A Letter to the Hon. Samuel A. Eliot, Representative in Congress From the City of Boston Part 2

If the "peace measures" have strengthened the bond of the Union, what mean all the meetings lately held to _save the Union_? Why is the tocsin now sounded by the very authors and friends of the measures? How comes it that, in Boston itself, the chairman of a Union meeting contradicts the exulting and jubilant shout of triumph uttered by the Secretary of State, and makes the following doleful announcement:--"The Union, and consequently the existence of this nation, is menaced, and unless there is a great and general effort in their support, we may soon behold the mighty fabric of our government trembling over our heads, and threatening by its fall to crush the prosperity which we have so long and happily enjoyed." So relaxed has become the bond of our Union, that one hundred gentlemen of property and standing in New York have, under the style and t.i.tle of "The New York Union Committee of Safety," a.s.sumed the onerous task of taking it into their safe-keeping. "Committees of safety" are a.s.sociated with times of peril and anarchy, and are never wanted when alarms have ceased, angry discussions ended, the Const.i.tution fortified, and the bond of union strengthened.

In this universal panic, in this dread entertained, especially in Boston, by Mr. Webster's friends, of soon seeing the mighty fabric of our government trembling over their heads, it may, Sir, be consolatory to you and others to know how so dire a calamity may be averted. The chivalric Senator from Mississippi--the gentleman who threatens to hang one Senator if he dare place his foot on the soil of Mississippi, who draws a loaded pistol on another, and for a third bears a challenge to mortal combat--was lately in the city of New York. The Committee of Safety found him out, and lauded him for his fearless discharge of duty, and his fervor and devotion to the Union, and welcomed him to the commercial emporium in the name of all who appreciate the blessings we enjoy, and are willing to transmit them to their children. The worthy and conciliatory gentleman very appropriately communicated to the committee having the Union in charge the conditions on which alone it could be saved, notwithstanding its bond had so recently been strengthened. These conditions are, we learn, four in number.

1. "The Fugitive Slave Bill pa.s.sed by Congress shall remain the law of the land, and be faithfully executed."

Both you and Mr. Webster admit that the Const.i.tution permits a jury trial to the fugitive. Should Congress, in its wisdom, and in obedience to the wishes of the great ma.s.s of the Northern population, and in the exercise of its const.i.tutional power, elevate property in a human being to the same level with that in a horse, and permit a jury to pa.s.s upon the t.i.tle to it,--_the Union must be dissolved_.

2. "The Wilmot Proviso, that monstrous thing, shall not be revived." It was not courteous, certainly, in Mr. Foote thus to characterize Mr.

Webster's thunder. The claim to this thunder was made in his speech, September, 1847, at the Springfield Convention, which nominated him for President; and the Convention, in his presence, thus declared their devotion to his missile. "The Whigs of Ma.s.sachusetts now declare, and put this declaration of their purpose _on record_, that Ma.s.sachusetts will never consent that Mexican territories, however acquired, shall become a part of the American Union, unless on the _unalterable_ condition that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in punishment for crime." The next year Mr. Webster launched his thunder over the Territory of Oregon, and thus in his speech (10th August, 1848) vindicated it from the character now given to it by Mr. Foote:--

"Gentlemen from the South declare that we invade their rights when we deprive them of a partic.i.p.ation in the enjoyment of territories acquired by the common services and common exertions of all. Is this true? Of what do we deprive them? Why, they say that we deprive them of the privilege of carrying their slaves as slaves into the new territories.

Well, Sir, what is the amount of that? They say, that in this way we deprive them of going into this acquired territory with their property.

Their property! What do they mean by this 'property'? We certainly do not deprive them of the privilege of going into those newly acquired territories with all that, in the general estimate of human society and common and universal understanding of mankind, is esteemed property. Not at all. The truth is just this. They have in their own States peculiar laws which create property in persons.... The real meaning, then, of Southern gentlemen, in making this complaint, is, that they cannot go into the territories of the United States carrying with them their own peculiar law, a law which creates property in persons."

So the Wilmot Proviso was no monstrous thing at all, as applied to Oregon. When the question came up of applying this same Proviso to New Mexico and California, Mr. Webster discovered in these Territories a certain peculiarity of physical geography and Asiatic scenery which he had not discovered in Oregon, and which, he found, rendered it a physical impossibility for Southern gentlemen to carry there "a law which creates property in persons," and he therefore gave them full liberty to carry their law into those vast regions, if they could. But at the very moment of giving this liberty to Southern gentlemen, he courageously warned them that his thunder was good const.i.tutional thunder, and would be used whenever necessary. "Wherever there is an _inch of land_ to be stayed back from becoming slave territory, I am ready to insert the principle of the exclusion of slavery. I am pledged to that from 1837,--pledged to it again and again, and I will perform those pledges." So, should we get another slice of Mexico, or annex Cuba or St. Domingo, Mr. Webster would revive the Wilmot Proviso, and then _he_ will be the means, if he succeeds, of dissolving the Union!

3. The next condition announced to the Safety Committee is,--"No attempt shall be made in Congress to prohibit slavery in the District of Columbia."

Now it is the opinion of Mr. Webster, that Congress has the const.i.tutional right, not merely to attempt, but actually to effect, the exclusion of slavery in _all_ the Territories of the United States. The District of Columbia being placed by the Const.i.tution expressly under "the exclusive jurisdiction" of Congress, the _const.i.tutional_ right to abolish slavery there has rarely been questioned; but it has been contended that good faith to the States which ceded the District forbids such an act of const.i.tutional power. Hence, in 1838, a resolution was introduced into the Senate declaring that the abolition of slavery in the District would be "a violation of good faith," &c. What said Mr.

Webster? "I do not know any matter of fact, or any ground of argument, on which this affirmation of plighted faith can stand. I see nothing in the act of cession, and nothing in the Const.i.tution, and nothing in the transaction, implying any limitation on the authority of Congress."[5]

[5] On the 10th of January, 1838, Mr. Clay moved in the Senate the following resolution, viz.:--"Resolved, that the interference by the citizens of any of the States with a view to the abolition of slavery in this District, is endangering the rights and security of the people of this District; and that any act or measure of Congress designed to abolish slavery in this District would be a violation of the faith implied in the cession by the States of Virginia and Maryland, a just cause of alarm to the people of the slaveholding States, and have a direct and inevitable tendency to disturb and endanger the Union."--Pa.s.sed, 38 to 8, Mr. Webster voting in the negative. _Senate Journal_, _2 Sess. 25 Cong._, p. 127.

4. The last condition on which the Union can be preserved is,--"No State shall be prevented from coming into the Union on the ground of having slavery." This is an unkind cut at Mr. Webster, since he has again and again pledged himself against the admission of slave States. Even so early as 1819, he advocated, in a public meeting at Boston, a resolution declaring that Congress "possessed the const.i.tutional power, upon the admission of any new State created beyond the limits of the original territory of the United States, to make the prohibition of the further extension of slavery or involuntary servitude in such new State a condition of admission. That, in the opinion of this meeting, it is just and expedient that this power should be exercised by Congress upon the admission of all new States created beyond the original limits of the United States." In his New York speech, in 1837, he averred, "When it is proposed to bring new members into the political partners.h.i.+p, the old members have a right to say on what terms such new partners are to come in, and _what they are to bring along with them_." In his Springfield speech, he insisted, "There is no one [he forgot Mr. Foote and his other Southern friends] who can complain of the North for resisting the increase of _slave representation_, because it gives power to the minority in a manner inconsistent with the principles of our government." So late as 1848, he proclaimed on the floor of the Senate, "I shall oppose all such extension [slave representation] at all times and under all circ.u.mstances, even against all inducements, against all combinations, against all compromises."

The State of Georgia, in her convention of December last, added a _fifth_ condition to those stated by Mr. Foote as indispensable to the preservation of the Union, viz.:--"No act suppressing the slave-trade between the slaveholding States." Unfortunately for Mr. Webster, he is here, for the fifth time, virtually held up as a disorganizer, and an enemy of the Union; for in his speech in the Senate (6th February, 1837) he remarked,--"As to the point, the right of regulating the transfer of slaves from one State to another, he did not know that he entertained any doubt, because the Const.i.tution gave Congress the right to regulate trade and commerce between the States. Trade in what? In whatever was the subject of commerce and owners.h.i.+p. If slaves were the subjects of owners.h.i.+p, then trade in them between the States was subject to the regulation of Congress."

Mr. Webster declared, that the work of the two days in which he rejoiced had fortified the Const.i.tution, and strengthened the bond of the Union; and yet we are now solemnly warned, by the very men and party with whom he is acting, that the bond is to be severed, should Congress pa.s.s any one of five laws, all and each of which he, the great expounder, declares the Const.i.tution authorizes Congress to pa.s.s. So it seems the great peril to which we are exposed, the course which is to make the fabric of our government to tremble over the heads of the people of Boston, is, not the violation of the Const.i.tution, nor the breach of its compromises, nor the invasion of the rights of the South, but the exercise by Congress of powers which Mr. Webster declares to be undoubtedly const.i.tutional. The Abolitionists supposed they were following a safe guide when they confined themselves, in their pet.i.tions to Congress for legislative action against slavery, exclusively to such measures as they were a.s.sured, by the eminent expounder, were strictly const.i.tutional. The Abolitionists have sympathized with this gentleman in the obloquy he incurred, in common with themselves, for holding opinions unpalatable to the slaveholders, and for maintaining the const.i.tutional rights of Congress. Because he insisted, in the Senate, on the power of Congress over slavery and the slave-trade in the District of Columbia, Mr. Rives, of Virginia, was so unkind as to say, that the gentleman from Ma.s.sachusetts, "if it so pleased his fancy, might disport himself in tossing squibs and firebrands about this hall; but those who are sitting upon a barrel of gunpowder, liable to be blown up by his dangerous missiles, could hardly be expected to be quite as calm and philosophic." Because he presented antislavery pet.i.tions, and insisted on the duty of Congress to consider them, Mr. King, of Alabama, affirmed that the course which the Senator from Ma.s.sachusetts had taken had "placed him at the head of those men who are inundating Congress with their pet.i.tions." Strange as it may now seem, Mr. Cuthbert, of Georgia, told Mr. Webster to his face in the Senate, "The gentleman had uniformly been opposed to all those measures which tended to quiet the country and heal those sectional dissensions which distract the Union."[6] Surely, when the Abolitionists have so long made Mr. Webster their polar star in all const.i.tutional questions, and have incurred with him the accusation of tossing squibs and firebrands, and of opposing measures which tended to quiet the country and settle sectional dissensions, they had a right to expect from his friends a larger share of compa.s.sion and forbearance than they have experienced.

[6] Speech, June 8, 1836.

It would seem, Sir, that, in the late treaty of peace between the North and the South, it has been agreed and understood, that every power granted by the Const.i.tution, whereby slavery can be protected, extended, and perpetuated, is to be actively enforced; and that every power which might be used for curtailing human bondage, however unquestionable may be its grant, shall for ever remain dormant, under the penalty of an immediate dissolution of the Union. This, Sir, is the treaty which our commercial cities are glorifying; this is the treaty which has turned our "winter of discontent" into "glorious summer." And think you, Sir, that the slaveholders, having eyes, see not, and having understandings, perceive not, the haberdashery patriotism which rejoices in such a treaty, and denounces as "fanatics," "vipers," and "woolly-headed philanthropists," all who do not confess it to be a glorious consummation? The Southern papers tell us that our Union meetings are got up to "sell a little more tape and flannel"; and they remark, "It is very queer that Union meetings are held only in places which trade with the South." Out of regard to their Southern brethren, a member of the British House of Commons was insulted in Faneuil Hall by a portion of the Boston people, and forthwith the _New Orleans Delta_, instead of gratefully acknowledging the compliment, remarks, that their "good Union-loving friends in Boston are now solacing the South with sugar-plums in the shape of resolutions and speeches, and spice in the form of a row, got up on the occasion of the first appearance of George Thompson, an imported incendiary and hireling agitator. Such manifestation possesses an advantage which doubtless const.i.tutes no small recommendation with our good brethren of Boston,--it is very cheap. The _cottoncratical_ clerks and warehous.e.m.e.n may raise a hubbub in Faneuil Hall, but the fanatics can slay them at the _polls_."

It is some consolation to those who are now suffering all the contempt and opprobrium which can be thrown both upon their heads and their hearts, because they have refused to follow Mr. Webster in the devious paths in which it has lately been his pleasure to walk, that they have by their constancy and firmness extorted from their Southern antagonists a tribute which is not paid to their revilers. Said Mr. Stanley, of Virginia, in his speech in the House of Representatives last March, speaking of a certain cla.s.s of Northern politicians,--"I would say, with a slight alteration of one of Canning's verses,--

'Give me the avowed, erect, and manly foe, Open I can meet, perhaps may turn, his blow; But of all the plagues, great Heaven, thy wrath can send, Save, O, save me from a _dough-face friend_!'"

In closing this long letter, permit me to advert to the opinion expressed abroad of your Fugitive Law. Mr. Webster thought it convenient to quote the sentiment of a nameless correspondent, as to the mischievous mixture of religion with politics. Possibly the opinion of Dr. Lus.h.i.+ngton, one of the Lords of the Privy Council, Judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court, and the negotiator, on the part of Great Britain, of a recent treaty with France, may be ent.i.tled to at least equal weight. This gentleman, in a private letter to an English friend, and not intended for publication, thus speaks of your law:--"No one can feel more sincerely than myself, abhorrence of the Fugitive Slave Bill,--a measure as cruel and unchristian as ever disgraced any country." An Irish liberal, writing from Dublin, says,--"I long looked to your country as the ark of the world's liberties. I confess I hope for this no longer. The Fugitive Slave Bill is a shocking sample of the depravity of public sentiment in the United States. So atrocious a measure could not have pa.s.sed into a law, if the majority of the people had not actively a.s.sented, or pa.s.sively consented. Here, by the preponderating influence of our aristocracy, a small, but compact body, measures are often carried into laws that are very distasteful to mult.i.tudes; but such a mean, vile law as the Fugitive Slave Bill could not pa.s.s in England."

The English press, Whig, Tory, and Radical, is indignant at the atrocities of your law. The taunt of our slaveholders, that the English had better reform abuses at home, is thus met by a radical journal (_The People_):--"The Americans laugh at us when we speak of American slavery, so long as so many of our fellow-subjects in England and Ireland are peris.h.i.+ng from starvation through monarchical and aristocratical tyranny. We answer, that the Americans _know_ that the men and women who lift up their voices against American slavery are the enemies of British tyranny and oppression."

Your law, Sir, degrades the national character abroad; its excessive servility to Southern dictation excites the contempt of the slaveholders for the easy, selfish virtue of their Northern auxiliaries, while its outrages upon religion, justice, humanity, and the dearest principles of personal freedom, under pretence of preserving the Union, weaken the attachment of conscientious men for a confederacy which requires such horrible sacrifices for its continuance. All these evils might have been easily avoided by a law satisfying every requirement of the Const.i.tution, and yet treating the alleged fugitive as a MAN, and granting him the same protection as is accorded to an alleged murderer.

G.o.d gave you, Sir, an opportunity for which you ought to have been grateful, of ill.u.s.trating your Puritan descent by standing forth before the nation as an advocate of justice and freedom, and of the rights of the poor and oppressed. Through a blind devotion to a political leader, you rejected the palm which Providence tendered to your acceptance, and have indelibly a.s.sociated your name with cruelty and injustice. Had you retired from the notice of the public, as you did from the suffrages of the electors, you had acted wisely. In an evil hour for yourself, you stood forth as the champion of the Fugitive Slave Law. Its enemies rejoice in your rashness, for your feeble apology has rendered its deformities more prominent, and, by failing to vindicate, you have virtually confessed its abominations. May you live, Sir, to deplore the grievous error you have committed, and, by your future efforts in behalf of human freedom and happiness, atone for the wound they have received at your hands.

HANc.o.c.k.

February, 1851.