USA > New York > History of the state of New York, political and governmental, Vol. VI > Part 9
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44
"14. Resolved, That the free grant to actual settlers, in con- sideration of the expenses they incur in making settlements in the wilderness, which are usually fully equal to their actual cost, and of the public benefits resulting therefrom, of reasonable portions of the public lands under suitable limitations, is a wise and just measure of public policy which will promote, in various ways, the interest of all the States of the Union; and we therefore recommend it to the favorable consideration of the American people.
"15. Resolved, That the obligations of honor and patriotism require the earliest practical payment of the national debt, and we are therefore in favor of such a tariff of duties as will raise revenue adequate to defray the expenses of the Federal government and to pay annual installments of our debt and the interest thereon.
"16. Resolved, That we inscribe on our banner Free Soil, Free Speech, Free Labor, and Free Men, and under it we will fight on, and fight ever, until a triumphant victory shall reward our exer- tions."
The Election
Again the slavery issue decided the result. This time the Democratic party was the sufferer. In New York, which had been normally Democratic, the popu- lar vote stood: Taylor (Whig), 218,603; Cass (Democrat), 114,318; Van Buren (Free Soil), 120,- 510. If New York had gone for Cass he would have been elected. The Free Soil party proved a consider-
118
[1848
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
able factor in several other northern States. On this occasion the "Free Democrats" took the national ques- tion of slavery more seriously than the anti-slavery Whigs; the Wilmot Proviso was still much in people's minds, and it was a Democratic measure. Many Democrats went to the extremity of voting the Whig ticket; the usually Democratic State of Pennsylvania gave Taylor a clear majority over both Cass and Van Buren. On the other hand, the Whig opponents of slavery found it very difficult, upon reflection, to sup- port Van Buren, who had long been one of the great leaders of the Democratic party; and at the last moment they largely preferred to sustain their own national ticket.
But the most striking feature of the general result was Taylor's strength in the south. He was success- ful in eight slave States which together cast 66 Elec- toral votes; Cass carried seven slave States, with 55 Electoral votes.
For President and Vice-President, Electoral vote :
Zachary Taylor and Millard Fillmore, Whigs :- Connecticut, 6; Delaware, 3; Florida, 3; Georgia, 10; Kentucky, 12; Louisiana, 6; Maryland, 8; Massachusetts, 12; New Jersey, 7; New York, 36; North Carolina, 11; Pennsylvania, 26; Rhode Island, 4; Tennessee, 13; Vermont, 6. Total, 163. Elected.
Lewis Cass and William O. Butler, Democrats :- Alabama, 9; Arkansas, 3; Illinois, 9; Indiana, 12; Iowa, 4; Maine, 9; Michi- gan, 5; Mississippi, 6; Missouri, 7; New Hampshire, 6; Ohio, 23; South Carolina, 9; Texas, 4; Virginia, 17; Wisconsin, 4. Total, 127.
Popular vote :
Taylor, 1,360,101; Cass, 1,220,544; Van Buren, 291,263.
1852
As we have seen, during Polk's administration the only positive results concerning slavery were the ad- mission of Texas as a slave State (1845) and the crea- tion of Oregon as a free Territory (1848). The "equiponderance" of the north and south was in 1849 perfect, each section having fifteen States.1 For the future, anti-slavery was still understood to have an impregnable title to all the territory north of 36° 30' agreeably to the Missouri Compromise of 1820; but slavery was as yet without any assured footing west of Texas, Arkansas, and Missouri. The diverse meas- ures of slavery extension presented and discussed in Congress up to the early summer of 1848, although conceived in the greatest seriousness, were only tenta- tive actually because of the protraction of the official state of war with Mexico. On July 4, 1848, the peace treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was proclaimed to the country by President Polk; but, aside from the passage of the Oregon bill and the ineffectual attempt to enact the Clayton Compromise (referred to in the Free Soil platform of 1848), no new move of any consequence was made until the opening, in December, 1849, of the first regular session of Congress under the new admin- istration.
1The border States of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri were in those times always classed with the south on account of their permission of slavery.
119
120
[1849
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
California, after the discovery of gold in 1848, in- creased in population so rapidly as to be qualified for admission to the Union as a State in the following year. Its inhabitants held a Constitutional conven- tion which completed its work on the 13th of October, 1849, by the adoption of a State Constitution contain- ing an absolute prohibition of slavery-this prohibi- tion, moreover, having been incorporated in the in- strument by a unanimous vote of the convention. At an election soon afterward the people of California ratified the free Constitution by a vote of 12,066 to 811.
This action of California, so independent in its nature and decisive on the question of principle at stake, took the country by surprise and precipitated the first formal contest on the new and final slavery issues that grew out of the Mexican War. It gave wonderful encouragement to the north, incensed the south, and intensified the feelings of both sections as to the matters that they respectively held to be funda- mental. The southern leaders regarded California's course as an unwarranted assumption to prejudge her own rights in advance of the indispensable national proceedings to settle the constitutional and political questions affecting slavery expansion-an unceremo- nious attempt to thrust herself into the Union as a full- fledged State at a time of acute sectional competition. It was insisted that the case of Texas was in no sense similar-as Texas had joined the Union in the capacity of an independent country and therefore was entitled to exceptional advantages; whereas California was
ANDREW JACKSON
Andrew Jackson, 7th president; born in Union County, N. C., March 15, 1767; lawyer; solicitor for western district South Carolina (now state of Tennessee), 1788; delegate to conven- tion to frame constitution for new state of Tennessee, 1796; member of congress, December, 1796 to March, 1797; United States senator, 1797-98; judge Tennessee supreme court, 1798- 1804; served in war of 1812; led expedition which captured Florida in 1817; United States senator, March 4, 1823 to October 14, 1825; defeated as candidate for president, 1824; elected, 1828; served March 4, 1829 to March 3, 1837; died, Nashville, Tenn., June 8, 1845.
121
1849]
NATIONAL PARTY PLATFORMS
only an ordinary part of the general unorganized national domain. Stress was also laid by the south upon the fact that concession to California of the right of statehood without slavery would disturb the equi- pose of the sections, as there was at the time no part of the inchoate national possessions that was capable, on the essential basis of population, of being erected into a State with slavery.
It was hoped by the southerners that President Taylor would take their view of the merits of the Cali- fornia matter and refrain from recommending admis- sion. But the President felt that such a course, so palpably partisan on behalf of slavery, would be incom- patible with his sworn duty to the whole country and also unjust to the people of California. In his mes- sage of December, 1849, he therefore informed Con- gress of his expectation that California would soon apply for admission as a State, and advised favorable action in the event that the State Constitution adopted should be found "conformable to the requisitions of the Constitution of the United States." In addition, he remarked that it was believed New Mexico would at no very distant period request admission. Without directly mentioning slavery as a subject pertinent to the case of either California or New Mexico, he said :
"Preparatory to the admission of California and New Mexico, the people of each will have instituted for themselves a republican form of government, laying its foundation in such principles and organizing its power in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. By awaiting their action all uneasi- ness may be avoided and confidence and kind feeling preserved. With a view of maintaining the harmony and tranquillity so dear to
122
[1850
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
all, we should abstain from the introduction of those topics of a sectional character which have hitherto produced painful apprehen- sions in the public mind; and I repeat the solemn warning of the first and most illustrious of my predecessors against furnishing any ground for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations."
While this was neither anti-slavery nor pro-slavery doctrine, it put both the opponents and advocates of slavery on their mettle to seek substantive results with- out further delay. The outstanding facts were that the President would sign a bill to admit California as a free State; that, inferentially, for the sake of national harmony he would not refuse the south compensating advantages ; but that he would not be likely to approve any embracing program for the exclusive interest of one side or the other. It was hence not the time for either the north or south to attempt to realize the full measure of its desires; but the conditions were pro- pitious for bringing forward specific proposals of "give and take." Thus was established the situation from which the great Compromise measures of 1850 were evolved.
Clay, who was again in the Senate, was by common consent made the leader of the Compromise forces. He sincerely and ardently believed that only conces- sions by both sides could accomplish a solution of the country's troubles; that, in the nature of the case, the concessions would have to be conclusive as to certain practical details; and that, if mutually accepted, they would operate for an ultimate concord of feeling as to underlying questions so far as practical-minded men and true lovers of the Union were concerned. After
123
NATIONAL PARTY PLATFORMS
1850]
preliminary consideration of a tentative measure drawn by Clay, and of various amendments to it, the Senate appointed (April, 1850) a select committee of thirteen, with Clay as chairman, which, in the follow- ing month, reported the historic "Omnibus bill." Its provisions, in brief, were as follows :
Admission forthwith of California as a free State without reduction of its boundaries; division of the remainder of the Mexican cession into two Territories, New Mexico and Utah, both of which were to be entitled ultimately to admission to the Union without insistence by Congress for or against slavery; reduc- tion of the boundaries of Texas so as to add a large portion of its area to New Mexico, for which a money indemnity (later fixed at $10,000,000) was to be paid by the United States to Texas; a more effective na- tional Fugitive Slave law; prohibition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, but no interference with the existing status of slavery in the District.
Attempts to pass the bill as a whole proved unsuc- cessful. Its provisions were then considered sepa- rately, and eventually both houses adopted them with- out change. During the debate President Taylor died (July 9, 1850). The Vice-President, Mr. Fillmore, had been in agreement with the spirit of the Compro- mises, and as President he signed all the bills.
Respecting the vital issue between the north and south, that of territory-control, the conclusion reached gave the advantage to the north in present substance, but not in principle. California throughout its whole extent was admitted as a free State; but the Wilmot
124
[1850
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Proviso-so aptly paraphrased in the Free Soil plat- form by the words, "No more slave States and no more slave territory"-was totally abandoned. The new Territories of Utah and New Mexico (which, on account of their size, were likely to undergo subdivi- sion ultimately) were thrown open to slavery. True, no apprehension was felt on this point; it was indeed ridiculous even to think of the possibility of an early application for statehood by either Utah or New Mexico that could for a moment be considered. But the deliberate recession by the north from the principle of the Wilmot Proviso was an exceedingly serious matter. It smoothed the way for the subsequent claim and concession of equal rights for slavery in all new Territories without exception ; it led to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise; and by committing the government to a recognition of the legitimacy of slav- ery extension it made quite unnecessary for the future any timidity on that subject in national political con- ventions.
These things were of course not to be foreseen in 1850 by the anti-slavery Senators and Representatives, intent as they were on winning the fight for a free California. Yet the attitude of the southern leaders in the debate left no possible doubt of their unalterable feeling about the principle of slavery extension. A great speech was made by Calhoun (or rather, read for him-he was too feeble to address the Senate, and died a few days after), in which he dealt with the foundation matter of southern right solely, from his well-known constitutional point of view. Jefferson
125
NATIONAL PARTY PLATFORMS
1850]
Davis, then a Senator from Mississippi, said: "Never will I take less than the Missouri Compromise line extended to the Pacific Ocean, with the specific recog- nition of the right to hold slaves in the territory below that line; and that, before such Territories are ad- mitted into the Union as States, slaves may be taken there from any of the United States at the option of their owners." A strong effort was made by the ultra southerners to force a division of California into two States, north and south, so as to permit slave territory to stretch to the Pacific. When this failed they ceased to attach any value to the Missouri line for pro-slavery purposes. In fact, the old accepted principle of geo- graphical delimitation for slavery on the basis of the Missouri Compromise was wholly destroyed by the act of 1850, which tacitly sanctioned the institution throughout the new Territories and consequently in an extensive portion of the country far to the north of the parallel 36° 30'.
The remaining Compromise acts, with the excep- tion of the one establishing a more effective Fugitive Slave law, were rather inconsequential so far as the general question of slavery was concerned. Regard- ing Texas, the arrangement for a diminution of her territory in return for payment of a large sum of money by the United States, was mainly an accommodating financial transaction, in the interest of Texas and at the instance of the south. The provision for putting an end to the slave trade in the District of Columbia was merely a sop to northern sentiment.
Some pro-slavery measures offered during the Com-
126
[1850
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
promise proceedings were dropped, among these being an affirmation of the inability of Congress to prohibit or obstruct the trade in slaves between the slavehold- ing States. The south wished to have this principle expressly stated and confirmed; but as none of the Compromises interfered with slavery as an established institution, and as it was felt to be of supreme impor- tance in no way to prejudice the interests of the Fugi- tive Slave and New Mexico-Utah bills by other ag- gressive demands, the proposition was not pressed.
To secure the admission of California and the abo- lition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, the north surrendered the Wilmot Proviso and accepted the Fugitive Slave law. The latter measure had been earnestly desired by the south. Technically, no one could successfully dispute the justification of the southern demand for it, which rested on the follow- ing provision of the Federal Constitution (Article IV, Section 2) :
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
Agreeably to this stipulation Congress in 1793 passed a law for the rendition of fugitive slaves, which President Washington signed ; but owing to the weak- ness of its provisions it was of little practical value to the south. The greatest aversion was felt at the north to all proceedings for reclaiming escaped slaves, and the pursuing southern owners had to contend against
127
NATIONAL PARTY PLATFORMS
1850]
formidable difficulties, to which not infrequently were added heavy expenses and varied experiences of per- sonal mortification. It was idle to hope for any vol- untary change in northern conduct respecting the relative rights and claims of the runaway negroes and their masters; and unless the latter were prepared philosophically to reconcile themselves to all the conse- quent losses there was only one remedy-coercion of the northern people by a drastic new law on the sub- ject.
The resulting act was probably as extreme a meas- ure, alike for the scope of its enforcement arrange- ments, the particularity of its mandatory directions, and the severity of its penalties for violations, dis- obediences, and even accidental failures to carry out its commands, as ever has been devised in the history of special legislation for purposes of class interest. All the machinery of the United States government was placed at the disposal of the slave proprietors, every citizen was under obligation to assist, and no fugitive had any right whatever.
Jurisdiction concerning slave cases was given to the Federal courts, and, concurrently, to such United States Commissioners as the Circuit Courts in the States or the Superior Courts in the Territories should appoint; the Commissioners were to act at all times, whether in term or during vacation of the courts; they had unlimited power to appoint persons to serve war- rants on fugitives and arrest them; and all "bystand- ers" (designated as the "posse comitatus") were ordered to aid in executing the law. United States
128
[1850
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Marshals and their deputies were directed to execute warrants, etc., for the arrest and detention of fugitives, under penalty of $1,000 for use of the "claimant"' (i. e., slaveowner) in any case of non-compliance; and in the event of the escape of a fugitive from the Marshal's custody, with or without the latter's knowledge and connivance, the Marshal was liable for the full value of the fugitive. Any owner or his attorney was au- thorized to seize the fugitive with or without warrant or process and take him before a Judge or Commis- sioner, who was to determine the case in a summary manner, and, upon proper deposition or affidavit being made, issue a certificate to the claimant; this certificate to be conclusive and to prevent all molesta- tion of the claimant by means of any later court pro- cess, so that the fugitive could forthwith be taken back to the State from which he had fled; and the testimony of the fugitive was in no case to be admitted. Any person hindering an arrest, attempting a rescue, assist- ing in an 'escape directly or indirectly, or harboring or concealing a fugitive after having knowledge of the fact of his being a fugitive, was subject to a fine of $1,000 and imprisonment for six months, and also could be sued, on an action for debt, to the amount of $1,000 as damages for each fugitive lost. If the claimant "apprehended" a rescue after delivery of the fugitive to him, the officer who effected the arrest was required to take the slave back to the place of escape and was empowered to employ as many assistants as necessary for the successful performance of that duty -all the expenses thus incurred, including the cost of
129
NATIONAL PARTY PLATFORMS
1850]
transportation, to be paid out of the United States treasury as in the cases of criminals. To save the owner travel expense for the purposes of identification and action, an affidavit and general description made in his own State were to be valid for a reclamation in any other. There was also a provision for fees in con- nection with original processes of service and arrest, which, it was charged by the opponents of the law, were intended to stimulate diligence.
The debate on this measure, as on the other. Compro- mise bills, was long and searching; and the action of all concerned in the two branches of Congress was therefore of the most deliberate character on both the grounds of opinion and policy. In the Senate the Democrats had a substantial majority, but the House was almost evenly divided. It would be wrong to characterize the Fugitive Slave bill as either a Demo- cratic or Whig party measure. It was purely a south- ern slaveholders' measure. But the ultimate responsi- bility was assigned by the anti-slavery people to the Whig party as the one in power. All the great con- servative Whig influences were for it. Webster, as a member of the Senate during its early pendency, approved its principle (though with some objections as to details), declared that the south was entitled to it, and predicted that the north would on due consid- eration fulfill with "great alacrity" the constitutional obligation involved; and, at the time of its passage, having become Secretary of State, he, with all the other members of the cabinet, concurred in the Presi- dent's decision to sign it. The Senate passed the bill
130
POLITICAL AND GOVERNMENTAL HISTORY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
[1850
by 27 yeas to 12 nays, with 21 not voting; the House by 109 yeas to 75 nays-not voting, 48. It was ap- proved by President Fillmore on September 18, 1850.
The Fugitive Slave law has been called "the death knell of the Whig party." It proved also one of the most potent factors toward hastening disintegration of the whole conservative political sentiment of the north on the basic question of slavery. The very fact of the law's absolute technical invulnerability from the constitutional point of view was regarded as the one overwhelming reason why the south should not have insisted on it if there had been any disposition on her part to facilitate a more moderate northern feel- ing about the slave system in general. All history has shown that it is precisely the things that are most technically correct and imprescriptible according to venerable statute and precedent, that become least justifiable and expedient with changed times and con- ditions. The north was coerced, and every northerner who gave the matter the least attention realized that the coercion was directly personal to himself. But it was not in the power of the south to extend the coercion to thought on the subject of slavery, or to action con- cerning its remaining political issues. The day of Clay and Webster was closing, and a new generation of leaders, like Salmon P. Chase, of Ohio, and Wil- liam H. Seward, of New York, was already on the scene. It was not toward compromises or the equilib- rium of the sections that these men were impelled by the record so far made on slavery questions, but toward positive results for freedom.
131
NATIONAL PARTY PLATFORMS
1852]
With the enactment of the Compromise bills, the preparations for the campaign of 1852 were practi- cally concluded. Although the Fugitive Slave law excited intense feeling, the Compromise legislation as a whole was generally accepted throughout the coun- try. Conservative influences everywhere were exer- cised toward discouraging further political differences about slavery; and for more than three years no new issue on the subject arose in Congress.
Democratic Party
National convention held in Baltimore, June 1-5, 1852; chairman, John W. Davis, of Indiana. The two-thirds rule was again adopted, a large majority being in its favor.
There was a very spirited, but not bitter, contest for the Presidential nomination. The principal candi- dates on the first ballot were Lewis Cass, of Michigan, 116 votes; James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, 93; Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, 20; and William L. Marcy, of New York, 27. During the struggle each of these four candidates at some stage had the lead, but not sufficiently to secure even a majority. On the thirty-fifth ballot the name of Franklin Pierce, of New Hampshire, for the first time appeared among those voted for, 15 votes being cast for him. He was nomi- nated almost unanimously on the forty-ninth ballot.
William R. King, of Alabama, was nominated for Vice-President by a unanimous vote on the second ballot.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.