Election of 1848. Schouler's United States, V, 100-110; Stanwood's Elections, 161-177. mended himself to the Southerners by the advocacy of the doctrine of "squatter sovereignty," according to which the people of each territory were to determine the question of freedom or slavery for themselves. This idea was closely related to the Democratic doctrine of states' rights, and its adoption seemed likely to prevent a split in that party on the question of the extension of slavery. The Whigs nominated The Barnburners. Election of 1848 General Taylor of Louisiana for President, and Millard Fillmore of New York for Vice-President. They made no statement of their principles, and thus endeavored to shirk the question of the greatest interest in the campaign. By this time, the slavery controversy had gone far toward bringing about the disintegration of political parties in the North. A section of New York Democrats, bearing the curious name of " Barn-burners," was opposed to slavery in the territories. Their delegates appeared at the Democratic convention as rivals to another group of delegates, who harbored no such 1848] The Election of 1848 457 scruples. The convention decided to admit both delegations, who should share the votes of New York between them; both delegations withdrew. The Barn-burners, with the assistance of delegates from a few other states, then held a convention of their own, and nominated Martin Van Buren. Another party, the "Free-soilers," which had a The Freelarger following, held a convention at Buffalo. Delegates soilers. from eighteen states appeared. They adopted a platform which declared for "free soil for a free people." They maintained that slavery was a state institution, and as such the general government had no right to meddle with it; but they denied the competence of Congress to permit slavery in the territories. They, too, nominated Van Buren. The Liberty party (p. 446) also held a convention, and William Lloyd Garrison The Liberty party. nominated a candidate of its own, John P. Hale of New Hampshire; but he withdrew in favor of Van Buren. The election was very close, but the defection of the New York Election of Democrats caused the electoral vote of that state to be given Taylor. to Taylor and Fillmore, and thus decided the contest in favor of the Whigs. 306. Taylor's Policy, 1849, 1850. The conflict over Slavery in the Wilmot Proviso and the presidential campaign, in which politics. one of the three candidates stood for the limitation of slave territory, had at last attracted the attention of the Northern people to the cause underlying the politics of the time the The existence of slavery in the South and of freedom in the North. The contest had not merely aroused interest and sentiment, it had engendered a dangerous spirit on both sides of Mason and Dixon's line. Southern extremists were determined to destroy the Union if the principle embodied in the Wilmot Proviso became a part of the law of the land; Northern extremists were desirous of destroying the Union if slavery were not abolished in the slave states, no Wilmot Proviso would satisfy them. The Constitution was in the way, it was said. The abolitionists answered that abolitionists. the North should withdraw from the nefarious bargain, and, paraphrasing the words of the Prophet Isaiah, declared that "the Constitution is a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell." Other Northern extremists were determined that the further extension of slavery should cease; as to slavery in the states, they contended that that was a state matter. Between these two bodies of extremists stood the mass of the people of both sections, who were desirous to put the whole matter aside, and proceed with the development of the country, leaving the future to take care of itself. Of Southern moderates were men like Clay and Benton, sincere lovers of their country and anxious to prevent sectional strife. The Northern moderates were also sincere lovers of their country. They thought as little about the slave question as possible, — if the Southerners wished to ruin the South by perpetuating the institution, that was the Southerners' business; they had no strong moral feelings against slavery, and probably disbelieved most of the facts which the abolitionists were ever dinning in their ears. Taylor's policy. Schouler's United States, V, The new President, Zachary Taylor, was a Louisiana sugar planter, the owner of a hundred slaves, and the father-inlaw of Jefferson Davis, one of the senators from Mississippi. Like most Southern men, he came to Washington with the 142, 147, 159. preconceived idea that the Northerners were the aggressors; he soon discovered that, with the exception of the small body of Northern abolitionists, who exercised no political influence at Washington, the aggression was all on the side 1849] Taylor's Policy 459 of the South. Moreover, he speedily fell under the influence of William H. Seward of New York, one of the antislavery leaders in the Senate. Taylor determined to settle the matter in a direct soldierly fashion. He sent agents to California and New Mexico urging the settlers in those districts to form state constitutions, and seek admission to the Union. California at once complied. When Congress assembled in December, 1849, the President announced that California asked to be admitted as a free state. The Southerners were beside themselves - they felt that the richest country, and that portion best suited to slavery of all the vast region acquired from Mexico, had been filched from them. The matter was further complicated by the fact that Texas claimed a large part of New Mexico as rightfully belonging to her, and threatened to take possession by force if her claims were not allowed. Jealous of his successful rival, as some writers have asserted, or, as is more likely, fearful lest the passions already aroused would lead to conflict, Clay determined to effect a compromise. propositions, 1850. Schouler's United States, V, 161-170, 307. Compromise of 1850. Clay proposed to settle at Clay's one and the same time all the disputes which had grown compromise out of the slavery contest. His scheme is always spoken of as a compromise, and so it was in the ordinary meaning of the word; but the South gained so much more than the North that its adoption was in reality a victory for the slave power. The only concession to the North was the prohibi- 195-199. tion of the slave trade within the District of Columbia. California was to be admitted as a free state. The Southerners regarded this as a great surrender to Northern senti I am Your friend L H.Clay с ment; but it would be difficult to understand how the demand of California for admission as a free state could have been refused by them in view of the doctrine of “squat Clay's views Rhodes's States, I, 120; Calhoun's demands. States, 1, 127; ter sovereignty" which they advocated. The gains to the Calhoun represented Southern extremists. He had no C. relative to fugi-Calhoun tive slaves to be faithfully fulfilled; to cease the agitation of the slavery ques- |