F. W. Seward, vol. i. p. 672.

New York Whig regency whose sphere was practical politics. That the higher-law doctrine should be carried to its legitimate result was far from his desire; but 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 containing 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 Northern Whig in favor of the compromise, a Southern Democrat and an anti-slavery Whig 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. Jefferson 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 eventually become necessary; but, in common with nearly every one of his fellow-extremists, he knew that it was a chimerical idea and an impossible demand. It was a good enough argument to keep in the background; it had a possibility of future value, for it might serve as one of the pretexts for secession. But now it must make place for a tangible claim, and one that the average Southern mind could comprehend. Davis was quite ready to state what would satisfy the South. What he preferred, before all, was nonintervention—" that is, an equal right to go into all territories—all property being alike protected;" but, in default of this, "I will agree to the drawing of the line of 36° 30' through the territories acquired from Mexico, with the condition that in the same degree as slavery is prohibited north of that line, it shall be permitted to enter south of the line; and that the States which may be admitted into the Union shall come in under such constitutions as they think proper to form."1 This was his ultimatum. The speeches of Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Seward, and the demand of Davis, being a corollary to the complaint of Calhoun, show the three sides of the controversy. The other speeches are restatements or amplifications of the cogent arguments used by these leaders of the debate.

The discussion went on, not unattended with excitement. Between Benton and Senator Foote a noticeable altercation took place; for some time there had been a bitter personal feeling between the two men.2 The Southerners looked on Benton as a renegade, for, although a slave-holder from a slave-holding State, he was bitterly opposed to their object, and the senator from Mississippi was tacitly selected to taunt Benton whenever opportunity offered.3 In the latter part of March he had a spirited controversy with Foote as to what measure should have legislative preference. The senator from Mississippi moved that the territorial bills should be made a special order. Benton objected to this, demanding, with considerable asperity, that the admission of California should first have consideration. This nettled Foote, who was of an excitable temperament, and he replied in words of bitter sarcasm. "The senator," he said, “need not think of frightening anybody by a blustering and dogmatic demeanor. We have rights here, as well as the senator from Missouri, and we mean to maintain them at all hazards and to the last extremity. . . . The honorable senator now says, 'I am the friend of California. ... I announce—I, sir—I announce—that I will from this day henceforward insist—I, the Caesar, the Napoleon of the Senate— I announce that I have now come into the war with sword
________________
1 Remarks of Jefferson Davis in the Senate, March 13th and 14th.
2 Casket of Reminiscences, H. 8. Foote, p. 331.
3 I am indebted to James W. Bradbury, then a senator from Maine, for the statement in the last clause.

and buckler.'" 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 that he believed personalities were forbidden by the laws of the Senate. "And now, sir," he said, " I will tell you what 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 remarks. It greatly irritated Benton, who exclaimed," I pronounce it cowardly to give insults where they cannot be chastised. Can I take a cudgel to him here?" Calls to order by the vice-president and several senators, with mollifying remarks by others, terminated the incident for the day.2 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 matter to a select committee of thirteen, the pent-up enmity broke forth. Benton made the charge that the whole excitement under which the country had labored was due to the address of the Southern members of Congress,3 and that "there has been a cry of wolf when there was no wolf; that the country has been alarmed without reason and against reason." Foote, in reply, defended the signers of the Southern address, said their action was " worthy of the highest laudation," and that they would be held in " veneration when their calumniators, no matter who they may be, will be objects of general loathing and contempt." When the word
_____________
1 Fremont, one of the senators-elect from California, was the son-in-law of Benton.
2 This was March 26th.
3 See p. 104.

"calumniators" was uttered, Benton rose from his seat, pushed his chair violently from him, and, without remark or gesture, but with great wrath in his face, quickly strode towards the seat of Foote, which was about twenty feet distant from his own. Benton had no weapon of any kind in his hands or about his person. Foote, seeing at once the movement of Benton, left his place on the floor and ran towards the secretary's table, all the while looking over his shoulder; at the same time he drew a five-chambered revolver, fully loaded, and cocked it; then took a position in front of the secretary's table. Meanwhile Senator Dodge followed Benton, overtook him and grasped him by the arm, when he said, "Don't stop me, Dodge!" to which the reply came, "Don't compromise yourself or the Senate." He was then on the point of going back to his seat when he happened to see the pistol in Foote's hands, at which he became greatly excited. He struggled with the senators who were holding him, with the apparent intention of approaching Foote, and, dramatically throwing open his coat, exclaimed," I am not armed; I have no pistols; I disdain to carry arms. Let him fire. Stand out of the way and let the assassin fire." In the meantime, Foote was disarmed and Benton was led back to his seat. Senators considered the scene an outrage to the dignity of the Senate, and a committee was appointed to investigate the affair and take proper action. Three months and a half later they reported, reciting fully the facts, but forbore to recommend any action to the Senate. They made one statement of historical interest; namely, that they had "searched the precedents, and find that no similar scene has ever been witnessed in the Senate of the United States."1

On the 18th of April the resolutions of Clay and others of similar purport were referred to a select committee of thirteen. Clay was chosen its chairman, and it was further made up by the election of senators Webster, Phelps, Cooper, Whigs, and Cass, Dickinson, Bright, Democrats, from the
________________
1 Report of Committee, July 30th.

free States; King, Mason, Downs, Democrats, and Mangum, Bell, and Berrien, Whigs, from the slave States. Nothing demonstrated more clearly that the question was not a partisan 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 committee. The division was not on party, but on sectional lines. It had been tacitly understood that 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 men; among them there was only one advocate of the Wilmot proviso, Phelps, of Vermont, and but one Southern extremist, Mason, of Virginia. The committee reported on the 8th of May; their recommendations and views were thus recapitulated:

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 compact with Texas by admitting such new State or States.

2. The admission forthwith of California into the Union, with the boundaries she had proposed.

3. The establishment of territorial governments, without the Wilmot proviso, for New Mexico and Utah; 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 boundary of Texas, and the exclusion from her jurisdiction of all New Mexico, with the grant to Texas of a pecuniary equivalent; and the section for that purpose to be incorporated in the bill admitting California and establishing territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico.

6. More effectual enactment of law to secure the prompt delivery of persons bound to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, who escape into another State.

7. In the District of Columbia the slave-trade, but not slavery, was to be prohibited under a heavy penalty.

No minority report was made; but Phelps, Cooper, Mason, Downs, and Berrien dissented from some of the views of the majority, and made statements to that effect in open Senate. The committee, however, were unanimously agreed on the first proposition, relating to the formation of more States from Texas. It will be seen that the practical bearing of these recommendations was the same as that of Clay's resolutions introduced in January bills to carry them out had been prepared, and were offered in connection with the report. The discussion on these measures in various shapes continued for nearly five months, and nearly every senator spoke. Among the supporters of the compromise scheme in the Senate were Clay, Webster, Cass, Douglas, and Foote. It was opposed by Seward, Chase, Hale, John Davis, of Massachusetts, and Dayton—all of them anti-slavery Whigs or Free-soilers; by Benton, an independent Democrat; and by Jefferson Davis and a following of Southern extremists.2 Every one was astonished at the fire and vigor of Clay. He was the especial champion of the plan, and right nobly did he advocate it in spite of his age and infirmity. Greeley, a looker-on at Washington, was amazed at his energy, and wrote the Tribune: "He is ... an overmatch in the engineering of a bill by sharp corners and devious passages for any man in the Senate. Webster is more massive and ponderous in a set debate, but does not compare in winning support to a measure." 3

Meanwhile, the Nashville convention met. From the first
_______________
1 See p. 123.
2 "All the Union men, North and South, Whigs and Democrats, for the period of six months were assembled in caucus every day, with Clay in the chair, Cass upon his right hand, Webster upon his left hand, and the Whigs and Democrats arranged on either side."—Douglas, speech at Cincinnati, September 9th, 1859.
3 Letter of June 9th.

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 introduction of the compromise resolutions, they joined in the opposition. It was patent, however, from Webster's allusion to it in his 7th-of-March speech, that the proposed convention attracted attention at Washington as a disunion move. He intimated that if any persons should meet at Nashville "for the purpose of concerting measures for the overthrow of this Union over the bones of Andrew Jackson," 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 Maryland to Louisiana, there were not more than fifteen that gave it a decided support.1 In fact, there was little enthusiasm for it outside of South Carolina and Mississippi. The convention met on the 3d of June; nine States were represented. There were six delegates from Virginia, seventeen 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;2 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 proposition in its address was the demand for a division of the territory 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 South;" 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. It deserves a mention here more from the hopes and fears it had excited than from its active or enduring effects.
_______________
1 Wilmington, N. C, Chronicle. Cited in Boston Advertiser, March 23d.
2 National Intelligencer, June 8th.

The influence of the administration was exerted against the plan of the committee of thirteen. The second, third, and fifth recommendations1 were combined in one measure, which the President himself in derision had called the omnibus bill,2 and to oppose which he warmly encouraged Hannibal Hamlin, Senator from Maine.3 A few days after the report of the committee, Clay, in a speech, held out the olive branch to the administration. It was not accepted; on the contrary, " war, open war, undisguised war, was made by the administration and its partisans against the plan of the committee." 4 This the senator thought was unfair. What he deemed he had a right to expect was well stated in his witty retort to John Bell, a Whig senator from Tennessee, who defended the President. Bell said: "The President announced that he still adhered to the plan he had proposed; and the old question is presented whether Mahomet will go to the mountain, or the mountain come to Mahomet. I do not undertake to say which is Mahomet or which the mountain." The reply from Clay came quickly: "I beg pardon, but I only wanted the mountain to let me alone." He said, moreover, that with the concurrence, or even the forbearance, of the administration the measure would have passed both Houses without difficulty.

These remarks of Clay were made on the 3d of July, and it was the last time that he had occasion to criticise the course of the President. Personal and sectional passion were stilled by the entrance of grim death into the White House. General Taylor on Thursday morning, the Fourth of July, was apparently in robust health. He attended the exercises in commemoration of the day at the Washington Monument, and listened to the oration of Senator Foote. The heat was of unusual intensity; he was for a long time
___________
1 See p. 172.
2 Statement of Clay in the Senate, July 3d.
3 Life of Clay, Schurz, vol. ii. p. 351; Life of Thurlow Weed, vol. ii. p. 178.
4 Remarks of Clay, July 3d.

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 patient continued in this condition until Saturday, the 6th, when it was deemed best to call in counsel; two other physicians were sent for, and Dr. Wood, his son-in-law, was summoned 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 attendant: "I should not be surprised if this were to terminate in my death. I did not expect to encounter what has beset me since my elevation to the presidency. 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.1 It 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 that they warned him, unless 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 alarmed; 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. At ten o'clock Tuesday morning a rumor was started that the President had rallied; at one in the after
____________
1 See Life of John A. Quitman, Claiborne, vol. ii. p. 32.
2 What the Galphin business was will be later on explained.

noon, that he was dead; but the official bulletin of 3.30 p.m. stated that the crisis had been passed, and he was beyond immediate danger. The city ran wild with joy. Bells were rung and bonfires were built to show the relieved anxiety of the people. Crowds of officials and many of the diplomatic body repaired to the White House to offer their congratulations. But the exultation was short-lived. By seven o'clock it was known that the physicians had refused to give more medicine, saying their patient was in the hands of God; and the bulletin announced that the President was dying. In response to his earnest inquiry, his doctor and friend told him he had not many hours to live. The general knew it too well, but he met death like a hero. He prayed with his spiritual adviser; he bade farewell to his wife and children, who were overcome with grief; and he uttered his last words with emphatic distinctness: "I have always done my duty: I am ready to die. My only regret is for the friends I leave behind me."

There was deep and sincere sorrow through all the Northern States at the death of the President. One correspondent on his journey from Boston to Washington saw everywhere signs of mourning; he had never known anything like the depth of feeling which pervaded the masses. "It seemed, indeed," he wrote, "as if our journey lay through the dark valley and shadow of death."1 "I never saw grief," Seward wrote, "public grief, so universal and so profound."2 The wide-felt sorrow was a testimony to the sterling honesty and patriotism of General Taylor. It extended to the border States, where he had a powerful hold on the Whigs, while but little regret for his death was shown in the cotton States outside of his own Louisiana. The grief of the Free-soilers and anti-slavery Whigs was especially great, for they had given their adherence to the President's plan, and they felt that now its strongest prop was gone: they soon had
_______________
1 Correspondent of Boston Atlas, July 14th.
2 Seward to his wife, Life of Seward, vol. ii. p. 144.

reason to feel that the succession of Fillmore boded ill to their scheme.1

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 principle, 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 with the administration, as we have seen, became powerful.2 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 Congress. The debate had stirred the conservative feelings of his nature, and he had told the President privately that in case there should be a tie in the Senate, and it should devolve 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,3 Webster felt confident that it would promote the scheme of the committee of thirteen. He writes: "I believe Mr. Fillmore favors the compromise, and there is no doubt that recent
__________________
1 This account of the illness and death of President Taylor is made up from detailed reports at the time to the Philadelphia Bulletin and New York Independent; from references to the illness in Congress; from allusions to his death by President Fillmore, and in the eulogies delivered in the Senate and the House.
2 See p. 102.
3 Life of Horace Mann, p. 307.

events have increased the probability of the passage of that measure."1 Clay confides to his daughter his opinion that the death of General Taylor " will favor the passage of the compromise bill," 2 while Seward lamented that" Providence has at last led the man of hesitation and double opinions to the crisis where decision and singleness are indispensable."3

The announcement of the cabinet set at rest all doubts. President Fillmore, on receiving the resignation of the old cabinet, had at once determined to offer the office of Secretary of State to Clay or Webster; Clay, however, called upon him and recommended Webster. Thereupon he tendered the office to Webster, who after some deliberation, but with a great deal of reluctance, accepted it and advised the President regarding the other selections.4 Thomas Corwin, of Ohio, received the Treasury portfolio; Charles M. Conrad, of Louisiana, became Secretary of War; William A. Graham, of North Carolina, had the Navy Department; A. H. H. Stuart, of Virginia, was Secretary of the Interior; Nathan K. Hall, of New York, Postmaster-General, and John J. Crittenden, of Kentucky, was Attorney-General.

Four of the members came from the slave-holding States, but they were men of moderate views. It was a cabinet favorable to the compromise; and Webster, who dominated the new administration, used its whole influence and power in favor of the scheme for which he had contended in the Senate. The President, moreover, knew well the use of official patronage, and before long the cry went out that when
_______________
1 Letter of July 11th, Webster's Private Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 376.
2 Letter, July 13th, Private Correspondence, p. 611.
3 Letter of Seward to his wife, July 12th, Life of Seward, vol. ii. p. 145.
4 See letter of Fillmore to G. T. Curtis, Life of Webster, vol. ii. p. 465; also Webster's letter to Haven, ibid.; and his letters to Harvey and Blatchford, July 21st, Webster's Private Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 378.

ever practicable Seward men were removed and their places filled with conservative Whigs.

In the meantime, a few men at Santa Fe, with an eye to their own advantage, had taken steps towards the formation of a State government for New Mexico. This move was suggested by the acting military governor of the territory, being in accordance with advice from General Taylor's Secretary of War. The governor called a convention, which assembled May 15th, and in ten days framed a constitution for the State of New Mexico. This constitution prohibited slavery; it was adopted by the people in June, the vote being 8371 for and 39 against ratification. A governor, legislature and a congressman were chosen, and in July the Legislature 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 matter of conferring statehood on her was not considered. The project could not have received warm support, for the population was of far different character from that of California. While there were one hundred thousand souls in the territory, two-fifths were Indians, three or four thousand were proud to call themselves Castilians; fifteen hundred were emigrants from the United States, and the remainder were Mexicans—that 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 controlling influence over the more passive and tractable Mexicans and Indians." They had, indeed, formed a carpet-bagger government on a magnificent scale; and, as Clay said when it was foreshadowed that New Mexico might apply for admission as a State, "It would be ridiculous, it would be farcical [to admit her]; it would bring into contempt the grave matter of forming commonwealths as sovereign members
__________________
1 The population of the territory, exclusive of Indians, according to the census of 1850, was: white, 61,525; free colored, 22; slaves, none.

of this glorious Union." On the death of President Taylor the project fell to the ground and made no figure in the adjustment of the controversy.1

After General Taylor's funeral and the customary eulogies, the discussion in the Senate continued on the so-called omnibus bill until the 31st of July, when the bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading; but it had been so cut down by the amendments that nothing remained of the original measure but the part which provided a territorial government for Utah without the interdiction of slavery; in that shape, it was passed. From the debate and the vote on the various amendments, however, it seemed highly probable that every recommendation of the committee of thirteen could be made law, provided each article, standing as an independent measure, were considered separately. Senator Douglas, chairman of the committee on territories, immediately introduced a bill for the admission of California. After this had been discussed for a few days, a bill was brought in which devised the settlement of the Texas boundary, and proposed to pay Texas ten million dollars for the relinquishment of her claims on New Mexico. The debate on these two measures went on side by side, a part of each sitting being devoted to California and a part to the Texas boundary. A vote on the latter question was first reached; it was taken August 9th, and the bill passed by 30 to 20. There were twelve votes against the Texas boundary measure from the slave and eight from the free States; in the main they were those of extremists from the South and anti-slavery Whigs and Free-soilers from the North. Benton, whom it is difficult to classify, joined Seward and Jefferson Davis, Chase and Atchison, Hale and Mason, in opposing the measure. The division on the California bill was had August 13th; there were 34 yeas and 18 nays. The yeas were fifteen Northern Democrats, eleven Northern
________________
1 Arizona and New Mexico, H. H. Bancroft, pp. 342,446 et seq.; Speech of Clay, May 31st, and of John Bell, July 5th, in the Senate.

Whigs, four Southern Whigs, and Chase, Hale, Benton, 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.1 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 Winthrop (the successor of Webster), three Northern Democrats, and Chase; there were fifteen Northern 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 September 16th by 33 to 19; the nays were thirteen Southern Democrats and six Southern Whigs.

The different acts embraced in the compromise were disposed of more summarily in the House. The Texas Boundary 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 act; as, for example, every member from South Carolina and Mississippi, all Democrats, voted against it; 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 associates. Two days later the House agreed to the Senate Utah bill. On September 12th, the Fugitive Slave law was
_________________
1 This was signed by the two Senators from Virginia, South Carolina, and Florida, and by one each from Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missouri—nine Democrats and one Whig.

carried through the House, under the operation of the previous question, by 109 to 76; thirty-one Northern members voted for it, among them three Whigs. Thirty-three representatives from the North were either absent or paired or dodged the vote. There were enough of the latter to give force to the dry remark of Thaddeus Stevens: "I suggest that the Speaker should send a page to notify the members on our side of the House that the Fugitive Slave bill has been disposed of, and that they may now come back into the hall." The House some days afterwards concurred in the Senate bill for the abolition of the slave-trade in the District of Columbia, and the series of measures received the approval of the President.

The compromise was now complete. It accorded substantially with the scheme outlined by Clay in January.1 I have made the analysis of the vote on the different articles with prolix detail, because it shows clearly how the compromise was carried in parts when it was impossible to enact it as a whole. Indeed, there were only four senators who voted for every one of the measures which made up the plan.2 Clay's name is recorded only on the bill for the abolition of the slave-trade in the District of Columbia; for, worn out with his indefatigable exertions, he had sought the air of the sea to regain his strength, and was at Newport pending the determination of the other matters. Of course, had he been in the Senate, he would have supported every one of the acts. Douglas favored them all, but was unavoidably absent when the Fugitive Slave law was considered. Had he been in Washington at the time, he would have given his voice for the act.3 Dickinson, of New York, was a friend to each one of the series of measures, and his name is not recorded for the New Mexico bill and the Fugitive Slave law,
_____________
1 See p. 122.
2 Houston, of Texas; Dodge, of Iowa; Sturgeon, of Pennsylvania, Democrats; and Wales, of Delaware, Whig.
3 Life of Douglas, Sheahan, p. 160.

as he had paired with his colleague Seward, whose state of health had made an absence from Washington necessary.

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 proviso, 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 responsibility. ... It is over. My part is acted, and I am satisfied.”2

The success of the compromise measures was due to their almost unvarying support by the Northern 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 North 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 rendition of runaway slaves. The Southern ultras, with the exception of Jefferson Davis, voted for the territorial bills.
The vote on the compromise measures portended a dissolution
________________
1 Letter of September 6th, Life of Horace Mann, p. 322.
2 Private Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 385, Letter to Harvey, September 10th.

of the existing political parties. One might then have conjectured that each would equally suffer; but the actual tendency was towards breaking up the Whig and cementing the Democratic party.

The reader who peruses the foregoing pages will understand sufficiently the scope of each of the acts of the compromise except the Fugitive Slave law. That deserves a fuller notice, for its effect on the North was greater than any of the others, and it was, moreover, one of the most objectionable laws ever passed by the Congress of the United States. Under the provisions of the act, ex-parte evidence determined the identity of the negro who was claimed. Even the affidavit of the owner was not necessary; that of his agent or attorney would suffice. The testimony of the alleged fugitive was expressly denied. These cases were ordinarily to be determined by commissioners appointed by the United States circuit courts, and these courts were enjoined to increase the number of commissioners from time to time, "with a view to afford reasonable facilities to reclaim fugitives from labor." It was the duty of a commissioner (or of a court or judge) "to hear and determine the case of a claimant in a summary manner." When the negro was adjudged to the claimant, the latter had authority "to use such reasonable force and restraint as may be necessary" to remove the fugitive to the State from which he escaped. No process could be issued " by any court, judge, or magistrate, or other person whomsoever" for the "molestation" of the slave-owner, his agent, or attorney, after the ownership of the negro was determined in the manner recited in the act. The United States marshals and their deputies were obliged to make unusual exertions to execute the law under penalty of a heavy fine. In case the slave escaped, they were liable to a civil suit for his value. In the event of an attempt being made to prevent the arrest of the alleged fugitive or to rescue him, the commissioners, or persons appointed by them, were empowered " to summon and call to their aid the bystanders or posse comitatus of the proper county;. .. and all good 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 that purpose." If any person shall " willingly hinder or prevent" the claimant 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 dollars or imprisonment not exceeding six months;... and shall, moreover, forfeit and pay by way of civil damages to the party injured by such illegal conduct the sum of one thousand dollars for each fugitive so lost." In case the commissioner 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. It was a maxim among Roman 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. It seems amazing that recent legislation in Christian America on this vital point went backward from pagan Rome, 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 supported the law or dodged the vote went counter to public sentiment at the North, which 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 abolished in the district; but they would not on the fugitive slave question. Indeed, when the law passed the Senate it
________________
1 Lecky's History of Morals, vol. i. p. 313; Webster's Works, vol. v. p. 309.

was generally supposed that it would undergo amendment in the House in a manner to soften its requirements.1

The cotton States were not the great sufferers from the loss of negroes. There were more fugitives from the four border States of Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri than from all the rest of the slave States,2 and most of the congressmen from the border States would have been satisfied with a less stringent measure than the actual one. It was apparent to every one who knew anything of the sentiments of the North that this law could not be thoroughly executed. Seward had truly said that if the South wished their runaway negroes returned they must alleviate, not increase, the rigors of the law of 1793 ;3 and to give the alleged fugitive a jury trial, as Webster proposed, was the only possible way to effect the desired purpose.

If we look below the surface we shall find a strong impelling motive of the Southern clamor for this harsh enactment other than the natural desire to recover lost property. Early in the session it took air that a part of the game of the disunionists was to press a stringent fugitive slave law, for which no Northern man could vote; and when it was defeated, the North would be charged with refusing to carry out a stipulation of the Constitution.4 Douglas stated in the Senate that while there was some ground for complaint on the subject of surrender of fugitives from service, it had been greatly exaggerated. The excitement and virulence were not along the line bordering on the free and slave States, but bet ween Vermont and South Carolina, New Hampshire and Alabama, Connecticut and Louisiana.5 Clay gave vent to his astonishment that Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia,
_____________
1 Remarks of Douglas in the Senate, Dec, 1851, Life, by Sheahan, p. 161.
2 The number of slaves escaped for the year ending June 1st, 1850, from Maryland, Kentucky, Virginia, and Missouri, was 540; from all other States, 470. Compiled for New York Tribune from census returns. Tribune, August 28th, 1851.
3 See p. 163.
4 New York Tribune, February 2d.
5 Speech, March 13th.

and South Carolina, States which very rarely lost a slave, demanded a stricter law than Kentucky, which lost many.1 After 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 reclamation of fugitive slaves;" and another Southern ultra thought it would be productive of much good to his section.2 Six months after the passage of the law, Seward expresses 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 enactment." 3 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 that part of the North where the anti-slavery sentiment ruled supremely, and was deemed a partial compensation.

President Fillmore's notoriety of later years came for the most part from his writing "Approved September 18th, 1850," under the Fugitive Slave law. This infamous act has blighted the reputation of every one who had any connection with it, and he has suffered with the rest; yet it appears to me unjustly. It 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 Congress had apparently composed, unless he could do so on constitutional grounds. Before signing the law, he requested the opinion of his Attorney-General on its constitutionality: this Crittenden affirmed in positive terms.4 Webster, his Secretary of State, and the ablest lawyer in the country, likewise believed the law constitutional.5 It is, therefore,
______________
1 Remarks in Senate, May 13th and 21st.
2 In Senate, February 22d, 1851. "We have no faith in this Fugitive Slave bill."—De Bow's Review, November, 1850.
3 Letter to a Massachusetts convention opposed to the Fugitive Slave law, April 5th, 1851, Works, vol. iii. p. 446.
4 For this opinion, see Life of Crittenden, Coleman, vol. i. p. 377.
5 Private Correspondence, vol. ii. p. 402.

difficult to see how the President could do otherwise than give his approval to the compromise which had the seal of Congress.

A few considerations on the compromise as a whole may be proper before proceeding to relate how the country received the action of its representatives. It has sometimes been set forth as an abject surrender to the South,1 but this is an unwarranted judgment. If we might eliminate the insulting provisions of the Fugitive Slave act, it would be safe to say that it was an eminently fair settlement for the North.2 The essential and permanent advantage gained in the whole series of measures was the admission of California as a free State. The territorial question has been already considered.3 Giddings made an impassioned appeal against the Texas Boundary bill. He said: "Sir, the payment of this ten million of dollars constituted the most objectionable feature of the 'omnibus bill.' It is designed to raise Texas scrip from fifteen cents upon the dollar to par value; to make every dollar of Texas scrip worth six and a half; to make many splendid fortunes in a short time; to rob the people, the laboring men of the nation, of this vast sum, and place it in the hands of stock-jobbers and gamblers in Texas scrip."4 Yet it is undeniable that Texas had a claim on the United States for a portion of her debt,5 and this bill caused little dissatisfaction at the North. The only plan besides the compromise which had Northern friends was that of President
_____________
1 Jefferson Davis, in a speech made at Jackson, Miss., July 6th, 1859, spoke of 1850 as "that dark period for Southern rights," and said, "Though defeated on that occasion, Southern rights gained much by the discussion."—New York Tribune, August 31st, 1859.
2 "I think, regarding the thing as a compromise, Mr. Clay has done very well."—Letter of Horace Mann, February 14th, Life, p. 289.
3 See p. 149 et seq.
4 Speech in the House, August 12th.
5 H. H. Bancroft, in New Mexico and Arizona, p. 457, states that about one-half of the $10,000,000 was bonus, the intimation being that the other half was a just payment. See also New York Tribune, June 18th.

Taylor, and this left the Texas boundary question unsettled. 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 doubted not that he would be successful. His military confidence was, indeed, well founded; but danger existed that in case blood were shed, the South would take sides with Texas. "The cause of Texas in such a conflict will be the cause of the entire South," wrote Alexander H. Stephens,1 and he expressed the almost unanimous feeling of the cotton States.

Overt secession, immediate disunion, were not the dangers that Clay and Webster most feared. Both of them proclaimed 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, that arms should be raised against the authority of the Union either by individuals or by States. But... 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." 2 The cabinet circular, written by Webster in October, which he wanted sent to every official of the United States, shows clearly that he was ready to resist with the whole power of the government any overt act on the part of the South; 3 and the following June he said to a Virginian audience: "But one thing, gentlemen, be assured of, the first step taken in the programme of secession,
______________
1 To the editor of the National Intelligencer, July 4th.
2 Remarks in the Senate, August 1st.
3 This paper was objected to by the cabinet, for political reasons, and was not used. It was not printed till 1882. Lodge, p. 331; Webster Centennial volume, October 12th, 1882. I am indebted for this latter reference to Mr. Lodge.

which shall be an actual infringement of the Constitution or the laws, will be promptly met."1

But the key to the course of Webster and Clay is not found in a desire to preserve merely an external Union. They strove for a union of hearts as well as a union of law. They hoped to see exist between the two sections, as Webster said, " the sense of fraternal affection, patriotic love, and mutual regard;" 2 or, as Clay put it, "dissolution of the Union .. . may not in form take place; but next to that is a dissolution of those fraternal and kindred ties that bind us together as one free, Christian, and commercial people. In my opinion, the body politic cannot be preserved unless this agitation, this distraction, this exasperation, which is going on between the two sections of the country, shall cease.” 3 That their work came to naught was not their fault. Clay did not think the present crisis more serious than that of 1820.4 The Missouri Compromise had, in his view, prevented disturbance thirty years, and from his point of view the hope was reasonable that the present settlement might endure as long.

When Congress met, it was admitted on all hands that legislative action was necessary. Clay and Webster were the foremost men in Congress; the responsibility of carrying a scheme devolved upon them. The plan which they should adopt must be one that could win a majority of both Houses, even if they had to sacrifice some personal predilections. It was apparent at the outset that while the Wilmot proviso might obtain a majority of the House, it could not Barry the Senate, and it was therefore excluded. And while an undoubted majority of both Houses favored the admission of California, it seemed impossible to bring that question fairly before the House. Fifty members could block legislation, and more than that number were ready to
_____________
1 Speech at Capon Springs, June, 1851.
2 Speech in Senate, May 21st.
3 7th-of-March speech.
4 Ibid.

oppose by any means an attempt to force through the California 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 carefully 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 consummate party leader, finally rallied to his support most of the Southern Whigs; 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 that the muse of history must condemn the antislavery Whigs and Free-soilers who opposed the compromise? By no means. It is true that had these men co-operated 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 modified 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 the actual Fugitive Slave law. The bill reported from the committee of thirteen was a milder measure. As I have before stated, he was not in the Senate when the law was passed.

the probabilities were against the introduction of slavery into New Mexico and Utah.1 But they felt that a stand must be made on the principle of permitting no more slavery in the national domain, and, while the Southern ultras were dreaming and talking of the conquest of Mexico and Cuba, they determined it should be known that there was a band of men totally opposed to the conquest of more territory, unless it were expressly understood that it should be dedicated to freedom. Hale urged, also, that if the Wilmot proviso were conceded, it would only satisfy the South for a little while, when they would make new demands.2 It was, moreover, obvious to an astute politician like Seward, and probably to others, that a dissolution of political parties was imminent; that, to oppose the extension of slavery, the different anti-slavery elements must be fused into an organized whole; it might be called Whig or some other name, but it would be based on the principle of the Wilmot proviso. Throughout Seward's speeches and letters one may discover his confident belief, not only in the ultimate triumph of this principle, but in the success of the party organization that should make it a platform. The impartial years, therefore, have vindicated as right the course of Seward, Chase, Hale in the Senate, and that of Giddings, Mann, and Thaddeus Stevens in the House. Yet even the opposers of the compromise must, in after-life, have admitted to themselves that it was exceedingly fortunate that Clay's scheme was adopted. Looked on merely as a truce between the two sections, what a victory for the North it turned out to be! Not only was the North relatively more powerful when the trial came, but the Northwest, which in 1850 was as closely connected commercially with the South by the Mississippi River as it was with the East by the lakes, had become joined to New York and New England by iron bands that brought closer mercantile
_______________
1 For example, see letter of Horace Mann, Life, p. 294.
2 Remarks of Hale, Senate, May 28th.

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.' The Northwestern States in 1850 were Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa; 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 moment, but from the subsequent political leaning of these States it is one of interest.

The response of the North to the action of Congress was on the whole favorable. The question had been a disquieting 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 power; and many who objected to the compromise before its enactment became its firm friends after it was engrossed in the statute book. 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 Congress 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 sitting; 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 especially 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 This idea was suggested to me by James W. Bradbury, a senator from Maine in 1850, and an influential supporter of the compromise.

the adoption of the late measures of Congress."1 Ten thousand names signed the call for a Union meeting at New York City.2 It was large and enthusiastic; it cordially approved the compromise, declared the Fugitive Slave law constitutional, promised to support the execution of it, and deprecated the further agitation of slavery. At Philadelphia there was a meeting of six or seven thousand; 3 the resolutions were similar to those of New York, but, in addition, they demanded the repeal of the Pennsylvania statute which conflicted with the execution of the Fugitive Slave law. A Union meeting at Concord, N. H.,4 which was addressed by Franklin Pierce, approved the compromise, opposed the higher-law doctrine, and gave a mild approbation to the measure for the recovery of runaway negroes. An enthusiastic assemblage at Dayton, O.,5 urged thereto by the eloquence of Clement L. Vallandigham, declared that the settlement was the "best attainable," and that "the Union, the Constitution, and the laws must and shall be maintained." A Union meeting in Cincinnati 6 adopted similar resolutions, and condemned further agitation of the slave question. Finally, Faneuil Hall resounded with the eloquence of Rufus Choate and Benjamin R. Curtis,7 the great lawyers of Boston. Their hearers resolved that the adjustment "ought to be carried out in good faith," and that "every form of resistance to the execution of a law, except legal process, is subversive and tends to anarchy."
________________
1 Boston Advertiser, September 21st.
2 October 80th. New York Tribune; but this journal thinks that, "considering the threats held out of publishing the names of all traders who refused to sign as men to be avoided by Southern purchasers in our market, it is rather surprising that they were not able to sweep clean the mercantile streets." Perkins, Warren & Co. published a card in the National Intelligencer of December 17th denying that they were abolition merchants, a report which had got into circulation in the South.
3 November 21st, New York Tribune.
4 November 20th, Boston Advertiser.
5 October 26th, National Intelligencer.
6 November 14th, ibid.
7 November 26th, Boston Advertiser.

When it was known that the compromise would certainly be adopted, the National Intelligencer remarked that it could fill a double sheet of forty-eight columns with extracts full of joy and gratulation from the Southern and Western papers alone at the success of the measure.1 The States of Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri were thoroughly satisfied. The Georgia convention was held in December. It was a representative body; over 71,000, or three-quarters of the voters of the State, had taken part in the election of delegates.2 While it did not wholly approve of the compromise, it would abide by it as a "permanent adjustment of the sectional controversy." The fifth resolution stated, "That it is the deliberate opinion of this convention that upon the faithful execution of the Fugitive Slave bill by the proper authorities depends the preservation 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 generally 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 attendance was small, and the proceedings attracted little attention. The convention complained of the failure to extend the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific, of the admission of California, of the organization of the territories without protection to property of the South, of the dismemberment of Texas, and of the abolition of the slave-trade in the District of Columbia; it asserted the right of secession,4 but these declarations had little responsive echo beyond South Carolina and Mississippi.

A large number of active and influential people at the North, however, totally condemned the Fugitive Slave law. An immense Free-soil meeting at Lowell, Mass., a gathering of all parties in Syracuse, New York, an indignation meeting at
___________
1 September 17th.
2 National Intelligencer, December 14th.
3 Boston Atlas, December 17th.
4 National Intelligencer, November 26th.

Springfield, Mass., denounced the enactment.1 On October 14th several thousand people filled Faneuil Hall with a like purpose; they were presided over by Charles Francis Adams; a sympathetic letter from the veteran Josiah Quincy was read, and the burning eloquence of Wendell Phillips and Theodore Parker animated the people. They resolved that the law was against the golden rule and God's own command; that it was contradictory of the Declaration of Independence and inconsistent with the Constitution.2 In the latter part of the same month the common council of Chicago declared that the act for the recovery of fugitive slaves violated the Constitution of the United States and the laws of God; that senators and representatives from the free States who voted for the bill, or " basely sneaked away from their seats and thereby evaded the question, . . . are fit only to be ranked with the traitors Benedict Arnold and Judas Iscariot." One of the resolutions requested citizens, officers, and police of the city to abstain from all interference in the capture of any fugitive. But while one meeting of citizens sustained the resolutions of the city council, a larger one, succeeding the first, though mainly composed of the same people, was over-persuaded by the vigorous oratory of Senator Douglas, and resolved that all laws of Congress ought to be faithfully executed. Douglas afterwards boasted in the Senate that this speech of his was the first public one "ever made in a free State in defence of the Fugitive law, and the Chicago meeting was the first public assemblage in any free State that determined to support and sustain it."3 Charles Sumner addressed a Faneuil Hall meeting early in November. He did not believe that the Fugitive Slave law would be executed in Massachusetts, but he continued: "I counsel no violence. There is another power, stronger than
_______________
1 These meetings took place in October. Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, vol. ii. pp. 305 and 306; Boston Advertiser, October 2d.
2 Boston Atlas, October 15th.
3 Life of Douglas, Sheahan, p. 162 et seq.

any individual arm, which I invoke; I mean that irresistible public opinion inspired by love of God and man, which, without 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 everywhere 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 North unquestionably sympathized with this sentiment. The working of this act was in one respect especially iniquitous. Applied to fugitive slaves, no matter when they had escaped, it was an ex post facto law: it thus brought under 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.3 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 Rise and Fall of the Slave Power, vol. ii. p. 308.
2 Ibid., p. 310.
3 Life of William Lloyd Garrison, vol. iii. p. 302.


Source: Rhodes, James Ford. History of the United States; from the compromise of 1850 to the final restoration of home rule at the south in 1877, v.1. New York: Macmillan, 1910 [c1892].