Missouri Compromise, 1821 Spanish America, 1822 Greece, 1823 American System, 1824 Secretary of State, 1825 Panama Instructions, 1826 Tariff Compromise, 1833 Public Domain, 1833-1841 Peace with France Preserved, 1835 His was a career far too broad to allow of its being claimed as the peculiar property of any locality; but Kentucky may justly rejoice that her soil was the chosen and cherished abode of the "Great Commoner "; and she may justly claim some of the glory of his career, when the attempt is made to estimate her part in the nation's history. 1 This medal is now in the possession of Mrs. John Clay of Lexington, to whose courtesy the author is indebted for the pleasure of inspecting it, and numerous other relics of the "Great Commoner." Clay's letter to Daniel Ullman, dated Ashland, September 26, 1851 (Colton's "Private Correspondence of Henry Clay," pp. 620-622), gives Clay's own view of the subjects which ought to be engraved on the medal. CHAPTER XV ATCHISON. DIXON AND THE REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE THE year following the death of Henry Clay is memorable in our nation's history for the beginning of the now famous Nebraska conflict, which opened the final scene in the drama of American slavery.1 Clay had gone to his last resting place believing that his compromise measures of 1850 would prove, "the re-union of this Union." "I believe," he had declared,2 in one of those figures of speech which were so characteristic of him, "that it is the dove of peace, which, taking its aërial flight from the dome of the capitol, carries the glad tidings of assured peace and restored harmony to all the remotest extremities of this distracted land." And, in the closing lines of his great speech on this Compromise, he had said, “If . . . South Carolina or any other State should hoist the flag of disunion and rebellion, thousands, tens of thousands, of Kentuckians would flock to the standard of their Country to dissipate and repress their rebellion. 993 There can be little doubt that these words interpreted 1 The first suggestion of a territorial organization for the Nebraska country was made in the annual report of President Tyler's Secretary of War, William Wilkins. The subject had been occasionally discussed since that date, but did not attract any considerable interest until 1853. Full details of earlier bills, "Ray's Repeal of the Missouri Compromise," pp. 94-100. 2 Senate, July 22, 1850. "Works of Henry Clay," Colton, Reed, McKinley Ed., VI, p. 563. 3 Ibid., p. 567. the spirit of Clay's beloved Commonwealth, with refererence to the danger that was seen-but an unseen danger lay concealed in the "Great Compromise" itself. The Report of the Committee of Thirteen declares: "To avoid in all future time the agitations which must be produced by the conflict of opinion on the slavery question-existing as this institution does, in some of the States, and prohibited in others—the true principle which ought to regulate the action of Congress, in forming territorial governments for each newly acquired domain, is to refrain from all legislation on the subject in the Territory acquired, so long as it retains the territorial form of government, leaving it to the people of such Territory, when they have attained to a condition which entitles them to admission as a State, to decide for themselves the question of the allowance or prohibition of domestic slavery." The meaning of this statement is unmistakable, and it is hard to believe that Mr. Clay had failed to see its bearing upon the principle at the basis of the Missouri Compromise. That Compromise had rested upon the idea of Congressional control over slavery in the national territory, the doctrine known as the doctrine of "Inter 1 Text Colton, Reed, McKinley, "Works of Henry Clay," III, p. 360. In this statement, we see the hand of Lewis Cass, father of the doctrine of "Popular Sovereignty," who was a member of the Committee of Thirteen. Curtis' "Republican Party," I, p. 176, for Cass and the theory. Names of members of the Committee of Thirteen, Colton, Reed, McKinley, "Works of Henry Clay," VI, p. 427. Clay himself informs us that he had been, during the deliberations of the committee, "in repeated consultation [with Cass] . . . and he has shown himself to be the friend of the peace of his country." Ibid., III, pp. 381382. 2 That Mr. Clay had in mind a comparison between the conditions of 1820 and those of 1850 was shown clearly during the debate which followed the presentation of the "Omnibus Bill." See "Works of Henry Clay," Colton Reed, McKinley Ed., III, p. 381. vention." But the principle laid down in the report of the Committee of Thirteen is as clearly that of “Nonintervention." The two ideas were certainly inconsistent, and, from that fact, much was hoped for by certain ambitious leaders in Congress. During recent months, Missouri politics had centered largely around the question naturally suggested by this inconsistency. The Bentonites, followers of Thomas H. Benton, stood firmly in favor of organizing the Nebraska Territory under the provisions and restrictions laid upon it by the Missouri Compromise, that is, with a positive prohibition of slavery. But Benton's sworn enemy and political rival, David R. Atchison, a native Kentuckian, but now a citizen of Missouri and President pro tempore of the United States Senate,1 had staked his political future upon a plan to have the Missouri Compromise restrictions declared void, so far as the Nebraska Territory was concerned. .. The President of the Senate, Mr. Atchison," wrote the Washington correspondent of the "Richmond Enquirer," 2 "is pledged by his speeches before the people of Missouri to move the repeal of the law prohibiting slavery in the territory north of the parallel of 36° 30'." 3 66 1 As President of the Senate, at the death of Vice President Wm. R. King, (April 18, 1853), Atchison had become acting Vice President. Collins, I, p. 66. 2 Issue of December 26, 1853. See Ray's "Repeal of the Missouri Compromise," p. 198. 3 The details of the rivalry between Benton and Atchison, the origin of the question of repealing the Missouri Compromise line, and its influence on Missouri politics are well brought out in a recent work by Perley Orman Ray, Ph. D., entitled, "The Repeal of the Missouri Compromise, its Origin and Authorship," Cleveland, Ohio, The Arthur H. Clark Co., 1909. To the author of this excellent monograph, I fully acknowledge my indebtedness in the preparation of this topic. 1 Stephen A. Douglas, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Territories, had just returned from a six months' visit to Europe. It is practically certain, from a letter written to the editors of the “Illinois State Register,” 1 that, a month before the opening of Congress, he had no idea that the Nebraska question was likely to become prominent during the session, and it was, therefore, somewhat in the nature of a surprise to him when, on December 14, 1853, Senator Dodge of Iowa presented to the Senate a bill for the organization of the Nebraska Territory.2 The bill carefully avoided all mention of the question of slavery, but intelligent observers saw, from the first, that that question must ultimately be considered in connection with the bill. Only two weeks after it was presented, the Washington correspondent of the "Charleston Courier" declared: "The speeches of Senator Atchison in Missouri pledge him and his constituents mutually to raise a storm here against the slavery restriction when the subject of Nebraska Territory shall come up. That the question is certain to come off I have heard from all quarters." Upon Stephen A. Douglas, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Territories, fell the lot of considering and reporting upon the Dodge bill. His interest in the question was due largely to his position as chairman of the 1 Washington, November 11, 1853. Full text given in Ray's "Repeal of the Missouri Compromise," pp. 185-186. 2 Notice of the bill had been given, by Senator Dodge, on December 5, 1853 ("Congressional Globe," XXVIII, Pt. I, p. 1). A similar bill was presented to the House, December 22, 1853, by J. G. Miller of Missouri (“Congressional Globe," XXVIII, Pt. I, p. 87). 3 Rhodes, I, p. 425; Curtis' "Republican Party," I, p. 137. 4 Issue of January 2, 1854. The articles were written on December 28, 1853. Ray's "Repeal of the Missouri Compromise," p. 205, note. |