Record Data
Source citation
"Failure of the Compromise," Charleston (SC) Mercury, March 25, 1851, p. 2.
Newspaper: Publication
Charleston (SC) Mercury
Newspaper: Headline
Failure of the Compromise
Newspaper: Page(s)
2
Type
Newspaper
Date Certainty
Exact
Transcription date
Transcription
The following text is presented here in complete form, as it originally appeared in print. Spelling and typographical errors have been preserved as in the original.
When Mr. Clay presented his Resolutions to the Senate in February, 1850, as the basis of a Compromise, he undoubtedly undertook to conform to the opinions of a majority of the people, whatever he might have thought of reforming to justice. He wanted to obtain the adoption of his proposition, even if he did not want to be President. He knew that the majority was in the North, and he must have intended to secure the vote of the North. Accordingly his plan was received with much approbation, and little censure in that section, and was denounced all the way from Richmond, in Virginia, to Texas.
Yet Mr. Clay’s resolutions proposed “suitable boundaries” for California. What was meant by that? Why according to all the ideas of “suitable,” which then prevailed, it was inferred that the boundary of the new State was to be like those of other States. Mr. Clay was not then prepared to make the experiment on the South, of proposing the whole seaboard California as one State. But time wore on. The South became more divided and submissive than was imagined—more than anybody could have dreamed, after the Resolutions of her State Legislatures. Gen. Taylor was in power, and spoken of as a candidate for re-election. His policy, as indicated as to California and New Mexico, was more Northern than Mr. Clary’s. He recommended the admission of California, with the monstrous claim of limited made by her Convention, and also the admission of New Mexico as a State. Here were two Southern men bidding against each other for Northern support, at the expense of the South, and Mr. Clay acceded to the territorial pretensions of the inhabitants of California as “suitable.” And the thing was done.
It was expected by the compromisers that the North, thus winning more than was expected or promised, would not only acquiesce but rejoice. And indeed bonfires and illuminations celebrated that victory of perfidy and fraud, all the way from Washington along the Northern seaboard. Two or three faint and feeble efforts of the same kind in the South were visited with popular condemnation, too promptly to be repeated.
Our faith in the power of the great moral laws of the world taught us, that such a monstrous scheme could not prosper. Our knowledge of the moral infirmity of man assured us, that cupidity, fanaticism, and ambition would never have the moderation to pause and be satisfied with successful aggression. We therefore said, at the time, that this surrender to the North, instead of arresting the agitation there, would augment it, and bring down still further demands on the South.
But we were assured by the victorious compromisers, that agitation was now to beat an end—that Freesoilism was put down—that the Wilmot Proviso was dead—and the Union saved.
Well, not six months have elapsed, and what is the result? Why five Northern States out of sixteen, not one-third of the number, have approved the Compromise: Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Indiana and Illinois—a majority of whose Representatives and Senators would have voted for 36.30, if it had been insisted on by the South. But New York, Ohio, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Maine have already pronounced against it, either in the elections of the people, or of Senators, or in resolutions. Even in Pennsylvania, the attempt to repeal the laws obstructing the recapture of fugitive slaves has failed.
Thus the Compromise is repudiated by an overwhelming majority of the North, and agitation is still going on. Thus has the consideration failed, for which the South was urged to support it. And thus have perished the hopes of political preferment that operated in its support.
It is true, that the Southern opponents of the Compromise have not been adequately sustained. It is true that the recommendations of the Nashville Convention have not been generally adopted. Many of the Southern States have permitted themselves to believe that peace, at least, had been obtained from the North, although at a ruinous price—and the vis inertia of the political, as well as physical bodies, the love of ease, the deference for power, and the difficulty of redress, combined to paralyze them.
But it is now obvious that the controversy will proceed—and that the South, in consequence of her indecision and infirmity will have to contend for the remnant, as much as for the whole of her rights, against a power that now preponderates more than before. This is the result of submission.
Whilst, however, the necessity of maintaining a contest is thus obvious—it is almost, equally clear that no contest is worthy of the South, unless it be for her full rights. These alone can make her safe. Anything less subjects her to perpetual aggression and perpetual defeat.
Yet Mr. Clay’s resolutions proposed “suitable boundaries” for California. What was meant by that? Why according to all the ideas of “suitable,” which then prevailed, it was inferred that the boundary of the new State was to be like those of other States. Mr. Clay was not then prepared to make the experiment on the South, of proposing the whole seaboard California as one State. But time wore on. The South became more divided and submissive than was imagined—more than anybody could have dreamed, after the Resolutions of her State Legislatures. Gen. Taylor was in power, and spoken of as a candidate for re-election. His policy, as indicated as to California and New Mexico, was more Northern than Mr. Clary’s. He recommended the admission of California, with the monstrous claim of limited made by her Convention, and also the admission of New Mexico as a State. Here were two Southern men bidding against each other for Northern support, at the expense of the South, and Mr. Clay acceded to the territorial pretensions of the inhabitants of California as “suitable.” And the thing was done.
It was expected by the compromisers that the North, thus winning more than was expected or promised, would not only acquiesce but rejoice. And indeed bonfires and illuminations celebrated that victory of perfidy and fraud, all the way from Washington along the Northern seaboard. Two or three faint and feeble efforts of the same kind in the South were visited with popular condemnation, too promptly to be repeated.
Our faith in the power of the great moral laws of the world taught us, that such a monstrous scheme could not prosper. Our knowledge of the moral infirmity of man assured us, that cupidity, fanaticism, and ambition would never have the moderation to pause and be satisfied with successful aggression. We therefore said, at the time, that this surrender to the North, instead of arresting the agitation there, would augment it, and bring down still further demands on the South.
But we were assured by the victorious compromisers, that agitation was now to beat an end—that Freesoilism was put down—that the Wilmot Proviso was dead—and the Union saved.
Well, not six months have elapsed, and what is the result? Why five Northern States out of sixteen, not one-third of the number, have approved the Compromise: Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Indiana and Illinois—a majority of whose Representatives and Senators would have voted for 36.30, if it had been insisted on by the South. But New York, Ohio, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Maine have already pronounced against it, either in the elections of the people, or of Senators, or in resolutions. Even in Pennsylvania, the attempt to repeal the laws obstructing the recapture of fugitive slaves has failed.
Thus the Compromise is repudiated by an overwhelming majority of the North, and agitation is still going on. Thus has the consideration failed, for which the South was urged to support it. And thus have perished the hopes of political preferment that operated in its support.
It is true, that the Southern opponents of the Compromise have not been adequately sustained. It is true that the recommendations of the Nashville Convention have not been generally adopted. Many of the Southern States have permitted themselves to believe that peace, at least, had been obtained from the North, although at a ruinous price—and the vis inertia of the political, as well as physical bodies, the love of ease, the deference for power, and the difficulty of redress, combined to paralyze them.
But it is now obvious that the controversy will proceed—and that the South, in consequence of her indecision and infirmity will have to contend for the remnant, as much as for the whole of her rights, against a power that now preponderates more than before. This is the result of submission.
Whilst, however, the necessity of maintaining a contest is thus obvious—it is almost, equally clear that no contest is worthy of the South, unless it be for her full rights. These alone can make her safe. Anything less subjects her to perpetual aggression and perpetual defeat.