Page images
PDF
EPUB

obstruct or prevent the due execution of the process, except that by the later act the penalty was doubled. It is proper that the two statutes should be thus compared; because, although the first was quietly carried into effect, in all the free States, without objection from any quarter, for a period of about fifty years, the other was made the subject of the most violent denunciation throughout the North, and was the pretence for a great deal of State legislation, which encouraged and promoted evasion of the legislative action of Congress, and forcible resistance to it.

The series of acts passed at this time, which came under the denomination of Compromise Measures, was completed by those for the establishment of territorial governments for New Mexico and Utah; both of which were to be admitted as States, "either with or without slavery," as the Constitution of each should prescribe, upon its future application to be received into the Union. In the course of the debate in regard to the former Territory, Mr. Webster remarked, in substance, that he would not legislate for the prohibition of slavery in a part of the country from which it was already excluded by the ordinance of Nature; that he should no more think of prohibiting it in New Mexico than in Massachusetts. As a practical question, such legislation would certainly be both trifling and superfluous; and the same objection is applicable to the case of Utah. Indeed, however rich the former Territory may prove in respect to more precious products, it would seem absurd to think of devoting to slave labor a tract of country, through a large extent of which even so common a vegetable as a potato can scarcely be made to grow. In principle, however, another question of importance was involved in this issue; for while by far the greater part of New Mexico lay below the line of 36° 30' north latitude, all of Utah was situated above that line. In point of fact, therefore, the principle of the Missouri Com

1

'More recently the development of the mineral treasures of New Mexico bas modified the relations which it then bore to the question in hand.

SUMMARY OF THE COMPROMISE.

207

promise was entirely disregarded, in the several acts establishing provisional governments for those two Territories, and prescribing the terms for their eventual admission as States, into the Union.1

The "slave power," in fact, gained nothing whatever by this arrangement. California, containing nearly six times as many square miles of territory as the six New England States, affording unexampled temptations to emigrants, and sure, at no distant date, to become one of the most populous and powerful States of the Union, was admitted with a constitution prohibiting slavery. As a set-off, New Mexico and Utah, each comprising a still larger extent of territory than California, but both unsuited to slave labor, furnishing comparatively slight inducements to emigration, and, hence, the question of the admission of either into the Union lying far in the indefinite future, were to be received, with or without slavery, as their inhabitants, at the period of application for that purpose might prefer. The traffic in slaves at the seat of the Federal Government was abolished; but was a matter of no practical consequence, since the trade was open in the States, beyond the jurisdiction of Congress. The complement to this measure was the act for the rendition of fugitive slaves, to which the South was legally entitled, if any regard were to be paid to the provisions of the Federal Constitution.

On the other hand, by the acts providing territorial governments for Utah, and for New Mexico, so far as the latter was situated above the line of 36° 30′ north latitude, the Missouri Compromise was, of course, superseded. This fact became the source of warm party debate at a future day;

1 The provisions for the territorial government in New Mexico and Utah and for the admission of California as a State, were all in precise conformity with the principles of the act of 1854, establishing a territorial government for Kansas and Nebraska. In each case, the question of "free State" or "slave State" was left to the people to determine for themselves when they should frame their Constitution; except that, as the people of California had already acted upon the subject, the same principle was recognized in the adop tion of their action by Congress.

and from it resulted the final struggle for the settlement of Kansas, which had such a powerful influence in promoting the immediate causes of the war. There can be no question

that the provision of the act of Congress for the future admission of Utah, either "with or without slavery," threw the door wide open for the admission of Kansas also, either with or without slavery; since the southern line of that Territory, crossing the northern portion of New Mexico, would correspond with the southern line of Utah. The two were, therefore, on equal terms. In short, since the restriction of the Missouri Compromise line was abrogated in respect to Utah, it was abrogated altogether; and, since the question of “slavery or no slavery" was left, by the act of Congress, to the final determination of the people of that Territory; in the exercise of good faith, the people of Kansas were entitled to a similar privilege. This was the view finally taken of this subject by Congress, in the passage of the bill to organize the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas. Whatever policy, or any other consideration, may have prompted on this subject, there can be no doubt that the action of Congress in this respect was the legitimate and necessary deduction from the Compromises of 1850.

>

CHAPTER VIII.

The Several Compromises in regard to Slavery.-Death of Mr. Calhoun.-Death of President Taylor.-The "Seward Whigs" and Mr. Webster's 7th of March Speech.-Political Calm after the Passage of the Measures of 1850.-The Conservative Interest strongly in the ascendant.—The Fugitive Slave Act and " Personal Liberty Bills."-Sectional Sentiment and its Local Causes.-Coalition of 1851, between Democrats and Freesoilers in Massachusetts, to choose a Senator in place of Mr. Webster, and State Officers.-Rescues of Fugitive Slaves, and Rendition of them.-Mr. Choate.-Demoralizing Influence of the Coalition.

In looking back upon the several compromises, of which the question of slavery was the element, it may be properly remarked, that if the Ordinance of 1787 had been strictly and literally adhered to, future national trouble would have been probably avoided. It was erroneous in principle, as setting up a sectional distinction, and creating a critical precedent. Half-way measures seldom satisfy either party, and, unless of their very nature conclusive, are pretty sure to be reopened for dispute at some future time. No compromise could be absolutely beneficial which did not rest upon absolute and inherent grounds of permanency. Practically, this one was likely to stand; because it comprehended only the territory then belonging to the United States, "northwest of the Ohio River," all of it unsuited to slave labor, which could but give way, therefore, the moment that of white men should come into active competition with it.' A mere

While Indiana was still a Territory, its inhabitants petitioned for the suspension of the Ordinance of 1787 in their behalf. The subject was referred to a committee of Congress, from which Mr. John Randolph, of Virginia, made an adverse report, chiefly on the ground that the Territory was not properly adapted to slave labor, and did not need it, as the resources of the Territory would

territorial line of boundary between nations or States can be indifferently well observed. The natural sense of obligation, in such case, is correspondent with the Scriptural sanction"Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor's landmark.”

But a line of separation, dependent upon moral distinctions, real or supposed, can hardly fail to be, sooner or later, the occasion of renewed quarrel. That compromise was adapted only to the existing condition of the country; and the statesmen of the day never contemplated the idea of an enlargement of the republic, by a vast accession of Western and Southwestern territory, out of which numbers of future States were to be formed. But deviations even from the spirit of that measure soon occurred. The South, in the adoption of the Ordinance, had shown a disposition as unanimous as that of the North, to restrict slavery with the limits already recognized by the Constitution.' If the North, on that occasion, was actuated by a just principle, the South made to that principle a frank and generous concession. When, shortly afterwards, there were manifestations, from some quarters of the former, of a desire to exact concessions tending to impair established rights, the temperate yet firm tone of remonstrance, on the part of the latter, was such as to consign the whole subject to quiet, in Congress, for nearly the period of an entire generation.

The Compromise of 1820 was, in a certain important sense, better calculated to maintain the peace; because its application was conformable to the diverse character of climate, soil, production, and the existing state of labor, in the several sections. Just adherence to its provisions, in letter and spirit, would have kept at bay all serious cause of dispute between the North and the South. But, fixed upon with great difficulty, by reason of Northern opposition to slavery, and attended with extreme popular displeasure

soon become developed by the labor of its white inhabitants. This was in 1803.

1 In fact, the North was not quite unanimous ; one vote against it was given from New York.

« PreviousContinue »