Page images
PDF
EPUB

will be necessary that I shall go back to the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and even a little beyond that. At the time of the formation of the Constitution, and of the United States government under it, there was a large territory lying northwest of the Ohio River, known as the Northwestern Territory. This was provided for by those who participated in the Revolution, and in the formation of the Constitution, by the application of what has since been known as the Wilmot Proviso—that is to say, that slavery in all the territory then belonging to the United States should be prohibited. That law has been recognized, and has been in practical operation, with no attempt to interfere with it, from that time to this—that is, from 1787 down to 1856. In the year 1803, by a treaty that was negotiated during the administration of Mr. Jefferson, we acquired from the government of France what was known as the Louisiana Territory. This territory constituting no part of the Northwestern Territory, which had been provided for by the Ordinance of 1787, gave rise to extreme difficulties between the North and the South in reference to this question of slavery. Out of a portion of that territory acquired from Louisiana the State of Missouri was formed, and she asked for admission into the Union. The Northern States having at that time acquired a superiority in numbers, bad it in their power to refuse the admission of Missouri, except upon the condition that slavery should be excluded, or, in other words, that the Ordinance of 1787 should be applied also to that territory. It was necessary to settle the question in some form. It was obliged to be settled, either by the minority or by the majority, in Congress, and we of the South unfortunately constituted the minority. At length this far-famed Missouri Compromise was introduced, not by the North, but by the South, pretty much under the same circumstances, however, that the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was introduced in 1854; they selected a Northern man to introduce it, but it was first agreed upon as a Southern measure, and it was passed by Southern votes.

“And what was it that was thus agreed to by the South and passed by the South ? It was not, as has been commonly said, a measure imposed upon the South by the North. It was proposed on the part of the South to the North, 'that if you will allow us—you being in the majority and having the control — if you will permit us to carry slavery up to the line of 36° 30', we will pledge ourselves not to attempt to carry slavery beyond 36° 30'.' They said, 'We will allow every state south of 36° 30' that chooses to adopt slavery or reject it, as they please; but if they make an application to Congress, as the people of Missouri have done, for admission into the Union as slave states, then you shall make no objection to their admission on the ground that they recognize slavery;' and the South, with the aid of a few of the Northern votes, was able to carry the measure. We find that this measure was voted for in the Senate of the United States by 'twenty out of the 'twenty-two’ Southern senators only two Southern senators voting against it, and only four Northern senators voting for it. And those who voted for it were, Barbour and Pleasants, of Virginia, Brown and Johnson, of Louisiana, Eaton and Williams, of Tennessee, Elliott and Walker, of Georgia, Galliard, of South Carolina, Johnson and Logan, of Kentucky, Loyd and Pinckney, of Maryland, King (the late William R.) and Walker, of Alabama, Leake and Williams, of Mississippi, Van Dyke and Horner, of Delaware, and Stokes, of North Carolina, making twenty Southern senators, and four from the North. Mr. Macon, of North Carolina, and Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, were the only

two Southern senators that voted against it, while only four Northern senators voted for it, and eighteen against it. It went to the IIouse of Representatives, and it passed that body by a vote of 134 to 42—forty Southern representatives voting for it, and tbirty-seven against it. Thus was the Compromise of 1820 brought about. And the history of that day will show that it was regarded (as it really was) as a great Southern triumph, in which the North reluctantly acquiesced. The most distinguished Southern men, including Mr. Clay, Mr. Lowndes, Mr. William Smith, Louis M'Lane, and others being its chief advocates. And upon its final passage it was submitted to Mr. Monroe for his signature; and there being some wiseacres at that day, as there are at all times, who set up the pretension that it was a violation of the Constitution for us to agree not to do what it was contended we had a right to do for the sake of the peace, the harmony, and the prosperity of the country, Mr. Monroe submitted the constitutionality of that measure to his Cabinet of which John C. Calhoun was one, Mr. Crawford another, and Mr. Wirt, of Virginia, a third — and he required a written opinion of each member of his Cabinet upon the constitutionality of this Missouri Compromise. The Cabinet were unanimous in the opinion that the law was in strict and perfect conformity with the Constitution of the United States. It must be admitted that these were mere pigmies in comparison with the giants and the dwarfs of the present day. But when the bill became a law, it was received throughout the South with the ringing of bells and the firing of cannon, with illuminations and shouts of joy and gladness, and heralded every where as a great Southern victory.

“Under the operation of that law to which the integrity and the honor of the South was pledged, the South obtained

the admission of Missouri and Arkansas as slave states when it was in the power of the North to have rejected them. They also obtained the admission of Florida as a slave state, Texas as a slave state, and never - never while there was an opportunity to make a slave state out of Southern territory-did they dream that it was proper to repeal that law. But when they had populated all their own territories, and obtained the admission of all their slave states, when there was no necessity for it .whatever, they attempted to rob the North of its just due, and thereby dishonestly sacrificed the integrity and honor of the South, that were pledged to carry out in good faith the bargain entered into. But I will show before I get through that it was never the object of this Democratic party to sanction any thing that would produce peace and harmony in the country; that their object was to keep up agitation on the slavery question, and that it was their purpose that the Missouri Compromise should be disturbed in order to agitate the question of slavery, and provoke resistance to the Fugitive Slave Law in order to agitate.

REPEAL OF THE 21ST RULE. “Things went on in this way pretty satisfactorily for some fifteen or sixteen years, when Mr. Calhoun, the great leader of the Southern States’-rights party, set himself to work, as seemed to be his object to the last moment of his life, to excite the apprehension and alarm of the Southern people upon the question of slavery, in order, as he said, to unite the South-to unite us, the Whigs of the South, with the Democrats — upon the subject of slavery; and every man of the Whig party, every politician of the Whig party, every press in the Whig or American interests that has aided in keeping up this agitation have only added strength to the Democratic party, and aided them to rivet a chain on their necks that they will wear as long as they live, or until the people become better informed as to their objects. It was for these reasons, because there was too much peace in the country, that they could not remain satisfied; and there being a contemptible handful in the North at that time who were not of sufficient consequence to disturb any body or any body's property, we were daily warned to fortify ourselves upon the subject of slavery. Then it was that the famous 'twenty-first rule' was gotten up for the purpose of exciting the Abolitionists into an issue with us, whereby the great constitutional right of petition was denied to the people. Men in the South who claimed the right of the constituent body to instruct their representatives, were guilty of the supreme folly of denying to the same body their right to petition. As a matter of course, these things produced a very angry state of feeling in the North. The right of petition was blended with the question of slavery, and it fell to my lot upon that occasion to stand in the minority of one or two in the whole Southern country until parties of every complexion came up to my position; and at last the Democratic party themselves, seeing the incalculable mischief which was likely to grow out of it, repealed the 'twenty-first rule,' and from that day to this the question has remained settled as far as abolition petitions are concerned; for while there were upward of six thousand abolition petitions presented to Congress during the session preceding that in which the 'twenty-first rule' was repealed, there were only about six in all presented at the session following that repeal—thus showing how infinitely the practical operation of that famous 'twenty-first rule,' which Mr. Calhoun had a large share in getting up, had weakened the South and strengthened the Abolition

« PreviousContinue »