California needed a state Government, and the President took the most direct method to supply that need.As the inhabitants were unanimous in their desire to exclude slavery, their wish should be respected.New Mexico was in a similar situation.As slavery was already excluded from the territory under Mexican law, and as there was no wish on the part of the inhabitants to introduce slavery, the President recognized existing facts and made no change.When Southern leaders projected a scheme to enlarge the boundaries of Texas so as to extend slavery over a large part of New Mexico, President Taylor set a guard of United States troops to maintain the integrity of the Territory.When a deputation of Southern Whigs endeavored to dissuade him from his purpose, threatening a dissolution of the Union and intimating that army officers would refuse to act against citizens of Texas, the soldier President replied that in such an event he would take command in person and would hang any one caught in acts of treason.When Henry Clay introduced an elaborate project for a compromise between the North and the South, the President insisted that each question should be settled on its own merits and directed the forces of the Administration against any sort of compromise.The debate over Clay's Omnibus Bill was long and acrimonious.On July 4, 1850, the President seemed triumphant.
But upon that day, notwithstanding his apparent robust health, he was stricken down with an acute disease and died five days later.
With his passing, the opposing Whig faction came into power.The so-called compromise measures were at length one by one passed by Congress and approved by President Fillmore.
California was admitted as a free State; but as a palliative to the South, Congress passed bills for the organization of territorial Governments for New Mexico and Utah without positive declarations regarding the powers of the territorial Legislatures over slavery.All questions relating to title to slaves were to be left to the courts.Meantime it was left in doubt whether Mexican law excluding slavery was still in force.Southern malcontents maintained that this act was a mere hoax, using words which suggested concession when no concession was intended.
Northern anti-slavery men criticized the act as the entering wedge for another great surrender to the enemy.Because of the uncertainty regarding the meaning of the law and the false hopes likely to be created, they maintained that it was fitted to foment discord and prolong the period of distrust between the two sections.At all events such was its actual effect.
A third act in this unhappy series gave to Texas ten millions of dollars for the alleged surrender of claims to a part of New Mexico.This had little bearing on the general subject of compromise; yet anti-slavery men criticized it on the ground that the issue raised was insincere; that the appropriation was in fact a bribe to secure votes necessary to pass the other measures; that the bill was passed through Congress by shameless bribery, and that even the boundaries conceded to Texas involved the surrender of free territory.
The abolition of the slave-trade in the District of Columbia was supported by both sections of the country.The removal of the slave pens within sight of the Capitol to a neighboring city deprived the abolitionists of one of their weapons for effective agitation, but it did not otherwise affect the position of slavery.
Of the five acts included in the compromise measures, the one which provided for the return of fugitive slaves was most effective in the promotion of hostility between the two sections.
During the six months of debate on the Omnibus Bill, numerous bills were presented to take the place of the law of 1793.
Webster brought forward a bill which provided for the use of a jury to establish the validity of a claim to an escaped slave.
But that which was finally adopted by a worn-out Congress is characterized as one of the most barbarous pieces of legislation ever enacted by a civilized country.A single incident may indicate the nature of the act.James Hamlet, for three years a resident of New York City, a husband and a father and a member of the Methodist Church, was seized eight days after the law went into effect by order of the agent of Mary Brown of Baltimore, cut off from all communication with his friends, hurried before a commissioner, and on ex parte testimony was delivered into the hands of the agent, by whom he was handcuffed and secretly conveyed to Baltimore.Mr.Rhodes accounts for the enactment in the following words: "If we look below the surface we shall find a strong impelling motive of the Southern clamor for this harsh enactment other than the natural desire to recover lost property.
Early in the session it took air that a part of the game of the disunionists was to press a stringent fugitive slave law, for which no Northern man could vote; and when it was defeated, the North would be charged with refusal to carry out a stipulation of the Constitution....The admission of California was a bitter pill for the Southern ultras, but they were forced to take it.
The Fugitive Slave Law was a taunt and a reproach to that part of the North where the anti-slavery sentiment ruled supremely, and was deemed a partial compensation." Clay expressed surprise that States from which few slaves escaped demanded a more stringent law than Kentucky, from which many escaped.
Whatever may have been the motives leading to the enactment, its immediate effect was the elimination of one of the great national parties, thus paving the way for the formation of parties along sectional lines.Two years after the passage of the compromise acts the Democratic national convention assembled to nominate a candidate for the Presidency.The platform adopted by the party promised a faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measures and added "the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor included; which act, being designed to carry out an express provision of the Constitution, cannot, with fidelity thereto, be repealed nor so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency." When this was read, the convention broke out in uproarious applause.Then there was a demand that it should be read again.Again there was loud applause.
Why was there this demand that a law which every one knew had proved a complete failure should be made a permanent part of the Constitution? And why the ungovernable hilarity over the demand that its "efficiency" should never be impaired? Surely the motive was something other than a desire to recover lost property.Upon the Whig party had been fastened the odium for the enactment of the law, and the act unrepealed meant the death of the party.The Democrats saw good reason for laughter.
