Kitabı oku: «Thirty Years' View (Vol. II of 2)», sayfa 123

CHAPTER CLXXIV.
OREGON TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT: ANTI-SLAVERY ORDINANCE OF 1787 APPLIED TO OREGON TERRITORY: MISSOURI COMPROMISE LINE OF 1820, AND THE TEXAS ANNEXATION RENEWAL OF IT IN 1845, AFFIRMED

It was on the bill for the establishment of the Oregon territorial government that Mr. Calhoun first made trial of his new doctrine of, "No power in Congress to abolish slavery in territories;" which, so far from maintaining, led to the affirmation of the contrary doctrine, and to the discovery of his own, early as well as late support, of what he now condemned as a breach of the constitution, and justifiable cause for a separation of the slave from the free States. For it was on this occasion that Senator Dix, of New York, produced the ample proofs that Mr. Calhoun, as a member of Mr. Monroe's cabinet, supported the constitutionality of the Missouri compromise at the time it was made; and his own avowals eighteen years afterwards proved the same thing – all to be confirmed by subsequent authentic acts. On the motion of Mr. Hale, in the Senate, the bill (which had come up from the House without any provision on the subject of slavery) was amended so as to extend the principle of the anti-slavery clause of the ordinance of '87 to the bill. Mr. Douglass moved to amend by inserting a provision for the extension of the Missouri compromise line to the Pacific Ocean. His proposed amendment was specific, and intended to be permanent, and to apply to the organization of all future territories established in the West. It was in these words:

"That the line of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes of north latitude, known as the Missouri compromise line, as defined by the eighth section of an act entitled 'An act to authorize the people of the Missouri territory to form a constitution and State government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit slavery in certain territories, approved March 6, 1820,' be, and the same is hereby, declared to extend to the Pacific Ocean; and the said eighth section, together with the compromise therein effected, is hereby revived, and declared to be in full force and binding, for the future organization of the territories of the United States, in the same sense, and with the same understanding, with which it was originally adopted."

The yeas and nays were demanded on the adoption of this amendment, and resulted, 33 for it, 22 against it. They were:

"Yeas – Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Borland, Bright, Butler, Calhoun, Cameron, Davis of Mississippi, Dickinson, Douglass, Downs, Fitzgerald, Foote, Hannegan, Houston, Hunter, Johnson of Maryland, Johnson of Louisiana, Johnson of Georgia, King, Lewis, Mangum, Mason, Metcalfe, Pearce, Sebastian, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood.

"Nays – Messrs. Allen, Atherton, Baldwin, Bradbury, Breese, Clark, Corwin, Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dix, Dodge, Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Niles, Phelps, Upham, Walker, Webster."

The vote here given by Mr. Calhoun was in contradiction to his new doctrine, and excused upon some subtle distinction between a vote for an amendment, and a bill, and upon a reserved intent to vote against the bill itself if adopted. Considering that his objections to the matter of the amendment were constitutional and not expedient, and that the votes of others might pass the bill with the clause in it without his help, it is impossible to see the validity of the distinction with which he satisfied himself. His language was that, "though he had voted for the introduction of the Missouri compromise, he could not vote for the bill which he regarded as artificial." Eventually the bill passed through both Houses with the anti-slavery principle of the ordinance embraced in it; whereat Mr. Calhoun became greatly excited, and assuming to act upon the new doctrine that he had laid down, that the exclusion of slavery from any territory was a subversion of the Union, openly proclaimed the strife between the North and the South to be ended, and the separation of the States accomplished; called upon the South to do her duty to herself, and denounced every Southern representative who would not follow the same course that he did. He exclaimed:

"The great strife between the North and the South is ended. The North is determined to exclude the property of the slaveholder, and of course the slaveholder himself, from its territory. On this point there seems to be no division in the North. In the South, he regretted to say, there was some division of sentiment. The effect of this determination of the North was to convert all the Southern population into slaves; and he would never consent to entail that disgrace on his posterity. He denounced any Southern man who would not take the same course. Gentlemen were greatly mistaken if they supposed the presidential question in the South would override this more important one. The separation of the North and the South is completed. The South has now a most solemn obligation to perform – to herself – to the constitution – to the Union. She is bound to come to a decision not to permit this to go on any further, but to show that, dearly as she prizes the Union, there are questions which she regards as of greater importance than the Union. She is bound to fulfil her obligations as she may best understand them. This is not a question of territorial government, but a question involving the continuance of the Union. Perhaps it was better that this question should come to an end, in order that some new point should be taken."

This was an open invocation to disunion, and from that time forth the efforts were regular to obtain a meeting of the members from the slave States, to unite in a call for a convention of the slave States to redress themselves. Mr. Benton and General Houston, who had supported the Oregon bill, were denounced by name by Mr. Calhoun after his return to South Carolina, "as traitors to the South: " a denunciation which they took for a distinction; as, what he called treason to the South, they knew to be allegiance to the Union. The President, in approving the Oregon bill, embraced the opportunity to send in a special message on the slavery agitation, in which he showed the danger to the Union from the progress of that agitation, and the necessity of adhering to the principles of the ordinance of 1787 – the terms of the Missouri compromise of 1820 – and the Texas compromise (as he well termed it) of 1845, as the means of averting the danger. These are his warnings:

"The fathers of the constitution – the wise and patriotic men who laid the foundation of our institutions – foreseeing the danger from this quarter, acted in a spirit of compromise and mutual concession on this dangerous and delicate subject; and their wisdom ought to be the guide of their successors. Whilst they left to the States exclusively the question of domestic slavery within their respective limits, they provided that slaves, who might escape into other States not recognizing the institution of slavery, shall 'be delivered up on the claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.' Upon this foundation the matter rested until the Missouri question arose. In December, 1819, application was made to Congress by the people of the Missouri territory for admission into the Union as a State. The discussion upon the subject in Congress involved the question of slavery, and was prosecuted with such violence as to produce excitements alarming to every patriot in the Union. But the good genius of conciliation which presided at the birth of our institutions finally prevailed, and the Missouri compromise was adopted. This compromise had the effect of calming the troubled waves, and restoring peace and good-will throughout the States of the Union. I do not doubt that a similar adjustment of the questions which now agitate the public mind would produce the same happy results. If the legislation of Congress on the subject of the other territories shall not be adopted in a spirit of conciliation and compromise, it is impossible that the country can be satisfied, or that the most disastrous consequences shall fail to ensue. When Texas was admitted into our Union, the same spirit of compromise which guided our predecessors in the admission of Missouri, a quarter of a century before, prevailed without any serious opposition. The 'joint-resolution for annexing Texas to the United States,' approved March the first, one thousand eight hundred and forty-five, provides that 'such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire. And in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of the Missouri compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited. The territory of Oregon lies far north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, the Missouri and Texas compromise line. Its southern boundary is the parallel of forty-two, leaving the intermediate distance to be three hundred and thirty geographical miles. And it is because the provisions of this bill are not inconsistent with the terms of the Missouri compromise, if extended from the Rio Grande to the Pacific Ocean, that I have not felt at liberty to withhold my sanction. Had it embraced territories south of that compromise, the question presented for my consideration would have been of a far different character, and my action upon it must have corresponded with my convictions.

"Ought we now to disturb the Missouri and Texas compromises? Ought we at this late day, in attempting to annul what has been so long established and acquiesced in, to excite sectional divisions and jealousies; to alienate the people of different portions of the Union from each other; and to endanger the existence of the Union itself?"

To the momentous appeals with which this extract concludes, a terrible answer has just been given. To the question – Will you annul these compromises, and excite jealousies and divisions, sectional alienations, and endanger the existence of this Union? the dreadful answer has been given – WE WILL! And in recording that answer, History performs her sacred duty in pointing to its authors as the authors of the state of things which now alarms and afflicts the country, and threatens the calamity which President Polk foresaw and deprecated.

CHAPTER CLXXV.
MR. CALHOUN'S NEW DOGMA ON TERRITORIAL SLAVERY: SELF-EXTENSION OF THE SLAVERY PART OF THE CONSTITUTION TO THE TERRITORIES

The resolutions of 1847 went no further than to deny the power of Congress to prohibit slavery in a territory, and that was enough while Congress alone was the power to be guarded against: but it became insufficient, and even a stumbling-block, when New Mexico and California were acquired, and where no Congress prohibition was necessary because their soil was already free. Here the dogma of '47 became an impediment to the territorial extension of slavery; for, in denying power to legislate upon the subject, the denial worked both ways – both against the admission and exclusion. It was on seeing this consequence as resulting from the dogmas of 1847, that Mr. Benton congratulated the country upon the approaching cessation of the slavery agitation – that the Wilmot Proviso being rejected as unnecessary, the question was at an end, as the friends of slavery extension could not ask Congress to pass a law to carry it into a territory. The agitation seemed to be at an end, and peace about to dawn upon the land. Delusive calculation! A new dogma was invented to fit the case – that of the transmigration of the constitution – (the slavery part of it) – into the territories, overriding and overruling all the anti-slavery laws which it found there, and planting the institution there under its own wing, and maintaining it beyond the power of eradication either by Congress or the people of the territory. Before this dogma was proclaimed efforts were made to get the constitution extended to these territories by act of Congress: failing in those attempts, the difficulty was leaped over by boldly assuming that the constitution went of itself – that is to say, the slavery part of it. In this exigency Mr. Calhoun came out with his new and supreme dogma of the transmigratory function of the constitution in the ipso facto, and the instantaneous transportation of itself in its slavery attributes, into all acquired territories. This dogma was thus broached by its author in his speech upon the Oregon territorial bill:

"But I deny that the laws of Mexico can have the effect attributed to them (that of keeping slavery out of New Mexico and California). As soon as the treaty between the two countries is ratified, the sovereignty and authority of Mexico in the territory acquired by it become extinct, and that of the United States is substituted in its place, carrying with it the constitution, with its overriding control over all the laws and institutions of Mexico inconsistent with it."

History cannot class higher than as a vagary of a diseased imagination this imputed self-acting and self-extension of the constitution. The constitution does nothing of itself – not even in the States, for which it was made. Every part of it requires a law to put it into operation. No part of it can reach a territory unless imparted to it by act of Congress. Slavery, as a local institution, can only be established by a local legislative authority. It cannot transmigrate – cannot carry along with it the law which protects it: and if it could, what law would it carry? The code of the State from which the emigrant went? Then there would be as many slavery codes in the territory as States furnishing emigrants, and these codes all varying more or less; and some of them in the essential nature of the property – the slave, in many States, being only a chattel interest, governed by the laws applicable to chattels – in others, as in Louisiana and Kentucky, a real-estate interest, governed by the laws which apply to landed property. In a word, this dogma of the self-extension of the slavery part of the constitution to a territory is impracticable and preposterous, and as novel as unfounded.

It was in this same debate, on the Oregon territorial bill, that Mr. Calhoun showed that he had forgotten the part which he had acted on the Missouri compromise question, and also forgotten its history, and first declared that he held that compromise to be unconstitutional and void. Thus:

"After an arduous struggle of more than a year, on the question whether Missouri should come into the Union, with or without restrictions prohibiting slavery, a compromise line was adopted between the North and the South; but it was done under circumstances which made it nowise obligatory on the latter. It is true, it was moved by one of her distinguished citizens (Mr. Clay), but it is equally so, that it was carried by the almost united vote of the North against the almost united vote of the South; and was thus imposed on the latter by superior numbers, in opposition to her strenuous efforts. The South has never given her sanction to it, or assented to the power it asserted. She was voted down, and has simply acquiesced in an arrangement which she has not had the power to reverse, and which she could not attempt to do without disturbing the peace and harmony of the Union – to which she has ever been adverse."

All this is error, and was immediately shown to be so by Senator Dix of New York, who produced the evidence that Mr. Monroe's cabinet, of which Mr. Calhoun was a member, had passed upon the question of the constitutionality of that compromise, and given their opinions in its favor. It has also been seen since that, as late as 1838, Mr. Calhoun was in favor of that compromise, and censured Mr. Randolph for being against it; and, still later, in 1845, he acted his part in re-enacting that compromise, and re-establishing its line, in that part of it which had been abrogated by the laws and constitution of Texas, and which, if not re-established, would permit slavery in Texas, to spread south of 36° 30'. Forgetting his own part in that compromise, Mr. Calhoun equally forgot that of others. He says Mr. Clay moved the compromise – a clear mistake, as it came down to the House from the Senate, as an amendment to the House restrictive bill. He says it was carried by the almost united voice of the North against the almost united voice of the South – a clear mistake again, for it was carried in the Senate by the united voice of the South, with the aid of a few votes from the North; and in the House, by a majority of votes from each section, making 134 to 42. He says it was imposed on the South: on the contrary, it was not only voted for, but invoked and implored by its leading men – by all in the Senate, headed by Mr. Pinkney of Maryland; by all in the House, headed by Mr. Lowndes, with the exception of Mr. Randolph, whom Mr. Calhoun has since authentically declared he blamed at the time for his opposition. So far from being imposed on the South, she re-established it when she found it down at the recovery of Texas. Every member of Congress that voted for the legislative admission of Texas in 1845, voted for the re-establishment of the prostrate Missouri compromise line: and that vote comprehended the South, with Mr. Calhoun at its head – not as a member of Congress, but as Secretary of State, promoting that legislative admission of Texas, and seizing upon it in preference to negotiation, to effect the admission. This was on the third day of March, 1845; so that up to that day, which was only two years before the invention of the "no power" dogma, Mr. Calhoun is estopped by his own act from denying the constitutionality of the Missouri compromise: and in that estoppel is equally included every member of Congress that then voted for that admission. He says the South never gave her sanction to it: on the contrary, she did it twice – at its enactment in 1820, and at its re-establishment in 1845. He says she was voted down: on the contrary, she was voted up, and that twice, and by good help added to her own exertions – and for which she was duly grateful both times. All this the journals and legislative history of the times will prove, and which any person may see that will take the trouble to look. But admit all these errors of fact, Mr. Calhoun delivered a sound and patriotic sentiment which his disciples have disregarded and violated: He would not attempt to reverse the Missouri compromise, because it would disturb the peace and harmony of the Union. What he would not attempt, they have done: and the peace and harmony of the Union are not only disturbed, but destroyed.

In the same speech the dogma of squatter sovereignty was properly repudiated and scouted, though condemnation was erroneously derived from a denial, instead of an assertion, of the power of Congress over it. "Of all the positions ever taken on the subject, he declared this of squatter sovereignty to be the most absurd: " and, going on to trace the absurdity to its consequences, he said:

"The first half-dozen of squatters would become the sovereigns, with full dominion and sovereignty over the territories; and the conquered people of New Mexico and California would become the sovereigns of the country as soon as they become territories of the United States, vested with the full right of excluding even their conquerors."

Mr. Calhoun concluded this speech on the Oregon bill, in which he promulgated his latest dogmas on slavery, with referring the future hypothetical dissolution of the Union, to three phases of the slavery question: 1. The ordinance of '87. 2. The compromise of 1820. 3. The Oregon agitation of that day, 1848. These were his words:

"Now, let me say, Senators, if our Union and system of government are doomed to perish, and we to share the fate of so many great people who have gone before us, the historian, who, in some future day, may record the events tending to so calamitous a result, will devote his first chapter to the ordinance of 1787, as lauded as it and its authors have been, as the first in that series which led to it. His next chapter will be devoted to the Missouri compromise, and the next to the present agitation. Whether there will be another beyond, I know not. It will depend on what we may do."

These the three causes: The ordinance of 1787, which was voted for by every slave State then in existence: The compromise of 1820, supported by himself, and the power of the South: The Oregon agitation of 1848, of which he was the sole architect – for he was the founder of the opposition to free soil in Oregon. But the historian will have to say that neither of these causes dissolved the Union: and that historian may have to relate that a fourth cause did it – and one from which Mr. Calhoun recoiled, "because it could not be attempted without disturbing the peace and the harmony of the Union."