careful not to involve ourselves in a war with England on a question of disputed boundary. There was a question of disputed boundary between us and Mexico; but did we hear, from the same quarter, any warnings against a collision with Mexico, when we were about to consummate the annexation of Texas? . . . There was no negotiation there . ; we took all. But when Oregon is brought into question, we are called on, to give a whole empire on the Pacific, if England desire it. He never would consent to a surrender of any portion of the country north of 49°, nor one foot, by treaty or otherwise, under 54° 40'." 19 66 The Southern Democrats deny that the President is committed to 54° 40' (Haywood, N. C., friend of Calhoun, March 7, 1846). insisted that President Polk was not committed at the Baltimore Convention either for Oregon or Texas. . . . Mr. Hannegan . . . held, . . . that the executive would be inconceivably base if he compromised the Oregon question short of 54° 40′. . . . The 54° 40′ men—led on by Senators Cass [Mich.], Allen [O.], Hannegan [Ind.] &c., are for 'ALL OF OREGON or none' and for war, if every inch of Oregon cannot be had without that alternative. The 49° men-led on by the Calhoun phalanx of southern senators, are for settling the dispute by accepting the terms [49°], if now proposed by the British government. . . . Meantime, the political parties at Washington are furiously disputing as to whether President Polk will insist upon having all of Oregon-or will yield to the 49°."❞ 20 An Anti-Slavery Whig for all Oregon (Giddings, Ohio, Jan. 5, 1846). "It is the annexation of Texas that has rendered the whole of Oregon necessary to restore the balance of power. By the annexation of Texas the Slave States now have a majority in the Senate. They will continue to retain that majority unless we add territory to our northwestern border. . . . Southern gentlemen-whose voices at the last session were heard, loud and long, in favor of Texas and the whole of Oregon-now see a lion in the way. . . . But a year ago their motto was now or never; at this time 'a mas 19. Blair and Rives, Cong. Globe, XV, 109-110. 20. Niles, Register, 70, p. 16-17. terly inactivity' is their maxim. . . . . . They have suddenly called to mind the declaration of British statesmen that a war with the United States will be a war of emancipation.' . . .” 21 a. 3. THE NORTH PROPOSES TO MAKE ALL ACQUIRED TERRITORY FREE The Wilmot Proviso: Amendment to the $2,000,000 Bill. Wilmot (Pa. Dem.) Aug. 5,1846. Moved to pass "Provided, That, as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty which may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except for crime, whereof the party shall first be duly convicted. . . Mr. Wick [Ind.] moved to amend the amendment by inserting therein after the word ' territory,' the words, ' north of 36° 30′ north latitude.' [Amendment lost 54 to 83; Wilmot amendment carried 83 to 64.]” 2: Secret History of the Wilmot Proviso (the Baltimore American. There is a secret as well as a public history of the two million bill, . . . For the first time perhaps in the history of the government there was a sectional vote upon this momentous question [of slavery] and the friends of the administration from the free states led off the opposition to their southern brethren. They remembered the 'bad faith' of the south, as they called it, upon the Oregon question, and were resolved that no more slave territory should come into the Union with their consent." 23 66 22 Arguments against the Proviso. Legislature of Virginia (Febr. 5, 1849). "2. Resolved, unanimously, That all territory which may be acquired by the arms of the United States, . . . belongs to the several States of this Union, as their joint and common property, in which each and all have equal rights; 5. Resolved unanimously, That the passage of the above 21. Blair and Rives, Cong. Globe, XV, 139. 22. Blair and Rives, Cong. Globe, XV, p. 1217. 23. Niles, Register, 70, p. 374. mentioned proviso [Wilmot] makes it the duty of every slaveholding State... to take firm, united, and concerted action in this emergency." " 24 66 Calhoun (Feb. 19, 1847). . . We were told that all parties in the non-slave-holding portion of the Union insisted that they should have the exclusive control of this acquired territory [Mexican]. . . . How, then, do we stand in reference to this territorial question-this public domain of ours? Why, Sir, what is it? It is the common property of the States of this Union. . . . Sir, these territories are the property of the States united: held jointly for their common [Therefore] Resolved, That the Territories of the United States belong to the several States composing this Union, and are held by them as their joint and common property. Resolved, That Congress, as the joint agent and representative of the States of this Union has no right to make any law. . . that shall directly, or by its effects, make any discrimination between the States of this Union, by which any of them shall be derived of its full and equal right in any territory of the United States acquired or to be acquired." use. "25 66 Rhett, S. C. (Jan. 15, 1847). The court declares that the territories belong to the United States. They are tenants in common, or joint proprietors, and co-sovereigns over them. The only effect and probably the only object of their reserved sovereignty is that it secures to each State the right to enter the territories with her citizens and settle and occupy them with their property-with whatever is recognized as property by each State. The ingress of the citizens is the ingress of his sovereign [the state], who is bound to protect him in his settlement. . . . He is not responsible to any of the co-sovereigns for the nature of his property." 26 The North argues for the Proviso (Webster, Aug. 12, 1848). "We certainly do not prevent them [Southerners] from going into these territories with what is in general law called property. But these States have by their local laws created a property in persons, and they cannot carry these local laws 24. Benton, Abridgment of Debates of Congress, XVI, 298. 25. Benton, Abridgment of Debates of Congress, XVI, 85-86. 26. Blair and Rives, Cong. Globe, XVI, App. 246. No man can be held as a slave, except the with them. a. 4. ATTEMPTS AT SETTLEMENT, 1846-1850 By extending the line 36° 30' to the Pacific: The Southern offer; Some Northern Democrats for (The House, Febr. 15, 1847). "The House again resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole . . . and resumed the consideration of the bill appropriating three millions of dollars to enable the president to enter upon negotiations for the restoration of peace with Mexico. Mr. Hamlin [Me. Dem.] insisted in his motion of the proviso, as follows: Provided, further, That there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any territory on the continent of America which shall hereafter be acquired by or annexed to the United States by virtue of this appropriation, or in any other manner whatever, except for crimes. . . . Mr. Douglas [Ill. Dem.] moved to amend the amendment by . . inserting, That there shall neither be slavery nor involuntary servitude in any territory acquired under this act, or as a result of the existing war with Mexico, which lies north of 36° 30′ north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise line, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes. The question upon Mr. Douglas's amendment was taken ; and it was rejected: Ayes 82, noes 109. . . . The question then recurring on the adoption of the proviso as moved by Mr. Hamlin, it was carried; ayes 110, noes 89." Proposal to apply the Line to Oregon. Oregon bill, Jan. 11, 1847. "Sec. 12. And be it further enacted, That the inhabitants of the said territory shall be entitled to enjoy all . . . the rights . . . secured to the people of the territory of the United States northwest of the Ohio river, by the articles of compact, contained in the ordinance of [1787]; and shall be subject to all the conditions and restrictions, and prohibitions in said articles of compact imposed upon the people of said territory. Jan. 12, Mr. Burt [S. C.] moved to amend . 27. Blair and Rives, Cong. Globe, XVII, 1077. by adding the following words: Inasmuch as the whole of the said territory lies north of 36° 30′ north latitude, known as the Missouri Compromise. Jan. 15, The vote on the amendment was taken: yeas 82, nays 113. [No action taken in Senate.]" 28 Mr. Davis (Miss.), Jan. 23, 1848. . . . Provided, That nothing contained in this act shall be so construed as to authorize the prohibition of domestic slavery in said territory whilst it remains in the condition of a territory of the United States.” 29 Mr. Kaufman (Texas). “I voted for the restriction of slavery in Oregon, because all Oregon lies north of 361⁄2 degrees north latitude, . . . I voted for it because, in the resolutions of annexation admitting Texas, the Missouri Compromise line was inserted and applied to Texas, . . . But I now state . . . that I gave only one vote to prohibit slavery in Oregon, and that vote was given before the Wilmot Proviso was moved in this House: no man had heard of the Wilmot Proviso when I gave that vote. I never have voted against slavery in Oregon since the Wilmot proviso was introduced into and passed by this House. I never will vote to exclude slavery from Oregon or any other territory of the United States as long as I see the North determined to force down upon the South the Wilmot proviso. I have no idea of the South observing the Missouri Compromise while the North repudiates it. And I never should have given the vote I did, if I could have foreseen the introduction and passage of the Wilmot provison by this House. But I will again vote for restricting slavery in Oregon, if the North will agree to extend the Missouri compromise line so as to apply to the Territories of California and New Mexico. And this I understand to be the universal sentiment of the South. [The House passed the bill Aug. 2, 1848, with the Ordinance of 1787 incorporated in substance]. Yeas 129, nays 71. [Finally accepted by the Senate, Aug. 12] Yeas 29, nays 25." 30 "30 28. Blair and Rives, Cong. Globe, XVI, 166, 170, 187. 29. Blair and Rives, Cong. Globe, XVII, 871. 30. Blair and Rives, Cong. Globe, XVII, 1013. |