public life that I would never leave public business to take up firebrands to set the world on fire. Senator Webster then introduced resolutions to the effect that the war should not be prosecuted for acquiring territory to form new States of the Union. No action was pressed on either set of resolutions. After the treaty of peace with Mexico a Senate committee framed a bill organizing the Territorial governments of Oregon, California, and New Mexico. Oregon was to be free soil, and in the other Territories the question of slavery in these Territories was to be left for subsequent action by Congress, the Territorial legislatures being inhibited from debarring slavery in the meantime. Six of the eight members of the committee voted for this arrangement. A minority report provided that the laws (anti-slavery) existing in California and New Mexico should continue in force. In the course of the debate on the bill, the doctrine was advanced by Senator James M. Mason [Va.]2 that the child of a slave woman follows its mother's condition.3 Senator Corwin commented upon this as follows: What sublime morality, what lovely justice, combine to sanctify this article, and the kindred doctrine that lands In his Thirty Years' View (1856) Senator Benton commented on these "Firebrand Resolutions" of Senator Calhoun. The passage is reproduced in Great Debates in American History, vol. iv., p. 144. 2 Senator Mason was a lawyer, who had served one term in the House (1837-39). He entered the Senate in 1847, and remained there until the secession of his State in 1861, when he became a commissioner of the Confederate government to Great Britain and France. On his way to Europe with John Slidell [La.], his fellow-commissioner, in the British steamer Trent, the vessel was stopped by the United States war-ship San Jacinto, and the envoys removed and imprisoned. They were released after a diplomatic controversy. 3 See page 149. acquired by force become property, in that new decalogue of freedom which we say it is our duty to give to the world! All over the world [this was the Year of Revolution] the air is vocal with the shouts of men made free, and in God's name I ask, if freedom from political servitude be a boon to mankind, must it not be accepted with some gratulation that men have been released from personal servitude-absolute subjection to the arbitrary powers of others? According to the doctrine preached by you in these halls -in free America-we should send the revolutionists of Europe not congratulation but commiseration-advising them to accept monarchy, the principle of which is partus sequitur patrem-the crown follows the father-a rule similar to your law that the chain follows the mother! Sir, in the days of 1776 the sons of Virginia had as little respect for that maxim, partus sequitur ventrem, as for that other cognate dogma, "Kings are born to rule." If slavery were a curse to you in the beginning, but had struck its roots too deeply into your social system to be eradicated entirely, how can you call upon me, as a matter of conscience and duty, to transfer this curse to an area greater than that of the original thirteen States? Am I obliged to receive into my family a man infected with the small-pox? But the gentleman from Virginia says it must be done. Why? Because it is compassion to the slave; he cannot be nurtured in Virginia because her soil is worn out. Are the lands of Pennsylvania worn out? The slave has turned pale the land wherever he has set down his black foot! And must we transfer to the rich virgin soil of the Territories this principle of sterility, till barren desolation shall cover the whole land? By the same right of compassion you might call on Ohio to partake of the selfsame curse, that would transform it also into a wilderness. The Senator then instanced, as a sad commentary on the perfection of human reason, that the lawyers of the South, with few exceptions, held that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the Territories, and that the lawyers of the North were a unit in the contrary opinion. One Senator objected, saying that the question of slavery was regulated by a line (36 degrees and 30 minutes). Corwin replied: "Yes, and what is black on one side of the line is white on the other, turning to jet black again when restored to its original locality!" He then inquired, if such absurd inconsistency prevailed in the Senate, how could he agree, as certain Senators demanded, that judgment on the question be left to the Supreme Court? Had the Senate always obeyed the decision of the Court? When it decided, with John Marshall at its head, that Congress had power to establish the United States Bank, had not Jacksonian Senators curled their lips and declared, "We are judges for ourselves"? To test the question of the legality of slavery permitted by this bill, to get it before the Supreme Court, a man must go to California with his slaves. I do not know how it may be in other parts of the world, but in Ohio we do not travel three thousand miles to get justice. In short, the bill does not enact a law, but a law-suit, and, while the decision is pending, slavery will have taken root, and appeal will be made by the advocates of slavery against interference with vested interests. If the slave appeals, he must, according to the rule, give twice the value of the property in question, in this case, of himself! However, while he is prosecuting the appeal, which will take at least two years, he can enjoy visiting old friends in Washington. Senator Reverdy Johnson [Md.] defended the legal aspects of the bill. Sketch of Johnson. Johnson was educated at St. John's College in Maryland. Engaging in the practice of law at Baltimore he soon acquired a high reputation. After a long service in the State Senate, in 1845 he was elected to the United States Senate. While nominally a Whig, he was independent in politics, heartily supporting President Polk in his course in the Mexican War. He was appointed Attorney-General by President Taylor. On the accession of President Fillmore he resigned his position and resumed his law practice, appearing in almost all the celebrated cases in the country, and in one in England. His opposition on principle to the "Know Nothings" led him, with other Whigs, to join with the Democrats in the election of President Buchanan. In 1860 he became a supporter of Senator Douglas for the Presidency. He was active in the movement to conciliate the South on the eve of secession. He reëntered the Senate in 1863 and served until 1868. He supported Lincoln's administration, and in 1868 he was appointed minister to Great Britain by President Johnson. In this capacity he negotiated the Johnson-Clarendon treaty for the settlement of the Alabama claims, which, however, was rejected by the Senate. He was so popular in England that the antiBritish sentiment in America forced President Grant for party reasons to recall him in 1869. Although seventy-three years of age, he resumed his law practice, which he continued until his death by apoplexy in 1876. In 1872 he supported Horace Greeley for President. He was an author of law books. No man of his time was regarded as a more eminent legal authority. His speeches in the Senate were largely confined to constitutional issues. In the debate on the Territorial bill he especially defended the Supreme Court. While statesmen differed upon questions, the Court was usually unanimous. This was so in regard to the constitutionality of the United States Bank, which the Court upheld, against the majority opinion of Congress. The members of the Court were not politicians. They breathed a different atmosphere from Congress, and therefore constituted a proper third party to settle disputes. The gibes of the Senator from Ohio about the expense incurred by a negro in conducting his case were unwarranted. There could not be found in the whole Southern bar a lawyer who would not gratuitously give his services to right a negro's wrongs. Besides, one test case would settle the whole question. He was opposed to slavery, and therefore deplored the abolition agitation which prevented emancipation by the States. Anti-slavery men should apply their energies to their own States. In Ohio free negroes were treated as slaves. The bill was adopted by the Senate on July 26, by a vote of 33 to 22. It was laid on the table in the House by a vote of 112 to 87, 8 Southern Whigs and 31 Northern Democrats voting with all the Northern Whigs in the affirmative. Alexander H. Stephens [Ga.], who voted to table, justified his action by saying the Supreme Court was certain to decide against slavery in the Territories, having repeatedly upheld the view that "the Constitution recognizes slavery wherever it exists by local law, but establishes it nowhere it is prohibited by law. "2 • The repressive "black laws" of Ohio to which the Senator referred were abolished by the State legislature during the following year. "Wheaton's Rep., viii., p. 589; xii., pp. 528–535. Peters' Rep., i., pp. 517, 542, 544; vi., pp. 86, 87; viii., pp. 444, 465; ix., pp. 133, 736, 747-749; x., pp. 305, 330, 721, 732; xii., p. 412. |