The Questions at Issue XXX SHALL SLAVERY BE RESTRICTED OR EXTENDED? When President Taylor entered upon his duties in March, 1849, the slavery question was demanding a solution with an insistence that augured ill for the Union. "At this moment," said Clay, describing the excitement over slavery, "we have in the legislative bodies of this capitol and in the States twenty odd furnaces in full blast emitting heat and passion and intemperance and diffusing them throughout the whole extent of this broad land." In 1850 the questions revolving around slavery were taken up in earnest, and for several years our political history was simply the history of the efforts made by statesmen to solve the slavery problem and of the sectional and party disturbances which those efforts produced. THE COMPROMISE OF 1850 By 1849 it was imperative upon Congress to consider the question of admitting California as a State and to provide territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico. Congress soon found that proper legislation for the government of these new lands would bring up the whole subject of slavery extension and restriction. Should California come in as a free State or as a slave State? In providing territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico, should slavery be excluded from these new territories as it had recently been excluded from Oregon Territory or should slavery be allowed? Then there was the question of the boundaries of Texas. That slaveholding State was claiming a substantial portion of New Mexico and threatening trouble if her claims should be denied. Should these claims be recognized, or would the Texans have to be content with the territory they actually held? Another question related to slavery and the slave-trade in the District of Columbia: slavery was legal in the district, and the antislavery people wished it abolished. Here Congress had full power (119): would it use that power to suppress slavery in the district, or would it leave it undisturbed? Still another question that thrust itself before Congress at this time referred to fugitive slaves. The abolitionists in their zeal for the freedom of the negro assisted in the escape of runaway slaves. When the fugitive slave reached Pennsylvania or Ohio he was often met by officers of what was called an Underground Railroad. This was a secret organization whose purpose was to aid runaway slaves to reach Canada, where slavery was illegal. If the master could find a slave anywhere in the United States, he could, under the existing fugitive-slave law, seize the fugitive and take him back home, but if the runaway could once get his foot on Canadian soil he was safe. Through the assistance of the conductors of the Underground Railroad the slaveholders by 1850 were every year losing hundreds of valuable slaves. So the South demanded a new fugitive-slave law, one that would enable the master to retake his runaway slave despite the abolitionists and the Underground Railroad. Would Congress give the South such a law? The North desired The of the North and of the South The above questions were squarely before Congress in the spring of 1850. Broadly speaking, the North and the South Desires were directly opposed on every question. to let California come in as a free State. was opposed, because if California came in free there would be sixteen free States and fifteen slave States, and the balance of power (p. 255) between the North and the South would be Clay's disturbed. The North wished to prohibit slavery in New Mexico and Utah. The South opposed such a prohibition on the ground that if slaves could not be carried into New Mexico and Utah they would be shut out of the Mexican acquisitions altogether, for in California the people themselves had declared against slavery. To exclude slavery, therefore, from Utah and New Mexico would be to say to the South that not a single slave State should ever be carved out of the vast territory acquired from Mexico. The Texas boundary question raised the same issue of slavery extension. If the land claimed by Texas should be adjudged as belonging to her it would at once become slave territory; if it were left a part of New Mexico, its status could still be determined by Congress. The South accordingly was on the side of Texas, while the North opposed her claims. The North desired to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia because it regarded its existence there as a national scandal. The South declared that it would regard the abolition of slavery in the district as a direct and unnecessary attack upon a cherished institution of Southern society. The North desired that the existing fugitive-slave law should remain unchanged. The South demanded a new and more stringent law, and threats were made that if the North did not deliver up fugitive slaves the Southern States would by way of retaliation pass laws to prevent the sale of Northern products in the South. Upon the questions at issue Congress in 1850 was divided. In the House the majority was against the extension of slavery. In the Senate the majority was favorable to the South. So if there was to be action at all there would have to be a compromise. The task of effecting a compromise was undertaken by Clay, then a member of the Senate. "Let me say," said the great Kentuckian, who was now in his seventy-third year and who honestly felt that his mission was to save the Union from dissolution, "let me say to the North and to the South what husband and wife say to each other: we have mutual faults; neither of us is perfect; nothing in the form of humanity is perfect. Let us then be kind to each other, forbearing, forgiving each other's faults, and above all let us live in happiness and peace together." In this spirit of good will Clay came forward with a plan that he hoped would please both North and South. The main features of his plan were: (1) To admit California with her constitution forbidding slavery. (A concession to the North.) (2) To give New Mexico and Utah territorial governments providing that when ready for statehood the territories should be admitted into the Union with or without slavery as their constitutions might prescribe. (A concession to the South.) (3) To establish a boundary line between Texas and New Mexico which should yield slightly to the demands of the former, at the same time paying her a money indemnity of $10,000,000 for the extinction of her claims to the rest of the territory. (A concession to the South.) (4) To prohibit the slave-trade in the District of Columbia. (A concession to the North.) (5) To declare it inexpedient to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. (A concession to the South.) Calhoun Webster (6) To enact a more stringent fugitive-slave law. (A concession to the South.) Calhoun was present in the Senate while the compromise measures were before that body, but he was suffering with a disease and was unable to speak. His speech, however, was read for him by a fellow-senator. Calhoun was opposed to Clay's plan for two reasons. First, he believed that Congress under the Constitution had no right to keep slavery out of California or any other territory belonging to the United States. Slavery, he contended, was a domestic institution with which Congress had nothing whatever to do except to make regulations regarding fugitive slaves. Second, he believed that the South would be so highly displeased with the compromise measures that she would withdraw from the Union. Calhoun did not threaten secession, but he feared it. Webster also feared that the Union was in danger. In a speech that he regarded as the greatest of his life-his famous Seventh of March Speech-he supported the compromise measures, believing that they were necessary to save the Union. This speech was severely condemned by the radical antislavery people, especially by those of his own State (Massachusetts). Theodore Parker said: "I know no deed in American history done by a son of New England to which I can compare this but the act of Benedict Arnold. The only reasonable way in which we can estimate this speech is as a bid for the Presidency." It is the sober judgment of history, however, that Webster supported the compromise purely for patriotic reasons. Certainly his support brought great strength to Clay's plan. After a debate that lasted through all the summer of 1850 the compromise measures-collectively known as the Omnibus Bill-were passed and signed by President Fillmore in September, 1850. THE EXECUTION OF THE FUGITIVE-SLAVE LAW After the passage of the compromise acts of 1850 the politicians North and South did all they could to induce the people 1 On July 9. President Taylor died and Vice-President Fillmore became Presi dent in his stead. |