allow the concession from their advocates in Congress that slavery was a great evil to be deplored. As we have seen, Clay apologized for consenting to its continuance in Missouri by calling extension "diffusion," and upon the weak plea that thus the evil would be diluted and the oppression and wrong to other slaves alleviated. But at this time was first clearly marked the habit which prevailed subsequently for forty years, that whenever an attack was made in Congressional halls against slavery, or any part of the slave system, or an assertion of the right of the black man to life and liberty, every such utterance was resented by Southern men as an attack upon the "South." It here appeared that slavery was to be defended by the rights of States and the rights of property. The equilibrium of political power for the South meant equilibrium for slavery; equal rights in the Territories for the South meant equal rights for slavery. Unfortunately for that great people and the interests of mankind the interests of human slavery now first confronted the nation with a solid South. 6. In the sixth place, besides the fact that a precedent was set in favor of the right of Congress to restrict slavery in the Territories, the burden of argument proved the right of Congress, if proof were needed, to impose conditions upon a State. No one now, so far as we know, questions that right. The extent to which it is now exercised by the General Government is very much greater than was dreamed of by the Federal legislators in the early days of the Republic. The earliest enabling acts, those admitting Kentucky and Vermont, simply consented to the admission of the new States. These lands never belonged to the Union as Territories. Now, in the admission of a State we have an elaborate law undertaking to limit the power of the people over their State constitution. These restraining acts were originally confined to provisions setting aside lands and townships for schools, universities, and roads; but recently an enabling act went so far as to deny the franchise to all people who profess the Mormon faith. While these laws can not be binding upon the people of the States, and can not prevent their amendment of their constitution in direct contravention of the enabling acts, they indicate a general acceptance of the idea, an understanding that the General Government, or the nation, has the right to insist that a Territory seeking statehood shall possess certain qualifications and make certain pledges before it can be admitted to become a member of the Union. And there is no doubt that a very large number of the people would consider the subsequent adoption of a constitutional amendment opposed to the provisions of the enabling act as a breach of faith. Such an act might be set aside by the national judiciary. Subsequent history has vindicated those in 1820 who insisted on the right to impose conditions on an incoming State. 7. Lastly, in this controversy we stand at the threshold of the struggle that produced the civil war. Here the issues were defined. It was here the nation first definitely met the crisis. John Quincy Adams recognized with prophetic wisdom the importance of that crisis. "Never since human sentiments and human conduct were influenced by human speech," says he, "was there a theme for eloquence like the free side of this question now before the Congress of the United States. Time can only show whether the contest may ever be with equal advantage renewed." Time, alas, showed that an equal advantage for the cause of free soil never came again. In the beginning of the spread of an evil is the time to resist it. Statesmanship and foresight were not then wanting, but their warnings were unheeded, their counsels were not dominant. If, if only the policy of the restrictionists had then been adopted, if this policy had been established never again to be brought into question, an historic imagination may lead us to assert that the long years of painful controversy might have been escaped, the four years of disunion and civil strife might have been avoided. In that case, as far as human insight can discover, freedom would have become national and slavery would have been easily confined to local limits. The contest did not concern Missouri alone. Two principles were at stake, the principle of free labor and nationality. "At the last moment," says Von Holst, in the night between March 2 and 3, 1820, "free labor and nationality yielded to slavery and State soveignty." How important, then, it was to have done what Lincoln said thirty-eight years later must be done for the salvation of the Republic, "to arrest the further spread of slavery and to place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction." "A house divided against itself can not stand." Our National House was now for the first time clearly divided against itself. In the Missouri struggle the issue was definitely made up which afterward passed beyond the era of compromise, and the South came to the defense of slavery as an institution on which she staked her hopes of prosperity and power. Tallmadge, who offered the restrictive amendment, recognized the nature of the conflict. He believed that the nation was standing in the nick of time; that if the evil of slavery was ever to be arrested then was the time to arrest it. He said: Has it already come to this: That in the Congress of the United States-that in the legislative councils of the American Republic the subject of slavery has become the subject of so much feeling, of such delicacy, of such danger, that it can not safely be discussed? Are members who express their sentiments upon this subject to be accused of talking to the gallaries with intent to excite a servile war, and of meriting the fate of Arbuthnot and Ambrister? Are we to be told of the dissolution of the Union, of civil war, and of seas of blood? And yet, with such awful threatenings before us do gentlemen in the same breath insist upon the encouragement of this evil, upon the extension of this monstrous scourge of the human race? An evil so fraught with such dire calamities to us as individuals and to our nation, and threatening in its progress to overwhelm the civil and religious institutions of the country, with the liberties of the nation, ought at once to be met and to be controlled. If its power, its influence, and its impending dangers have already arrived at such a point that it is not safe to discuss it upon this floor, and it cannot be considered as a proper subject for general legislation, what will be the result when it is spread through your widely extended domain? Its present threatening aspect, and the violence of its supporters, so far from inducing me to yield to its progress, prompt me to resist its march. Now is the time. It must now be met, and the extension of the evil must now be prevented, or the occasion is irrevocably lost and the evil can never be controlled. When we come to view the repeal of the Missouri compromise in 1854, to find new lands for slavery, we appreciate the force of these words of the early restrictionist. |