Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER XVIII

THE FORKS OF THE ROAD

THE impulse that was ultimately to carry Wilmot away from the democratic party which, in his idealized conception of it, he so reverenced, and was to lift him up among the first framers of a new and opposing republicanism, was given at the Baltimore convention of 1844, though its force and consequences were not recognized until long afterwards. The separation between the "barnburner" and the "hunker" camps of the New York democracy had begun some years earlier, but that national democratic convention saw the first practical alliance of the northern hunker (or "machine") and the southern proslavery elements, to control the power and the spoils of office. Beginning with the notorious strategy of the twothirds rule by which Van Buren was defeated and Polk nominated for the presidency, this alliance projected its activities into Van Buren's home State, with the idea of following up and eliminating the man who, at that time in national politics, most fully personified the reform aspirations of the progressive democracy and foreshadowed the free-soil doctrine. His political destruction was counted on to free the field for the intrenched party leaders and for slavery.

In furtherance of this purpose, the New York State convention, assembled at Syracuse for the nomination of State officers in September, 1847, aimed at and attempted a final victory "by usurpation in the organization of this convention . . . by smothering a resolution which proclaimed freedom in territory now free . . by the removal of the State central committee, whose term of office had not yet expired, and the substitution of another more docile to move at their own behests; and

finally by the subversion of the usages of the party in selecting delegates to the nominating conventions of the State." 1

In obedience to a call by some of the delegates to the Syracuse convention who felt that their rights had been trampled upon there, a mass convention of the democrats of New York State was held at Herkimer, November 26, 1847, "to avow their principles and consult as to future action." Its president was C. C. Cambreling, of Suffolk, and among the more distinguished delegates or guests were John Van Buren, David Dudley Field and David Wilmot. On Van Buren's motion, a committee was appointed to report an address expressing the opinions of the convention, while another committee, under Field, prepared a series of resolutions for its consideration. These resolutions, as adopted, protested against the action of the Syracuse meeting, declared for a strict construction of the Constitution, demanded the divorce of the Government from banking and paper currency, advocated free trade, deprecated any but the most necessary internal improvements by the Federal Government, and ardently supported the Mexican War. They proclaimed the Field resolutions (which had been smothered at Syracuse) as "an inseparable element of their political creed,” and added:

That we believe in the dignity and the rights of free labor; that free white labor cannot thrive upon the same soil with slave labor; and that it would be neither right nor wise to devote new territories to the Slave labor of a part of the States, to the exclusion of the free labor of all the States.

10. C. Gardiner, The Great Issue, p. 48. The first free-soil resolutions, offered at Syracuse by Smith, of Wayne, were laid on the table under the pretext that they would be taken up and considered later; but, when offered anew, the chair ruled that, having been once tabled, they could not be revived. David Dudley Field then moved, "that while the democracy of New York, represented in this convention, will faithfully adhere to all the compromises of the Constitution, and maintain all the reserved rights of the States, they declare-since the crisis has arrived when that question must be met their uncompromising hostility to the extension of slavery into territory, now free, which may be hereafter acquired, by any action of the government of the United States;" but Field's resolution was stifled, under a ruling of the chair on a call for the previous question.

And further,

That in the territory of Oregon, and in any territory hereafter acquired by the United States, on this continent, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should be allowed, while it remains under the dominion of the Union, except for crime whereof the party shall be first duly convicted.

Salmon P. Chase thus characterized the work of the Herkimer meeting, in a letter to Charles Sumner, dated Cincinnati, December 2, 1847:2

The Syracuse Convention met, and the Proviso was smothered there. A ticket of Anti-Proviso men was nominated there, and the faithful were called upon to stand by the Party nominations. . . . In this state of things came the clarion call for the Herkimer Convention. I thank God that call reached the hearts of the people of the Empire State! They rallied to the Convention. They repudiated the Syracuse Servilism. They resolved that the Wilmot Proviso-the stone which the builders rejected—should be made the head of the corner. The election followed. The Serviles were overthrown and the Country was saved. I may be greatly in error, but I know of no event in the History of Parties in this Country, at all approaching, in sublimity and moment, the Herkimer Convention, or rather the great movement of which the Convention was the most signal, visible expression.

David Wilmot's speech at that convention preceded John Van Buren's and engaged the attention and crystallized the sentiment of the delegates while the committees were at work. It is in large part reproduced in Gardiner's "The Great Issue." In small part, especially the explanation of the origin of the Proviso, it covered the same ground as his preceding address in Tioga County, already quoted; but the major portion was called out by the occasion.

2 Ann. Rep. Am. Hist. Assoc., 1902, Vol. II, p. 125.

I have heard through the public press [he said, after acknowledging the friendliness of his reception] that the Proviso had been trampled upon and smothered at the Syracuse Convention, and I thought it no harm in me to come up to the resurrection at Herkimer. I came to see if my namesake would survive the buffetings it had received at Syracuse. I was anxious to hear the response of the people to the stand their representatives in Congress had taken, on the great question involving the rights of free labor and the integrity of a free soil; and to hear that response in the heart of this great State, the mightiest of the confederacy. What I have seen and heard has inspired me with new hopes and new courage.

Mr. Wilmot then reviewed briefly his past support of great democratic principles and policies, especially the "divorce of the Government from the Bank" and the tariff of 1846, and summarized his efforts in support of Van Buren in 1836, 1840 and 1844, denouncing the false reports that he had ever at any time opposed him, and satirizing the attempts made by the Administration organs to construe a democratic majority of 18,000 in Pennsylvania as a repudiation of the Proviso. He continued:

...

So far as the democracy of Pennsylvania has ever made an expression upon the question of the extension of Slavery over territory now free, it was in favor of Freedom. I appeal to the unanimous action of our last legislature to sustain me in this declaration. The truth of it is, Mr. Ritchie has mistaken the opinions of the Secretary of State for the voice of the democracy of Pennsylvania. . . . The letter of Mr. Buchanan to the Berks County meeting expresses his own views, but I deny that it speaks the sentiments of the democracy of Pennsylvania. The letter was read at a large meeting in Berks County, the Gibraltar of the democracy of the State, at which Governor Shunk was present. The confidential clerk of Mr. Buchanan was on the ground, and so was his fast and able friend, the editor of the Pennsylvanian. It was of the first importance to the Secretary of State that his new and extraordinary position should be sustained by the democ

racy of Berks County, yet that meeting passed no resolution indorsing the compromising sentiments of the letter.

I have another and a better reason for believing that the democracy of Berks are sound upon this question. John Ritter was the member from that county in the late Congress-a noble representative of the firmness and honesty of the German character. He is associated in his own person with the history and the trials of the democracy of Berks. For half a century he has published the German paper of that county, the organ of its ever reliable democracy. John Ritter stood immovable as the hills in support of the Proviso. When others deserted, he remained firm, and I have yet to learn that the democrats of Berks have repudiated him. This father and ancient servant of the party will be surprised to learn from the Albany Argus that he has been rejected and cast out of the party fold-that his old age is dishonored by treason, and the desertion of the faith of his fathers.

After a sympathetic reference to conditions in the State in which he was a visitor, and a declaration that, if he were a resident, he would never dance to the fiddling of Croswell"the man who pursued Silas Wright to his grave"-Wilmot turned again to the topic of the Proviso:

It is made a ground of complaint by some that the Proviso was introduced out of season. By others that its design was to embarrass the Administration-that it had its origin in a political intrigue for a Presidential candidate in 1848. I have been taught that the best time to do a right thing, was the first time you had an opportunity. . . . Previous to its being moved, I never heard the suggestion that it would embarrass the Administration. We did not then know that the Administration desired to plant Slavery on free soil. It is only lately that this hateful policy has been boldly put forth. The letter of the Secretary of State to the democracy of Berks County was the first official declaration that this Government was to be prostituted to such unholy purposespurposes as revolting to the spirit of the age, as abhorrent to every feeling of justice and humanity, as would be an attempt to revive the foreign Slave trade. During the whole progress of the introduction of this measure into Congress, I never heard the name of

« PreviousContinue »