CHAPTER XXIV. the administration of taylor and fillmore, 1849 - 1853. THE QUESTION OF CALIFORNIA.
390. General Conditions.—The period of controversy upon which we are about to enter, was caused by the opposing interests and feelings of the North and South on the subject of slavery. In the early history of the country, the balance of power had been kept even by the alternate admission of free and slave states. But the admission of Texas, and still more, the results of the Mexican War, enlivened the hopes of the South, while the Wilmot Proviso (§ 388) showed that the North was fully aware of the great interests involved in the annexation of any new territory capable of supporting slavery.
391. Claims of the South.—The people of the South, especially those of South Carolina and Mississippi, which had perhaps become the most influential states in political matters, asserted that the Fugitive Slave Law, provided for by the Constitution and enacted into a statute by Congress in 1793, had not been fairly carried out by the people of the North. Southerners also charged the North with a growing tendency to misrepresent, interfere with, and overthrow the institution of slavery, which had been so carefully protected by the Constitution. They saw that the North was growing much more rapidly than the South, and that the time was not far away when the South might be outvoted in Congress, with the result that, by a change of the Constitution, slavery would perhaps be swept entirely away. The circulation of anti-slavery newspapers, especially William Lloyd Garrison’s Liberator, continued to give great offense to the South, and caused laws to be passed by the Southern states prohibiting the distribution of such journals. The feelings thus aroused were further excited by repeated efforts to secure the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.
392. Claims of the North.—In the North, on the other hand, the feeling was constantly growing that slavery was a moral wrong and a national disgrace. While the people generally disavowed the right to interfere with the institution where it already existed, they were determined to resist legislation which would introduce it into any of the new territories. They also claimed the right to the free expression of their opinion and to the free publication of their views. It was evident that only a definite occasion was needed to bring the sections to a rupture which might precipitate a civil war. This occasion soon came.
Sutter’s Mill, California, where gold was
first discovered.—From an old print.
393. California opens a New Question.—In spite of the growing estrangement of the sections, even the admission of Texas furnished no definite ground for a positive clash. But the acquisition of California introduced a new element into the political situation. Part of the territory was south of the Missouri Compromise line of 36° 30', and part was north of it. The inhabitants demanded admission to the Union as a state, and the question at once arose whether California should be admitted as a free or a slave state. The Californians asked to be admitted as a free and undivided state. Their demands were all the more weighty because of the newly acquired importance of California in the eyes of the world.
394. California and the Discovery of Gold.—California was a beautiful region which offered many advantages besides that of rounding out American territory on the Pacific. Its climate was delightful; its soil fertile and capable of varied productions; its forests were valuable. But a greater source of wealth was soon discovered. In January, 1848, an American mechanic named Marshall, in the employ of a Swiss named Sutter, found gold in a mill-race near the Sacramento River. The secret was not kept, and soon every industry in the region was abandoned and thousands of men were washing sand and digging gold out of the cliffs. The news reached Washington late in 1848, and the next year saw a rush for California, the like of which had never been known before. Some adventurers made the long journey overland in caravans formed of vehicles of every sort. Others tried the dangerous voyage around Cape Horn. Others went by ship to Panama, crossed the Isthmus, and took their chances of getting a vessel on the Pacific side. Arrived in California, these “Forty-niners,” as they have since been called, plunged into the wild, exciting life described so well by Bret Harte. Soon a population large enough to demand statehood was assembled, and California began to play its great part in national affairs.[176]
THE COMPROMISE OF 1850.
395. Doctrines of Clay, Webster, and Calhoun.—There was naturally much excitement over the demand of the Californians, and declarations of a purpose to secede were often heard in Southern conventions. It was for the purpose of bringing the North and the South nearer together, and preventing such a catastrophe, that Henry Clay, the author of the Second Missouri Compromise, now came forward with the famous Compromise of 1850. Before introducing it, he had an interview with Daniel Webster and secured the promise of the latter’s support. The debate on the subject was one of the most memorable in the history of Congress. Clay, in one of the greatest of his speeches, described the dangers of the situation and pointed out that national disaster could be averted only by a reasonable yielding on both sides. Calhoun, nearing his grave, and too feeble even to read his speech, was brought into the Senate in a chair to hear his speech read by a colleague. Reiterating his doctrine of the constitutional right of secession, he maintained that a continuance of the present conditions was impossible. But the greatest interest was concentrated upon Webster. He was universally regarded as the foremost statesman in the North. Though he had often deplored the existence of slavery, and always opposed its extension, his views on the matter of the Compromise now presented were not generally known, and the declaration of his position was awaited with intense anxiety. His speech on Clay’s measure, since commonly referred to as the “Seventh of March Speech,” cast the great weight of his powerful influence in favor of the Compromise. His act was much criticised in the North, and he was freely accused of seeking favor with the Southerners in order to secure their help in the approaching Presidential election, when he expected to be a candidate. But Webster had always been a stanch advocate of the Union, and there was nothing in his present course that was inconsistent with the positions he had uniformly held. The feeling against him, however, became, in many quarters of the North, intensely bitter.
William H. Seward.
[By courtesy of G. P. Putnam’s Sons.]
396. Presidential Policy changed by Death of Taylor.—Before the final passage of the Compromise measures, President Taylor died, July 9, 1850, and was succeeded by the Vice President, Millard Fillmore. Taylor, although a Southerner, had been very largely influenced by William H. Seward,[177] a senator from New York, who had led with great ability the opposition to the Compromise. Taylor did not have a strong Cabinet, and was untrained as a statesman, but he showed, in his short administration, great common sense and firmness, and, had he lived, might have prevailed on Congress to adopt a policy toward California less tortuous than that involved in Clay’s Compromise. Fillmore,[178] who succeeded to the Presidency, although a good man, was not a strong one, and had not been on friendly terms with his fellow New Yorker, Seward. In making up his Cabinet, he made Webster Secretary of State in place of Clayton, of Delaware, and leaned upon the former for advice. The policy of the administration was thus so completely changed that the weight of its influence was at once thrown in favor of the adoption and rigid enforcement of the Compromise legislation.
397. The Compromise of 1850.—The resolutions introduced by Clay were much amended in the course of their consideration, but in final form, as adopted in September, 1850, they covered the following provisions:—
1. California was to be admitted as a free state.
2. New Mexico and Utah were to be organized as territories without any restriction or condition in regard to slavery.
3. The slave trade was to be abolished within the District of Columbia.
4. A Fugitive Slave Law, stringent enough to satisfy the South, was to be passed.
5. Texas was to receive the price she demanded for the land ceded to New Mexico (§ 394, note).
398. New Fugitive Slave Law.—That part of the Compromise which provided for a Fugitive Slave Law was so stringent in its provisions that it defeated its own end, by arousing so vigorous an opposition in the North that it could not be enforced. It had been made retroactive, in order that slaves who had taken refuge in the North before the passage of the act might be seized by United States marshals, and, without trial by jury, forcibly taken to their old masters. This feature of the law had an instantaneous effect on public opinion. It soon came to be seen that the people would not permit men and women who, as they said, had become free by living in a free state, to be taken back into slavery. The law was frustrated in many ways, the framers having overlooked one special weakness in it. Though fugitives were not to be entitled to trial by jury, the right of such a trial was not taken from the rescuers. Many a fugitive was seized from the United States marshals, and the rescuers, when tried, were acquitted by jury.[179] New laws, known as Personal Safety Acts, designed to protect fugitives and frustrate the operation of the Fugitive Slave Law, were passed by the New England states and by New York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa. These were specially referred to as a cause of complaint in the South Carolina Act of Secession. For these various reasons, the number of slaves actually returned was very small, and both sections were dissatisfied with the result.
399. “The Underground Railroad.”—There was also organized a system to assist fugitives to escape to Canada, where they could not be arrested. Stations were established, generally at private houses, where runaway slaves could be concealed in the daytime and helped forward to the next station in the night. The founder of this system was Levi Coffin, a Quaker living near Philadelphia, who for several years helped into freedom as many as one hundred slaves a year. This system, known as the “Underground Railroad,” gradually extended from the East as far west as the Missouri river. Thus, while the Fugitive Slave Law greatly inflamed the North, the ways in which it was frustrated greatly inflamed the South.
400. New Leaders.—Soon after the passage of this obnoxious law, Calhoun, Clay, and Webster died. They were succeeded in influence by younger men, of more strenuous beliefs and methods. Of these William H. Seward of New York, Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, and Salmon P. Chase of Ohio were prominent representatives of the anti-slavery element, while Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, Jefferson Davis of Mississippi, William L. Yancey of Alabama, and Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia were the most influential leaders on the other side.
INTERNATIONAL AND DOMESTIC AFFAIRS.
401. The Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.—Although the Compromise of 1850 overshadows every other event of the period covered by this chapter, it should not absorb the student’s entire attention. Early in General Taylor’s administration, certain international affairs of importance became pressing. In 1826, the matter of a ship canal across Nicaragua or Panama had been advocated by Henry Clay. “The benefits of such a canal,” Clay wrote, “ought not to be exclusively appropriated to any one nation, but should be extended to all parts of the globe.” In the course of the following twenty years, Jackson and Polk often reverted to the subject in the same general spirit. When John M. Clayton of Delaware entered upon his duties as Taylor’s Secretary of State, he found that the question demanded immediate consideration, for the reason that two capitalists, one American and one British, were contemplating the construction of such a canal across Nicaragua. The result was that on April 19, 1850, what is known as the “Clayton-Bulwer Treaty” was signed in Washington by Secretary Clayton and Sir Henry Lytton Bulwer, the British Minister. The treaty provided that the two powers should guarantee the neutrality and security of the canal when completed, and they invited all friendly states to enter into similar stipulations with them, “for the benefit of mankind, on equal terms to all.” This treaty was afterward to be the subject of not a little embarrassment (§ 680).
402. Railways and Steamships.—The passage of the Compromise of 1850 seemed to promise peace with regard to slavery; but the aid given by the South to attempts to conquer Cuba, especially those of Narciso Lopez,[180] proved to thoughtful minds that sectional strife had been allayed, not completely suppressed. Yet even then American industry and enterprise were forging links of union against which sectional strife could not long prevail. Before 1852, over ten thousand miles of railway track had been laid in the United States, mainly in New England, the Middle states, and the Northwest. The New York and Erie road became a rival of the famous Erie Canal, and its completion in the spring of 1851 was the occasion of a Railway Jubilee, which was attended by Fillmore and his Cabinet. Later in the year, a similar celebration was held in Boston. On the ocean, also, speedier transportation was obtained. The British Cunard Line and the American Collins Line ran races for Europe, and travel was considerably stimulated. On the inland waters navigation increased rapidly; but, owing to a lack of proper inspection, many steamers took fire and great loss of life ensued. The spread of the telegraph over the country also brought distant points into contact in a way that would have been deemed incredible a generation before.
403. Kossuth’s Visit.—The great growth in population, the acquisition of vast territories, the surprising industrial and commercial development, were not only uniting the people of America, but were stimulating their emotional nature. The quiet, staid country of two generations before no longer existed. Popular furores became possible and a love of the spectacular was developed. Barnum, the showman, laid the foundations of his fortune. Newspapers rivaled one another in securing news quickly. International yacht races were begun. Distinguished men went on lecture tours through the country. Great authors and actors came from abroad to receive American hospitality and applause. There were women’s rights conventions and agitations in behalf of temperance.[181] But all these elements of excitement were thrown into the shade by the visit of Louis Kossuth, the great Hungarian orator who had vainly attempted to secure the independence of his native land and was now an exile. Invited by Congress, Kossuth late in 1851 reached the United States, on the man-of-war Mississippi. He was received with an enthusiasm unequaled in our history, save on the occasion of Lafayette’s visit. Receptions were given him in all the chief cities, and he astonished his hearers by the ease and power with which he spoke English. But he made the mistake of trying to persuade the people that the policy of non-interference in European affairs, established by Washington, was an erroneous one. A few politicians, for party purposes, seconded his proposal that the United States should intervene in behalf of Hungary. But the nation at large held aloof from him; the novelty of his visit wore off; and the great orator returned to Europe a disappointed man.
404. The Campaign of 1852.—The next excitement was caused by the Presidential campaign. The Democratic convention held at Baltimore,—the most convenient convention city in those days,—after much balloting, set aside the chief candidates, Cass of Michigan, Douglas of Illinois, Buchanan of Pennsylvania, and Marcy of New York, and chose General Franklin Pierce[182] of New Hampshire, a man who hitherto had attracted little attention. He had served in the Mexican War, and was upright in character; but he possessed a mind little capable of guiding the country in the great crisis that was approaching. His friendship with Jefferson Davis and other Southern leaders foretold his alliance with the advocates of slavery; but as people thought the slavery question settled by the Compromise of 1850, this did not interfere with his chances at the polls. William R. King of Alabama was nominated for Vice President, and the Democrats went into the campaign with great hopes of success. On the other hand, the Whigs were divided and depressed. After a hard struggle, Fillmore—who had made many enemies by signing the Fugitive Slave Law—and Daniel Webster had to yield the nomination to General Winfield Scott, who was far from popular. Shortly afterward, the deaths of Clay and Webster (who was bitterly disappointed and hostile to Scott) robbed the party of its real leaders; important Southern Whigs held aloof from Scott; the Free Soil party put up candidates of its own; and the hero of the march to Mexico was badly beaten by a younger and inferior man. Pierce had two hundred and fifty-four electoral votes to Scott’s forty-two. The ambiguous attitude of the Whigs toward the slavery question had hopelessly split the party asunder. Scott’s personal unpopularity also partly accounts for the overwhelming character of the defeat suffered by the Whigs; and doubtless there was a general desire to give the Compromise a fair chance under the Democrats, who heartily favored it.
References.—See end of Chapter XXVI.
