in the house, of the representatives of the northern states, only twenty-eight of the fifty Democrats, and three of the seventy-six Whigs had voted for the bill. But if the compromise had not been entered into even by a compact majority, it was a very bold hope that a veto, however peremptory and from whomsoever it might proceed, could permanently prevent all tinkering with any part of the compromise. The undertaking was all the more daring as the signers of the declaration had worded their prohibition in a manner which must have made it appear to the opponents of slavery as the boldest defiance. The repeal or alteration of the compromise laws was prohibited only so long as such alteration or repeal was not necessary, in the unanimous opinion of the friends of the compromise, for the removal of certain evils which might arise in the course of time. Under the prevailing circumstances this meant simply, that the slave states were to be spared the trouble and dangers of a further struggle for the maintainance of what they had hitherto won, but that they might themselves demand alterations in the law, as soon as they had rendered their following in the northern states pliant enough to make further demands upon them.

That this would not last long, was shown by a bill introduced by Bright of Indiana into the senate, on the 10th of February, which explained the Fugitive Slave Law to the ef fect, that the old act of 1793 had likewise remained in force.1 This was a further aggravation of the brutal provisions of the law, but the bill was, notwithstanding, very willingly referred to the judiciary committee for examination, while

because his colleague and opponent, Seward, was obliged to be absent on account of sickness, and Douglas was prevented by an instruction from the legislature of Illinois from standing, with his vote, by his southern friends on this question.

1 Congr. Globe, 2d Sess., 31st Congr., p. 492.

a petition for the repeal or modification of the law, of which the same disposition had been made in the beginning, was, after reconsideration of the first vote, laid on the table.

From the north came a very prompt and very plain answer to the question, what people, in certain circles there, thought of the attempt, in this way, to elevate the eternity and immutability of the compromise to the dignity of a national dogma. The execution of the Fugitive Slave Law had already repeatedly met with violent resistance which naturally led to loud remonstrances, on the part of the south. These remonstrances were, indeed, rejected by Clay as unfounded. He adduced as a proof of the laudable loyalty of the north, the fact that in New Albany, Indiana, it had been possible to effect the extradition of fugitives who were as white as himself or as the presiding senator. How terribly must slavery have corrupted both the sentiments and the reason, when, even Henry Clay, could turn the attention of the world to this fact, with pride and satisfaction, in a public session of the senate, to a fact which even the meanest of Americans, with normal human instincts, should have sought to hide, out of consideration for the honor of his country! Clay might well have omitted to refer to this case, as its history had that in it which the south could not wish to be closely examined. Chase contended that the persons in question had not a drop of negro blood in them, and called attention to the fact that on the soil of a southern state, at Hawesville, in Kentucky, their booty had been rescued from the slave hunters; and this was the first time that in such a way protest had been entered against the law. The extradition of a slave had, indeed, been effected at

1

1 He admitted only the possibility of a small admixture of Indian blood.

THE SHADRACH CASE.

21

New Albany, but the case had provoked such excitement and indignation, that in a short time, the means to purchase the freedom of the unfortunate victims was procured. It was, indeed, justifiable to see a proof of surprising loyalty in this example, but the slave states could scarcely be satisfied with that kind of a protest against the law. The desire to make a law against which the moral convictions of a great part of the people rebelled so powerfully that large sums were voluntarily subscribed to annul its effects, the desire to make such a law, for all future time, a corner stone of the foundation of the Union, was a monstrosity. It was self-evident that the opponents of the law would not always and everywhere manifest such loyalty as the citizens of New Albany had shown.

On the 15th of February, at Boston, a fugitive slave by the name of Shadrach, while the question of his extradition was being discussed before a commissioner, was violently set at liberty by a crowd of negroes, who had been incited to this bold stroke by one of the lawyers of the defendant. Shadrach was happily landed over the Canadian border. The excitement which this event caused in the political circles of Washington was so great that a stranger might have believed that the republic had met with a great national misfortune. Clay immediately (February 17) introduced a resolution into the senate, which asked the president for more minute information. and desired to know what measures he had taken, and whether, in his opinion, still other laws were necessary for the more effective enforcement of those already in existence. Fillmore fully came up to the expectations which his course during the compromise struggle had raised in the south. On the 18th of February, there ap

1 Congr. Globe, 2nd Sess., 31st Congr., Append., p. 509. 2 Congr. Globe, 2nd Sess., 31st Congr., p. 580.

their reach.1

peared a proclamation which commanded all civil and military officers, and called upon all well-minded citizens to flock to the protection of the laws of the land, and to contribute to their enforcement by all the means within The army and navy department issued corresponding instructions at the same time. On the next day, the proclamation was followed by a long-winded message to congress which culminated in the solemn assurance, that the president would use all his constitutional powers to the fullest extent, in order to insure the execution of the laws. The promise was certainly honestly intended, for the president went so far as to recommend, that the calling out of the state militia, for the suppression of insurrections, might be made easier to him.

The president was evidently acting in full agreement with the secretary of state. In a letter dated February 20,2 Webster called the liberation of Shadrach " "high treason," and he afterwards frequently and emphatically pledged his reputation as a jurist for the correctness of his view. He might, perhaps, prove that such was the case, according to the letter of the constitution and the laws, to hair-splitting lawyers, but he would scarcely have been able to convince an unprejudiced jury of it. No power of speech and no dialectic acumen could make healthy common sense see a beam in the mote. The president and the secretary of state themselves bore testimony to the fact that they made a mountain out of a mole hill. Webster unquestionably misunderstood the tone of public opinion when he believed, or said he believed, that the cheeks of nineteen-twentieths of the population of Boston would burn with shame and their hearts be filled

1 Statesmen's Manual, III., p. 1919.

2 To the New York committee on the celebration of the birthday of Washington. Works, VI, p. 589.

WEBSTER'S COURSE.

23

with indignation at these contemptible monstrosities. But although the number of those who favored the Fugitive Slave Law in Massachusetts was not large, he and his chief were right when they assured the country, that even in that state public opinion would disapprove a revolt against the law in this form. 1 Webster's prophecy that the municipal authorities would give expression to this feeling, in an official manner, came true. But if the "vast majority" of the people of Boston and of all Massachusetts, spite of their hatred of the Fugitive Slave Law, desired its loyal enforcement, so long as it was a law, why could it not have been left to the local authorities to cause it to be respected? Because the latter had been surprised by a little crowd of negroes, why should the great Webster, with his stentorian voice, raise the alarm cry of "high treason," and the president announce to the country, that he held

"It would be melancholy, indeed, if we were obliged to regard this outbreak against the constitutional and legal authority of the government as proceeding from the general feeling of the people, in a spot which is proverbially called 'the Cradle of American Liberty.' "Such, undoubtedly, is not the fact. It violates without question, the general sentiment of the people of Boston, and of a vast majority of the whole people of Massachusetts, as much as it violates the law, defies the authority of the government, and disgraces those concerned in it, their aiders and abettors." Fillmore, in the Tribune of the 20th of February.

"Depend upon it, that, if the people of that city had been informed of any such purpose or design as was carried into effect in the courthouse in Boston, on Saturday last, they would have rushed to the spot, and crushed such a nefarious project into the dust. The vast majority of the people of Boston must necessarily suffer in their feelings, but ought not to suffer at all in their character or reputation for loyalty to the constitution, from the acts of such persons as composed the mob. I venture to say, that when you hear of them next, you will learn that, personally and collectively, as individually, and also as represented in the city councils, they will give full evidence of their fixed purpose to wipe away, and obliterate to the full extent of their power, this foul blot on the good name of their city." Webster, 1. c.