Page:The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade.djvu/606

 not be continued if the importation of slaves should cease. The prohibition of the importation after twenty years was proposed: a term which some southern gentlemen, Mr. Madison for one, thought too long. The word 'slaves' was not allowed in the constitution; Mr. Madison was opposed to it; he did not wish to see it recognized in that instrument, that there could be property m men. The ordinance of 1787 also received the unanimous support of the south; a measure which Mr. Calhoun had said was the first in a series of measures which had enfeebled that section.

Soon after this, the age of cotton came. The south wanted land for its cultivation. Mr. Calhoun had observed that there had always been a majority in favor of the north. If so, the north had acted very liberally or very weakly; for they had seldom exercised their power. The truth was, the general lead in politics for three-fourths of the time had been southern lead. In 1802, a great cotton region, now embracing all Alabama, had been obtained from Georgia by the general government. In 1803, Louisiana was purchased, out of which several large slaveholding states had been formed. In 1819, Florida was ceded, which also had come in as slave territory. And lastly, Texas — great, vast, illimitable Texas — had been admitted as a slave state. In this, the senator himself, as secretary of state, and the late secretary of the treasury, then senator, had taken the lead. They had done their work thoroughly; having procured a stipulation for four new states to be formed out of that state; and all south of the line 30° 30' might be admitted with slavery. Even New England had aided in this measure. Three-fourths of liberty-loving Connecticut in the other house, and one-half in this, had supported it. And it had one vote from each of the states of Massachusetts and Maine.

Mr. Webster said he had repeatedly expressed the [sic]dertermination to vote for no acquisition, or cession, or annexation, believing we had territory enough. But Texas was now in with all her territories, as a slave state, with a pledge that, if divided into many states, those south of 36° 30' might come in as slaves states; and he, for one, meant to fulfill the obligation. As to California and New Mexico, he held that slavery was effectually excluded from those territories by a law even superior to that which admits and sanctions it in Texas — he meant the law of nature. The physical geography of the country would forever exclude African slavery there; and it needed not the application of a proviso. If the question was now before the senate, he would not vote to add a prohibition — to reaffirm an ordinance of nature, nor reënact the will of God If they were making a government for New Mexico, and a Wilmot proviso were proposed, he would treat it as Mr. Polk had treated it in the Oregon bill. Mr Polk was opposed to it; but some government was necessary, and he signed the bill, knowing that the proviso was entirely nugatory.

Both the north and the south had grievances. The south justly complained that individuals and legislatures of the north refused to perform their constitutional duties in regard to returning fugitive slaves. Members of the northern legislatures were bound by oath to support the constitution of the United States; and the clause requiring the delivery of fugitive slaves was as binding