[1857]

JUSTICES MCLEAN AND CURTIS.

135

which makes it property." (Greeley, I. 259.) Webster, too, said that no man could be held as a slave unless local law accompanied him. Justice McLean in dissenting from Judge Taney's decision on the Dred Scott case, admitted that any citizen could carry with him into the territories. his property: "but the Court says, a slave is not property beyond the operation of the local law." (Greeley, I. 260.) The Constitution (Art. IV. Sec. 2) reads: "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping to another," etc., and thus recognizes that slavery is founded on municipal law. Justice Curtis the other dissenting judge — substantially agreed with McLean. Von H. (III. 248) thinks that Calhoun's dogma was, logically, historically, and constitutionally, absolutely untenable. The two decisions of the Supreme Court declaring that the Constitution recognizes slaves as property was the only thing favoring the dogma. If this were true, said Von H., it would be difficult to justify the exclusion of slavery from the territories. For the Constitution would have to prescribe what kinds of property a man could carry with him. But the term "person," and not "slave" is in the Constitution. (Notes, 4.) If "slave" equals "person" then the Constitution deals with slaves as persons and not as property. Von H. deems the above decision of the Supreme Court to be groundless.

But in the Senate it was merely claimed that slavery was a peculiar kind of property instituted by state law. It is most important to note that this dogma of Calhoun was upheld ten years later by the Su- 1857 preme Court, only the two (above) judges dissenting; and the Ordinance of 1787, the Mo. Compromise and the Wilmot Proviso were pronounced unconstitutional.

136

CALHOUN'S ADDRESS.

...

[1849]

Calhoun denounced these acts as aggressions upon the the South. He said: "If our Union and system of gov't are doomed to perish . . . the historian . . . will devote his first chapter to the Ordinance of 1787 . . . as the first in that series which led to it. The next chapter will be devoted to the Mo. Compromise, and the next to the present agitation." (Benton II. 715; Calhoun's Works, IV. 507, 547, 494.) The Oregon bill restricting slavery from that region finally passed.

1849

Mar. 4

Wilson speaking of these slavery debates (II. 190) says: Its sinfulness, its wrongs, its deleterious influences, its power over the gov't and the people were perhaps more fully discussed in that (the XXXth) than in any previous Congress." Alex. H. Stephens a Southern Whig opposed the acquisition of and territory from Mex. Richard W. Thompson of Ind. took a ground midway between the extreme northern and the extreme southern views. At a meeting of southern members held to consider the interests of slavery, "Mr. Clayton and Mr. Berrien - Southern Whigs- counselled moderation. . . (but) Mr. Calhoun, Jefferson Davis, and others, urged . . . decided and strenuous measures." The meeting approved Calhoun's address of southern delegates to their constituents, alleging the following GRIEVANCES against the north: (1) The failure to carry out the fugitive slave act of 1793. (2) Anti-slavery agitation. (3) Resistance to the extension of slavery, (c. g., in the Mo. Compromise, Wilmot Proviso, Oregon Bill, etc.) (4) Attempts to abolish slavery in the D. C. (Wilson, II. 197-8.)

During this debate threats of dissolving the Union became so frequent as to cause no special remark. (V. H., III. 360.) But at the end of Polk's administration, the solution of the question of slavery in the territories had not advanced one step.

[1849]

TAYLOR'S CABINET

137

XXXI-XXXII.

SLAVERY-THE COMPROMISE OF 1850.

Parallel V. H., III. 316, 362, 384, 389, 394, 400, 402-3, 409-13; (Compromise of '50) 415-47; Young, 892-937; Sargeant, II. 342-71; Benton. II. 729-73; Bryant and Gay. IV. 387-401; Spencer, III. 471-80; Pike, First Blows of the Civil War, 1-80; Wilson, II. 208-330; Greeley, I. 198–210.

Taylor, in his Inaugural Address advised Congress to take measures to secure general harmony and the continuance of the Union. His Cabinet was about as weak as his address. It consisted of Jno. M. Clayton of Del., Sec. of State; Wm. M. Meredith of Penn., Sec. of the Treas. ; Geo. W. Crawford of Ga., Sec. of War; Wm. B. Preston of Va., Sec. of the Navy; Thomas Ewing of O., Sec. of the Interior; Jacob Collamer of Vt., Postmaster-Gen.; Reverdy Johnson of Md., Att'y-Gen.—all Whigs. Clay (Private Corresp. 587) says: "I regret extremely that many of the appointments of the Executive are so unsatisfactory to the public; and still more that there should be just occasion for it." The Whigs were dissatisfied, and to add to their troubles, they lost the Fall Elections in Penn. and O. Something must be done to avert the impending dissolution of their party. (V. H., III. 262-3.)

At the opening of the 31st Congress. Cobb of 1849 Ga., the Democratic candidate, was elected Dec. 3 Speaker on the 63d ballot. Winthrop of Mass. was the Whig candidate. Cobb's election was delayed by the Free-Soil men, who held the balance of power.

138

CLAY'S EIGHT RESOLUTIONS.

[1850]

The business of this session "related to the territorial question, the admission of Cal., and other matters relating to... slavery resulting in another and most singular compromise." (Young, 894.)

1850 Clay, having re-entered the Senate, brought Jan. 29 forward a series of eight resolutions, intended to settle all the points in dispute on slavery and to unite all in a lasting compromise. THE SUBSTANCE of these resolutions are as follows: (1) California to be admitted as a State without restriction regarding slavery. [Cal. had organized a gov't forbidding slavery, and had applied for admission into the Union.] (2) Since slavery does not exist, and is not likely to be introduced, in the territory (acquired from Mexico), it is inexpedient for Congress to pass a law for its introduction or exclusion; hence a gov't shall be established in those territories without restricting slavery. [The question was whether slavery did or did not exist in the territory as soon as acquired from Mex.] (3) The boundaries of Texas shall not include any part of New Mexico. (4) The U. S. shall pay the debt of Texas contracted before her annexation, provided that the latter shall relinquish to the U. S. her duties, and all claims on New Mexico. (5) It is inexpedient to abolish slavery in the D. C. while it exists in Md. and other surrounding States. (6) It is expedient to prohibit the slave-trade in the D. C. (7) More effective provision should be made for the restitution of fugitive slaves. [This clause caused a great discussion.] (8) Congress can not prohibit the slave-trade between the slave-holding States. (Young, 895; Greeley, I. 203; Deb. XVI. 386.)

Benton opposed this plan on the GROUND (1) that it mixed up in one bill several distinct measures; (2) it was a concession to the spirit of disunion, a capitulation

[1850]

CALHOUN'S LAST SPEECH.

139

to those who threatened secession, and a repetition of the error of 1833. (Benton thought Calhoun should have been prosecuted in 1833.) The South said this plan made no concession to it; and Jefferson Davis of Miss. demanded the extension of the 36° 30' line as the least that would be accepted. (Benton, II. 743; Greeley, I. 204.) Clay refused to vote for a measure introducing slavery where (as he tried to show) it did not already exist (i. e. in New Mexico, etc.) Calhoun had said that the Constitution, by extending itself to those territories upon their acquisition by the U. S., overruled the former Mexican antislavery law. Stephens admitted that slavery in this territory was prohibited by the Mexican laws, and so opposed the acquisition as a gain to the North only. Benton, too, said the application of the Wilmot Proviso to this territory was needless.

Calhoun's speech against the compromise was 1850 read by John Y. Mason, and was the last he ever Mar. made. The imminent danger of disunion could be averted, he said, only by the concession to the South of equal rights in the new territory. The North must fullfil the stipulations of the fugitive slave law, must cease agitation on slavery, and allow an amendment to the Constitution restoring the former equality of the South with the North; otherwise the Union would be dissolved. (Benton, II. 744-6; Young, 898; Works, IV. 542; Deb. XVI. 403.

Benton (II. 747) says: "This last speech of Mr. Calhoun becomes important, as furnishing a key to his conduct, and that of his political friends, and as connecting itself with subsequent measures." Calhoun died Mar. 31, 1850.

Webster, replying in his famous 7th of Mar. Speech,

OPPOSED, (1) the abolition of slavery, (2) the as- Mar. 7