the anti-slavery crusade-第13章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


ccasions。　The　South　was　duly　warned　that　an　attempt　to　disrupt　the　Union　would　involve　a　war　of　which　emancipation　would　be　one　of　the　consequences。　With　the　exception　of　Garrison　and　a　few　of　his　personal　followers；　abolitionists　were　unionists：　they　stood　for　the　perpetual　union　of　the　States。　This　is　not　the　place　to　give　an　extended　account　of　the　Mexican　War。*　There　are；　however；　certain　incidents　connected　with　the　annexation　of　Texas　and　the　resulting　war　which　profoundly　affected　the　crusade　against　slavery。　Both　Lundy　and　Birney　in　their　missions　to　promote　emancipation　through　the　process　of　colonization　believed　that　they　had　unearthed　a　plan　on　the　part　of　Southern　leaders　to　acquire　territory　from　Mexico　for　the　purpose　of　extending　slavery。　This　discovery　coincided　with　the　suppression　of　abolition　propaganda　in　the　South。　Hitherto　John　Quincy　Adams　had　favored　the　western　expansion　of　our　territory。　He　had　labored　diligently　to　make　the　Rio　Grande　the　western　boundary　of　the　Louisiana　Purchase　at　the　time　of　the　treaty　with　Spain　in　1819。　But　though　in　1825　he　had　supported　a　measure　to　purchase　Texas　from　Mexico；　under　the　new　conditions　he　threw　himself　heartily　against　the　annexation　of　Texas；　and　in　1838　he　defeated　in　the　House　of　Representatives　a　resolution　favoring　annexation。　To　this　end　Adams　occupied　the　morning　hour　of　the　House　each　day　from　the　16th　of　June　to　the　7th　of　July；　within　two　days　of　the　time　fixed　for　adjournment。　This　was　only　a　beginning　of　his　fight　against　the　extension　of　slavery。　There　was　no　relenting　in　his　opposition　to　pro…slavery　demands　until　he　was　stricken　down　with　paralysis　in　the　streets　of　Boston；　in　November；　1846。　He　never　again　addressed　a　public　assembly。　But　he　continued　to　occupy　his　seat　in　Congress　until　February　23；　1848。　*　See　〃Texas　and　the　Mexican　War〃　（in　〃The　Chronicles　of　America〃）。　The　debate　inaugurated　in　Congress　by　Adams　and　others　over　the　extension　of　slave　territory　rapidly　spread　to　the　country　at　large；　and　interest　in　the　question　became　general。　Abolitionists　were　thereby　greatly　stimulated　to　put　into　practice　their　professed　duty　of　seeking　to　accomplish　their　ends　by　political　action。　Their　first　effort　was　to　secure　recognition　in　the　regular　parties。　The　Democrats　answered　in　their　platform　of　1840　by　a　plank　specifically　denouncing　the　abolitionists；　and　the　Whigs　proved　either　noncommittal　or　unfriendly。　The　result　was　that　abolitionists　organized　a　party　of　their　own　in　1840　and　nominated　James　G。　Birney　for　the　Presidency。　Both　of　the　older　parties　during　this　campaign　evaded　the　issue　of　the　annexation　of　Texas。　In　1844　the　Whigs　again　refrained　from　giving　in　their　platform　any　official　utterance　on　the　Texas　issue；　though　they　were　understood　to　be　opposed　to　annexation。　The　Democrats　adroitly　asserted　in　their　platform　their　approval　of　the　re…annexation　of　Texas　and　reoccupation　of　Oregon。　There　was　a　shadowy　prior　claim　to　both　these　regions；　and　by　combining　them　in　this　way　the　party　avoided　any　odious　partiality　towards　the　acquisition　of　slave　territory。　But　the　voters　in　both　parties　had　become　interested　in　the　specific　question　whether　the　country　was　to　enter　upon　a　war　of　conquest　whose　primary　object　should　be　the　extension　of　slavery。　In　the　North　it　became　generally　understood　that　a　vote　for　Henry　Clay；　the　Whig　candidate；　was　an　expression　of　opposition　to　annexation。　This　issue；　however；　was　not　made　clear　in　the　South。　In　the　absence　of　telegraph　and　daily　paper　it　was　quite　possible　to　maintain　contradictory　positions　in　different　sections　of　the　country。　But　since　the　Democrats　everywhere　openly　favored　annexation；　the　election　of　their　candidate；　James　K。　Polk；　was　generally　accepted　as　a　popular　approval　of　the　annexation　of　Texas。　Indeed；　action　immediately　followed　the　election　and；　before　the　President…elect　had　been　inaugurated；　the　joint　resolution　for　the　annexation　of　Texas　passed　both　Houses　of　Congress。　The　popular　vote　was　almost　equally　divided　between　Whigs　and　Democrats。　Had　the　vote　for　Birney；　who　was　again　the　candidate　of　the　Liberty　party；　been　cast　for　Clay　electors；　Clay　would　have　been　chosen　President。　The　Birney　vote　was　over　sixty…two　thousand。　The　Liberty　party；　therefore；　held　the　balance　of　power　and　determined　the　result　of　the　election。　The　Liberty　party　has　often　been　censured　for　defeating　the　Whigs　at　this　election　of　1844。　But　many　incidents；　too　early　forgotten　by　historians；　go　far　to　justify　the　course　of　the　leaders。　Birney　and　Clay　were　at　one　time　members　of　the　same　party。　They　were　personal　friends；　and　as　slave　holders　they　shared　the　view　that　slavery　was　a　menace　to　the　country　and　ought　to　be　abolished。　It　was　just　fourteen　years　before　this　election　that　Birney　made　a　visit　to　Clay　to　induce　him　to　accept　the　leadership　of　an　organized　movement　to　abolish　slavery　in　Kentucky。　Three　years　later；　when　Birney　returned　to　Kentucky　to　do　himself　what　Henry　Clay　had　refused　to　do；　he　became　convinced　that　the　reaction　which　had　taken　place　in　favor　of　slavery　was　largely　due　to　Clay's　influence。　This　was　a　common　impression　among　active　abolitionists。　It　is　not　strange；　therefore；　that　they　refused　to　support　him　as　a　candidate　for　the　Presidency；　and　it　is　not　at　all　certain　that　his　election　in　1844　would　have　prevented　the　war　with　Mexico。　Northern　Whigs　accused　the　Democrats　of　fomenting　a　war　with　Mexico　with　the　intention　of　gaining　territory　for　the　purpose　of　extending　slavery。　Democrats　denied　that　the　annexation　of　Texas　would　lead　to　war；　and　many　of　them　proclaimed　their　opposition　to　the　farther　extension　of　slavery。　In　harmony　with　this　sentiment；　when　President　Polk　asked　for　a　grant　of　two　million　dollars　to　aid　in　making　a　treaty　with　Mexico；　they　attached　to　the　bill　granting　the　amount　a　proviso　to　the　effect　that　slavery　should　forever　be　prohibited　in　any　territory　which　might　be　obtained　from　Mexico　by　the　contemplated　treaty。　The　proviso　was　written　by　an　Ohio　Democrat　and　was　introduced　in　the　House　by　David　A。　Wilmot；　a　Pennsylvania　Democrat；　after　whom　it　is　known。　It　passed　the　House　by　a　fair　majority　with　the　support　of　both　Whigs　and　Democrats。　At　the　time　of　the　original　introduction　in　August；　1846；　the　Senate　did　not　vote　upon　the　measure。　Davis　of　Massachusetts　moved　its　adoption　but　inadvertently　prolonged　his　speech　in　its　favor　until　the　hour　for　adjournment。　Hence　there　was　no　vote　on　the　subject。　Subsequently　the　proviso　in　a　new　form　again　passed　the　House　but　failed　of　adoption　in　the　Senate。　During　the　war　the　Wilmot　Proviso　was　the　subject　of　frequent　debate　in　Congress　and　of　continuous　debate　throughout　the　country　until　the　treaty　with　Mexico　was　signed　in　1848。　A　vast　territory　had　been　acquired　as　a　result　of　the　war；　and　no　decision　had　been　reached　as　to　whether　it　should　remain　free　or　be　opened　to　settlement　by　slave…owners。　Another　presidential　election　was　at　hand。　For　fully　ten　years　there　had　been　ever…increasing　excitement　over　the　question　of　the　limitation　or　the　extension　of　slavery。　This　had　clearly　become　the　topic　of　supreme　interest　throughout　the　country；　and　yet　the　two　leading　parties　avoided　the　issue。　Their　own　membership　was　divided。　Northern　Democrats；　many　of　them；　were　decidedly　opposed　to　slavery　extension。　Southern　Whigs　with　equal　intensity　favored　the　extension　of　slavery　into　the　new　territory。　The　platforms　of　the　two　parties　were　silent　on　the　subject。　The　Whigs　nominated　Taylor；　a　Southern　general　who　had　never　voted　their　party　ticket；　but　they　made　no　formal　declaration　of　principles。　The　Democrats　repeated　with　colorless　additions　their　platforms　of　1840　anti　1844　and　sought　to　win　the　election　with　a　Northern　man；　Lewis　Cass　of　Michigan；　as　candidate。　There　was；　therefore；　a　clear　field　for　a　party　having　fully　defined　views　to　express　on　a　topic　of　commanding　interest。　The　cleavage　in　the　Democratic　party　already　begun　by　the　debate　over　the　Wilmot　Proviso　was　farther　promoted　by　a　factional　division　of　New　York　Democrats。　Martin　Van　Buren　became　the　leader　of　the　liberal　faction；　the　〃Barnburners；〃　who　nominated　him　for　President　at　a　convention　at　Utica。　The　spirit　of　independence　now　seiz