Kitabı oku: «Thirty Years' View (Vol. II of 2)», sayfa 129

CHAPTER CLXXXIX.
EXTENSION OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE LINE TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN: MR. DAVIS, OF MISSISSIPPI, AND MR. CLAY: THE WILMOT PROVISO

In the resolutions of compromise submitted by Mr. Clay there was one declaring the non-existence of slavery in the territory recently acquired from Mexico, and affirming the "inexpediency" of any legislation from Congress on that subject within the said territories. His resolution was in these words:

"Resolved, That as slavery does not exist by law, and is not likely to be introduced into any of the territory acquired by the United States from the Republic of Mexico, it is inexpedient for Congress to provide by law either for its introduction into or exclusion from any part of the said territory; and that appropriate territorial governments ought to be established by Congress in all of the said territory, not assigned as the boundaries of the proposed State of California, without the adoption of any restriction or condition on the subject of slavery."

This proposition, with some half-dozen others, formed the system of compromise with which Mr. Clay expected to pacify the slavery agitation in the United States. Mr. Davis, of Mississippi, did not perceive any thing of a compromise in a measure which gave nothing to the South in the settlement of the question, and required the extension of the Missouri compromise line to the Pacific ocean as the least that he would be willing to take. Thus:

"But, sir, we are called on to receive this as a measure of compromise! Is a measure in which we of the minority are to receive nothing, a measure of compromise? I look upon it as but a modest mode of taking that, the claim to which has been more boldly asserted by others; and that I may be understood upon this question, and that my position may go forth to the country in the same columns that convey the sentiments of the senator from Kentucky, I here assert that never will I take less than the Missouri compromise line extended to the Pacific ocean, with the specific recognition of the right to hold slaves in the territory below that line; and that, before such territories are admitted into the Union as States, slaves may be taken there from any of the United States at the option of their owners."

This was a manly declaration in favor of extending slavery into the new territories, and in the only way in which it could be done – that is to say, by act of Congress. Mr. Clay met it by a declaration equally manly, and in conformity to the principles of his whole life, utterly refusing to plant slavery in any place where it did not previously exist. He answered:

"I am extremely sorry to hear the senator from Mississippi say that he requires, first, the extension of the Missouri compromise line to the Pacific, and also that he is not satisfied with that, but requires, if I understood him correctly, a positive provision for the admission of slavery south of that line. And now, sir, coming from a slave State, as I do, I owe it to myself, I owe it to truth, I owe it to the subject, to say that no earthly power could induce me to vote for a specific measure for the introduction of slavery where it had not before existed, either south or north of that line. Coming as I do from a slave State, it is my solemn, deliberate and well matured determination that no power, no earthly power, shall compel me to vote for the positive introduction of slavery either south or north of that line. Sir, while you reproach, and justly too, our British ancestors for the introduction of this institution upon the continent of America, I am, for one, unwilling that the posterity of the present inhabitants of California and of New Mexico shall reproach us for doing just what we reproach Great Britain for doing to us. If the citizens of those territories choose to establish slavery, and if they come here with constitutions establishing slavery, I am for admitting them with such provisions in their constitutions; but then it will be their own work, and not ours, and their posterity will have to reproach them, and not us, for forming constitutions allowing the institution of slavery to exist among them. These are my views, sir, and I choose to express them; and I care not how extensively or universally they are known."

These were manly sentiments, courageously expressed, and taking the right ground so much overlooked, or perverted by others. The Missouri compromise line, extending to New Mexico and California, though astronomically the same with that in Louisiana, was politically directly the opposite. One went through a territory all slave, and made one-half free; the other would go through territory all free, and make one-half slave. Mr. Clay saw this difference, and acted upon it, and declared his sentiments honestly and boldly; and none but the ignorant or unjust could reproach him with inconsistency in maintaining the line in the ancient Louisiana, where the whole province came to us with slavery, and refusing it in the new territories where all came to us free.

Mr. Seward, of New York, proposed the renewal of the Wilmot proviso:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than by conviction for crime, shall ever be allowed in either of said territories of Utah and New Mexico."

Upon the adoption of which the yeas and nays were:

"Yeas. – Messrs. Baldwin, Bradbury, Bright, Chase, Clarke, Cooper, Corwin, Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dodge of Wisconsin, Douglas, Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Norris, Seward, Shields, Smith, Upham, Whitcomb, and Walker – 23.

"Nays. – Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Butler, Cass, Clay, Clemens, Davis of Mississippi, Dawson, Dickinson, Dodge of Iowa, Downs, Foote, Houston, Hunter, Jones, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pearce, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soulé, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood, Webster, and Yulee – 33."

CHAPTER CXC.
MR. CALHOUN'S LAST SPEECH: DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION PROCLAIMED UNLESS THE CONSTITUTION WAS AMENDED, AND A DUAL EXECUTIVE APPOINTED – ONE PRESIDENT FROM THE SLAVE AND ONE FROM THE FREE STATES

On the 4th of March Mr. Calhoun brought into the Senate a written speech, elaborately and studiously prepared, and which he was too weak to deliver, or even to read. Upon his request it was allowed to be read by his friend, Mr. James M. Mason of Virginia, and was found to be an amplification and continuation of the Southern manifesto of the preceding year; and, like it, occupied entirely with the subject of the dissolution of the Union, and making out a case to justify it. The opening went directly to the point, and presented the question of Union, or disunion with the formality and solemnity of an actual proposition, as if its decision was the business on which the Senate was convened. It opened thus:

"I have, senators, believed from the first that the agitation of the subject of slavery would, if not prevented by some timely and effective measure, end in disunion. Entertaining this opinion, I have, on all proper occasions, endeavored to call the attention of each of the two great parties which divide the country to adopt some measure to prevent so great a disaster but without success. The agitation has been permitted to proceed, with almost no attempt to resist it, until it has reached a period when it can no longer be disguised or denied that the Union is in danger. You have thus had forced upon you the greatest and the gravest question that can ever come under your consideration: How can the Union be preserved?"

Professing to proceed like a physician who must find out the cause of a disease before he can apply a remedy, the speech went on to discover the reasons which now rendered disunion inevitable, unless an adequate remedy to prevent it should be administered. The first of these causes was the anti-slavery ordinance of 1787, which was adopted before the constitution was formed, and had its origin from the South, and the unanimous support of that section. The second was the Missouri compromise line, which also had its origin in the South, the unanimous support of the Southern senators, the majority of the Southern representatives, the unanimous support of Mr. Monroe's cabinet, of which Mr. Calhoun was a member; and his own approbation of it for about twenty-five years. The long continued agitation of the slave question was another cause of disunion, dating the agitation from the year 1835 – which was correct; for in that year he took it up in the Senate, and gave the abolitionists what they wanted, and could not otherwise acquire – an antagonist to cope with, an elevated theatre for the strife, and a national auditory to applaud or censure. Before that time he said, and truly, the agitation was insignificant; since then it had become great; and (he might have added), that senators North and South told him that would be the case when he entered upon the business in 1835. Repeal of the slave sojournment laws by New York and Pennsylvania, was referred to, and with reason, except that these repeals did not take place until after his own conduct in the Senate had made the slavery agitation national, and given distinction and importance to the abolitionists. The progressive increase of the two classes of States, rapid in one, slow in the other, was adverted to as leading to disunion by destroying, what he called, the equilibrium of the States – as if that difference of progress was not mainly in the nature of things, resulting from climate and soil; and in some degree political, resulting from the slavery itself which he was so anxious to extend. The preservation of this equilibrium was to be effected by acquiring Southern territory and opening it to slavery. The equality of the States was held to be indispensable to the continuance of the Union; and that equality was to be maintained by admitting slavery to be carried into all the territories – even Oregon – equivocally predicated on the right of all persons to carry their "property" with them to these territories. The phrase was an equivocation, and has been a remarkable instance of delusion from a phrase. Every citizen can carry his property now wherever he goes, only he cannot carry the State law with him which makes it property, and for want of which it ceases to be so when he gets to his new residence. The New Englander can carry his bank along with him, and all the money it contains, to one of the new territories; but he cannot carry the law of incorporation with him; and it ceases to be the property he had in New England. All this complaint about inequality in a slave-holder in not being allowed to carry his "property" with him to a territory, stript of the ambiguity of phraseology, is nothing but a complaint that he cannot carry the law with him which makes it property; and in that there is no inequality between the States. They are all equal in the total inability of their citizens to carry the State laws with them. The result of the whole, the speech went on to say, was that the process of disruption was then going on between the two classes of States, and could not be arrested by any remedy proposed – not by Mr. Clay's compromise plan, nor by President's plan, nor by the cry of "Union, Union, Glorious Union!" The speech continues:

"Instead of being weaker, all the elements in favor of agitation are stronger now than they were in 1835, when it first commenced, while all the elements of influence on the part of the South are weaker. Unless something decisive is done, I again ask what is to stop this agitation, before the great and final object at which it aims – the abolition of slavery in the States – is consummated? Is it, then, not certain that if something decisive is not now done to arrest it, the South will be forced to choose between abolition and secession? Indeed, as events are now moving, it will not require the South to secede to dissolve the Union."

The speech goes on to say that the Union could not be dissolved at a single blow: it would require many, and successive blows, to snap its cords asunder:

"It is a great mistake to suppose that disunion can be effected by a single blow. The cords which bind these States together in one common Union are far too numerous and powerful for that. Disunion must be the work of time. It is only through a long process, and successively, that the cords can be snapped, until the whole fabric falls asunder. Already the agitation of the slavery question has snapped some of the most important, and has greatly weakened all the others, as I shall proceed to show."

The speech goes on to show that cords have already been snapt, and others weakened:

"The cords that bind the States together are not only many, but various in character. Some are spiritual or ecclesiastical; some political; others social. Some appertain to the benefit conferred by the Union, and others to the feeling of duty and obligation.

"The strongest of those of a spiritual and ecclesiastical nature consisted in the unity of the great religious denominations, all of which originally embraced the whole Union. All these denominations, with the exception, perhaps, of the Catholics, were organized very much upon the principle of our political institutions; beginning with smaller meetings correspondent with the political divisions of the country, their organization terminated in one great central assemblage, corresponding very much with the character of Congress. At these meetings the principal clergymen and lay members of the respective denominations from all parts of the Union met to transact business relating to their common concerns. It was not confined to what appertained to the doctrines and discipline of the respective denominations, but extended to plans for disseminating the Bible, establishing missionaries, distributing tracts, and of establishing presses for the publication of tracts, newspapers, and periodicals, with a view of diffusing religious information, and for the support of the doctrines and creeds of the denomination. All this combined, contributed greatly to strengthen the bonds of the Union. The strong ties which held each denomination together formed a strong cord to hold the whole Union together; but, as powerful as they were, they have not been able to resist the explosive effect of slavery agitation.

"The first of these cords which snapped, under its explosive force, was that of the powerful Methodist Episcopal Church. The numerous and strong ties which held it together are all broke, and its unity gone. They now form separate churches, and, instead of the feeling of attachment and devotion to the interests of the whole church which was formerly felt, they are now arrayed into two hostile bodies, engaged in litigation about what was formerly their common property.

"The next cord that snapped was that of the Baptists, one of the largest and most respectable of the denominations. That of the Presbyterian is not entirely snapped, but some of its strands have given way. That of the Episcopal Church is the only one of the four great Protestant denominations which remains unbroken and entire.

"The strongest cord of a political character consists of the many and strong ties that have held together the two great parties, which have, with some modifications, existed from the beginning of the government. They both extended to every portion of the Union, and strongly contributed to hold all its parts together. But this powerful cord has fared no better than the spiritual. It resisted for a long time the explosive tendency of the agitation, but has finally snapped under its force – if not entirely, in a great measure. Nor is there one of the remaining cords which have not been greatly weakened. To this extent the Union has already been destroyed by agitation, in the only way it can be, by snapping asunder and weakening the cords which bind it together."

The last cord here mentioned, that of political parties, founded upon principles not subject to sectional, or geographical lines, has since been entirely destroyed, snapped clean off by the abrogation of the Missouri compromise line, and making the extension, or non-extension of slavery, the foundation of political parties. After that cord should be snapped, the speech goes on to consider "force" the only bond of Union, and justly considers that as no Union where power and violence constitute the only bond.

"If the agitation goes on, the same force, acting with increased intensity, as has been shown, will finally snap every cord, when nothing will be left to hold the States together except force. But surely that can, with no propriety of language, be called a Union, when the only means by which the weaker is held connected with the stronger portion is force. It may, indeed, keep them connected; but the connection will partake much more of the character of subjugation, on the part of the weaker to the stronger, than the union of free, independent, and sovereign States, in one confederation, as they stood in the early stages of the government, and which only is worthy of the sacred name of Union."

The admission of the State of California, with her free constitution, was the exciting cause of this speech from Mr. Calhoun. The Wilmot proviso was disposed of. That cause of disunion no longer existed; but the admission of California excited the same opposition, and was declared to be the "test" question upon which all depended. The President had communicated the constitution of that State to Congress, which Mr. Calhoun strongly repulsed.

"The Executive has laid the paper purporting to be the Constitution of California before you, and asks you to admit her into the Union as a State; and the question is, will you or will you not admit her? It is a grave question, and there rests upon you a heavy responsibility. Much, very much, will depend upon your decision. If you admit her, you endorse and give your sanction to all that has been done. Are you prepared to do so? Are you prepared to surrender your power of legislation for the territories – a power expressly vested in Congress by the constitution, as has been fully established? Can you, consistently with your oath to support the constitution, surrender the power? Are you prepared to admit that the inhabitants of the territories possess the sovereignty over them, and that any number, more or less, may claim any extent of territory they please, may form a constitution and government, and erect it into a State, without asking your permission? Are you prepared to surrender the sovereignty of the United States over whatever territory may be hereafter acquired to the first adventurers who may rush into it? Are you prepared to surrender virtually to the Executive Department all the powers which you have heretofore exercised over the territories? If not, how can you, consistently with your duty and your oaths to support the constitution, give your assent to the admission of California as a State, under a pretended constitution and government?"

Having shown that all the cords that held the Union together had snapped except one (political party principle), and that one weakened and giving way, the speech came to the solemn question: "How can the Union be saved?" and answered it (after some generalities) by coming to the specific point —

"To provide for the insertion of a provision in the Constitution, by an amendment, which will restore to the South in substance the power she possessed of protecting herself, before the equilibrium between the sections was destroyed by the action of this government."

The speech did not tell of what this amendment was to consist, which was to have the effect of saving the Union, by protecting the slave States, and restoring the equilibrium between the two classes of States; but an authentic publication soon after disclosed it, and showed it to be the election of two Presidents, one from the free and the other from the slave States, and each to approve of all the acts of Congress before they became laws. Upon this condition alone, the speech declared the Union could be saved! which was equivalent to pronouncing its dissolution. For, in the first place, no such amendment to the constitution could be made; in the second place, no such double-headed government could work through even one session of Congress, any more than two animals could work together in the plough with their heads yoked in opposite directions.

This last speech of Mr. Calhoun becomes important, as furnishing a key to his conduct, and that of his political friends, and as connecting itself with subsequent measures.