1

The beginning of the thirty-first Congress, in December, 1849, was marked by a prolonged and fierce contest in the House over the speakership. The difficulty of making a choice lay in the fact that the thirteen Free-Soilers holding the balance of power were unwilling to allow the election of either the Democratic candidate, Cobb of Georgia, or the Whig candidate, Winthrop of Massachusetts. At one time W. J. Brown, a Democrat from Indiana, was about to be elected; but that prospect was dissipated by the revelation of the fact that he had made terms with the Free-Soilers. In the course of the struggle Toombs of Georgia declared: "I do not... hesitate to avow before this House and the country, and in the presence of the living God, that if by your legislation you seek to drive us from the territories of California and New Mexico, purchased by the common blood and treasure of the whole people, and to abolish slavery in this District, thereby attempting to fix a national degradation upon half the States of this Confederacy, I am for disunion." 2 To which Baker of Illinois replied: "In the name of the men of the North so rudely attacked, and speaking what I know to be their sentiments, I say a dissolution of this Union is, must be, shall be, impossible, as long as an American heart beats in an American bosom, or the Almighty sends His wisdom and His goodness to guide and to bless us."*

1 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 19-24.
2 Ibid., 28.

3 Ibid., 29.

The chamber rang with applause for both. Like speeches were made by others, and it was evident that the outlook was becoming dangerous. At the end of three weeks spent in balloting, after a scene of the wildest disorder, Cobb was finally elected by a plurality vote, December 22, 1849.

While, however, the contest over the speakership was at last decided, the issue relative to slavery was not. Some action by Congress in regard to the organization of California and New Mexico was urgently demanded; but every approach to the subject now stirred up the fiercest sectional antagonism, and conservative men and lovers of the Union throughout the country were becoming deeply alarmed. So far as the territorial question was concerned, the issue was both simplified and concentrated by the action of California; for the state constitution fixed the boundaries of the new commonwealth as stretching along the Pacific coast from Oregon to Mexico, and hence there was no longer opportunity for extending the Missouri Compromise line. If California were admitted as a state, the only things left to contest were the extent of New Mexico, as against the claims of Texas, and the status of New Mexico (which included Utah) with regard to slavery. If New Mexico were really free, it was desirable for the South to push the boundaries of Texas westward; if New Mexico were not free, then the organization act ought to show that fact. The Mormons who had gone out to the Salt

Lake region in 1846 had no interest in slavery, and they, therefore, presented another complication.

The crisis brought to the front the veteran political leader Clay, again in the Senate, for the last great effort of his strenuous life. A resolution looking to the organization of that part of the Mexican cession east of the Sierra Nevada as a territory with slavery excluded had already been introduced in the House; and senators had introduced separate bills for the more effectual execution of the constitutional provision concerning fugitive slaves, for the formation of the whole Mexican cession into three territories, and for the reduction of the limits of Texas with her own consent," when Clay, January 29,1850, introduced in the Senate a series of eight resolutions looking towards the compromise that alone could make the much-needed legislation possible.

These resolutions provided that California should be admitted as a state and the remainder of the Mexican cession should be organized into territories without restriction as to slavery. The Texas debt contracted previous to annexation, up to an amount to be fixed by Congress, was to be paid by the United States since Texas had surrendered its revenue from customs-but the condition was annexed that the territorial claims of the state on New Mexico should be given up. Slavery in the District of Columbia and the interstate slave-trade were not to be interfered with, but the importation of slaves 1 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 91. 2 Ibid., 165-171.

into the district for sale should be prohibited. Finally, more effectual provision was to be made for the return of fugitive slaves.1

The debate on the resolutions was memorable. It was the last meeting in forensic struggle of the three intellectual giants, Clay, Calhoun, and Webster, who had entered Congress practically together nearly forty years before. It was also the first appearance in the Senate of two young men who were destined to become notable figures in subsequent years-Chase and Seward. Clay and Webster exhausted their surpassing eloquence on behalf of the compromise, while Calhoun gathered his failing energies for one desperate struggle against it, in which, from widely different motives to his own, he was joined by Chase and Seward. Each spoke for a large following; and in their arguments and appeals were well summed up the thought and feeling of the various sections of the Union. The de-nationalizing influence of slavery, if not fully portrayed, was at least abundantly and strikingly illustrated. The dissatisfaction of the North with the Federal ratio, and of the South with the share which it had obtained by compromises already made in the territory, added by annexations to the United States, were strongly expressed; and the determination prevailing among those who opposed slavery on moral grounds to disregard as far as possible, the laws by which it was supported was boldly avowed. 1Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 246.

VOL. XVII.-21

แ

Clay's speech in support of his resolutions was made February 5 and 6, 1850. He was seventythree years of age and in feeble health; but he now faced the Senate once more, after an absence of eight years,' with the prestige of long-acknowledged political leadership and the confidence of one who had been looked to for advice and had been trustfully followed by the rank and file of his party in many a similar crisis. Beginning with a few words relative to the importance of the occasion, he went on to say that Congress and the state legislatures were twenty-odd furnaces in full blast in generating heat, and passion, and intemperance, and diffusing them throughout the whole extent of this broad land"; and expressed his anxiety to restore "concord, harmony, and peace." If Congress sought to overthrow slavery in the state, his voice would be for war, and the slave states would have the good wishes of all who loved justice and truth; but no sympathy would be extended them in a war "to propagate wrongs" in the territory acquired from Mexico. Appealing to the men of the North, he cried: "What do you want?-What do you want? -you who reside in the free States. Do you want that there shall be no slavery introduced into the territories acquired by the war with Mexico? Have you not your desire in California? And in all human probability you will have it in New Mexico also. What more do you want? You have got what is 1 See p. 66, above.