Daniel Webster and the Compromise of 1850

Finding this item really made my day.

It's a letter from Daniel Webster to a friend that he wrote in early 1850. In January of 1850, Henry Clay, another major figure in the Senate, gave a speech calling for a compromise between the dissenting elements of the Union, i.e. the slave states and the non-slaveholding states. The debate between these factions had recently become very heated mainly due to the recent acquisition of large amounts of territory following the Mexican-American War. Clay's call for compromise came to fruition throughout the Congressional sessions of 1850, thus the generic name for the laws enacted during that time: the Compromise of 1850.

Hindsight being what it is, we know now that the Compromise of 1850 did not solve the problems of the country regarding the institution of slavery but that it merely postponed conflict between the North and the South. At the time, however, this was not clear, which is why Webster, a Senator of virtually unassailable repute representing Massachusetts (a strongly anti-slavery state), was in favor of the compromise which allowed the institution of slavery to expand into some of the new states.

By February 27, 1850, the date of the letter in the Littlejohn Collection, Webster was preparing the oration through which he would lend his support to the compromise. Here is an image of the letter:

Here's the transcription:

      Washington Feb. 27. '50
My Dear Sir
    Where shall I find that 
observation of Mr Madison,
which states the reason for
keeping the word "slavery" out
of the Constitution?
  Give my love to
Mary Rackminster, her
husband + children.
         Danl Webster
Rev'd. Mr Lothrop

    "Mr. Madison," of course, is James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," author of several of the Federalist Papers, and fourth President of the United States. I haven't done enough digging to find the "observation" that Webster refers to, but apparently he did find the passage, as evidenced in this excerpt from his speech to the Senate from March 7, 1850:

"It may not be improper here to allude to that, I had almost said, celebrated opinion of Mr. Madison. You observe, sir, that the term "slave" or "slavery" is not used in the constitution. The constitution does not  require that "fugitive slaves"  shall be delivered up. It requires that "persons bound to service in one state, and escaping into another, shall be delivered up." Mr. Madison opposed the introduction of the term "slave" or "slavery" into the constitution; for  he said that he did not wish to see it recognized by the constitution of the  United States of America, that there could be property in men."

Webster's speech of March 7, though eloquent and successful in threading the needle of the Compromise of 1850, was highly damaging to his reputation and career in the Senate.  He was attacked by New England abolitionists who felt betrayed by his compromising. Webster resigned from the Senate later that same year to once again become Secretary of State. He ran for President the third and final time in 1852 but failed to receive the nomination of his party due in part it would seem to his support of the Compromise of 1850.

What I found so interesting about this letter is that it is so pregnant with historical relevance. I like it because it spans the period of the Early Republic, looking (not very far) back to the Founders for guidance on the prevailing issues of the day. Also, we see Webster studiously making his case for the Compromise of 1850, ostensibly at the height of his powers, unaware (naturally) of the consequences that his speech would have on his career, and indeed, the country. After all, the Compromise of 1850, of which the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 was a part, would ultimately have a major role to play in the legal reasons for Secession of the southern states, as noted in an earlier post. On another level, the letter is so fascinating to me because of its casualness, its seeming ephemerality: a note, scribbled by the great Senator himself -- one paragraph bearing on the very pillars of the country, the other light, even banal.

Comments

[Terry W. Lipscomb]

During North Carolina's debate over ratification [Tuesday, July 29, 1788], James Iredell credited the omission of the word "slave" to the northern delegates rather than to Madison, though Madison may also have commented on the reason.

Mr. IREDELL begged leave to explain the reason of this clause [the fugitive slave clause]. In some of the Northern States they have emancipated all their slaves. If any of our slaves, said he, go there, and remain there a certain time, they would, by the present laws, be entitled to their freedom, so that their masters could not get them again. This would be extremely prejudicial to the inhabitants of the Southern States; and to prevent it, this clause is inserted in the Constitution. Though the word slave is not mentioned, this is the meaning of it. The northern delegates, owing to their particular scruples on the subject of slavery, did not choose the word slave to be mentioned. [Elliot's Debates, vol 4, p 176]