YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

tEfje Uniucrsitp of Chicago
FOUNDED BTf JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER

MISSISSIPPI AND THE COMPROMISE
OF 1850

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE
SCHOOL OF ARTS AND LITERATURE IN CANDIDACY FOR
THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

BY
CLEO HEARON

1913

?\

Reprinted from the Pdbucations op the Mississippi Historical SoaETY, Volume XIV, 1013

Reprinted from the Publications op the Mississippi Historical Society, Vol. XIV.

MISSISSIPPI AND THE COMPROMISE OF 1850.
By Cleo Hearon, Ph.D.1
CHAPTER I.
THE PREPARATION OF MISSISSIPPI FOR THE STRUGGLE OVER SLAVERY.
The struggle over the extension of slavery in the territory acquired
from Mexico and the Compromise of 1850 is significant in the history of
the United States as a part of the struggle over slavery between the
North and the South, which was finally to result in the secession from
the Union of the slaveholding states and a great war to decide whether
the existence of two separate nations within the United States should
be recognized.
The development of Mississippi had well fitted it to play a leading
part in the defense of slavery in this struggle. Its climate and soil
especially adapted it to agriculture; and its development was begun
along that fine by the French, the first European occupants of its soil,
with negro slavery as a basis.2 During the period of British control,
which followed that of the French, the settlements in what is now the
southern part of the state continued to grow in prosperity through the
cultivation of tobacco, indigo, flax, cotton and grains,3 and the demand
for cheap labor was supplied by the importation of negro slaves.4
Though, after the Revolutionary War, the lands lying between the Mis
sissippi and the Chattahoochie rivers and the thirty-first degree north
latitude and a line drawn from the mouth of the Yazoo due east to the
Chattahoochie were in dispute between Spain and the United States,
the progress of their development was not affected. The dispute
1 This contribution was prepared in the University of Chicago and submitted
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in 1913.
A biographical sketch of the author will be found in the Publications of the Missis
sippi Historical Society, XII, 37. — Editor.
2 Hamilton, Colonial Mobile. Pickett, History of Alabama.
3 Wailes, Report on the Agriculture and Geology of Mississippi, 129.
4 Pickett, History of Alabama, 323. 7

8 Mississippi Historical Society.
having been settled in favor of the United States, Congress, in 1798,
organized those lands as the Mississippi territory and authorized the
president to establish there a government similar in all respects to
that provided in the Ordinance of 1787 except that slavery should not
be prohibited.6 Thus, in the very beginning of the organization of
Mississippi under the government of the United States, the exist
ence of slavery within its borders was formally recognized by Congress;
and, as the territory was rounded out by the addition of other strips
of land, this recognition was continued.
In the meantime, there was developing in the territory the industry
that was surely making slavery a profitable institution and sweeping
out of the Southern states all opposition to its continuance. The
cultivation of cotton there, as elsewhere, was tremendously stimulated
by the introduction of Whitney's cotton gin. The first gin in Missis
sippi was constructed in 1795, and two years later Sir William Dunbar
declared that cotton had become the universal crop of the Natchez
district.6 A letter from Governor Claiborne, in 1801, contains a state
ment of the remarkable returns from labor in Mississippi when applied
to the production of cotton. He writes:
I have heard it supposed by men whose opinions are entitled to respect, that the
aggregate amount of the Sales of Cotton, raised the present year, in this District
will exceed 700,000 Dollars, which among a people, whose members (of all denomi
nations) do not exceed nine thousand, is an immense Revenue; — The fact is, that
Labour here, is more valuable than in any other part of the United States, and the
industrial portion of the citizens are amassing great fortunes."7
Naturally this wonderful productivity of labor stimulated the
importation of slaves and the number in the territory increased in the
decade from 1800 to 1810 from 3,389 to 17,088. 8 Governors of the
territory, foreseeing the time when the slaves would outnumber the
white population, viewed with alarm the increasing number of
5 United States Statutes at Large, I, 549.
There was a sharp debate in the House over an amendment to this bill, proposed
by Thacher of Massachusetts, prohibiting slavery in the territory, which is inter
esting both as the beginning in Congress of the struggle over slavery in the terri
tories and as advancing many of the arguments on which both sides were later to rely.
Annals of Congress, sth Cong., 1797-1799, II, 1310-n.
6 Wailes, Report on the Agriculture and Geology of Mississippi, 167.
Claiborne, Mississippi as a Province, Territory and State, I, 143.
7 Letter from Governor Claiborne to James Madison, Secretary of State, Natchez,
December 20, 1801, Mississippi Territorial Archives, 1798-1803, 1, 363.
8 Ninth Census of the United States, 1870, 1, 41-43. The number of inhabitants
increased during the decade from 8,850 to 40,352.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 9
slaves9 and favored the passage by the legislature of laws restricting
their importation.10 But the economic advantages of slavery out
weighed, with the territorial legislatures, any dread of future danger
and no such laws were passed.11
Thus slavery was firmly fixed in Mississippi during its colonial and
territorial existence; and, in 1817, when the Mississippi territory was
divided and that part of it now known as Mississippi was organized
as a state, there was no division in the constitutional convention on
the continuation of slavery, the greatest restriction laid by the conven
tion on the development of the institution being the granting to the
general assembly of the state the right to prohibit the introduction
of slaves into the state as merchandise.
But the legislatures of the state showed no more desire to exercise
this power than had the territorial legislatures. And partly as the
result of this importation of slaves for traffic, but more as the result of
the bringing in of slaves by their owners in the great tide of immigra
tion that set into this section after the War of 181 2, 12 the number of
slaves in Mississippi had increased, in 1820, to 32,8i413 and slavery
was established in every county organized in the state.14 In the four
lower counties on the Mississippi river, the slaves outnumbered the
white population and in Warren fell little short of it; and even in the
less fertile "piney woods" counties of the east and in sparsely settled
Monroe, on the Tombigbee, their number did not fall below one-fifth
that of the white population.
But though in 1820, because of its rich returns, slavery was defi-

9 Address to the Militia Officers by Governor Sargent, January 12, 1801, Missis
sippi Territorial Archives, 1798-1803, I, 324-5.
10 Letter from Governor Claiborne to James Madison, January 23, 1802, Ibid.,
I, 374. Message of Governor Williams to the Legislature, December 4, 1807,
Dunbar Rowland, Encyclopedia of Mississippi History, II, 677.
11 The only restrictions the legislature laid on the traffic in slaves were the prohi
bition of the introduction of criminals and the laying of a tax of $5 on each individ
ual imported.
u The greatness of this tide of immigration is shown by the census reports. The
total population of the Mississippi territory in 1810 was 40,352; by 1820 this popu
lation had increased to 127,901 in Alabama and 75,448 in Mississippi. Ninth
Census of the United States, 1870, 1, 41-43.
13 The number of slaves in 1810 in the Mississippi territory was 17,088; iu 1820,
the number in Mississippi was 32,814, and in Alabama 41,878. Ibid.
14 These counties, except Monroe, were in the southern part of the state and
included all the lands over which the state had control before 1820. Riley, School
History of Mississippi, map, p. 150.

io Mississippi Historical Society.
nitely accepted as an economic institution in every county in Missis
sippi, it was not yet regarded as an institution to be praised and its
justification was not found in the laws of nature or of God.16 This
attitude toward slavery was to be developed in the next twenty years.
During these years, the Indians, who before 1820 had occupied all
except a small portion of the state, were removed16 and their lands
opened to settlers. Beginning with 1833, fhe sale of public lands was
remarkable,17 and the state was rapidly filled with settlers, the total
population in 1840 having increased to 375,6s1- The wonderful re
turns from the culture of cotton was the great factor in attracting
this stream of immigration into Mississippi, and the production of
that staple increased from 43,000 bales in 182018 to 483,504 bales in
1840.19 Since this cotton was produced, in the main, by slave labor,
there was a corresponding increase, during these years, in the number
of slaves in the state. In 1840, the slave population of Mississippi
numbered 195, 21120 and Mississippi had become a "black state."
During the next decade, the total population, the number of slaves,
and the production of cotton continued to increase in Mississippi. By
1850 the population reached 606,526 and the number of slaves 309,-
878;21 but there was not a corresponding increase in the production of
cotton, only 484,292 bales having been produced in that year.22
From these statistics it will be seen that, when the great struggle
16 This is shown in the decisions of the supreme court of the state. "What are
these vested rights," asked the supreme court in June 1818, "are they derived from
nature or from municipal law? Slavery is condemned by reason and by the laws
of nature. It exists and can only exist, through municipal regulations, and in
matters of doubt, it is not an unquestioned rule, that courts must lean 'in favorem
vitae et libertatis?' " Opinion of the Supreme Court of Mississippi in the case of
Harry and Others vs. Decker and Hopkins, June term, 1818, Walker, Reporis of
Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court of Mississippi, 42.
In June 1820, the supreme court again declared that "slavery exists not by force
of the law of nature or of nations, but by virtue only of the positive provisions of the
law, to these the master must look for all his rights." State vs. Jones Walker, 83.
16 The Choctaws made a cession of a part of their lands to the United States
government in 1820 and of the remainder in 1830. The Chickasaws ceded theirs
in 1832. Riley, School History of Mississippi, map, p. 150.
17 Watkins, King Cotton, 162.
™Ibid., Ch. 8.
19 Compendium of Sixth Census, 1840, 228.
20 Ninth Census of the United States, 1870, 1, 41-43.
21 Ibid.
22 Seventh Census of the United States, 1850, p. 458. This was not a normal crop,
however, 541,946 bales having been produced the preceding year and 501,146 bales
the following. Watkins, King Cotton, Ch. 8.

*< < < ' <jVf''S-.[-.-. \ ¦¦¦ ¦ ::\?

DISTRIBUTION OF
SLAVES, AND THE P
COTTON IN MISSISS
ORANGE, COUNTIE
MORE THAN
ITANTS.
GREEN, COUNTIES C
TWEEN 5,0'
INHABITANT
WHITE, COUNTIES
LESS THAN
ITANTS.

(TTTn COUNTIES CONTAINING A NEGRO POPULATION OF MORE THAN 50%.
Kvn COUNTIES CONTAINING A NEGRO POPULATION OF BETWEEN 26% AND
KVM 5 0%.
I | COUNTIES CONTAINING A NEGRO POPULATION OF LESS THAN 25%.

COUNTIES PRODUCING BETWEEN 2,500 AND 10,000 BALES OFCOTTON.
| [ COUNTIES PRODUCING L£ ** THAN 2'500 BALES °F COTTON.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. n
over slavery between the sections came, the development of Mississippi
on the basis that had been established in the period of its territorial
and colonial existence, the cultivation, with negro slaves, of cotton as
the great staple crop, was well under way. But this development had
not been equal in every part of the state and the distribution of popu
lation, slaves, and the production of cotton as shown in the census of
1850 is of great interest in the study of the attitude of the various
counties of the state in the struggle over slavery between the North
and the South. The most populous district of the state consisted of
the Chickasaw counties in the north and extended south, in the east,
along the Alabama line through Kemper county, and in the west,
along the Big Black river on both sides to its mouth and then down the
Mississippi to the southern boundary of the state. The least popu
lous districts were the fertile Mississippi- Yazoo delta, the lack of
drainage having impeded its development, and the southeastern
part of the state, for the most part the long-leaf pine region. The
black belt of the state was fairly well fixed in 1850. The great mass
of it was in the west, extending along the Mississippi the whole length
of the state, and including twenty-two of the fifty-nine counties. In
the east, on the Tombigbee river, there was also a group of four coun
ties, Monroe, Lowndes, Noxubee, and Oktibbeha, that belonged to
the black belt. In all the other counties of the state, except sparsely
settled Harrison, Jones, Smith, and Newton, in the southeast and the
populous counties of Itawamba, Tishomingo, and Tippah, in the north
east, the slaves exceeded one-fourth of the total population. It
might be supposed that the cotton belt would coincide with the
black belt, but the agricultural development of the state was not
sufficiently complete for this to be true. The most important varia
tion was in the Mississippi- Yazoo delta. Although all the counties
in that region were being developed with slave labor and before the
next census were to be important contributors to the total amount
of cotton produced in the state, in 1850, only Washington produced
more than 10,000 bales, Tunica, Coahoma, and Sunflower falling below
2,500 bales. In the other counties, cotton was either the dominant or
an important economic interest except in a group of seventeen counties
in the southeastern part of the state, the majority of which were in
the "piney woods" region.23
28 For distribution of population, slaves, and the production of cotton in Missis
sippi in 1850, see map 1.

12 Mississippi Historical Society.
Though slavery and the rich returns from it in the production of
cotton were unequally distributed in Mississippi, there is no evidence
of the opposition of any section of the state to the institution. A
sectionalism, it is true, arose very early in the history of the state
between the older and better developed counties in the southwest,
on the one hand, and the new ones north of the original counties
and the less fertile ones in the long-leaf pine regions, on the other.
This sectionalism was due, however, in part to the difference in the
state of the economic development of the two sections and in part
to the unwillingness of the older dominant counties to surrender the
political control of the state; and shifting somewhat with the economic
development of the counties, was destined to continue as long as the
economic conditions on which it was based. In regard to the protec
tion and the promotion of slavery, the sections were in accord, the
only difference being that the more undeveloped and the less wealthy,
as was natural, was willing to resort to more radical measures to fur
ther these ends than the richer and more conservative section. These
statements are borne out by the proceedings of the second constitu
tional convention.
As new counties were organized in the Indian cessions, the political
strength of the state passed, of course, to the north and east; and, in
1832, this shifting of political power resulted in a convention of the
state to amend the constitution of 181 7 so as to make it accord more
with the views of the new dominant sections. The only division in
this convention on the subject of slavery was on the question of the
prohibition of the importation of slaves into the state for sale. Prob
ably as a result of the stimulus of the Nat Turner insurrection in
Virginia, a provision was adopted declaring:
The introduction of slaves into this state as merchandise or for sale, shall be
prohibited from and after the first day of May, eighteen hundred and thirty-three:
Provided, that the actual settler or settlers shall not be prohibited from purchasing
slaves in any state in the Union and bringing them into this state for their own
individual use, until the year eighteen hundred and forty-five.24
While the divisions in the convention on these provisions were not
entirely sectional, the opposition to the prohibition of the introduction
24 The Constitution of the State of Mississippi as revised in convention on the
twenty-sixth day of October, A.D., 1832. Journal of the Convention of the State of
Mississippi, 1832, Appendix, p. 25.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 13
of slaves as merchandise was almost entirely from the new and unde
veloped counties north of the original ones and the "piney woods"
counties in the east.25 On the other hand, the opposition to the
proviso came from the counties in the west.26
The removal by the convention of 1832 of all property qualifica
tions for voting or holding office placed the power over the poUtical
affairs of the state securely in the hands of the small slaveholders and
the non-slaveholders, and those classes thereafter, through the Demo
cratic party, lorded it over the great planters, who, for the most part,
were members of the Whig party, in respect to the bank, repudiation
of bonds, and other national and local issues. Yet they made no effort
to restrict the development of slavery in the state by the enactment
of the legislation necessary to carry into effect the provisions of the
constitution of 1832 concerning the importation of slaves.27 In fact
the Democratic party in Mississippi manifested a devotion to slavery
hardly equaled by the Whig and a willingness to resort to more extreme
measures for its protection and promotion.
Hence, when the movement came for the expansion of the United
States to the west that was to result in the great struggle between
the sections over slavery, the people of Mississippi, as a whole, were
committed to the support of slavery. They were, also, convinced
that their social existence, economic prosperity, and political power
were bound up with that institution, and were ready to further expan
sion to the southwest as conducive to the promotion of its prosperity.
A report made in the legislature, in 1837, by a committee of the House,
recommending the annexation of Texas, gives evidence of this and,
also, of the change taking place in the state in regard to the earlier

25 The vote on the resolution of McNabb, of Pike, to strike out the provision
relating to the prohibition of the introduction of slaves as merchandise was seven
teen yeas and twenty-six nays. The yeas were two each from Copiah and Yazoo,
and one each from Hancock, Monroe, Rankin, Lawrence, Pike, Greene, Covington,
Lowndes, and the districts composed of Yazoo and Madison, Copiah and Jefferson,
Lawrence, Simpson, and Covington, Amite and Franklin, and Monroe, Lowndes,
and Rankin. Journal of the Constitutional Convention of Mississippi, 1832, 159.
26 The vote on this proviso, introduced by Howard of Rankin, was 28 yeas and
15 nays. The nays were two each from Jefferson, Amite, and Wilkinson and one
each from Adams, Claiborne, Franklin, Hinds, Marion, Pike, Washington, and the
districts composed of Amite and Franklin and Pike and Marion. Ibid., 174.
27 The Supreme Court of the United States decided that a legislative enactment
was necessary to carry those provisions of the constitution into effect. Claiborne,
Mississippi as u. Province, Territory and State, 476.

14 Mississippi Historical Society.
view of slavery as an evil. The committee urged the interests of
slavery as a reason why the South should demand annexation and
declared that "an equipoise of influence in the halls of Congress"
might be thus secured. It then proceeded to set forth the view of
slavery that the state was coming to adopt and that was to form the
basis of its fierce struggle in defense of this institution. The com
mittee declared:
This system is cherished by our constitutents as the very palladium of their
prosperity and happiness, and whatever ignorant fanatics may elsewhere conjecture,
the committee are fully assured, upon the most diligent observation and reflection
on the subject, that the South does not possess within her limits a blessing, with
which the affections of her people are so closely entwined and so completely enfi-
bered, and whose value is more highly appreciated  To this system we
owe more than we can well estimate of domestic comfort and social happiness.
The people of the state were enthusiastically in favor of the policy
recommended in this report and Robert J. Walker, Senator from Mis
sissippi, in becoming a leader in the movement for the annexation of
Texas, fittingly reflected the will of his constitutents. By his famous
letter advocating the "reannexation of Texas and the reoccupation of
Oregon," he did much to make those measures the issue in the presi
dential campaign of 1844; and he contributed further to this end by
assisting in the shrewd political manoeuvering that set aside Van Buren
in the Democratic National Convention of 1844 and nominated Polk
for president on that issue.29 His constitutents approved his course
by casting the electoral vote of the state for Polk.
The annexation of Texas succeeded the election of Polk and the
people of Mississippi, having contributed their share in bringing about
both events, staunchly supported the administration of Polk in the
war with Mexico that followed. They contributed more than their
quota of troops, approved the conduct of the administration in carry
ing on the war,30 favored the acquisition of territory from Mexico as
indemnity, and, without doubt, would have approved the policy
of holding all Mexico urged upon the president by, at least, two of
their fellow-citizens, Robert J. Walker, who had become Secretary of
the Treasury and a most powerful factor in the Cabinet,31 and John
28 House Journal, 1837, 158.
29 Claiborne, Mississippi as a Province, Territory and Slate, I, 417-421.
30 Resolutions of the Legislature of Mississippi on the Mexican War, April 20,
1848. Senate Miscellaneous Documents, 30th Congress, ist Session, No. 126.
31 Polk, Diary, III, 229, November 23, 1847.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 15
A. Quitman.32 But the carrying out of this policy was prevented by
the beginning of a greater struggle than the war with Mexico.
When it became evident that the war would result in the expansion
of the United States to the southwest the question of the extension of
slavery into the region to be acquired was raised; and, as Calhoun and
other leaders both North and South had foreseen, a fierce struggle
between the two sections on the subject was precipitated. Mississippi
was prepared by the course of its development to align itself with
the other states of the South in defense of the extension of slavery;
but it did not assume a leading part in the beginning of the struggle.
For the leaders from Mississippi who were to play an important part
in Congress in this crisis had not appeared in the twenty-ninth Con
gress; and, outside of Congress, Mississippi awaited the initiative of
the older slaveholding states to which the South was accustomed to
look for leadership. But to explain fuEy the part of Mississippi in
the Compromise of 1850, a brief account of the begirming of the
struggle over slavery in the territory acquired from Mexico is nec
essary. 52 Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 7-9.

CHAPTER II.
THE BEGINNINGS OF THE CONTROVERSY OVER SLAVERY AND OF THE
SOUTHERN MOVEMENT.
It had been understood by all that a war with Mexico would result
in the expansion of the United States to the southwest and it had been
recognized, with equal clearness, by many, that any acquisition of
territory would precipitate a struggle between the two sections over
the question of the extension of slavery. But the war was begun in
spite of the opposition of those who feared its consequences and the
struggle over slavery was not long delayed.
August 8, 1846, there was introduced into the House a bill appro
priating two million dollars for the purpose of making peace with
Mexico, which sum, it was very generally known, was to be used to
further negotiations that had in view the cession of a large amount of
territory to the United States. Accordingly, David Wilmot, of Penn
sylvania, offered an amendment to the bill providing that, as an
express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory
from Mexico by the United States, slavery should be forever excluded
from any part of it.1 An amendment to confine the operation of the
proviso to the territory north of the line 360 30' having been defeated,
the proviso was adopted by a vote of 83 to 64 and the bill as amended
passed the House.2 Although the proviso failed to reach a vote in the
Senate because of the adjournment of Congress,3 its passage by the
1 Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 Sess., 1217.
2 Ibid., 1218.
3 Ibid., 1220-1221; Polk, Diary, II, 75-76.
Polk characterized the proviso as "mischievous and foolish," and states that it
"was voted on to the Bill by the opponents of the measure, and when voted on, the
original friends of the Bill voted against it, but it was passed by the Whigs and
Northern Democrats, who had been opposed to making the appropriation. In
this form it had gone to the Senate. Had there been time, there is but little doubt
the Senate would have struck out the slavery proviso and that the House would
have concurred. Senator Davis however resorted to the disreputable expedient
of speaking against time and thus prevented the Senate from acting upon it, until
the hour of adjournment arrived." 16

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 17
House raised again the question of the extension of slavery, the dan
gerous possibilities of which had startled Jefferson in the days of the
controversy over Missouri, and began the great sectional controversy
over slavery that was to end in the realization of his worst fears.
In the next session of Congress, the struggle between the sections
over the extension of slavery was fairly joined. To a bill in the House
appropriating three million dollars to be used to negotiate a treaty
with Mexico, there was added, February 15, 1847, by a v°te of 115 to
106, an amendment, more sweeping than the original Wilmot proviso,
prohibiting slavery in any territory that might be annexed to the
United States in any way whatever.4 But an effort to attach the
Wilmot proviso to a similar appropriation bill in the Senate was de
feated by the votes of all the senators from the Southern states, except
John M. Clayton, of Delaware, and of five Northern Democrats.5
Although a motion of David Wilmot, in the House, in the committee
of the whole, to attach the Wilmot proviso to this appropriation bill
from the Senate, was carried by a vote of 90 to 80, the amendment
was defeated in the House by the vote of the representatives of all the
slaveholding states, except Delaware, and of twenty-three Northern
Democrats;6 and the Senate three million dollar bill was passed March
3, 1847, by a vote of 115 to 81. 7 With the passage of this bill, the
struggle over the extension of slavery into Mexican territory was
suspended until that territory should be actually acquired from
Mexico. The struggle over the bills for this appropriation and the proposed
amendments was ominously significant. In its course, all party lines
among the members of Congress from the South were broken down
and the effort to exclude slavery by the Wilmot proviso from the
territory to be acquired from Mexico was resisted by the united
strength of all the slaveholding states, except Delaware. Moreover,
though the votes, in this struggle, of members of Congress from the
4 Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., 424.
A motion made by Douglas to confine the operation of the amendment to the
territory above the line 360 30' north latitude failed by a vote of 82 to 109.
6 Ibid., 555, March 1, 1847.
The vote was 21 to 31. The five Northern Democrats who voted against the
proviso were Breese, of Illinois, Bright and Hannigan, of Indiana, Cass, of Michigan,
and Dickinson, of New York.
'Ibid., 573. The vote was 97 to 102.
¦•Ibid., 573-

18 Mississippi Historical Society.
free states were determined partly by party considerations and fac
tional strife within the Democratic party, yet they showed an alarm
ing tendency in the North to unite in opposition to the extension of
slavery. Furthermore, the debates displayed a fully developed con
sciousness of sectional differences and revealed the forces at work
that were to array section against section.
The belief in the free states that slavery is a moral, religious, and
social evil had been strengthened by the abolition agitation and other
humanitarian and social movements of the time; and the opposition to
the expansion of slavery was due, in part, to the unalterable determi
nation of many that its blighting influence should not be extended
through the instrumentality of the general government of the United
States.8 It was, also, partly due to a conviction that there was an
inherent hostility between an economic system based on free labor
and one based on slavery and a determination to preserve the terri
tory to be acquired by the United States for the expansion of free labor
and the development of the industrial institutions of the free states.9
Using these motives of opposition to the extension of slavery as a
means, many of the leaders of the North worked to wrest political
power from the slaveholding states by uniting the majority against
the minority section over the policy of the exclusion of slavery from
the territories.10
In the controversy, the Southern delegates based their defense of
slavery on the arguments that were to be maintained by the South
throughout the struggle over slavery, namely, that the institution is
sustained by the Bible and the constitution and is conducive to the
welfare of society.11 But they, also, revealed that the people of the
South were firmly convinced that their whole social order was irrevo
cably bound up with slavery and that anything that tended to under
mine the institution in a like measure tended to bring their section face

8 Speech of James Dixon, of Connecticut, February 9, 1847, Cong. Globe, 29 Cong.,
2 Sess., appx., 332; Speech of B. R. Wood, of New York, February 10, 1847. Ibid.
342-345; Speech of J. R. Giddings, of Ohio, February 13, 1847, Ibid. 403-406.
9 Speech of David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, February 8, 1847, Ibid., 314-318.
" Speech of Rathburn, of New York, February 9, 1847, Cong. Globe, 29 Cong.,
2 Sess., 364-3S6; Speech of Upham, of Vermont, March 1, 1847, Ibid., 546-548.
11 Speech of Dobbin, of North Carolina, February n, 1847, Ibid., 383-386; Speech
of Jones, of Georgia, February 13, 1847, Ibid., appx., 360-366.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 19
to face with problems they dreaded more than any problem slavery
could possibly present; and that, since the welfare and preserva
tion of the institution depended on the economic prosperity of the
South, they were determined to provide for the future prosperity of
their section by securing room for the expansion of slavery.12 In
addition, they disclosed that the South was moved by the desire to
protect its peculiar institution from the growing influence of the aboli
tionists by acquiring additional territory for the extension of slavery
from which it might derive, in the future, representation in the Senate
to offset the representation that the opposition would acquire through
the admission of new states from the territory already in the possession
of the United States.13
But the momentous question raised in these debates was that of
the power of Congress over slavery in the territories. The division
of opinion, even among the Southern leaders, shows that definite views
in regard to the vexed question had not been formed, at that time, by
either section; but theories and policies were advocated, in these dis
cussions, that were to be of importance in the formation of the atti
tude of the two sections towards this question, which was finally to
array them against each other.
The doctrine that was accepted by the South as the basis of its
theories on the subject was set forth in the House by Robert Barnwell
Rhett, of South Carolina, in a close constitutional argument to prove
that Congress had no power over slavery in the territories. Sover
eignty in the United States, according to Rhett, rested in the people
of the states respectively and sovereignty over the territories was
vested in the states jointly as tenants in common; therefore neither
the federal government nor the states of the North could turn the
Southern states out of their sovereignty over the territories and pre
vent their citizens from entering those territories with whatever was
recognized as property by any state.14
n Speech of Stephen Adams, of Mississippi, January 2, 1847, Cong. Globe, 29
Cong., 2 Sess., appx., 142; Speech of T. H. Bayly, of Virginia, February n, 1847,
Ibid., 34S-349-
a Speech of Calhoun, February 19, 1847, Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., 454;
speech of Kaufman, of Texas, February 10, 1847, Ibid., appx. 149-1 55.
14 Speech of Robert Barnwell Rhett, of South Carolina, on the Oregon territory
bill, January 15, 1847, Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., appx., 244-247. Though
delivered on the Oregon bill, this speech was inspired by the Wilmot proviso.

20 Mississippi Historical Society.
With this doctrine of sovereignty as a basis, Calhoun formulated a
series of resolutions which he presented to the Senate, February 19,
1847. Although they did not come to a vote in that body, these reso
lutions formed a convenient statement of principles on which to rally
the South and became of great importance as the first platform of that
section in its struggle for the extension of slavery in the territories
and as the basis of its whole future position in that contest.
The resolutions declared that the territories of the United States
belonged to the several states composing the Union, and were held by
them as their joint and common property; that Congress, as the joint
agent and representative of the states, had no right to make any law,
or do any act whatever, that would directly, or by its effect, make any
discrimination between the states of the Union by which any of them
should be deprived of its full and equal right in any territory of the
United States ; and that the enactment of any law which should directly,
or by its effect, deprive the citizens of any of the states from immigrat
ing with their property to any of the territories of the Unites States,
would make such ciiscrimination, and would, therefore, be a violation of
the constitution and the rights of the states from which such citizens
emigrated, and in derogation of that prefect equality which belonged
to them as members of the Union, and would tend directly to subvert
the Union itself. Finally, the resolutions asserted that it was a funda
mental principle of the political creed of the people of the United
States that a people, in forming a constitution, have the unconditional
right to form and adopt the government which they think best calcu
lated to secure their liberty, prosperity, and happiness; that, in con
formity thereto, no other condition is imposed by the federal consti
tution on a state, in order to be admitted into the Union, except that
its constitution shall be republican; and that the imposition of any
other condition by Congress would not only be in violation of the
constitution, but in direct conflict with the principle on which the
political system of the United States rests.15
But members of Congress from the South, as well as from the free
states, showed, in these debates, a willingness to accept a solution of
the question that yielded the principles asserted in these resolutions,
16 Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., 455.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 21
by advocating an extension of the line of the Missouri Compromise to
the Pacific as the most satisfactory adjustment of the controversy.16
Another solution of the question was suggested, which, developed
as the doctrine of "squatter sovereignty," was to become of great
importance in the struggle over the extension of slavery in the terri
tories. Leake, a representative from Virginia, declared in the House,
February 17, 1847, that Southern men disclaimed the authority or
power of the government to interfere to any extent whatever with the
rights of slave property in any territory that might be acquired.
"We maintain," he said, "that is a question to be left to the people of
this territory to decide and with which the government cannot inter
fere."17 The members of Congress from the free states who opposed the Wil
mot proviso were not influenced, to any extent, by the doctrine of the
lack of power in Congress to enact such a measure. Although they
sincerely deplored the arraying of section against section and many of
them, especially from the West, evinced an indifference to slavery, the
main arguments they used to defeat the proviso were that it was unnec
essary, for slavery did not exist in the territory by virtue of the laws
of Mexico and the existing laws would continue until changed by legis
lative enactment of the United States; that the attaching of such a
provision to the appropriation bill would embarass the administration
in the conduct of the war and result in the failure to acquire any terri
tory; and that the proper time for the raising of the question of the
extension of slavery would be when the territory was acquired from
Mexico and a government was to be organized for it.18
That question would be raised again, the people of the North left
no doubt. Public sentiment in that section became so opposed to the
further extension of slavery that Democrats joined with Whigs in pro
nouncing in favor of the Wilmot proviso; and, one by one, legislatures
16 Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., 362.
Polk and his cabinet favored this compromise, Polk's Diary, II, 335; and even
Calhoun was willing to acquiesce in it to preserve the peace of the Union. Ibid.,
454- 17 Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., 444. In the beginning of the next session of
Congress, this doctrine was reasserted by Dickinson of New York in a set of reso
lutions introduced into the Senate, December 14, 1848, Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 1
Sess., 21; and on December 24, 1847, Cass in a letter to A. O. P. Nicholson, of Nash
ville, lent the strength of his support to it. Niles Register, LXXIII, 293.
18 Speech of Cass, March 1, 1847, Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., 548-551.

22 Mississippi Historical Society.
of the free states passed resolutions demanding the exclusion of slavery
as a condition precedent to any acquisition of territory by the United
States.19 Consequently the friends of the Wilmot proviso confidently
looked forward to its passage in the next session of Congress.20
The South was not slow in understanding the danger to its institu
tions in this growing unanimity of sentiment in the majority section
in favor of the Wilmot proviso; and fully comprehended that, although,
by united action, it had succeeded in forcing the removal of the pro
viso from "the three million dollar bill," it had only postponed the
question of the extension of slavery and that a fierce struggle lay before
it on that issue when territory should have been actually acquired
from Mexico. For success in that struggle, the Southern states under
stood that, since they were in the minority, it was necessary for them
to unite on a definite program. Accordingly, March 8, 1847, the gen
eral assembly of Virginia set forth such a program and called upon the
other slaveholding states to support it.
In a series of resolutions, the Virginia assembly first denied that the
government of the United States had any control, directly or indirectly,
over the institution of slavery; and, in accordance with the resolutions
of Calhoun, asserted that the territory of the United States was the
common property of the several states, in which each and all had
equal rights, and that the enactment by the federal government of
any law that should directly, or by its effects, prevent the citizens
of any state from immigrating, with their property of whatever de
scription, into such territory would make a discrimination unwarranted
by the constitution and in violation of its compromises and of the
rights of the states from which such citizens emigrated, and in dero
gation of that prefect equality that belonged to the several states as
members of the Union, and would tend directly to subvert the Union
itself. The assembly then declared:
That, if in disregard alike of the spirit and principles of the act of Congress on the
admission of the State of Missouri into the Union, generally known as the Missouri
Compromise, and of every consideration of justice, of constitutional right, and of
19 Von Hoist, Constitutional History of the United States, III, 307. "The Legis
latures of Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Ohio, New Hamp
shire, New Jersey, Michigan, Massachusetts, and Connecticut demanded the exclu
sion of slavery as a condition precedent to all territorial acquisition. Delaware,
too, instructed its senators to vote in this sense."
20 Speech of Giddings, of Ohio, Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., appx., 403-404.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 23
fraternal feeling, the fearful issue shall be forced upon the country, which must
result from the adoption and attempted enforcement of the Wilmot Proviso, as an
act of the General Government, the people of Virginia can have no difficulty in
choosing between the only alternatives that will remain, of abject submission to
aggression and outrage on the one hand, or determined resistance on the other, at
all hazards and to the last extremity.
Finally, the assembly asserted that it was the duty of every man in
the confederacy to whom the Union was dear to oppose the passage of
any law by which the territory to be acquired might be subject to the
restriction contained in the Wilmot proviso, and resolved unanimously
that the passage of the proviso would make it the duty of every slave-
holding state, and all the citizens thereof, as they valued " their dearest
privileges, their sovereignty, their independence, their rights of prop
erty, to take firm, united and concerted action in this emergency."21
These resolutions of Virginia met with speedy and wide spread
approval throughout the South.22 The legislature of Mississippi was
not in session in 1847 to give a formal expression of the position of
that state on the question at issue between the sections; but Governor
A. G. Brown, no doubt, reflected the views of his constitutents in the let
ter to Governor Smith, of Virginia, acknowledging the receipt of the res
olutions of the Virginia legislature. He expressed his approval of those
resolutions and declared that they would meet a hearty response in
Mississippi from both political parties.23 He asserted that the move
ments of New York and Pennsylvania, both in and out of congress,
and the evident pandering of presidential aspirants to abolition, had
dissipated the first feeling of confident expectation that abolition, like
other heresies, would expire of its own excesses; and that there was
in the South a calm, dispassionate determination,
"first, to exhaust all the resources of reason and argument in exhorting our
northern brethren to let us alone on this subject and if these fail. . _ 
then deplorable as may be the consequences, we feel prepared, having exhausted
every fraternal remedy, to become enemies, and defend our rights with those means
which God and nature have placed in our hands. If other men will force this sad
catastrophe upon us, it is our duty to watch its approach and be prepared to meet
it. The South must be united."24
21 Niles Register, LXXV, 73.
22 Resolutions of the Democratic State Convention of Alabama, May, 1847,
Niles Register, LXXII, 179; Resolutions of the Democratic State Convention of
Georgia, National Era, July 29, 1847.
as The Mississippian, the Democratic organ in the state capital, approved the
Virginian resolutions and declared that Governor Brown had responded to them
truly and nobly, for every Mississippian. National Era, May 27, 1847.
34 Letter from Governor Brown, of Mississippi, to Governor Smith, of Virginia,
April 15, 1847. Niles Register, LXXn, 178.

24 Mississippi Historical Society.
Southerners, generally, agreed with Governor Brown, that union
was necessary for the preservation of their interests, but there was a
difference of opinion as to how this unanimity was to make itself effec
tive. Should Southern men remain in two great parties and seek to
carry out their purpose through dominating those parties, or should
they withdraw from their old party connections and form a new party
on the issue of the extension of slavery. The approaching presiden
tial election made a decision necessary.
Calhoun lent the support of his great influence to the latter policy
and, on March 9, at a meeting of the citizens of Charleston to welcome
him on his return from Congress, he set forth the necessity for the for
mation of a Southern party for the preservation of the peace and safety
of the Union and of the rights of the South. He urged the people of
his section to profit by the example of the abolition party, which, as
small as it was, had acquired great influence by the course it had pur
sued; and, as the abolitionists made the destruction of slavery their
paramount issue, he asserted that Southerners should make its safety
their chief concern and regard every man as of their party who stood
up in its defense and every one against them who did not, until aggres
sion should cease. Only in thus taking an early and decided stand,
while political ties were still strong, did he think that a rally of the
sound and patriotic of the Union could be successfully made. As for
the national conventions, he condemned them as instruments for
coercing the abolitionists and the slaveholders into supporting the
same candidates for president and urged Southerners to take no part
in them.25
The movement for the formation of a Southern party, thus formally
launched by Calhoun, met with some encouragement, at first. It was
strongly supported by the Charleston Mercury*6 and received approval
even outside of South Carolina.27 The policy of not taking part in
the national party conventions met with favor in both parties,28 a
Southern convention was advocated for the sake of united and effec
tive action in support of Southern interests in both the next session
26 Speech in Charleston, March 9, 1847, Calhoun, Works, IV, 393.
28 National Era, April 1, 1847.
"Ibid., April 15, 1847; Ibid., May 27, 1847. Quotations from the Southern
Advocate, Huntsville, Alabama, and from another Alabama paper; IM., July 15,
1847. Quotation from the Macon (Georgia) Messenger.
18 National Era, August 12, 1847.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 25
of Congress and the presidential election,29 and a movement was begun
to establish a newspaper in Washington as the organ of the slavery
interests.30 But in spite of Calhoun's confidence that the slavery question would
break up the old party organizations31 and his efforts to form a South
ern party32 the majority of the South, partly from political motives
and the strength of party ties and partly from a sincere conviction
that such a course was not the best for the protection of Southern
interests, were not willing to break with the old parties.33 Likewise,
in part from political motives, but more from a belief that by united
action the Southern delegates could force the national conventions to
abandon the Wilmot proviso and to nominate, as candidates for the
presidency, men opposed to that measure, Southerners generally came
finally to favor the Southern states participating in the national con
ventions of the two great parties.
A statement from Jefferson Davis as to the course Southern Demo
crats should pursue in this crisis set forth the reasons that must have
influenced many in his party in coming to this decision; and, also, out
lined the policy that, in his opinion, the Southern delegates should
pursue in the National Democratic convention. He declared in a
letter dated September 19, 1847, that the position that had been
assumed in a majority of the non-slaveholding states had led him to
fear that it might become necessary for Southern men to unite and,
consequently, to dissolve the ties that had connected them with the
Northern Democracy. Yet he was not one of those who decried a
national convention, but he believed that the existing circumstances
with more than usual force indicated the propriety of such a meeting.
On the question of Southern institutions and Southern rights, it
was true, he admitted, that extensive defections had occurred among
19 National Era, August 26, 1847; Niles Register, LXXIII, 127.
30 Ibid., August 26, 1847.
31 Letter from Calhoun to T. G. Clemson, July 8, 1847, Calhoun Corresp., 735;
Ibid., July 24, 1847. 736.
32 Polk, Diary, H, 457-458.
33 The Washington Union opposed the policy of Calhoun. It foresaw that if
this policy were carried into effect, the Democratic party would be broken up and
the system of slavery exposed to great peril. It believed that the only safety for
Southern interests lay in maintaining tile Democratic party intact and that that
could be done only through the old policy of compromise. National Era, April 15,
1847-

26 Mississippi Historical Society.
Northern Democrats; but enough of good feeling was still exhibited to
sustain the hope that, as a party, they would show themselves worthy
of their ancient appellation, the natural allies of the South, and would
meet Southerners upon just constitutional ground. At least, he con
sidered it due to former association that Southern Democrats should
give them the fairest opportunity to do so, and furnish no cause for
their failure by seeming distrust or aversion.
His suggestion was that the Southern delegates should meet those
from the North
not as a paramount object to nominate candidates for the Presidency and Vice-
Presidency, but, before entering upon such selection, to demand of their_ polit
ical brethren of the North a disavowal of the principles of the Wilmot Proviso; an
admission of the equal rights of the South with the North to the territory held as
common property of tie United States; and a declaration in favor of extending the
Missouri compromise to all states to be hereafter admitted into our Confederacy.
If these principles were recognized, Davis believed that the worst
of all political divisions, one made merely by geographical lines, would
be avoided; and that the convention, representing every section of the
Union, and elevated above local jealousy and factional strife, might
proceed to select candidates whose principles, patriotism, judgment,
and decision would indicate men fit for the time and the occasion.
But he declared that, if the spirit of hostility to the South, the thirst
for political dominion over it that for two years had displayed such
increased power and systematic purpose should prevail, it would only
remain for the Southern delegates to withdraw from the convention,
and inform their fellow citizens of the failure of their mission; and that
the South would then have reached a point at which all party measures
would, under the necessity for self preservation, sink into insignificance
and at which party divisions should be buried in union for defense.84
Other Southern Democrats, before the meeting of the Democratic
National Convention, were as outspoken as Jefferson Davis as to the
demands that the South should make on the Democratic party as the
condition of its support. Governor Brown, of Mississippi, declared
that he was opposed to going into convention with the "Northern
brethren" without a prior distinct understanding that the candidate
34 Letter from Jefferson Davis to J. C. Searles, September 19, 1847, quoted in the
National Era, November 4, 1847, from the Richmond Whig, with comments of the
Whig indicating its concurrence in the general line of policy marked out by Davis.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 27
selected should be not only sound on the Wilmot proviso but beyond
the taint of suspicion; and that, in this, he thought he but echoed the
common sentiment of Mississippi.35
The Mississippian asserted:
One thing is now absolutely certain — the Wilmot question is not to be brought
into the next Democratic National Convention. For the sake of perfect fraternity
we would prefer a Northern nominee; but then we must and will know beforehand
that he is untainted.88
The members of the Democratic state convention of Alabama, in
May, 1847, solemnly pledged themselves to one another to withhold
their votes for the office of president of the United States from any
citizen who should not previous to the election, distinctly, unequivo
cally, and publicly avow his opposition to all interference by the
general government to establish a discrimination against the slave-
holding states;37 and the Democratic state convention of Georgia
resolved that the Democratic party of Georgia would give its support
to no man for the presidency who did not "unconditionally, clearly,
and unequivocally declare his opposition to the principles and pro
visions of the Wilmot proviso."38 Other conventions and public
meetings39 in the various parts of the South, also expressed the same
determination and the Democratic press of the whole section supported
it. But not all Democrats of the South were content with the position
taken in the Virginia resolutions and with demanding the nomination
of a candidate for president who was simply opposed to the Wilmot
proviso. Under the spell of the fiery eloquence of William L. Yancey,
the Democratic state convention of Alabama that met in February,
1848, assumed a more advanced position. In a series of resolutions,
destined to become famous as "the Alabama Platform," the conven
tion demanded that the treaty with Mexico should contain a clause
securing an entry into the territory ceded to the United States by Mex
ico to all the citizens of the United States together with their property
35 Niles Register, LXXII, 178.
36 Quotation from the Mississippian, National Era, May 27, 1847.
37 Resolutions adopted by the Democratic state convention of Alabama, May,
1847, Niles Register, LXXII, 179.
38 Resolutions of the Democratic state convention of Georgia, National Era,
July 29, 1847.
39 National Era, May 20, 1847; May 27, 1847; July 5, 1847; Niles Register,
Lxxni, 127.

28 Mississippi Historical Society.
of every description and that the same should remain protected by the
United States while the territory was under its authority; and denied
that the people of a territory could "in other event than the forming
of a State Constitution preparatory to admittance as a State into the
Union" lawfully or constitutionally prevent any citizen of any
state from removing to or settling in such territory with his property,
were it slave property or any other kind. The convention, then,
pledged itself to the country, and the members pledged themselves
to one another, under no political necessity whatever to support for
the offices of president and vice-president of the United States any
person who was not openly and unequivocally opposed to either of
the forms of excluding slavery from the territories mentioned in the
resolutions, as being alike in violation of the constitution and of the
just and equal rights of the citizens of the slaveholding states. Finally,
the convention instructed the delegates from Alabama to the Balti
more convention to vote for no one for president or vice-president who
would not unequivocally avow himself to be opposed to either of the
forms of restricting slavery described in the resolutions.40 Although
the Alabama platform was endorsed by the Democratic state con
ventions of Florida and Virginia and praised by Democratic papers
throughout the South,41 the majority of Southern Democrats, in
1848, were not ready to advance to the position taken by it. But
they remained firmly fixed on the principles of the Virginia resolutions
and in the determination to demand of the Democratic national con
vention the nomination of a candidate for the presidency who was
opposed to the Wilmot proviso.
The Whig party in the South showed an opposition to the proviso
equal to that of the Democratic.42 Governor Brown, of Mississippi,
asserted there was no division of public sentiment on the subject in
Mississippi.43 Both the Richmond Whig and the Mobile Advertiser
declared that the Southern Whigs would abandon the party unless
it abandoned the proviso.44 But the Richmond Whig held up to
40 Du Bose, The Life and Times of William Lowndes Yancey, 212-214.
41 Ibid., 214.
42 Resolutions of the Whig state convention of Georgia and of the Whig conven
tion of the second congressional district of Alabama, National Era. August 12. 1847.
43 Niles Register, LXXII, 178.
44 Quotations from the Richmond Whig and the Mobile Daily Advertiser, National
Era, December 9, 1847.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 29
ridicule the pledge to vote for no candidate for president who was
not opposed to the Wilmot proviso and declared that the inevitable
result of such a course would be the election of the Wilmot proviso
candidate. The only mode, it held, to avert the peril that threatened
the rights of the South and the safety of the Union was to adopt the
course recommended by Southern Whigs in Congress and avow the
purpose of not taking any territory from Mexico.45 But, although
this course was supported by many Whigs in both the North and the
South,46 it did not meet the approval of the majority in either section.
Therefore, Southern Whigs used the opposition to the proviso to
further the candidacy of General Taylor; and, as he was a Southern
man and a slaveholder and had not been a party man, his candidacy
met with the widespread approval in the South in both parties.47
But the question of the extension of the slavery was not to be settled
in the presidential campaign of 1848. For the leaders of the Whig
and the Democratic parties in both sections, alarmed at the section-
alizing tendency of the issue and fearing its effect on the existence both
of the Union and of their parties, soon began to urge that the Wilmot
proviso should not be made an issue of the presidential campaign.
The success of their efforts is plainly registered in the proceedings of
the national conventions of the two parties.
The Democratic convention contented itself with nominating for
president Cass, of Michigan, who was committed to the policy of non
interference by Congress with slavery in the territories,48 and with
denying, in its platform, the power of Congress to interfere with the
domestic institutions of the states and condemning all efforts to induce
that body to interfere with questions of slavery as calculated to lead
to most alarming and dangerous consequences.49 These proceedings of
the convention met the approval of all the delegates from Mississippi50
and of a majority of the delegates from the other Southern states;
46 National Era, August 12, 1847.
46 Letter of Governor Brown, of Mississippi, to Governor Smith, of Virginia, April
15, 1847. Niles Register, LXXII, 178; Quotation from the Natchez Courier, National
Era, August 26, 1847.
47 National Era, July 15, 1847, August 12, 1847; August 26, 1847.
48 Letter from Lewis Cass to A. O. P. Nicholson. December 24, 1847, Niles Reg
ister, LXXIII, 293.
"Ibid.,LXXIV, 326-329.
60 A delegate from Mississippi placed Cass in nomination and the six votes of
Mississippi, in the convention, were cast for him in each of the four ballots taken.
Ibid., 327.

30 Mississippi Historical Society.
and an effort of the minority of the platform committee, under the
leadership of Yancey, to secure the passage of a resolution asserting
"That the doctrine of non-intervention with the rights of property of
any portion of this Confederacy, be it in the States or in the Territories,
by any other than the parties interested in the said rights is the true
Republican doctrine recognized by this body,"61 was defeated by a
vote of 36 to 216.52
The Whig convention avoided the slavery issue even more com
pletely than the Democratic. It nominated Taylor for president,
voted, by a large majority, to table a motion in favor of the Wilmot
proviso, and adjourned without any declaration of principles.53
But there were those, both North and South, who were unwilling
to fall in with the policy of the two great parties in ignoring the
slavery issue and who objected to both Cass and Taylor for president.
In the North, this sentiment resulted in the formation of the Free Soil
party, composed of representatives of those who were sincerely opposed
to the extension of slavery in the territories and of the Barnburners,
a discontented Democratic faction of New York. Though Calhoun,
Yancey, and others of both parties, in the South, were not satisfied
with the policy of ignoring in the presidential campaign the issue
involved in the Wilmot proviso, the effort to form a new party in that
section on the slavery question had spent itself before the meeting of
the national conventions, and after some hesitation, especially in
South Carolina, Southerners, generally, aligned themselves in support
of either Cass or Taylor.64
In the campaign, in Mississippi, as elsewhere in the South, the Whigs
sought to ignore old party lines and present General Taylor as a na
tional hero, a no-party man, and a Southerner, who because of his birth,
training, and interests would be true to the interests of the South.66
61 Du Bose, The Life and Times of William Lowndes Yancey, 219; Niles Register,
LXXIV, 348. The minority report was signed by W. L. Yancey, of Alabama,
John C. M'Gehee, of Florida, and J. M. Commander, of South Carolina.
52 Niles Register, LXXIV, 349.
The yeas were Maryland, one; South Carolina, nine; Georgia, nine; Florida,
three; Alabama, nine; Arkansas, three; Tennessee, one; Kentucky, one.
MIbid., 349, 354-358-
uNew York Semi-weekly Tribune, August 25, 1848; August 28, 1848; December
12, 1848; National Era, October 26, 1848; Du Bose, The Life and Times of William
Lowndes Yancey, 222-229.
66 The Natchez Courier declared that General Taylor was "as safe as any man in
the South. He was born in the South — raised in the South — his interests were en-

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 31
They denounced Cass as an abolitionist, using his own words against
him,66 and interpreted the Nicholson letter as asserting the right of
the people of the territories to exclude slavery during the period of
their territorial existence. The Democrats, however, insisted that
the true interpretation was that the people of a territory had no power
to admit or to exclude slavery until they were authorized to form a
state constitution, and that when they had duly exercised such au
thority and asked for admission into the Union, it was not properly a
subject of inquiry whether their constitution admitted or excluded
slavery from the proposed state.67
Jefferson Davis agreed with the Whigs in their interpretation of the
Nicholson letter; yet, in spite of his opposition to the doctrine of
"squatter sovereignty" and of his being a son-in-law of Taylor, he
supported Cass.58 He gave as his reasons for doing so, that he believed
that Cass would veto the Wilmot proviso or any other law that Con
gress might pass to prohibit slavery in the territories;69 that, although
neither party was fully with the South, so far as fraternal feeling was
manifested by the non-slaveholding states, it was found in the Demo
cratic party;60 and that, if Cass were elected, he would be surrounded
with Democratic counselors and would, in the main, administer the
government according to Democratic principles and policy.61 Or, in
tirely identified with Southern interests — his closest sympathies and earliest recol
lections are all entwined around Southern institutions — his family, fortune, first
and oldest friends, all bound up in the South — are all sure guarantees that he will be
true to the land that gave him birth — as true as the magnet to the pole." It assured
the people of Mississippi that it did not have the slightest doubt but that "Old
Zack" was as much opposed to the "infamous proposition of that leading Loco-foco
of Pennsylvania, Wilmot" as any man in the state. Quotation from the Natchez
Courier (Whig), National Era, August 26, 1847.
56 The Natchez Courier, October 24, 1848, quoted Cass as saying: "We are no
slaveholders. We never have been. We never shall be. Vie depreciate its exist
ence in principle and pray for its obliteration everywhere when it can be effected
justly, peaceably, and easily for both parties."
57 Speech of A. G. Brown in the House of Representatives, February 12, 1850,
Clusky, Speeches, Messages and Other Writings of Hon. Albert G. Brown, 177; Letter
from Jefferson Davis to Barksdale and Jones, December 27, 1851, The Washington
Union, March 18, 1852; Speech of Davis, February 20, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong.,
1 Sess., 401.
68 Letter from Jefferson Davis to the people of Mississippi, January 26, 1852,
Mississippi Free Trader, February ii, 1852.
69 Letter from Jefferson Davis to Barksdale and Jones, December 27, 1851,
Washington Union, March 18, 1852.
60 Letter from Davis declining to speak at Cold Springs, Mississippi, October 14,
1848. Mississippi Free Trader, October 26, 1848.
"Letter from Jefferson Davis to Barksdale and Jones, December 27, 1851,
Washington Union, March 18, 1852.

32 Mississippi Historical Society.
other words, Davis supported Cass, in spite of his attitude toward the
extension of slavery in the territories, because he was the nominee of
the Democratic party and because Davis trusted in the power of the
South to control that party and to dominate the government under a
Democratic administration.
Not all the people of the South, however, saw with Davis's clear
ness of vision that it wduld be safer to commit their interests to a party,
the organization and political machinery of which were well developed
and under the control of the Southern leaders, rather than to a man,
who, although a Southerner, had committed himself to no definite pol
icy and was without political experience. Accordingly, a majority of
both the popular and the electoral votes of the South were cast for
Taylor and his success in the election was thus assured.
Taylor's carrying eight slave states and seven free states and Cass's
carrying eleven slave states and eight free states proclaimed that the
Democratic and the Whig leaders were successful, in this campaign,
in preventing the Wilmot proviso from destroying the national char
acter of their parties. Nevertheless the issue raised by that measure
was not dormant during the course of the contest for the presidency.
For it was raised again in the thirtieth Congress in connection with
the bill for the organization of a territorial government for Oregon;
and, when, on July 6, 1848, the president announced to Congress the
ratification of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo and it became neces
sary for that body to organize territorial governments for the lands
ceded in the treaty by Mexico to the United States, members of Con
gress threw themselves into the struggle over the extension of slavery
into those territories with the determination to carry out the will of
their respective sections.
In the thirtieth Congress, the men from Mississippi appeared who,
with one exception, were to represent the state in that body through
out the crisis over the extension of slavery in the territory acquired
from Mexico. In the Senate, were Jefferson Davis and Henry S . Foote.
Fresh from his military triumphs in Mexico and sincerely devoted to
the promotion of the welfare of his section and the protection of the
rights of property in slaves, Davis held the confidence of his state and
was well fitted to become the leader of the South in its struggle in
defense of slavery when its greater leader, John C. Calhoun, should
have passed away. Foote, lacking Davis's singleness of purpose and

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 33
consistency of character, had won his position of leadership in Missis
sippi by his matchless ability as a campaign orator and his resource
fulness as a party leader. Although his speech and conduct were often
lacking in the dignity appropriate to the Senate, his willingness to
yield more to the demands of the North in regard to slavery than were
his colleagues, and his skill as a political manager enabled him to
play an important part in this crisis.
In the House, A. G. Brown was the most able of the Mississippi
delegation and was destined to become, after Davis, the most influ
ential leader from Mississippi in the slavery controversy. His politi
cal career had been remarkable. In 1835, in the first election after
he was twenty-one years old, he had been elected to the legislature
and since then he had been successively member of Congress, judge of
the circuit court, and governor of the state. In 1847, before his sec
ond term as governor had expired, he had been elected to Congress
from the fourth congressional district without opposition, although
his constituents knew he would be prevented by his duties as governor
from taking his seat in Congress until two months after the opening
of the session. Himself reared in poverty, Brown was, during his
whole career, in sympathy with the poorer classes. Although he repre
sented in Congress a district that included rich black counties on the
Mississippi river, with aristocratic Natchez as a center, as well as
barren "piney woods" and seashore counties in the east, and lived in
Copiah, which during this period was becoming more and more pros
perous, he was the faithful spokesman of the small slaveholders and
the non-slaveholders among his constituents. This made him an
interesting contrast to Jefferson Davis, who, from disposition and
position, represented the planting element in the Democratic party.
Reflecting the sentiments of the classes for which he spoke, Brown was
more outspoken in his views and more radical in the measures he advo
cated than Davis. In 1847, as governor, he had taken a strong posi
tion in favor of the protection of the rights of the South and he entered
the thirtieth Congress prepared to support his views on that question.
Of the other members of the House, Jacob Thompson, who had
served in Congress since 1839, and Winfield S. Featherstbn, were impor
tant Democratic leaders in the northern part of the state and staunchly
supported Southern interests during this crisis. Patrick W. Tomp
kins, the one Whig among the Mississippi delegates in Congress, stood

34 Mississippi Historical Society.
with his Democratic colleagues on all the measures proposed, during
this Congress, for the protection of Southern rights; but he was des
tined to go down in the general defeat of his party in Mississippi, in
1849, on the slavery issue, and to have his seat taken in the thirty-first
Congress by William McWillie, a Democrat.
These representatives from Mississippi, when they appeared in the
thirtieth Congress, found the settlement of the issue of the exten
sion of slavery in the territory acquired from Mexico complicated by
the question of the organization of a territorial government for Oregon.
For although the advocates of the extension of slavery admitted that
the institution was not likely to be extended into Oregon, they sought
to obtain from the North, as the condition of the consent of the South
to the exclusion of slavery from Oregon, the extension of the Missouri
compromise line to the Pacific; and in the last session of the twenty-
ninth Congress had succeeded in tabling in the Senate a bill that had
passed the House for the organization of Oregon with the exclusion
of slavery.62
Therefore, in accordance with this policy, the senators and repre
sentatives from Mississippi, together with those from the other South
ern states, with only a few exceptions, supported, in the first session
of the thirtieth Congress, both the efforts of President Polk to settle
the whole question of the extension of slavery by securing an amend
ment to the Oregon bill extending the Missouri compromise line to
the Pacific;63 and also the plan of the Senate to adjust that question
through the Clayton compromise, which recognized the exclusion of
slavery from Oregon, and provided for the settlement of that question
in New Mexico and California by prohibiting the territorial legislature
from passing laws relative to slavery and referring the final decision
of the status of slavery in these territories to the Supreme Court of the
United States by providing for an appeal from the territorial courts to
that court.64 But both these measures were defeated in the House;

62 Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., 571.
63 Polk, Diary, III, 501-503; S04-505; IV, 13.
In conjunction with Foote and Bright, of Indiana, Polk drew up the amendment
to the Oregon bill providing for the extension of the Missouri compromise line to the
Pacific that was introduced into the Senate by Bright, June 27, 1848. He also
held interviews with members of both houses of Congress to secure their support
for the amendment.
61 Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 1 Sess., 1002-1005.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 35
and the Senate, at length, the day before Congress adjourned, gave up
its efforts to settle the question of the extension of slavery in the terri
tory acquired from Mexico in providing a territorial government for
Oregon, and passed the bill from the House for the organization of
Oregon with the exclusion of slavery by the application of the restric
tions of the Northwest ordinance.65
This struggle in Congress drew the lines more sharply between the
two sections, in regard to slavery. Therefore, though the election
of Taylor was hailed with rejoicing in the Southern states as evidence
of the desire of the North to do justice to the South,66 the more thought
ful, remembering the recent refusal of the North in Congress to yield
anything to tlie demands of the South, were not deceived into think
ing that in choosing a Southern slaveholder as president the North
was expressing a willingness to give up the Wilmot proviso. But by
the unanimity of action on the part of the members of Congress from
the slaveholding states in seeking to enforce the demands of their
section, they were encouraged to believe that the South could be
united, for the struggle they saw before it, on a definite policy con
cerning the extension of slavery in the territories.
Accordingly Calhoun, whose dominant purpose since the days of
the nullification controversy had been the uniting of the South for the
protection of its interests, as soon as he saw that it was impossible to
form a Southern party in the election of 1848, used his influence to
persuade the people of South Carolina to act with moderation in
the presidential campaign so as not to permit the result to estrange
them in order that they might be united at its close.67
South Carolina responded to his influence and, before the campaign
was over, was moving to formulate a definite plan of action in opposi
tion to the Wilmot proviso. Through various public meetings and
the press, the legislature was urged to declare that the line of 360 30'
was the utmost concession that the South should make and that, if
the Wilmot proviso were passed, the senators and representatives of
South Carolina should return home and the legislature be convened
65 Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 1 Sess., 1078.
69 Quotation from the Savannah Republican, National Intelligencer, November
30, 1848; Inaugural address of Thomas Brown, Whig governor of Florida, January
13, 1849, Nik* Register, LXXV, 108.
67 Speech of Calhoun in Charleston, August 19, 1848, New York Semi-weekly
Tribune, August 28, 1848.

36 Mississippi Historical Society.
to adopt such measures as the exigencies should demand.68 But
South Carolina, together with Calhoun, had learned in the nullifica
tion conflict, the futility of independent action; and so her leaders,
convinced that any action of South Carolina, to be effective, must be
a part of a general movement of all the slave states,69 sent out from
Charleston in November a circular suggesting a convention of the
slaveholding states and inviting the cooperation and counsel of all.
The sentiment in South Carolina with reference to the course to be
pursued in regard to the Wilmot proviso met with approval in Missis
sippi.70 But there, as elsewhere in the South, the Whigs were unwilling
to jeopardize the recent victory of their party without further provo
cation; and public opinion was not yet prepared for action. The
people of the state, however, were convinced of the necessity of the
union of the slave states.
But the difference the people of Mississippi feared at this time more
than all the differences with reference to parties or the course to be
pursued by the South, was the growing difference between the border
states and the cotton states with reference to slavery. The material
interests of Delaware had already detached it from the South and
grave fears were entertained that the interests of Maryland, Virginia,
Kentucky, Missouri, and even Tennessee might detach them also.
Through the press and public meetings, it was represented that because
of the uncertain tenure, due to the recent agitation, by which slaves
were held in Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, these
states were throwing an immense black population into the extreme
Southern states and that, as soon as they had sold a sufficient
number of slaves to make it profitable, they would abolish slavery.
As a consequence the cotton states, weakened by the defection of the
old border states and a dangerously increased negro population, would
have to meet the issues connected with slavery as border states. This
alarm was intensified by efforts in the border states to call conventions
to manumit their slaves. To force the border states to retain then-
slaves and to stand between the cotton states and the fanatics of the
68 New York Tribune, November 7, 1848, and March 10, 1848; National Intelli
gencer, December 16, 1848; Niles Register, LXXIV, 332.
69 Message of Governor Johnson to the legislature, November 27, 1848, Niles
Register, LXXIV, 368; Letter from H. W. Conner to Calhoun, November 2, 1848,
Calhoun Corresp., 1184.
70 Mississippi Free Trader, December 5, 1848.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 37
North, the cotton states were urged to adopt effective laws forbidding
the importation of slaves into their borders for sale.71 So great was
felt to be the importance of immediate action, the governor of Missis
sippi was urged to convene the legislature in a special session to con
sider the prohibition of the inter-state slave trade.72
This uneasiness on the part of Mississippi and the other cotton
states as to the growing tendency in the border states to get rid of
their slaves strengthened their desire for the extension of slavery into
the territory acquired from Mexico and for the speedy settlement of
that issue. Accordingly, when Congress met in December 1848, the
Southern members were more united than ever before in their determi
nation to effect a decision of the question satisfactory to them. The
necessity for providing territorial governments for New Mexico and
California was, also, pressing, and the president, in his message of
December, 1848, urged Congress to make provision for the organi
zation of governments in those possessions. Therefore, the agitation
over slavery was immediately renewed in Congress with increased
vigor and determination.
The radical difference between the Senate and the House on the
subject was soon made manifest. All reference to slavery was care
fully excluded from the bills introduced into the Senate concerning
California and New Mexico; but the House, on December 13, in
structed the committee on territories to report, with as little delay as
possible, a bill or bills providing territorial government for each of the
territories of New Mexico and California and excluding slavery there
from.73 Earlier in the same day, the question concerning slavery and the
slave trade in the District of Columbia was injected into the struggle
between the two sections by the request of John G. Palfrey, of Massa
chusetts, for the permission of the House to introduce a bill to repeal
all congressional legislation establishing or maintaining slavery in the
District of Columbia.74 The permission of the House was refused
71 Natchez Courier, December 12, 1848; Mississippi Free Trader, November 30,
1848. 72 Proceedings of a meeting in Madison county, Mississippi Free Trader, January
31, 1849.
78 Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 2 Sess., 39.
Root of Ohio offered the resolution and it was adopted by a vote of 106 to 80.
™Ibid.,3&.

38 Mississippi Historical Society.
Palfrey; but December 18, Giddings, of Ohio, succeeded in introducing
a bill authorizing the people of the District to vote on the question of
the continuance of slavery therein.75 This bill, however, was laid on
the table when the information was elicited from its author by Tomp
kins, of Mississippi, that slaves might participate in the vote.76 But
three days later a resolution introduced by Gott, of New York, in
structing the committee for the District of Columbia to report a bill
prohibiting the slave trade in the district was passed by a vote, of 98
to 88.77
The Southern delegates in Congress were thoroughly alarmed by
the course of the House in regard to slavery and the growing strength
of the abolition sentiment in the North and many of them were con
vinced that prompt and vigorous measures on the part of the Southern
representatives in Congress were necessary to check the proposed
aggression on their rights.78 Accordingly a meeting was called of
the members of Congress from the slaveholding states, on the day
succeeding that of the passage of Gott's resolution, to formulate a
definite plan of action and secure for it the united support of all the
Southern delegates without reference to party. Many of the Whigs,
however, disapproved of this Southern movement from the beginning
76 Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 2 Sess., 55.
"Ibid., 56.
77 Ibid., 84.
78 A letter from J. H. Harmanson, a Democratic representative from Louisiana
to J. F. H. Claiborne reveals, more clearly than official documents, this alarm and
the sentiment among the Southern members of Congress that produced the South
ern movement. He wrote that abolition was carrying everything before it in
Washington and asserted that, if the South vacillated or yielded in the least, it
would lose all, and its fate would be the fate of Ireland or, perhaps, of San Domingo,
but that, if it remained firm and let the Northerners know that it would be their
equal or their foe and would contend to the last extremity for its constitutional
rights, the Northerners would hesitate and abandon their traitorous violation of the
constitution. He asked Claiborne to use his pen to arouse the people of the South
to their danger and their duty. "The Northern Whigs," he declared, "are much
frightened at their position. But are so connected with the abolitionists that they
cannot shake them off without the Union should be the issue. If they believe the
South will submit they will urge Taylor to go with them. If it is clear that the
South will resist Taylor will be with us and all the leaders of the Whig party will
sustain him, his position and theirs will depend on the South. I understood yes
terday that Bell said two weeks ago Taylor would have signed the Wilmot proviso
Now he thinks he would not do it. The Northern familiar will force him on to rob
us of our rights. He will be on the side of the South if we are true to ourselves
We will unite the South and divide the North and save the South and the consti
tution." J. H. Harmanson to J. F. H. Claiborne, Washington, December 24 1848
Claiborne Papers, State Archives, Jackson, Mississippi.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 39
and entered the meetings only to block it.79 For they feared the move
ment might disrupt the Whig party and they had no intention of
forfeiting the results of the recent victory of their party and jeopard
izing the success of Taylor's incoming administration. They, there
fore, asserted that any movement looking to sectional combination
and to resistance was a step toward the dissolution of the Union and
ought not to be countenanced, and declared that they would stand by
the government until it committed an overt act of aggression upon
their rights.80
But in spite of the vehement opposition of the Whigs, both in the
committees and in the meetings of the Southern members of Congress,81
and of the influence of the Democratic president,82 "The Address of
the Southern Delegation in Congress to their Constituents," drawn up
by Calhoun, was finally adopted in a slightly modified form. The
effectiveness of the opposition, however, was such that only forty-
eight of the one hundred and ten members of Congress from the
slaveholding states affixed their signatures to the document.83 The
fact that only two Whigs signed the Address and many Democrats
refused to sign is proof that the majority of the Southern members
of Congress were not yet convinced that the interests of the South
demanded the breaking of party ties and the formation of a Southern
party. With the exception of South Carolina, Mississippi was the only
state whose representatives gave their united support to the Southern
movement. Senator Foote took an active part in calling the initial
meeting84 and, together with Jefferson Davis, ably supported Calhoun,
who was the dominant force in the whole movement. The Address
was signed by all the members of Congress from Mississippi, even by
Patrick W. Tompkins, the one Whig representative, sectional interests
proving stronger with him than those of party.85
79 Letter from Toombs to Crittenden January 22, 1849, Coleman, The Life of
John J. Crittenden, I, 335-336-
80 Letter from Toombs to Crittenden, January 22, 1849, Coleman, Ibid., Mis
sissippi Free Trader, January 31, 1849.
81 Ibid.; Niles Register, LXXV, 84-88; 101-104.
82 Polk, Diary, January 17, 1849, IV, 289.
83 Calhoun, Works, VI, 312-313. Only two Whigs signed the address; Gayle, of
Alabama, and Tompkins, of Mississippi.
84 Polk, Diary, December 22, 1848, TV, 249; Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 2 Sess., appx.,
264; Letter of Foote to Henry A. Wise of Virginia, June 23, 1849. National Intelli
gencer, June 28, 1849.
88 Calhoun, Works, VI, 312-313.

40 Mississippi Historical Society.
The Southern Address is a cautious and moderate statement of the
Southern position, for the object of Calhoun in issuing it was to unite
in defense of the interests of the South men of different political
parties and of great diversity of opinion as to the course the South
should pursue in the crisis facing it. The Address gave an account
of the series of aggressions and encroachments on the rights of the
South and pointed out the dangers that threatened that section and
the whole body politic. It charged the North with violating the
constitution in refusing to return fugitive slaves and in withholding
from the South equal rights in the territories; denied to Congress all
jurisdiction over slavery; and warned the people of the slaveholding
states that, if the North succeeded in excluding them from the terri
tories, the results would be the abolition of slavery by a constitutional
enactment and the complete reversal of the relation between the
whites and the negroes in the South. But as to what should be done,
the Address declared that belonged to the people of the South to decide
and recommended only that the South should be united.86
But while motives of party were working to bring to nought the
Southern movement in Washington, the Southern states were taking
alarm at the threatened legislation in Congress, and lent their aid to
further the movement to unite the South in defense of slavery. The
legislature of South Carolina resolved unanimously that the time for
discussion by the slaveholding states, as to their exclusion from the
territory recently acquired from Mexico, had ceased, and that South
Carolina was prepared to cooperate with her sister states in resisting,
at any and every hazard, the application of the principles of the Wilmot
proviso to such territory.87
Of far more weight and importance in the Southern movement,
however, was the action of the general assembly of Virginia. January
20, 1849, that body passed a series of resolutions reaffirming its resolu
tions of March 8, 1847, and, in addition, resolving that the passage of
a law by Congress abolishing slavery or the slave trade in the District
88 Calhoun, Works, VI, 285-312.
The failure of the address to recommend a Southern convention was no doubt
due to the fact that it was well understood that it would be impossible to secure the
approval of a majority of the Southern members of Congress and also to the fact
that Calhoun wished such a movement to originate not in Congress, but in the
states themselves.
87 Mississippi Free Trader, January 6, 1849; Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 2 Sess., 456.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 41
of Columbia would be regarded as a direct attack upon the institu
tions of the Southern States, to be resisted at every hazard, and re
questing the governor of the state to convene the legislature to consider
modes and measures of redress in the event of the passage by Congress
of the Wilmot proviso or any law abolishing slavery or the slave trade
in the District of Columbia.88 Whatever were the motives of the mem
bers of the Virginia assembly in passing these resolutions, they had
behind them the weight of the power and conservatism of Virginia
and became a factor in the Southern movement hardly second to the
Southern Address.89
But before the passage of the Virginia resolutions, the Southern
movement had had some effect on the action of Congress; for on Janu
ary 10, 1849, Gott's resolution was reconsidered and dissappeared
from the calender. But the South, bitterly resenting the efforts of
the opponents of slavery to exclude the institution from the District
of Columbia, had contributed its part to increasing the slavery agi
tation by raising an issue that was to prove one of the most effective
in producing a sectional alignment against slavery. On January 10,
when Gott's resolution was considered in the House, Meade, of Vir
ginia, offered an amendment instructing the committee for the District
to report a bill "more effectually to enable owners to recover their
slaves escaping from one state to another."90 Though the amendment
was ruled out of order, the issue was raised and the South was prepared
to insist on the redress of this grievance. The discord between the
sections was also increased by a sharp debate in the House on a bill,
reported, January 31, from the committee of the District of Columbia,
prohibiting the importation of slaves into the district for sale or hire.
Finally, before Congress adjourned, the agitation over the slavery
issues was increased and the bitterness between the sections intensi
fied by a trial of strength between the Southern interests in the Senate
83 Niles Register, LXXV, 73; Cong. Globe, 30 Congress, 2 Sess., 441.
89 R. K. Cralle' wrote to Calhoun July 25, 1849, "The course of the last Legis
lature was, I fear, a mere ruse de guerre, a manouvre of Party. Neither Party
acted in good faith; and neither I fear will venture to come to the principles avowed
in the Resolutions. Indeed, had the action on the Resolutions been postponed
until after the result of the meeting in Washington was known, I am sure they would
not have received the votes of a dozen Whigs. On the other hand the design of
the Democrats was to force their opponents into a false position, while they covered
their own past treachery to the South." Calhoun Corresp., 1199-1202.
90 Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 2 Sess., 216.

42 Mississippi Historical Society.
and those of the North in the House. On February 20, the Senate
adopted, by a vote of 29 to 27, an amendment, offered to the general
appropriation bill by Walker, of Wisconsin, extending the constitution
of the United States to the territories acquired from Mexico.91 The
House, February 27, passed, by a vote of 126 to 87, a bill for the or
ganization of a territorial government in California excluding slavery.92
The Senate promptly referred the bill from the House to the committee
on territories where it was safely pigeon-holed93 and the House, on its
part, March 2, 1849, rejected the Walker amendment by a vote of 114
to ioo.94 As this amendment was attached to the general appropria
tion bill, there were scenes of great excitement in Congress. The House
however, remained firm and the Senate, finally, several hours after the
session of Congress had technically closed, receded from its position
and passed the appropriation bill without the amendment.
The thirtieth Congress then came to an end without having taken
any positive action in regard to the slavery issues that had been
raised during its sessions. The angry debates, however, and the
fierce struggles that had taken place during its course had thoroughly
aroused the people of the two sections in regard to those issues. The
legislatures of the Northern states, one after another96 passed reso
lutions declaring that Congress possessed the power to prohibit slavery
in the territories and that it was its duty to exercise that power;96
and many of them instructed their Senators and requested their
representatives to exert their influence for the abolition of slavery
and the slave trade in the District of Columbia.97
The people of the South were even more thoroughly aroused than
those of the North. The Southern movement had, no doubt, been
begun in Congress by Calhoun and other leaders from a sincere con
viction that united resistance on the part of the South was necessary
to save its interests, and the response to it indicates that this convic
tion was strong in the slaveholding states. The fact that the Whigs,
91 Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 2 Sess., 561.
"Ibid., 609.
°» Ibid., 612.
"Ibid., 664.
95 With the exception of Iowa. Instructions to the members of Congress to vote
for the Wilmot proviso passed the Senate of that state, but were laid on the table in
the House.
98 New York Tribune, July 23, 1849.
97 Niles Register, LXXV, 190, 191, 378, 399.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850— Hearon. 43
from party considerations, were induced to hold back in the move
ment gave the Democratic leaders an opportunity to make out of it
party capital; but as the feeling in the South developed in intensity,
the Whigs were drawn more and more into the movement either from
sympathy or policy. This blotting out of party lines by sectional
interest was aided, first, by the dissatisfaction of Southern Whigs with
the cabinet formed by President Taylor and, later, by their percep
tion that Taylor was falling more and more under the influence of
Seward. The border states shared the general alarm of the South and the
growth of sentiment for the united action of the slaveholding states,
following the Southern Address and the resolutions of the Virginia
legislature, is well illustrated in Missouri. February 27, 1849, the
legislature of that state rejected resolutions thanking Atchison for
his course in Washington and approving the Southern Address;98 but
a few weeks later the same body passed resolutions denying Congress
the power to legislate on the subject of slavery so as to affect the insti
tution in the states, in the District of Columbia, or in the territories
and pledging Missouri to a hearty cooperation with the other slave-
holding states in such measures as might be deemed necessary for
their protection against the encroachments of Northern fanatics.99
In Tennessee, the Democratic state convention in its address to
the voters of the state asserted that "The encroachments of our North
ern brethren have reached a point where forbearance on our part
ceases to be a virtue" and, while expressly disclaiming all threats of
either nullification or secession, declared that it had become "the duty
of all Southern men, without regard to party distinctions, to deliber
ate and determine upon the true and safe line of policy to be adopted."100
In Kentucky, the controversy raged around the emancipation of
slaves in the constitutional convention to assemble in October of that
year. The question was made an issue in every county; and not one
delegate favoring emancipation was elected to the convention.
In the cotton states, where necessity for action was more deeply
felt, the Southern Address met with widespread approval and the
Virginia resolutions were everywhere endorsed. South Carolina was,

98 New York Semi-weekly Tribune, March 21, 1849.
99 Niles Register, LXXV, 270, April 25, 1849.
100 Ibid., 374-

44 Mississippi Historical Society.
of course, in advance of the other states and more ready for action.
It was declared:
The activity of this remarkable state reminds one of the times of nullification.
Every district has its meetings and a committee of vigilance and safety.
The journals were full of fight and, though devoted to free trade,
were insisting on non-intercourse with the North and saying that the
Union was already dissolved.101 The committees of vigilance of the
districts and parishes throughout South Carolina held a state conven
tion at Columbia on the fourteenth and fifteenth of May, in which
resolutions were adopted approvmg the Southern Address, concur
ring in the Virginia resolutions, and requesting the governor to call
a session of the legislature in the event of the passage of the Wilmot
proviso or an act prohibiting slavery or the slave trade in the Dis
trict of Columbia; and in which a central committee of vigilance
and safety was appointed, and the districts and parishes were urged
to keep up and perfect their organizations.102
In Alabama, almost all the southern counties responded to the
Southern Address without distinction of party, but north Alabama
was much slower in action.103 The Democratic state convention
passed resolutions reaffirming the Virginia resolutions and approving
the course of the members of Congress who put forth the Southern
Address.104 In Georgia, there was great excitement over the slavery
question. The Democratic state convention adopted unanimously
the Virginia resolutions and denied the power of Congress to ratify
any act of a territorial legislature establishing or prohibiting slavery;
but for the sake of harmony, it did not touch the Southern Address.104
In the meantime, Mississippi was as thoroughly alarmed and aroused
as the other Southern states and was preparing to take its part in
the Southern movement.

101 National Era, April 26, 1849.
102 Ibid., May 24, 1849; National Intelligencer, May 24 and 26, 1849.
The executive committee consisted of F. H. Elmore, Wade Hampton, D. J.
McCord, James Gadsden, and F. W. Pickens.
103 Letter of Hilliard M. Judge to Calhoun, Eutaw, Alabama, April 2, 1849.
Calhoun Corresp., 1195-1197.
104 New York Semi-weekly Tribune, June 23, 1847.
""Letter of H V. Johnson to Calhoun, July 20, 1849, Calhoun Corresp., 1198.
Only three of the members of Congress from Georgia signed the Southern address:
Johnson, Haralson, and Iverson.

CHAPTER III.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOUTHERN MOVEMENT IN MISSISSIPPI.
As early as February io, 1849, the Mississippi Free Trader was
urging the State of Mississippi along the course that it would follow.
In an editorial on Calhoun's address, it asserted that it did not desire
to agitate unnecessarily, nor to stir up sectional strife, nor did it wish
Mississippi, by any rash or impulsive action, to render herself ridic
ulous; but that it did hope to see complete unanimity among the
slaveholding states in the defense of rights and interests, precious
alike to all. It declared:
The settlement of these questions must be strictly and entirely unanimous,
and to accomplish this desired end, we have plied our pen, in urging upon the people
a Southern convention. To this it must come at last — such a Convention must
be held, for in no other way can we possibly see any chance of obtaining unanimity
and concert of action. We therefore urge our brethren of the press to stir up the
people to action; the time for talking or threatening is past; we must lay down our
platform broadly and openly, and say to our Northren brethren, ' thus far and no
further,' We believe we have yet the power to say this, but we cannot have it
much longer, if we quietly submit to future encroachments, or appear satisfied
whilst these encroachments are gathering strength and popular support.1
The members of the Democratic party in Mississippi from one end
of the state to the other took up the Southern movement and in public
meetings heartily approved the Southern address,2 expressed gratitude
to the senators and representatives who signed it,3 and evinced satis
faction at the position taken by Virginia, South Carolina, and North
Carolina.4 They also declared that any measure passed by Congress
prohibiting slavery in the territories should be resisted by all the
1 Mississippi Free Trader, February 10, 1849.
'Democratic Meeting in Port Gibson, Mississippi Free Trader, April 14, 1849;
Democratic Meeting in Meadville, Franklin county, Ibid., April 21, 1849; Demo
cratic Meeting in La Fayette county, April 30, 1849, T^e Organizer (Oxford, Miss.),
May 5, 1849.
8 Democratic Meeting in Jasper county, Mississippi Free Trader, April n, 1849;
Democratic Meeting in Columbus, Lowndes county, Ibid.
4 Democratic Meeting in Meadville, Ibid., April 21, 1849.
45

46 Mississippi Historical Society.
means in the power of the slaveholding states,5 pledged themselves
to cooperate with their brethren of the South in the adoption of such
measures as would most effectively secure to them the rights and
enjoyments of property, and relieve and protect them from future
insult and encroachment,6 and required their representatives in the
ensuing legislature to bring the subject before that body to determine
the most suitable manner and mode of arresting the aggressions upon
the rights and privileges of the South and of providing for the future
safety and security of its institutions.7
The Whigs, on their part, as they saw the opposition to the demands
of the South growing stronger in the North, became convinced that,
to prevent the passage by the next Congress of the measures that
had been proposed in the last, it was necessary to unite the South in
a determined opposition to them; and gave in their support to the
Southern movement.
After several months of agitation in Mississippi, a movement began
to take shape for some definite action by the state. A call, signed
by forty-five leading men of both parties, was issued from Jackson,
summoning the citizens of central Mississippi, without distinction of
party, to meet in Jackson, May 7, 1849. The object of the meeting,
as set forth in the call, was to take into consideration the course that
was being pursued by many of the Northern states, through their
representatives and senators in Congress and their state legislatures,
upon the subject of the extension of slave labor to the newly acquired
territories and its existence in the District of Columbia, and to ascer
tain whether Mississippi would cooperate with certain other states
to arrest what appeared to be "the fixed determination on the part
of the North to assail, if not destroy, the equality, independence and
existence of the Southern states."8
The meeting was held at Jackson on the appointed day and "was
respectable in point of numbers" and characterized by moderation,

6 Resolutions of Democratic Meeting in Marshall county nominating Quitman
for governor, May 5, 1849, Natchez Courier, May, 23, 1849.
6 Democratic Meeting in La Fayette county, The Organizer, May 5, 1849; Demo
cratic Meetmg m Meadville, Mississippi Free Trader, April 21, 1849.
' Democratic Meeting in Meadville. Ibid.
8 Natchez Weekly Courier, May 1, 1849. Mississippi Free Trader, May 16,

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 47
dignity, and almost entire unanimity.9 The governor, Joseph W.
Matthews, was chosen president and a committee of Whigs and Demo
crats, the leading men of the state, was appointed, on motion of Chief
Justice William L. Sharkey,10 to draft resolutions and to prepare an
address explanatory of the objects of the meeting.11 In the evening
the committee reported to the meeting an address to the citizens of
Mississippi and a series of resolutions, both of which were unani
mously adopted.
Since the address sets forth the position and principles on which
the Democratic and the Whig leaders of Mississippi were united in
initiating the movement in the state for united action in defense of its
rights, it is of interest and importance. In it the committee, first,
vindicated the objects and motives of the meeting and, then, dis
cussed the principles upon which the South placed its reliance. They
declared that they had approached the subject of the controversy
between the Northern and the Southern states in full view of its
solemnity and importance, not as a mere question of expediency on
a matter of secondary consideration, but as one in which their dearest
rights were involved, rights that they possessed as citizens of indepen
dent states and that were reserved to them by the constitution of the
United States. They also declared their veneration for the Union
and denied that they agitated unnecessarily the alarming question of
the controversy between the sections, for they would gladly see it
put to rest for ever. But they were admonished by the past what
they might expect in the future; they could not be indifferent to the
warning furnished by the fact that at every succeeding session of Con
gress the question had been revived with renewed energy and vigor
and with an increased number of friends; and they saw no abatement
9 Natchez Weekly Courier, May 15, 1849.
The Courier quotes the Southron as stating that, but for the inclemency of the
weather, a majority of the counties in central Mississippi would have been repre
sented. 10 William L. Sharkey had been chief justice of Mississippi since 1832 and was
one of tie leaders of the Whig Party in the state. In the Nullification controversy
he had accepted the doctrine of state sovereignty enunciated by Calhoun and had
helped to organize the State Rights party formed in Mississippi at that time.
11 The committee consisted of Hon. William L. Sharkey, Chairman, Hon. John
I. Guion, Hon. Anderson Hutchinson, George Yerger, Esq., Gen. William R. Mills,
Col D. C. Glenn, G. W. L. Smith, Esq., Gen. A. B. Wooldridge, Col. William R.
Hill, Hon. Jefferson Davis, Caswell R. Clifton, Esq., Col. C. S. Tarpley, H. T.
Ellett, Esq., Charles Scott, Esq.

48 Mississippi Historical Society.
of energy in pursuit of what seemed to be a settled design to encroach
upon their rights until they should be destroyed. They asserted:
In the prospect of approaching danger it becomes us to avert it if possible, but
to prepare to meet it if it must come. The true patriot will endeavor to ward off
the catastrophe which threatens to be fatal to his country, before it does its work of
destruction. We have met not only in defence of out individual rights, but in
defense of out common country; and we would fondly hope that our timely warning
may save our Union unimpaired. We meet not to agitate — not to act, but to pre
pare for action when the occasion may be forced upon us.
In discussing the principles in which the South placed its reliance,
this committee denied that Congress has any power over any descrip
tion of property in the states and supported their position by asser
tions that show that the doctrine of state sovereignty had a firm hold
among the leaders of Mississippi. Before the adoption of the con
stitution, they declared,
Each State was a separate sovereignty, whose government was organized for
the protection of life, liberty and property, and having, as every sovereignty must,
the exclusive protection of these important subjects. By the constitution, no
powers are given away except such as might be necessary to give us a national
character, and a national existence, in our intercourse with foreign nations, and
such as might serve to bind us together as a family of republics. The States did
not surrender their control over persons and property within their limits: that
would have destroyed their identity; and all power not delegated by the consti
tution is reserved to the States. The Constitution of the United States does not
create a government with sovereign power, and property is subject alone to the
control of a government having such power. Such control is an important attri
bute of sovereignty. Indeed, tie protection of property is the strongest ligament
of government. The government created by the constitution is limited. It must
look to the constitution alone as the charter of its power, and all its actions must
be confined within the limit there prescribed. There no power of interference with
property within the States is to be found.
The question of the unlimited power of Congress to legislate for
the territories, the committee declared it was not their purpose to
controvert in the address; but, in discussing how the power might be
exercised if it were possessed, they asserted that the territories are
common property, subject to be occupied by the common people
from any portion of the Union, in the same freedom they enjoyed in
the states, both as to their persons and their property, and denied
that Congress has the power to say what is or is not property in the
territories belonging to the people of the United States and to exer
cise over property in the territories any power detrimental to the un
qualified rights of the owners.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 49
The basis of slavery, they found in the inequality between the white
man and the negro and declared it to have existed in all ages of the
world and to have originated not in positive or statute law but "by a
universal law of conquest, which the God of nature gave to his highest
work, to hold dominion and power over the inferior things of his
creation." They further declared that slavery was a blessing to the
negroes for servitude was their happiest and most elevated position
and the place assigned to them by the God of nature in the great
scheme of creation.
The committee condemned the attitude of the people of the North
in holding in utter disregard the provision in the constitution that
authorized the owner to recapture his fugitive slave, lamented the
misguided zeal of the Northerners and their false philanthropy, re
minded them it was not for them to determine whether slavery was
a blessing or a curse to the South, and, in the name of a common
country, implored them to beware lest they drive the South to extremi
ties that would be fatal in their results, for while the North pro
fessed not to interfere with slavery in the states, Southerners could
not be mistaken as to the ultimate end that it desired to accomplish.
The committee, also, expressed their approbation of the course of
the delegates from Mississippi in Congress in regard to the Southern
address and declared that, as faithful sentinels, they had warned the
people of Mississippi of approaching danger. Furthermore, they as
serted that it was becoming the people of Mississippi, to vin
dicate the sovereignty of their state, and that it was proper for the
whole South to act together for that purpose. They also expressed
their unqualified concurrence in the resolutions of the Virginia legis
lature as clearly and forcibly setting forth the constitutional rights
of the South.
Finally, while asserting that they would regard any legislation by
Congress, either past or to come, that in any degree, either directly
or remotely, might seem to give sanction to the authority of that
body over the subject of slavery, as void for want of power, and in
its tendency destructive of the principles of the Union, they declared
that it would be with the people of Mississippi to say whether they
would meet their brethren of the North, in good faith, should
it be tendered, in carrying out the Missouri compromise line, not as
a matter of intrinsic obligation, but by common consent of the people.

jo Mississippi Historical Society.
For they denied most positively its legal validity as an act of legisla
tion and asserted that a constitutional principle admitted of no com
promise by Congress.
The committee concluded the address by declaring that, as it rep
resented but a small portion of the state, it did not feel authorized
to prescribe the course that should be pursued by the state for that
was a question of state sovereignty on which the people of the whole
state should speak. Therefore, they recommended to the meeting
for adoption a series of resolutions recommending the citizens of
Mississippi to hold immediately, in each county, a primary meeting
of the citizens for the choice of delegates to meet in convention in
Jackson on the first Monday in October, in order to express the will,
understanding, and voice of the whole people of the state upon the
issues presented in relation to the territories of the United States and
the question of domestic slavery. The resolutions further recom
mended, that, as the controversy involved was one in which it was
impossible that any party difference could exist in the state, in order
to prevent any undue assumption or suspicion, on that score, there
should be an equal number from each of the great political parties among
the delegations to be chosen and that, to effect that object, the dele
gations ought to be double that of the representation of the state in
the lower house of the legislature.12
The address, designed to conciliate all parties in Mississippi, was
hailed by both the Whig and the Democratic press as an ably written,
temperate, and dignified document, worthy of its author and the
meeting that sanctioned it.13 But a lack of unanimity in the state
as to the measure it recommended was revealed in the comment of
the Natchez Courier on the meeting. Although speaking with approval
of the address and the moderation, the dignity, and the spirit of una
nimity that characterized the meeting, it regretted that the
Central meeting had not recommended something of "practical value"
to the people of Mississippi. A wise man, it declared, when he per
ceives trouble approaching takes the best steps to protect and defend
himself against the emergency, but the Central meeting had simply

12 Address and Resolutions adopted by the meeting of the citizens of central
Mississippi, May 7, 1849. Mississippi Free Trader, May 16, 1849.
a Natchez Weekly Cmrier, May 15, 1849. Mississippi Free Trader, May 16,
1849.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 51
adopted a report and passed resolutions recommending the people
to assemble in a convention to adopt another report and pass another
set of resolutions. One of the eloquent speakers, it declared, Colonel
Jefferson Davis, appeared to think that the controversy would end
in the dissolution of the Union and appealed to the arbitrament of the
sword, but neither did he nor any other member of the meeting recom
mend anything to put the people of Mississippi in a condition to with
stand that bloody arbitrament. The Courier asserted:
Had tire Central meeting recommended to the people that they instruct their
representatives in the next legislature to pass laws prohibiting further slave emi
gration to the state, thus nipping emancipation in the border slave states — had
they shown our people the necessity and profit of manufacturing our raw material
at home, of tanning our own hides, of making our own boots and shoes, hats and
caps, and all other indispensable articles which experience has shown we can manu
facture with success and profit — had they recommended an extensive plan for the
encouragement of home industry among our people, the development of the varied
resources of the cotton growing region, calculated to render us commercially inde
pendent within ourselves — we believe that great and lasting good would have been
accomplished.14 Though the Whigs who formed so large a part of the Central meeting
in Jackson, comprising as they did "the pride, the strength, and the
ornament of their party," gave by their participation in that meeting
a guarantee that the Whig party would unite with the majority party
in Mississippi in the movement to have the state present an undivided
front in the controversy over slavery; yet neither party had any idea
of dropping all party issues and amalgamating in one great Southern
party. Both entered the campaign for the election of state officers
and members of Congress with all their old time partisan vigor and even
used differences of opinion as to the slavery controversy as campaign
material. The Democratic convention met first. In regard to the slavery
question, it contented itself with simply declaring that, since the re
peated, continued, and rapid aggressions of the Northern against the
Southern states of the Union had reached a crisis that demanded
the united, harmonious, and earnest action of the friends of the South,
without distinction of party, the convention cordially approved the
address and resolutions adopted at the Central meeting in Jackson
and recommended the democracy of the state to engage in the primary
14 Natchez Weekly Courier, May 15, 1849.

g 2 Mississippi Historical Society.
meetings to select delegates to the convention recommended by the
Central meeting.16
The convention nominated for governor, General John A Quitman,
who had been an enthusiastic advocate of westward expansion, had
won fame in the Mexican War, and had, since the days of the nullifi
cation controversy, been an ardent defender of Calhoun's political
theories and supporter of the rights of the slaveholding states. Al
though in the struggle over the tariff, he had pointed out the necessity
of the South's accepting the doctrine of state sovereignty to defend
its peculiar institution,16 the people of the state had not seen with
his clearness of vision and the Democratic party had condemned
the political theories of the "Nullifiers" and held them up to scorn.17
In the intervening years, Quitman stood true to his principles, and
his party and his state were being brought to his views by the com
pelling forces of economic, social, and political interests.
Though the convention, contenting itself merely with approving
the address and the resolutions of the Central meeting, did not make a
statement of the object of the Democratic party of Mississippi in the
Southern movement and the means that it proposed to use, a state
ment made in a speech before the convention by Jefferson Davis,
one of the originators and the guiding spirits of the movement and a
trusted leader of the party may be taken as expressing the views of
the party on those subjects. Davis declared:
To preserve the Union as established under the Constitution, and our equal
rights and privileges in it is our highest hope. I believe the united, decided,
energetic action of the South will insure success, whilst divisions among ourselves
will entail consequences from the contemplation of which every patriot must
recoil. We must be harmonious to be respected, and united to be safe.18
But the Democratic convention of the first congressional district,
perhaps, set forth most fully the position of the Democrats of Missis
sippi, at this time, on the questions at issue between the two sections.
16 Proceedings of the Democratic State Convention, June 18 and 19, 1849.
Mississippi Free Trader, June 27, 1849.
18 Address to the people of Mississippi by the committee appointed by the States
Rights Convention assembled at Jackson May 21, 1834. Vicksburg Register,
July 31, 1834.
17 Journal of the Convention of the Democratic party of the State of Mississippi,
Jackson, June 9, 1834, Vicksburg Register, July 10, 1834.
18 Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Democratic state convention, Columbus
Democrat, August 1, 1849.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 53
The preamble adopted by the convention, in an unrestrained indict
ment of the North for its course towards slavery, reveals the forces
that were arousing the state to action, and the resolutions give the
purpose of the Democrats, in the northern part of the state, at least,
in joining the Southern movement.
The Northern brethren, the preamble declared, influenced by
feelings of fanaticism, or stimulated by unjust and ungenerous prej
udices, had for many years manifested a settled hostility to the South
ern states and a growing disposition to intermeddle with the relation
between the master and his slave as it was recognized in the constitu
tion of the Union and established by the fundamental laws of the
states. Animated by this spirit and alike unmindful of those funda
mental ties which grew out of the compact of the Union, and
of the obligations imposed by the solemn sanction of the constitu
tion, as well as the endearing principles of justice, they had set on foot
a regular system of measures for the avowed object of the ultimate over
throw of the institution of slavery in the states where it existed. To
effect this purpose, the press, the pulpit, the hustings, as well as the
halls of state legislatures had all been used and, by those potent instru
ments, the people of the South had been abused and insulted, their
right to their slaves, which rested upon the solid basis of constitu
tional guarantees, openly denied, the institution denounced as a
flagrant violation of the laws of God, of religion, and of humanity, and
the assurance given that the foul stain of slavery upon the national
character should not continue. In addition, the opponents of slav
ery had organized their forces, by means of anti-slavery societies, the
periodical assemblages of which were marked by excited discussions
of the evil and the sin of slavery and by defamatory harangues against
the slave owners of the South, whom they presented to the world as
heartless tyrants and, very often, as pirates and robbers. These views
they had embodied in pamphlets and anti-slavery tracts, embellished
by pictorial representations, often of the most insulting and libelous
character, and distributed for general circulation. In addition, the
societies were engaged in raising funds to pay unprincipled emissaries,
whose business it was to creep in among the slaves and incite them to
sedition and rebellion, or steal them from their owners and carry them
into free states; and also in agitating a dissolution of the Union as a
means of alarming the people of the South into submission. Added

24 Mississippi Historical Society.
to all this, they had sought the alliance of a formidable foreign gov
ernment to aid their schemes of aggression and intrigue.
But not satisfied with these modes of attack, the abolition party
had resorted to the more imposing form of solemn legislative resolu
tions and state laws. In some of the Northern states, the people of
the slaveholding states had been admonished, by resolves, of the great
sin of slavery and told that, if it were continued, the Union should be
dissolved, for slave holders were not fit to associate with the people
of the North. In others, provision had been made, in direct violation
of a plain provision of the constitution, to prevent the owner of a
fugitive slave from recovering his property; and, pursuing the same
policy, some of the states had refused to surrender persons who had
stolen slaves and made their escape from justice, though indictments
had been regularly found against them, and had had the insulting
audacity to tell the people of the South that slaves were not and could
not be subjects of property.
Not satisfied, however, with this war of words and this system of
aggression at home, the abolition party had advanced boldly into the
halls of Congress and sought to establish its supremacy through the
instrumentality of the national legislature. It had not yet ventured
so far as to invoke that body to break up the internal organization
of the state governments by passing a law to abolish slavery in the
states; but it claimed for Congress a power which was but little less
exorbitant and scarcely less dangerous to the slaveholding states,
and urged its exercise with a zeal and perseverance that sufficiently
attested the important influence that they expected it to exert towards
the accomplishment of their ultimate purpose. This was the power
to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia and in the territories
of the United States and to suppress the slave trade among the
states. These several measures were only so many links in the vast
chain of contrivances, by which the Southern states were to be bound
captives to the triumphant car of abolitionism. They were only a
well arranged system of means to accomplish the ultimate end of
carrying abolition into the states. However unfounded those pre
tentions might be in point of justice or constitutional law, recent
events of an important character and, more especially, the conduct
of Congress, during several of its late sittings, had given rise to the
most serious alarms of the Southern people.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 55
The people of the South, the preamble then asserted, had hitherto
forborne to do more than complain in terms of gentle remonstrance
and the spirit that had dictated those gentle measures of resistance
appeared to have been mistaken for pusillanimity, or evidence of final
submission. If so, it was a duty the people of the South owed their
Northern brethren, as well as themselves, to undeceive them and to
inform them, in respectful, but firm language, that further aggressions
upon the rights of the South would not and could not be tolerated.
This the convention proceeded to do, in a most unmistakable manner,
be resolving that slavery existed in the United States as a domestic
institution over which Congress had no jurisdiction; that Congress
had no power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia or in the
territories of the United States, or to pass any law to regulate or sup
press the slave trade in the states, that the territories belonged alike
to all the states and that any act of Congress that should impose
unequal restrictions upon citizens of the slave states who might de
sire to emigrate to the territories would be unjust, invidious, uncon
stitutional and abhorrent; that Congress had no power to pass the
Wilmot proviso in any legislation it might adopt in regard to the
territories and that if the proviso were adopted, it ought to be resisted
by all means and at all hazards.
Finally the convention resolved that, if the North should continue
its scheme of aggression, insult, and outrage upon their property,
their feelings, and their honor, they would feel it a sacred duty to pros
ecute such just measures of a counteracting character as might bring
them peace and secure them in the enjoyment of their constitutional
rights; that they cherished a sacred veneration for the union of the
states as it existed by the terms and compromises of the constitution
and that they would cling to it as the greatest safeguard of their rights
and happiness; that they, therefore, sincerely regretted that the people
of the North had "so repeatedly of late years, in their conduct and by
solemn and deliberate resolutions, threatened to break down the proud
pillars of this venerated fabric and to offer its fragments as a propi
tiatory sacrifice to the insatiate spirit of a wild fanaticism," and
deemed it their duty to themselves and to their country to inter
pose, by prompt and decisive action, for arresting the further prog
ress of measures that were pregnant with such fearful issues; and
that they recommended to their fellow citizens throughout the state

56 Mississippi Historical Society.
that they lay aside all party feelings and joining hands around the
holy altar of their common country, make common cause in one united
bond of brotherhood, in the defense of their honor, their property,
and their constitutional rights.19
The Whigs, on their part, as they met in their county primaries
to select delegates to the Whig state convention, or the "Mississippi
Taylor Convention" as the Whig press styled it, defended President
19 Preamble and Resolutions of the Democratic Convention of the First Con
gressional District, Pontotoc, June 4, 1849. The Organizer, June 9, 1849.
Jacob Thompson, whom this convention renominated to his seat in Congress,
in his letter of acceptance, also helps to reveal the forces impelling the Democratic
leaders to further the Southern movement. He writes: "I am not unconscious of
the fact that my experience in legislation has given me great advantages, but that
very experience teaches me the importance and difficulty of the present crisis. A
majority of the people of the United States give unmistakable evidence of their
fixed determination to overthrow our domestic institutions; while our prosperity,
our happiness, our country, all that we hold sacred in life, depend upon their pres
ervation in their integrity and quiet enjoyment. A total abolition of slavery is
the avowed object, yet cautiously do they approach this end in their legislative
action. They begin the work with unconstitutional and unjust restrictions upon
the people of the South in the far-off territories; this effected, then will follow with
rapid step, the overthrow of slavery in the District of Columbia. There they
propose to close the first chapter in the history of their aggressions, so far as the
developments in Congress prove, and pause to witness their effect upon our people,
and laugh at, and mock our contortions, our menaces, and our anticipated final
submission. But with their purpose openly avowed, does any sane mind believe
that this spirit can be propitiated and satisfied by a tame yielding to an acknowl
edged infraction of our rights? It is impossible. Will we leave to our children
the task of resistance, a task which we had not the manliness and courage to per
form ourselves? Because we know the history of the world demonstrates that a
spirit of submission to wrong and injustice on the part of a nation or people, invites
and begets a spirit of aggression and assault, in the minds of those clothed with
power. The performance of the two first acts in this great drama, as I sincerely
believe, will be attempted in the next Congress. Already a Vice-President is in
stalled who pants for the honor to affix his signature to such bills. Already a can
didate is designated by the party in power, for the Speakership of the House of
Representatives, who will so arrange his committees as to bring forward in the most
imposing form these disastrous measures. Already we have a cabinet surrounding
the President of the United States, performing the whole of the executive duties,
a majority of whom are eager for the enactment of the 'Wilmot Proviso' restriction.
What then, under these circumstances, can your member in Congress hope to ac
complish? To stand by and see the vitals of his constituents pierced through the
shield of the constitution which is thrown around them is a melancholy and revolt
ing task. Is there then no way of escape? I consider there is one and one only.
It is to be found in the spirit of our people, in that kind of spirit which moved our
fathers in other days— that spirit which is breathed in the fourth resolution adopted
by your Convention with one simple amendment, which is consonant with all the
resolutions adopted on this subject— 'Resolved, That Congress has no power to
pass the Wilmot Proviso' in any legislation she may adopt in regard to said Terri
tories, and if the same is adopted, it ought to be' (and it shall be) 'resisted by all
means and at all hazards'." Letter of Acceptance of Nomination to Congress
from Jacob Thompson, Oxford. June 19, 1849, The Organizer, June 23, 1849

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 57
Taylor from the attacks of the Democrats. They expressed full
confidence in his honesty and devotion to the constitution and in his
capacity to carry out the object for which he was elected and declared
that it was illiberal and unfair for the Democratic press to judge his
administration, since it had been in office only a few months.20 They
also declared it to be the duty of all lovers of law and order to dis
countenance disunionists wherever they might be found and to use
all honorable means to elevate men to office who would use their
energies to fraternize all interests of the Union and strengthen the
bonds of the confederacy.21
The Whigs in the "Mississippi Taylor Convention," reflecting
these sentiments expressed in the county conventions, declared, before
taking up the subject of slavery, their love "for the Union, as
the bond of peace and safety of the States, and of defense against
foreign foes," and expressed the fullest faith that the "glorious Union"
would be preserved "as well by the firmness and patriotism of Gen
eral Taylor, in the exercise of all constitutional means, as by the good
sense, intelligence and virtue of the people in every portion of our
extended country — preserved as it was made, and as it is, with all its
guarantees." In regard to slavery, the Whig convention did not follow the course
of the Democratic state convention in simply reaffirming the address
and resolutions of the Central meeting; but it set forth the position
of the Whig party in Mississippi at that time on the questions at
issue between the sections, and revealed the motives impelling it to
join the Southern movement by adopting a series of "Resolutions on
the Institution of Slavery," in which, setting forth, to the fullest
extent, the rights of the citizens of the slave states in regard to slave
property in the territories, it denied the power of Congress or of the
territorial legislatures to prohibit the citizens of the slave states from
emigrating, with their property in slaves, into the territories, and
asserted it to be the duty of Congress to protect them in the enjoy
ment of their slave property in the territories.22
By contrasting the resolutions of the Whig convention with the
s0 Taylor Meeting in Jasper county, Natchez Weekly Courier, June 26, 1849;
Taylor Meeting in Adams county, Ibid., July 2, 1849; Taylor Meeting in Frank
lin county, June 30, 1849, Ibid., July 17, 1849.
21 Taylor Meeting in Franklin county, June 30, 1849, Ibid., July 17, 1849.
22 Resolutions of the Mississippi Taylor Convention, Ibid., July 24, 1849.

g8 Mississippi Historical Society.
preamble and resolutions of the Democratic convention of the first
congressional district, an excellent idea of the difference between the
temper and the point of view of the Whigs and the Democrats in
Mississippi in regard to the slavery issues may be obtained. The
Whig resolutions are a calm, dispassionate statement of the rights
of the citizens of the slave states in regard to slave property in the
territories and give every evidence of having been written by a con
servative group having great interests of property threatened by the
influence of the anti-slavery sentiment in Congress and still more by
the clash that might be precipitated between the anti-slavery element
and the defenders of slavery who advocated extreme measures of
defense. Therefore, they do not seek to promote the sentiment of
bitterness and resentment already strong in the state; but they en
deavor, rather, to allay all feelings of alarm by expressing the fullest
confidence that the Union would be preserved with all the guarantees
of the constitution unimpaired.
The preamble and resolutions of the Democratic convention do
not reveal the same absorption in the interest of property shown by
the Whig resolutions; neither do they go so far in the assertion of the
rights of the owners of slave property in the territories. They deny
the right of Congress to abolish slavery in the territories, but they
do not make any assertion concerning the power of the territorial
legislatures over slavery or the duty of Congress to protect it in the
territories.23 They display irritation and resentment at the charges
23 The Democratic party in Mississippi did not advance to this position as early
as the Whig. In the second congressional district, the power and duty of Congress
to legislate for the protection of slavery in the territories was made an issue in this
campaign, W. L. Harris, the Whig candidate, taking his position squarely on the
resolutions of the Whig state convention on that subject and W. S. Featherston,
the Democratic candidate, favoring the doctrine of non-intervention. The
Houston Patriot of September 12, 1849, edited by J. A. Orr, denounced the
opinion of Harris "as the most insidious and dangerous doctrine ever incul
cated by a Southern man upon a Southern constituency.'' "Nothing can be
clearer," it declared, "if Congress has the power to say that slavery shall
exist in California, it certainly has the power to say that it shall not exist there.
If it has the power to protect the slaveholder, it has certainly the power not to pro
tect the slaveholder .... Yielding the power to legislate on this subject,
we yield our constitutional defense against the passage of the Wilmot Proviso." In
its issue of October 7, 1849, the Houston Patriot, contending further against what it
called " Col. Harris' doctrine of congressional interference," asserted that the judi
ciary of the United States furnished "the safest and surest protection that can pos
sibly be extended to the slaveholder."
The Monroe Democrat, August n, 1849, in the same controversy, declared that

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 59
of the abolitionists and the stigma cast by them on the Southern
states on account of slavery, and they tend to arouse a sentiment of
resistance in the state both by their general tenor and by direct
assertions concerning the course the South should pursue if the aggres
sion on its rights should be continued.
The resolutions of both conventions, however, express a venera
tion for the Union and a desire on the part of the people of the state
to cling to it as the greatest safeguard of their rights and their happi
ness; and clearly show that the Southern movement, in its beginning
in Mississippi, was for the protection of Southern rights within the
Union. The state conventions of both parties having recommended the
sending of delegates to the October convention, primary meetings
were held in the counties by the parties either jointly or separately
for the appointment of delegates, and opportunities were offered in
these for the expression of differences of opinion as to the course that
should be pursued in the convention. A discussion of "The Southern
Meeting" in Adams county to select delegates to the convention
provoked a controversy over the objects and power of that conven
tion. Judge George Winchester, a Whig, stated, in the Natchez
Courier, that if the object of the October convention were, upon the
passage of the Wilmot proviso, to resist to the last extremity by re
sorting to war in the name of the sovereign people of Mississippi, the
convention, not being legally constituted, had no such power; that it
could only pass resolutions and draw up an address. But there were
other means of preserving the Union and the constitution and the
"The power of Congress over Territories is, in our opinion, a very limited power.
It extends to giving them a government and such political laws as are alone neces
sary to their protection. The municipal laws, laws of police and such others as
are necessary to their protection by the constitution, are left in the hands of the
people. They are the legitimate repositories of all such powers. Congress cannot
divest them of the right, for the simple reason it lacks the constitutional authority."
Again in its issue of October 24, 1849, the Monroe Democrat asserted that "any
appeal to Congress which recognizes the necessity of express legislation to protect
the South in her rights is equivalent to an admission that the South stands in the
Confederacy not as an equal but as a dependent upon the justice of Congress. Let
the opinion but spread that Southern property requires legislation beyond that
which is required for any other property, where both are recognized and protected
as property by the common Constitution, and we of the South will have reached
that point of dependence to which Northern Abolitionism has been for years urging
us  Such is the position of Mr. Harris." Natchez Daily Courier ,
August 20, 1859.

60 Mississippi Historical Society.
rights, honor, and safety of the Southern states as equal members of
the Union, he asserted, than either "submission to the Wilmot Pro
viso," or "resistance to the last extremity by the last resort of kings"
and the October convention would recommend other means.24
The Mississippi Free Trader declared that the devotion of the
judge to the Union should certainly be commended, but that his de
votion should not lead him in submission to the feet of the free soilers
and the abolitionists. It would be sheer nonsense and humiliating
in the extreme to hold a state convention and adopt resolutions vindi
cating their rights, and then when the crisis came, vilely surrender
them for the preservation of the Union. That was not the way to
defend and preserve the Union, for there could be no Union among
states where the minority were unequal and their rights unacknowl
edged and unrespected. A Union like that was not worth preserving
and a large majority of the Southern people were sensible of the fact.
The editor of the Free Trader declared:
We are no disunionists and are as devotedly attached to the Union as any man
can possible be, but we do not concieve ourselves called upon, morally or politically,
to surrender our dearest rights, and our prosperity, for its preservation. Our
fathers surrendered nothing when they formed the constitutional compact, and
and when that compact is madly violated, why should we submit to wholesale
robbery merely for the sake of the Union — a Union founded upon our disgrace?
We are for maintaining the Constitution As It Is. We will not consent that North
ern men shall violate it with impunity. We are for the Union as it is 
We take no single step — we move not a single inch — we utter no threat — but in
defense of the Union. If the constitution is violated the North will be wholly and
entirely responsible for all the consequences which ensue.25
Continuing this discussion, the Free Trader disclosed the division
in the Southern movement that would result in its disruption by de
claring that it was evident that certain prominent men in the state
were determined to cover up their abandonment of Southern rights
by crying " disunion." It declared that the test question that should
be put in selecting delegates to the convention was, "Are you willing
to submit, Should Congress abolish Slavery in the Territories, or
prohibit its introduction into any of the Territory acquired from Mex
ico? — for the Convention does not meet to submit, but to resist to
the last extremity the Wilmot proviso, and to denounce indignantly

24 Natchez Weekly Courier, September 19, 1849.
25 Mississippi Free Trader, September 12, 1849.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 6 1
its reckless advocates. The South has conceded enough for the sake
of the Union."26
Although the "politicians" of Mississippi were accused of declaim
ing loudly on the subject of resistance and yet evincing a notable
timidity to pledge themselves to a definite plan of action,27 the leaders
of the state were carefully formulating a definite program to be carried
out in the October convention. Beheving that the success of the
Southern movement depended upon its support by all the Southern
states, they corresponded with the leaders of the movement in the other
states to ascertain what their opinions were both as to its general
course, and as to the action that should be taken by Mississippi in the
October Convention.28 The Mississippi leaders naturally turned with
the greatest confidence to the one whose devotion to the interests of his
section had made him the great spokesman of Southern rights. Cal
houn, since the days of nullification, had perceived the inevitable con
flict between the economic and social organizations of the two sections
and had worked both to unite the South in defense of its interests
and to devise some way, if possible, to protect those interests within
the Union. In this crisis, he saw little prospect of arresting the aggres
sions of the North and was under the impression that the time was at
hand when the South had to choose between disunion and submission;
but he thought if anything could arrest those aggressions, it would
be for the South, with an unbroken front, to present, without delay,

28 Mississippi Free Trader. September 12, 1849. The Free Trader tried to swing
the Whigs into line in the Southern movement or to destroy their influence in the
state by quoting Horace Greeley in the New York Tribune to the effect that the
Southern Whigs would be party neither in word nor in deed to any attempt to di
vide the Union because of the exclusion of slavery from the new territories, that they
knew well that such exclusion was a fixed fact and were fully resolved not to sever the
Union on account of it, and that at least half of them would not have slavery ex
tended if they could and resisted the Wilmot proviso strenuously only because they
deemed such enactment a needless irritation of their constituents and not because
they expected or wished to extend slavery. Furthermore, the Free Trader asserted
that the whole Whig press of the North thought the Southern Whigs unsound on
the slavery question and that the way for them to convince their Democratic friends
in the South that they were misrepresented was to meet in the convention and take
a decided and open stand for Southern rights and Southern institutions. If the South
were united in defense of their rights they could be sustained, if not they would
be trampled on. Mississippi Free Trader, September 5, 1849.
27 Letter of Geo. Calhoun to Messrs. Fall and Marshall, Editors of the Mississip
pian, Jackson, Miss., September 10, 1849. Claiborne Correspondence, State Ar
chives, Jackson, Miss.
28 Speech of Foote, Cong. Globe, 32 Cong., 1 Sess., 134-135.

62 Mississippi Historical Society.
to the North, the alternative of dissolving the partnership or of ceas
ing to violate the rights of the South. For this purpose, he urged
upon his friends in the Southern states, during the spring and summer
of 1849, tne calling of a Southern convention, for only in that way
could the South as a whole present authoritatively its demands to
the North.29
To the Mississippi leaders who appealed to him he gave the same
advice. In a letter to Collin S. Tarpley,30 who sent him a copy of
the proceedings of the Central meeting in May and asked him for his
opinion as to the course that should be adopted by the state conven
tion in October, he gave very explicit directions as to what should be
done in that convention. He wrote:
In my opinion there is but one thing that holds out the promise of saving both
ourselves and the Union, and that is a Southern Convention; and that, if much
longer delayed, cannot. It ought to have been held this fall, and ought not to
be delayed beyond another year. All our movements ought to look to that result.
For that purpose every Southern State ought to be organized with a central committee
and one to each county. Ours is already. It is indispensible to produce concert
and prompt action. In the meantime, firm and resolute resolutions ought to be
adopted by yours and such meetings as may take place before the assembling of the
Legislature in thefall. They, when they meet, ought to take up the subject in the
most solemn and impressive manner. The great object of a Southern Convention
should be to put forth, in a solemn manner, the causes of our grievances in an address
to the other states, and to admonish them in a solemn manner as to the consequences
that must follow, if they should not be redressed, and to take measures preparatory
to it in case they should not be. The call should be addressed to all those who are
desirous to save the Union and our institutions, and who, in the alternative (should
it be forced on us) of submission or dissolution would prefer the latter, No State
could better take the lead in this great conservative movement than yours. It is
destined to be the greatest of sufferers, if the abolitionists should succeed; and I
am not certain but by the time your convention meets, or at furthest your Legis
lature, that the time will have come to make the call.31
In a letter to Henry S. Foote, dated August 2, 1849, Calhoun practi
cally repeated his advice to Tarpley.32 These letters and, at least,
29 Letter of Calhoun to John H. Means, Fort Hill, April 13, 1849, Calhoun Cor
resp., 764; Letter of Calhoun to Andrew Pickens Calhoun, Fort Hill, July 24, 1849,
Ibid., 769.
30 Collin S. Tarpley was an eminent lawyer in Mississippi and was appointed,
in 1851, to succeed Chief Justice Sharkey on the Supreme bench. He was an ardent
Democrat and an enthusiastic supporter of Southern rights.
31 Letter of Calhoun to Colonel Tarpley, of Mississippi, Fort Hill, July 9, 1849,
Cong. Globe, 32 Cong. 1 Sess., Appx., 282, or National Intelligencer, June 6, 1850.
32 Letter of Calhoun to Henry S. Foote August 2, 1849, National Era, June 12,
1851. In this letter to Foote, Calhoun urges the calling of the Southern convention
by the Mississippi convention more than he had in his letter to Tarpley. "The

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 63
one other from Calhoun to Foote were shown to both Whigs and Demo
crats who would shape the policy of the October convention.33 Al
though the influence of Calhoun was kept secret34 because of the general
opinion, due to the popular view of his part in nullification, that
any measure in which he took the initiative must partake of the
nature of disorganization and the consequent unwillingness to follow
him,36 his suggestions, outiining as they did the course that public
sentiment in the state was prepared to approve, were closely followed
in the convention.
The October convention met on the appointed day and, although
it was not unanimously supported by the people of the state, since a
portion of the community thought that the movement was premature
and that it would be better to wait until Congress had acted, most
of the counties of the state sent delegates and both the great political
parties were equally represented.36 Chief Justice Sharkey was chosen
president and a committee was appointed to draw up resolutions.
The resolutions reported by this committee and adopted by the
convention are of great interest both as the first formal expression
by the state of Mississippi on the questions at issue between the
sections and as marking an important advance in the Southern move
ment as a whole. In the preamble of the resolutions, the convention
set forth the causes of the Southern movement and the principles
upon which the resolutions were based. It was boldly asserted, they
declared, that Congress possessed unlimited power of legislation over
all the territories belonging in common to the people of the United
States, that it, consequently, had power to prohibit slavery in the
territories, and that the exercise of such power was expedient and
call ought to be accompanied by an address, briefly stating the ground for making
it," he writes. "I trust your Convention will make the call. It could come from
no better quarter. Your State is the center of the southern portion of the great
valley of the Mississippi; more deeply, if possible, interested than any other, and
would be less likely to excite a feeling of jealousy than if it came from this or any
of the older States. If your Convention should take the stand, and recommend
at the same time a general organization of the Southern States, I would agree to
underwrite the consequences. Among your other advantages, the Whig party
would more fully unite in the call in any other State but this."
38 Letter from Henry S. Foote to Calhoun September 25, 1849, Calhoun Corresp.,
1204; Letter from A. Hutchinson to Calhoun, October 5, 1849, Ibid., 1206.
84 Ibid., 1206.
35 Mississippi Free Trader, February 10, 1849.
86 Speech of William L. Sharkey in Vicksburg, October 8, 1850, Hinds County
Gazette, October 31, 1850.

64 Mississippi Historical Society.
necessary in as much as slavery was an evil which must be eradicated
from the land. With a few patriotic and honored exceptions, they
asserted, the people of the Northern states seemed determined to
adopt the Wilmot proviso, or the principle it contained. Every
succeeding year brought forth new expedients for the accomplishment
of that object, and the press, the pulpit, and the ballot box had all
become tributary to the fanatical hostility against the South. It was
vain to hope for an abandonment of their settled design. Submis
sion only provoked perseverence on the part of the aggressors and it
was wise in states, as it was in individuals, to resist encroachments.
In the unfortunate controversy there were but two alternatives: the
one was submission and the other resistance. To the one they could
not, they would not, consent; the other they were reluctant to adopt.
In the name of their constituents, they solemnly denied the exist
ence of the power in Congress to exclude slavery from the territories,
protested against its exercise, and asserted that it would violate the
constitution and lead to a dissolution of the Union. They declared
that the states were sovereign, that the federal government possessed
only such powers as were granted to it by the constitution, with such
limited powers as might be indispensably necessary as incidents to
the express grant, and that consequently, it could legislate only on
the subjects confided to it, and on them only in strict subordination
to every principle of the constitution.
They asserted that the territories acquired from Mexico were the
common property of the United States and that the people of the
states had a right to move to them and to take with them their prop
erty, their religion, and their liberty. They also added that Congress
did not create property in slaves nor could it say that they should
cease to be property, that to abolish slavery in the territories was to
diminish their value and to appropriate the whole of the territories
to the use of one portion of the people of the United States to the ex
clusion of another, and finally that the power of Congress to legislate
for the territories was power to protect the citizen and his property
and not to declare what was property.37
The resolutions that this preamble introduced became the basis
of the Southern movement in Mississippi and the platform on which
87 Preamble of "The State Rights Convention," Mississippi Free Trader, Octo
ber io, 1849.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 65
all parties in the state professed to stand throughout the controversy
and are, therefore, among the important documents of this crisis.
They read as follows:
1. Resolved, That we continue to entertain a devoted and cherished attachment
to the Union, but we desire to have it as it was formed and not as an engine of
oppression. 2. That the institution of slavery in the Southern States is left, by the constitu
tion, exclusively under the control of the States in which it exists, as a part of their
domestic policy, which they, and they only, have the right to regulate, abolish or
perpetuate, as they may severally judge expedient; and that all attempts, on the
part of Congress, or others, to interfere with this subject, either directly or indi
rectly, are in violation of the Constitution, dangerous to the rights and safety
of the South, and ought to be promptly resisted.
3. That Congress has no power to pass any law abolishing slavery in the Dis
trict of Columbia, or to prohibit the slave trade between the several States, or to
prohibit the introduction of slavery into the territories of the Unites States; and
that the passage by Congress of any such law, would not only be a dangerous vio
lation of the constitution, but would afford evidence of a fixed and deliberate de
sign, on the part of that body, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the
States. 4. That we would regard the passage by Congress, of the "Wilmot Proviso''
(which would, in effect, deprive the citizens of an equal participation in the terri
tories acquired equally by their blood and treasure) as an unjust and insulting
discrimination — to which these States cannot, without political degradation, sub
mit; and to which this Convention, representing the feelings and opinions of the
people of Mississippi, solemnly declare they will not submit.
5. That the passage of the Wilmot Proviso, or of any law abolishing slavery
in the District of Columbia, by the Congress of the United States, would of itself,
be such a breach of the federal compact as, in that event, will make it the duty,
as it is the right of the slaveholding states, to take care of their own safety, and to
treat the non-slaveholding States as enemies to the slave-holding States and their
domestic institutions.
6. That the Legislature is hereby requested to pass such laws as may, in their
opinion, be best calculated to encourage the emigration of citizens of the slave-
holding States, with slaves, to the new territories of the United States.
7. That, in view of the frequent and increasing evidence of the determination
of the people of the non-slave-holding states to disregard the guarantees of the
constitution and to agitate the subject of slavery; both in and out of Congress,
avowedly for the purpose of effecting its abolition in the States; and also, in view
of the facts set forth in the late "Address of the Southern Members of Congress,"
this convention proclaims the deliberate conviction that the time has arrived when
the Southern States should take counsel together for their common safety; and that
a convention of the slave-holding States should be held at Nashville, Tenn, on the ist
MONDAY IN JUNE next, to devise and adopt some mode of resistance to these
aggressions and that this Convention do appoint twelve delegates and twelve alter
nates — being double the number of our Senators and Representatives in Congress
— to attend such convention, and that the other slave-holding States be invited to
appoint delegates agreeably to the same ratio of representations.
8. In the language of an eminent Northern writer and patriot — "The rights of
the South in African service exists not only under but over the Constitution.
They existed before the government was formed. The Constitution was rather
sanctioned by them than they by the Constitution. Had not that instrument ad
mitted the sovereignty of those rights, it never would have been itself admitted by
the South. It bowed in deference to rights older in their date, stronger in their

66 Mississippi Historical Society.
claims, and holier in their nature, than any other which the Constitution can boats.
Those rights may not be changed — even by a change of the Constitution. They "
are out of reach of the nation, as a nation. The confederacy may dissolve and
the Constitution pass away, but those rights will remain unshaken — will exist while
the South exists — and when they fall, the South will perish with them."
9. That to procure unity and promptness of action in this State, this Convention
recommends that a central or State association be formed at the capital, and affili
ated county associations within the several counties in the State.
10. That we recommend to the Legislature of this State, that at its next session,
a law be enacted making it the duty of the governor of the State, by proclamation,
to call a general Convention of the State, and to issue writs of election based upon
the ratio of representation in the State Legislature, upon the passage by Congress
of the "Wilmot Proviso," or any law abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia,
or prohibiting the slave trade between the states, to take into consideration the act
of aggression, and the mode and measures of redress.
11. That a committee of six be chosen by the Convention to prepare an address
to the people of the slaveholding States.88
These resolutions embodied the utmost joint action that could be
obtained in the convention. A resolution was reported to the con
vention by the committee on resolutions, declaring that the passage
of a law admitting California into the Union at the next session of
Congress, under a constitution made by the population of California
at that time, would be a fraud upon the slave states and should be
resisted by them.39 But it was strongly protested against in a report
made by a minority of the committee,40 and met with so much opposi
tion in the convention that it was withdrawn.41
The difference of opinion in the convention in regard to the admis
sion of California clearly reveals the division in the state, in regard
to the demands that should be made on Congress, that was finally
to divide the South and make the Compromise of 1850 possible. The
minority of the committee on resolutions declared in regard to the
resolution on California reported from the committee that no such
question had been before the people of the state, or of any other of
the slave states, so far as they were aware. Nor did they believe
that it would be concurred in by the people of Mississippi of either
party, much less by the people of all the slave states; and that to make
such an act of Congress an issue between the non-slave states and the

88 Mississippi Free Trader, October 10, 1849.
59 Minority Report of the State Rights Convention, Ibid., October 6, 1840.
"Ibid. y
41 Speech of W. L. Sharkey at a Union Meeting in Vicksburg, October 8, 1850,
Hinds County Gazette, October 31, 1850. Letter of A. Hutchinson to Calhoun,
Jackson, October 5, 1849, Calhoun Corresp., 1206.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 67
slave states, upon which united resistance by the latter was to be
made on the ground of fraud in the former in the exercise of consti
tutional power, would be to place the slave states upon a less lofty
attitude of clear and indisputable right than that which they held
on the question of unconstitutional laws that immediately or remotely
attacked the relative social inequalities of master and slave and the
social and political existence of the slave states as states.42
According to the resolutions, delegates were appointed by the
convention to represent the state in the Nashville convention and a
committee of six, consisting of W. L. Sharkey, A. Hutchinson, Geo.
Winchester, C. R. Clifton, W. R. Hill, John I. Guion, and E. C.
Chambers, selected to prepare an address to the slave holding states.43
"The Address to the Southern States" issued by this committee
expressed the determination of the South to preserve the Union, if
it were possible, clearly set forth the dangers threatening the slave-
holding states, resolutely maintained their right to resist those dan
gers, and unhesitatingly faced the fact that those states might, in
the last resort, be driven to provide for the formation of a separate
union to protect their liberties and rights.44
The last point in the address received much attention, during this
controversy, as the first formal expression in Mississippi looking to
secession as a final resort in defense of slavery. In regard to it, the
address declared:
Besides and beyond a popoular convention of the Southern States, with the view
and the hope of arresting the course of aggression, and, if not practicable, then to
concentrate the South in will, understanding, and action, the convention of Missis
sippi suggested, as the possible ultimate resort the call by the legislatures of the
42 Minority Report of the State Rights Convention, Mississippi Free Trader,
October 6, 1849.
The minority report was signed by three Whigs, Thomas A. Dabney, George
Winchester, and John I. Guion and to it was attached three separate agreements
in the protest it contained. Above his signature, A. C. Bainer declared that he
agreed in the protest fully, as to the impropriety of the resolution, without express
ing any opinion as to any abstract principle the protest might contain; S. H. John
son simply wrote that he also agreed in the above protest; and J. C. McAlpin
asserted that he agreed to the above protest and objected to the legislature's passing
any law indemnifying any slaveholder in emigrating to any of the new territories.
43 Ibid., October 10, 1849.
44 National Intelligencer, April 27, 1850.
The address was signed by A. Hutchinson, G. Winchester, W. R. Hill, W. L.
Sharkey, C. R. Clifton, John I. Guion, E. C. Wilkinson. Sharkey stated later
that he did not write the address, but that it was written by a distinguished citizen
of Mississippi. It is reasonable to infer that Anderson Hutchinson wrote it.

68 Mississippi Historical Society.
assailed States, of still more solemn conventions — such as should be regularly
elected by the people of the States — to deliberate, speak, and act with all the sover
eign power of the people. Should, in the result, such conventions be called and
meet, they may lead to a like regularly constituted convention of all the assailed
States, to provide, in the last report, for their separate welfare by the formation
of a compact and a union that will afford protection to their liberties and rights.
In such a crisis, in the language of Mr. Madison, 'one spirit will animate and con
duct the whole.' «
Through the proceedings of the October convention of 1849 and
the address to the Southern states issued by its instructions, the
citizens of Mississippi had, at length, declared the position of the
state on the questions at issue between the sections. Furthermore,
they had contributed greatly to the progress of the Southern movement
and definitely committed the state of Mississippi to its support, by
taking the step, so long planned by leaders of the South, of calling a
convention of the slaveholding states to be held in Nashville, on the
first Monday in the following June, to devise and adopt some mode
of resistance to aggressions against their rights, and by appointing
delegates to represent the state in that convention.
45 National Intelligencer, April 27, 1850.

CHAPTER D7.

THE DEMANDS OF THE SOUTH

The progress of sentiment in favor of resistance to the enactment
by Congress of legislation opposed to slavery is indicated in Missis
sippi, as elsewhere in the South, in the state elections in the autumn of
1849. The Democratic party had first advocated the Southern move
ment, and although the Whig party had been forced into line, the
Democrats were more unanimous in their support of the movement
and more extreme in their demands than the Whigs. The position
of the two parties on the questions connected with slavery was made
the main issue in the campaign and, in the elections, the people of
Mississippi decided overwhelmingly in favor of that of the Demo
cratic party. Its candidate for governor, General Quitman, received
almost 10,000 more votes than the Whig candidate, Luke Lea;1 an
entire Democratic delegation was returned to Congress;2 and an over
whelmingly Democratic majority was secured in both branches of
the legislature.3
The Mississippi Free Trader joyously greeted the Democratic
victory as a rebuke of the submission of the Whig press and their
candidates for Congress to the enactment of the Wilmot Proviso,
and their surrender to the Free Soilers. It declared that if Luke
Lea and the Whig candidates for Congress had been elected, the

1 Senate Journal, 1850, 314-315. Quitman received 33,117 votes; Lea, 22,996.
It is true that General Quitman was a strong opponent of the Whig candidate.
The Whig state convention had recognized in him "the gallant soldier, the up
right gentleman, and an early and unflinching advocate of the payment of the
Planters' and the Union Bank Bonds" and declared that "next to the election of
their own nominee, they would hail his election as the best evidence of reform, both
in taste and principles, of the Democratic party of the State of Mississippi." Reso
lutions of the Mississippi Taylor Convention, Natchez Weekly Courier, July 24,
1849. 2 Brown, Featherston, and Thompson were reelected and McWillie was elected
in the 3rd Congressional district in place of Tompkins, a Whig.
3 In the Senate there were 20 Democrats and 10 Whigs; in the House 62 Demo
crats and 36 Whigs, Mississippi Free Trader, November 28, 1849.
69

70 Mississippi Historical Society.
whole North would have resounded with rejoicing that Mississippi
had refused to array herself with the South in defense of her honor
and her rights and had declared in favor of abject submission to the
will of a ruthless and tyrannical majority; but that the election of
Quitman was a great Southern triumph by which Mississippi placed
herself in "Bold Resistance to the Wilmot Proviso and Kindred
Measures, at all Hazards and to the Last Extremity" and
pronounced in tones of thunder her condemnation of the dynasty
at Washington and her firm determination to support her rights to
the last extremity.4
In the other Southern states, also, the growing feeling of alarm
resulted in the triumph of the Democratic party on the slavery issues.
In Kentucky, George A. Caldwell, a Democrat, defeated Aylett
Buckner, a Whig, for Congress on the issue of a speech made by Buck-
ner in the House, declaring the Wilmot proviso a proper measure.6
In Tennessee, according to the Nashville Union, the course of Taylor
in placing in his cabinet two furious abolitionists and two others
whose views coincided with the more moderate Free Soilers, and in
throwing away his veto power by a pledge, forced his friends in Tennes
see to abandon him or accept submission to the Wilmot proviso,
which they knew he would carry out in practice. Under the lead
ership of John Bell, they did the latter. Neil S. Brown, the Whig
candidate for governor, staked his election on the issue tendered in
the Democratic convention, of resistance to the Wilmot proviso and
denounced resistance as leading to disunion. In the election Bell and
Brown received a most signal rebuke and General William Trousdale
was elected governor.6 In Georgia, the Whigs lost control of the
legislature, which they had held since 1843, and, in November, sur
rendered the entire management of the state to the Democrats.7 In
Alabama, the Whigs made no opposition to the election of Collier,
the Democratic candidate for governor, and the Democrats captured
the lower house of the legislature by a large majority and cut the
Whigs' majority in the Senate down to one.8
1 Mississippi Free Trader, November 10, 1849.
6 New York Semi-weekly Tribune, August 1, 1849.
' Nashville Union, August 6, 1849. Quoted in the New York Semi-weekly Trib
une, August 18, 1849.
7 National Intelligencer, October 25, 1849.
8 New York Semi-weekly Tribune, November 24, 1849.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 71
These successes of the Democratic party indicated, unmistakably,
a progress of public sentiment in the South in favor of resistance,
and a bolder tone was taken by the state administrations. Gov
ernor Trousdale of Tennessee, in his first message to the legislature,
declared it to be the duty of Tennessee to proclaim to the North its un
alterable purpose to maintain its rights " at all hazards and to the last
extremity."9 Governor Towns of Georgia recommended to the legis
lature to make provision for the calling of a convention of the people
if the Wilmot proviso or any act forbidding slavery or the slave trade
in the District of Columbia were passed by Congress.10 The retiring
governor of Alabama, also, made the same recommendation to the
legislature of that state and, in addition, advised that provision should
be made for the Southern states uniting in a general convention in
such contingency.11
The rising tide of alarm in the South, which was revealed in the
success of the Democratic party and the tone of the new state adminis
trations, was due to the grave fears that the slaveholding states were
coming more and more to entertain for their interests during the next
session of Congress. The popular addresses and the resolutions of
conventions with which nearly the whole press of the Northern states
was teeming forced the Southerners to discard, as utterly fallacious,
the opinion that the abolitionists were a contemptible faction, few
in number and powerless in influence. This and the still more alarm
ing fact that a large number of states, in the solemn form of
legislative resolves, had instructed their representatives in Congress
to press forward measures calculated, in the opinion of the South,
to effect an entire change in the relations then existing between the
two distinctive classes of Southern population, thoroughly aroused
the people of that section to the necessity of considering the best
means of protecting their domestic safety.12
In addition, Southerners felt that they could no longer trust the
Senate to protect their interests, for the defection of Benton of Mis
souri and Houston of Texas left the South in a minority in that body
and the senators from the free states who had hitherto sustained the
9 New York Semi-weekly Tribune, November 3, 1849.
10 National Era, November 29, 1849.
11 New York Semi-weekly Tribune, November 28, 1849.
n Mississippi Free Trader, December 15, 1849.

72 Mississippi Historical Society.
South were for the most part constrained by instructions either to
oppose Southern demands or to resign their places.13
Nor could the South hope for any protection from the executive
branch of the government. Taylor had, in advance, virtually repu
diated the exercise of the veto power, and, besides, the cabinet was
under the dominance of the Northern Whigs and the influence of Se
ward was growing strong over the administration. In addition, soon
after the beginning of his adininistration, Taylor had sent Thomas
Butler King, of Georgia, to California to induce the people of that
territory to draw up a state constitution and then petition Congress
for admission into the Union; and it was generally believed that the
influence of the administration would be used, during the next session
of Congress, to secure the admission of California and New Mexico
as states and by that circuitous mode gain the object of the "Provi-
sorists' ' and cheat the South of its rights.14
Influenced by all these reasons and, no doubt, also by the severe
rebuke that had been administered to their party, in the state elections,
for the backwardness of its position on the questions at issue between
the two sections, the Whig members of Congress from the South were
ready, at the beginning of the first session of the thirty-first Congress,
to unite with the Southern Democrats in defense of Southern rights.
The members of both parties were convinced that entire unanimity,
strong determination, and skillful parliamentary tactics would be
necessary for the minority to win in the great parliamentary game
they were to play that winter in Washington. Accordingly their
first move was to set forth the position of the two parties and to pro
claim to their opponents their intention to act in concert in support
of that position. This was done in the correspondence, published
in the Washington Union, the organ of the Democratic party in Wash
ington, and the National Intelligencer, the Whig organ, between H.
S. Foote a Democratic Senator from Mississippi, the state in which
both parties had united in taking an advanced position in regard to
the slavery issues and in which the Democrats had control, and
Thomas L. Clingman, a' Whig representative from North Carolina,
a Southern state in which the Whigs still were dominant.
13 Mississippi Free Trader, December 15, 1849.
14 Letter from H. V. Johnson to Calhoun, Milledgeville, Ga., July 20, 1849,
Calhoun Corresp., 1197; Letter from H. S. Foote to Calhoun, Warrenton, Sep
tember 25, 1849, Calhoun Corresp., 1204.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 73
The object of Foote's letter to Clingman was to obtain from him,
as "a prominent member of the Whig party," an expression of the
probable action of his associates in the South if bills for the enact
ment of the Wilmot proviso and the abolition of slavery in the District
of Columbia were passed in the next Congress, so that the North might
be convinced that the South would not patiently acquiesce in either
of those aggressions, and put a stop to the activity of the "agents
of sedition" who were trampling "the sacred provisions of the con
stitution under foot" and embroiling "the Legislative councils of the
nation in unseemingly and wicked controversy," and thus prevent
the Union from being put in serious jeopardy.15
Clingman replied to Foote that the exclusion of slaveholders, as
such, from all the territories of the United States would be an entire
revolution in the action of the government; that even if there should
be power to divide the public territory for convenience between the
slaveholding and the non-slaveholding citizens of the United States,
it was perfectly clear that there could be no right to exclude one class
entirely, and that such an exclusion would be as great a violation of
the constitution as the government could possibly commit. He added :
In a word, if the Government should adopt the policy of excluding slaveholders,
as such from all the territory of the United States, it would in substance and effect
cease to the the Government of the United States. While the form of the consti
tution might remain the same, its character would be essentially changed.
This change, Clingman held, the Southern states owed it to the
cause of constitutional liberty, to justice, and to their own honor to
resist. With reference to the abolition of slavery in the District of Colum
bia, he declared that, if such an event were to occur at that time, it
would not take place in obedience to the wishes of the citizens of the
district and that Congress would, therefore, be guilty of an act of
tyranny so insulting and so gross as to justify a withdrawal of confi
dence from such a government.
Clingman declared that, if Congress should pass the Wilmot pro
viso or prohibit slavery in the District of Columbia, the union of both
parties in Mississippi was a type of what would occur elsewhere; that
he had no doubt but that over the entire South there would be a vastly
16 Letter "of Foote to T. L. Clingman, of North Carolina, November 10, 1849,
Mississippi Free Trader, December 8, 1849.

74 Mississippi Historical Society.
greater unanimity than existed in the old thirteen slave states when
they decided to resist British aggression; and that long before the
struggle should come to the worst the South would present an un
broken front.16
These letters, coming from a Democrat and a Whig, were hailed
by the Washington Union as evidence of the attitude the slaveholding
states would maintain if the Wilmot proviso were passed17 and, with
out doubt, they reflected the sentiment of the two parties in regard
to the slavery issues. The people of the South were united in the
demand that Congress should not pass the Wilmot proviso or abolish
slavery in the District of Columbia; and, though the public meetings,
the press, and the political leaders were all careful to state that the
object of the South in resisting these measures was to preserve the
Union and the Constitution, the committee appointed by the October
convention in Mississippi to draw up an address to the Southern
states had not hesitated to declare that it might be necessary for
the Southern states to provide, in the last resort, for their separate
welfare by the formation of a compact and a union that would afford
protection to their liberties and rights. Such was the public senti
ment of the South at the opening of Congress, December 3, 1849.
There was every indication that that session of Congress would
be a stormy one and there was no telling what would be the end. Cal
houn declared:
The South is more united than I ever knew it to be, and more bold and decided
The North must give away, or there will be a rupture.18
Both Alexander H. Stephens and Henry Clay bear testimony to
the strength of the disunion sentiment among the Southern members
of Congress.19 The Southern Whigs, convinced that the Northern
Whigs were determined to yield nothing and intended to carry aboli-
18 Letter of Clingman to Foote, November 13, 1849, Mississippi Free Trader,
December 8, 1849. In a postscript, Clingman stated that the letter had been
submitted to Senator Mangum, of North Carolina, and that he concurred fully in
all its general conclusions.
17 National Era, November 22, 1849.
18 Letter of Calhoun to Thomas G. Clemson Washington, December 8, 1849.
Calhoun Corresp. 776.
19 Letter of Alexander H. Stephens to his brother, December 5, 1849. Johnson
and Browne, Life of A. H. Stephens, 239. "I find," Stephens wrote, "the feeling
among Southern members for a dissolution of the Union — if anti-slavery [meas
ures] should be pressed to extremity — is becoming much more general than at

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 75
tion anywhere they could by the constitution,20 threw themselves
whole-heartedly into the contest and together with the Southern
Democrats sought to overcome the superiority of the North in numbers
by their zeal, audacity, and skill in parliamentary tactics.
The struggle between the two sections was precipitated immediately
over the question of the organization of the House. In the caucus
of the Whigs of the House to nominate a speaker, Toombs, of Georgia,
offered a resolution declaring that Congress ought not to pass any
law prohibiting slavery in the territories of California and New
Mexico or abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia;21 and on
the rejection of the resolution six Southern Whigs left the caucus.22
The Whigs nominated Winthrop, of Massachusetts, for speaker,
and the Democrats put forward Howell Cobb, of Georgia. But the
Free Soilers holding the balance of power in the House and re
fusing to vote for either, the balloting was continued for nearly three
weeks without either candidate's obtaining a majority. The Demo
crats, at length, threw their votes to Brown, of Indiana, and it seemed

first. Men are now beginning to talk of it seriously, who, twelve months ago,
hardly permitted themselves to think of it."
Letter of Clay to Leslie Combs, Washington, December 22, 1849. Private Cor
resp., 593. Clay wrote that "The feeling for disunion among some intemperate
Southern politicians, is stronger than I hoped or supposed it could be. The masses
generally, even at the South, are, I believe sound; but they may become influenced
and perverted."
20 Letter of Stephens to his brother, December 3, 1849, Johnston and Browne,
Life of A. H. Stephens, 238.
21 The Whig Caucus, Mississippi Free Trader, December 22, 1849.
Toombs wrote to J. J. Crittenden, April 25, 1850, "When I came to Washington,
I found the whole Whig party expecting to pass the proviso, and that Taylor
would not veto it, and thereby the Whig party of the North were to be built up at
the expense of the Northern Democracy, who from political and party consid
erations, had stood quasi opposed to the proviso. I saw General Taylor and
talked fully with him, and while he stated he had given and would give no pledges
either way about the proviso, he gave me clearly to understand that if it was passed
he would sign it. My course became instantly fixed. I would not hesitate to
oppose the proviso, even to the extent of a dissolution of the Union. I could not
for a moment regard any party considerations in the treatment of the question. I
therefore determined to put the test to the Whig party and abandon its organi
zation upon its refusal. Coleman, Life of John J. Crittenden, I, 365.
22 Letter of Stephens to his brother, December 2, 1849. Johnston and Browne,
Life of A.H. Stephens, 237; National Era, December 13, 1849.
According to the National Era these were Stephens, Toombs, Cabell, Martin,
Hilliard, and Owens. Stephens says there were some others. In giving an account
of the meeting, Stephens declared that his Southern blood and feelings were up,
and that he felt as if he were prepared to fight at all hazards and to the last extrem
ity in vindication of the honor and the rights of the South.

76 Mississippi Historical Society.
certain that he would be elected; but the Southern representatives
discovered that he had made terms with the Free Soilers and indig
nantly rejected him. During the stormy debate that followed, Toombs
made his oft-quoted speech, avowing that, if Congress by its legisla
tion sought to drive the South from the territories of California and
New Mexico and to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, he
was for disunion and, if his physical courage were equal to the main
tenance of his convictions of right and duty, he would devote all he
was and all he had on earth to its consummation.23 This speech was
loudly applauded together with that of Stephens in which he announced
his concurrence in every word of Toombs and declared the Union
dissolved from the day in which aggression was consummated upon
any section of the country.24 Colcock, of South Carolina, in his turn,
added to the excitement by pledging himself, if any bill should be
passed at that Congress abolishing slavery in the District of Colum
bia or incorporating the Wilmot proviso in any form, to introduce a
resolution in the House "declaring in terms, that this Union ought to
be dissolved."25
According to Stephens, the "great row" gotten up by him and
Toombs shook the country from one end to the other and the North
ern Whigs, "feeling great pressure from home, and fearing they would
be compelled to yield their sentiments and come to a full and final
settlement of the question, caved in and let Cobb be elected speaker."25
However that was, after scenes of the wildest disorder, the House
agreed to the election of a speaker by a plurality vote and Cobb was
elected on December 23. The South had won the first move in the
game and also made sure the committees of the House would be organ
ized in a way favorable to its interests.
As soon as the speakership was settled, the slavery question was
introduced into Congress in the one form in regard to which the
people of the South had not been able to come to an agreement as to
their policy. In his message, December 24, 1849, the president in
formed Congress that, from his latest advices, he had reason to suppose
23 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong. 1 Sess., 28.
24 Ibid., 29.
"Ibid.
26 Letter from Stephens to his brother Linton, April 15, 1850. Waddell, Bio
graphical Sketch of Linton Stephens, 100. Quoted in Von Hoist, Constitutional
History of the United States HI, 473.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 77
that California had framed a state constitution and would shortly
apply for admission into the Union; and recommended its application
to the favorable consideration of Congress.27 As it was well known
that the constitution which California had formed excluded slavery,
the Southern members of Congress were, thus, at the very beginning
of the session, brought face to face with the question of what should
be their policy with reference to the exclusion of slavery from Cali
fornia by its admission into the Union as a free state.28
Though the application of California for admission into the Union
under a constitution excluding slavery had been foreseen since the
early summer, no Southern state had declared its position on the
question and what should be the policy of its members of Congress
in regard to it. The subject, as has been seen, was raised in the Oc
tober convention in Mississippi; but, the sentiment of the convention
not being unanimous, no action was taken. Therefore, the members
of Congress from Mississippi, in common with those from other
Southern states, turned to their state for an expression of its will
on this question on which it had not yet spoken.
Both the senators and all the representatives from Mississippi,
in a letter to Governor Quitman, advised him and, through him,
their constituents, that, in their opinion, California would be admitted
into the Union during that session of Congress. They regarded, so
they declared, the proposition to admit California as a state, under
all the circumstances of her application, as an attempt to adopt the
Wilmot proviso in another form; and desired, through the governor,
to submit to the people and to the legislature of the state the single
fact that California would most likely obtain admission into the
Union with her constitutional prohibition of slavery and to ask for
such expressions of opinion by the legislature, the governor, and, if
possible, the people, as would clearly indicate the course that Missis
sippi would deem it her duty to pursue in the new emergency.29
The legislature of Mississippi had assembled in the beginning of
27 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 71.
28 Taylor also declared that the people of New Mexico, he believed, at no very
distant period, would present themselves for admission into the Union as a state
and advised Congress to await their action.
29 Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 34. The letter
was dated Washington, January 21, 1850 and signed Jeff. Davis, H. S. Foote, J.
Thompson, W. S. Featherston, Wm. M'Willie, A. G. Brown.

78 Mississippi Historical Society.
January in its regular biennial session and the first expression of that
body on the issues between the North and the South, since those
issues had reached a real crisis, was awaited with interest. As both
houses were overwhelmingly Democratic, it was to be expected that
the legislature would voice the will of that part of the state that
favored a more extreme position on Southern rights. Moreover the
retiring governor, J. W. Matthews, in his message to the legislature,
in submitting the resolutions of the legislatures of the several states
and also the proceedings of the convention of the citizens of Mississippi
on the subject of slavery, sought to induce that body to occupy an
advanced position on that question.
He defended the doctrine that Congress was bound to protect the
property of the citizens of the states in the territories, and denied
the constitutionality of the Wilmot proviso.30 But he declared that
recent developments had convinced him that the passage of the
Wilmot proviso was not seriously intended. From a careful atten
tion to the California movement from its inception to its consumma
tion, he was convinced that it was a scheme to avoid the responsibil
ity of openly meeting the question of the prohibition of slavery in
the territories by the direct passage of the Wilmot proviso by Congress;
and to his judgment that scheme was more abhorrent to the South
than an open and direct adoption of the proviso, for to fraud and in
justice it added the crimes of hypocrisy and deceit.
As to the demands the South should make in regard to the terri
tories, Governor Matthews held that, the non-slaveholding states
having refused to abide by the terms of the Missouri compromise,
the slave states were absolved from the observance of its stipulations,
and should, at once, fall back on their original constitutional rights,
by which they held an equal right with all the citizens of the United
States to remove with their property to any of the territories of the
30 "No proposition to my mind is more clear," Governor Matthews declared,
"than that the Wilmot Proviso and its kindred measures are without even the
shadow of constitutional authority on the part of Congress; and that a more impoli
tic, unjust and iniquitous measure was never presented for the consideration of
any legislative body. Nothing but an unchastened thirst for power, forgetful of
moral and constitutional obligation — a wild fanaticism, uncontrolled by reason,
or an utter ignorance of the principles of our government, it appears to me, could
induce any man, or set of men, to seriously entertain measures so monstrous." Mes
sage of Governor Matthews to the Legislature, January 7, 1850, Senate Journal,
1850, 23.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 79
United States and settle therein; and that they should never again
consent to any restriction to the extension of their institutions in any
portion of the territories of the Union. He declared:
Unless we come to this determination and maintain it with unyielding firmness'
I am convinced that the days of this glorious Union are numbered. The spirit of
fanaticism and aggression will never be stayed by compromise; but it will continue
its work of destruction, until the sacred ties which have heretofore bound us together
in one great and glorious brotherhood, shall be rent asunder.
Finally he recommended that, in the event of the adoption of the
Wilmot proviso by Congress, the abolition of slavery in the District
of Columbia, the prohibition of the commerce in slaves between the
states, or — that which the October convention had failed to recom
mend — "the admission of California into the Union by virtue of her
late pretended constitution," the governor should be authorized to
order an election of delegates, from all the counties in the state, to
a convention, to take into consideration the mode and measure of
redress, and to adopt such measures for their future security as the
crisis might demand.31
The incoming governor, John A. Quitman, in his inaugural address
did not follow up the recommendations of Governor Matthews, but
contented himself with asserting the doctrines of state sovereignty
and of the nature of the federal government that had found such
scanty support in Mississippi when he first announced them in the
Nullification controversy, and with defending the institution of slav
ery.32 He declared:
The Members of our national union consist of equal co-ordinate sovereignties,
whose interest, for good or for evil, may be affected by the federal government.
They are not only entitled to exercise a watchful care over its proceedings, but when
the Constitution, or the reserved rights of the states, or the people are threatened,
upon the state governments especially devolves the duty of taking proper measures
to defend the one and protect the other.
In regard to slavery, he asserted that the people of Mississippi did
31 Message of Governor J. W. Matthews to the Legislature, January 7, 1850,
Senate Journal, 1850, 23-28.
32 The Mississippi Free Trader, January 30, 1850, declared, with reference to
the difference in the state of feeling in the South in 1829 and in 1850, that, "the
circumstances are widely different. However exciting the question of a high tariff
may have been at that time, it was a question not at all similar to the one now in
agitation from one end of the Union to the other. That did but touch our pockets,
but this involves the very foundations of Society and property amongst us."

80 Mississippi Historical Society.
not regard it as an evil,33 but that, on the contrary, they thought that
their prosperity, their happiness, their very political existence, were
inseparably connected with the institution, that they had a right to
it both above and under the constitution of the United States and
that they could not and would not give up that right. Measures
introduced into Congress, he declared, too plainly spoke the deliber
ate intention of their instigators to wage a war of extermination against
this most valued right; and, whether they originated in fanaticism,
affected philanthropy, or calculations of political power, they could
have no other object than the ultimate destruction of the domestic
institutions of the South or the dissolution of the Union. To those
destructive measures, the people of Mississippi, of all parties, assem
bled in convention, had solemnly declared that they could not and
would not submit. Quitman declared:
They cherish the Union constituted by the wisdom of our fathers; they will
defend the Constitution, which established and alone maintains that Union, but
they have no love or veneration for any other union than that which is written and
denned in the constitution. They are not to be deceived and robbed of their con
stitutional rights by men who, uttering hollow professions of attachment to the
Union, are deliberately severing the ties that bind us together.
The people of Mississippi, he asserted, had taken their stand and
he did not doubt but that their representatives would maintain it
by providing means to meet every probable contingency.34
The legislature, on the report of the joint standing committee
on federal and state relations, to which had been referred as much of
the governor's message as related to the subject of slavery and the
agitation of it, adopted a series of resolutions setting forth its position
on those subjects.
In the preamble to these resolutions, the legislature expressed a
grave fear that the government of the Union would before long be
38 In the Free Trader, of all places, there is a contradiction of this assertion of
Quitman's. "The evil, the wrong of slavery is admitted by every enlightened
man in the Union," the Free Trader declares, "but," it continues, "in the States
where the institution prevails it is the bounden duty of every good citizen, if he
would preserve society from the inroads of a domestic enemy— if he does not look
to the abolition of negro bondage, to see that no false philanthropy shall strike a
smgle rivet from the chains of the slave. As Mr. Cobb lately exclaimed, 'Let the
institution of slavery be preserved sacred.' " Editorial in the Mississippi Free
Trader, January 19, 1850.
M Inaugural Address of Governor John A. Quitman delivered before both houses
of the Mississippi Legislature, January 10, 1850. Claiborne, Life and Correspond
ence of John A. Quitman, II, 21-24.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 81
laid in ruins by the unholy lust for power that had induced the non-
slaveholding states to endeavor to fasten upon the slaveholding states
a system of legislation in regard to their peculiar domestic relations,
as fatal to their prosperity and happiness as it was unjust and con
trary to the principles and provisions of the constitution. In defend
ing slavery, it denied that it was a moral or political evil, declared
that it was an element of prosperity and happiness both to the masters
and to the slaves, and asserted that if it were abolished the fair and
blooming fields of the South would be converted into barren heaths,
their high-souled and chivalrous proprietors into abject dependents,
and the happy and contented slaves into squalid and degraded ob
jects of misery and wretchedness. Finally, it declared that the time
had come for the Southern states to act, that they had remonstrated
and forborne until forbearance was no longer a virtue, and that they
must prepare to act with resolution, firmness, and unity.
In the series of resolutions that followed, the legislature reaffirmed
the resolutions of the October convention setting forth the position
of Mississippi on the issues connected with slavery and calling a con
vention of the Southern states; and, in addition, declared it to be the
duty of Congress to provide the means of enforcing in the territories
" the guarantees of the constitution of the United States in reference
to the property of citizens of any of the states removing to any of
said territories with the same, without distinction or limitation."
That the legislature was in earnest when it declared that the South
ern states "must prepare to act," it proved by appropriating the sum
of $220,000; and placing $20,000 of it at the disposal of the governor
to be used in defraying the expenses of delegates to the Nashville
convention and for convening the legislature of the state so soon,
as in his estimation, the safety of the South required the separate
or united action of the slaveholding states; and reserving the fur
ther sum of $200,000 in the treasury, subject to the control of the
legislature, "to be used, if necessary, in the adoption of necessary
measures for protecting the constitutional and sovereign rights of
the states, in the event of the passage by the Congress of the United
States and the approval by the President, of any bill containing the
Wilmot proviso, applicable to any of the territories of the United
States; or of any law abolishing slavery in any state or territory, or
in the District of Columbia, or the slave trade between said District
and any of the States."

82 Mississippi Historical Society.
The legislature further made provision for the assembling by the
governor of a convention of the people of the state in the event of the
passage by the Congress of the United States of any of the measures
enumerated in the resolutions and such action thereon by the Nash
ville convention as should, in the opinion of the legislature, render a
convention of the people necessary for the assertion and defense of
their sovereign and constitutional rights.
Also, in addition to reaffirming the resolutions of the October con
vention calling a convention of the slaveholding states to meet at
Nashville on the first Monday in June, the legislature, disregarding
the selection of delegates to that convention by the October con
vention, gave an official character to the Nashville convention by
resolving that the delegates from Mississippi should be elected by
the legislature itself and paid from the state treasury.35 Finally,
the legislature pledged the state of Mississippi to stand by and
sustain her sister states of the South in whatever course of action
they might determine on in the Nashville convention.36
In these resolutions, the Democratic legislature of Mississippi had
taken its position on the demands of the October convention, that
Congress should not pass any law interfering with slavery in the
states, forbidding the interstate slave trade, abolishing slavery in
the District of Columbia, or prohibiting the introduction of slaves
into the territories of the United States; and had solemnly declared
that the state of Mississippi would not submit to the passage of any
of those acts. Also, following the example of the October convention,
it had referred the question of the modes and measures of resistance
to the Nashville convention and a convention of the state to be called,
if it should be necessary, for the assertion and defense of the sovereign
rights of the people of the state.
The failure of the legislature to include in its resolutions the demand
35 These delegates were chosen March 6, over the protest of twenty-seven of the
Whig members of the legislature, who claimed the legislature had no power to
appoint delegates to the Nashville convention. They are as follows: State at
large: W. L. Sharkey (W), A. M. Clayton (D), S. S. Boyd (W), C. P. Smith (D);
first congressional district, Jos. W. Matthews (D), Thos J. Word (W); second con
gressional district, G. F. Neill (D), G. H. Young (W); third congressional district,
Wm. R. White (W), J. J. Pettus (D); fourth congressional district, J. J. McRae
(D), T. J. Stewart (W). Natchez Weelky Courier, March 20, 1850.
. 8G Report of the Joint Select Committee on Federal and State Relations, ap
proved March 6, 1850. Laws of the State of Mississippi, 1850, 522-526.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 83
that California should not be admitted into the Union under its
"pretended constitution" is evidence that the Democratic party in
Mississippi was not yet ready to commit itself to a policy of resistance
to that measure. For the silence of the resolutions in regard to the
admission was not undersigned, since the position of the state con
cerning it had been discussed in the October convention, and Gover
nor Matthews had earnestly recommended the legislature to take a
determined stand in opposition to it, and the policy of the South in
regard to it was the most important question before that section and
the one on which it had not expressed its will and on which hinged the
unanimity of the South in its efforts to carry through its demands.
But the legislature of Mississippi did not escape the expression of
an opinion as to the course that Mississippi should pursue with regard
to this important question. The letter of the members of Congress
from Mississippi to Governor Quitman in regard to the admission of
California put the question squarely before that body and it had to
give some response, or, by its silence, tacitly declare that it did not
agree with the delegates in Congress in their view concerning the
admission of California and thus administer a rebuke to them for
their position on that question. As all the members of Congress
from Mississippi were important members of the party in control
of both branches of the legislature, it was not likely that that body
would adopt the latter policy; the only question was how far would
it go in sanctioning their views.
The members of Congress had asserted that they regarded "the
proposition to admit California as a state, under all the circumstances
of her application, as an attempt to adopt the Wilmot proviso in
another form' ' and evidently desired the legislature to take the same
position in regard to the former measure as it had in regard to the lat
ter. In considering the question, the members of the legislature were
confronted by the doctrine set forth by Calhoun in his resolutions of
February 17, 1847, an(i generally accepted in the South,i. e., that the
citizens of a territory in framing a state constitution have a right to
engraft on it any principle whatever, provided the form of govern
ment is republican and the constitution conflicts in nothing with the
constitution of the United States, and that Congress has no right to
impose any other conditions. The legislature admitted this doctrine
and, in seeking a basis for opposition to the admission of California,

84 Mississippi Historical Society.
turned to the charges that the constitution of California was the re
sult of a false and unjust policy on the part of the government of the
United States and of the use of fraud and improper influence to stifle
a full and fair expression of opinion by the citizens of California.
But the utmost action that the legislature would take, was to instruct
the senators and the representatives in Congress that, if they were
satisfied from reliable evidence that these charges were true, they
should, to the extent of their ability, resist the admission of California
by all honorable and constitutional means; and to refer the whole
question of the admission of California to the Nashville convention
without any recommendation whatever.37
But some of the members of the Mississippi legislature were unwill
ing to support this evasive position with reference to the admission
of California; and, in the minority report of the joint committee on
federal and state relations, five prominent Whigs came out squarely
in support of the administration in its plan for the admission of Cali
fornia. Not being Democrats, they did not hesitate to say, in so
many words, that they could not regard the admission of California
as a state with a constitution fairly formed by her citizens, as the
Wilmot proviso in another form, although slavery might be excluded
by constitutional prohibition. They declared that, although they
ardently desired that California should come into the Union as a
slave state, yet, if, in the opinion of Congress, the proper judge of
such facts, the people of California had declared otherwise and
formed a constitution and state government, for themselves, in ac
cordance with the constitution of the United States, without any
V fraud or improper or undue influence in the act or manner of its
formation, they would acquiesce in the right of the people of that
country to form their own constitution as they might desire.
They reiterated the demands of the October convention, but de
clared they saw no good reason to oppose the admission of California
as a state with a constitution regulating its own domestic institutions,
at as early a day as it could be admitted in accordance with the re
quirements of the constitution of the United States and the usages
of the government in similar cases.38

37 Laws of the State of Mississippi, 1850, 526-528.
38 Minority Report of the Joint Committee on Federal Relations, February 27,
1850, Senate Journal, 1850, 612-613. This report was made by Walter Brooke
and assented to by Alcorn, Sharkey, Tait, and White.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 85
And so the letter from the senators and the representatives in Con
gress from Mississippi instead of inducing the legislature of their
state to take a position in regard to California that would influence
the Southern delegates in Congress to unite in demanding that Cali
fornia should not be admitted into the Union under the constitution
it had formed, and that would aid them in securing that demand by
proving to the country that Mississippi, at least, was determined to
support it, served rather to defeat their objects by revealing the real
divisions in the state in regard to that most important question.
The expressions of opinion by the people, which the members of
Congress had requested in their letter to Governor Quitman, revealed
further the divisions in the public sentiment of Mississippi in regard
to the admission of California. The attitude of the press of the two
parties is set forth with sufficient clearness by the organs of those
parties in Natchez. The Free Trader, the Democratic organ, did not
hesitate to support the charges of fraud and undue influence in the v
election of members of the constitutional convention of California,
and asserted that the administration had, through its officers and
agents, secretly managed to sell California to the abolitionists. It
.urged the South to stand firm and refuse the admission of California
that year, for by another year the really permanent settlers in Cali
fornia, who, according to all the laws that govern population, would
inevitably be Southern, would have a chance to express their senti
ments and be heard.39
The Natchez Courier, on the contrary, declared that the rejection
of the constitution of California by Congress would not cause that
territory to become peopled by slaves and slave owners, nor would it
render New Mexico slave territory, for that event was even more
improbable than that such might be the case in California. How im
possible it was to establish slavery in the territory acquired from Mex
ico, the Courier sought to prove by pointing out that, even if a Southern
Confederacy were established by a peaceable secession of the slave
from the free states, the free states having a navy and a marine,
would at once take possession of the territories while the South
would have to create both before it could even make the attempt.
The Courier concludes:
89 Mississippi Free Trader, February 20, 1850.

86 Mississippi Historical Society.
It is a bitter pill — one that we hate to swallow — to see the acquired territory
come into the Union as free states. Could we make tham slave states, it should
be done. But, believing the matter to be inevitable, we cannot, and will not sit
still, and see Gen. Taylor assailed by men whose public course has produced the
very state of things (and they were warned in time) at which they are now growling
at so terrible a rate.40
In general, in the public meetings in which the Democrats were in
control, the resolutions adopted took, in regard to the admission of
California, the position of the legislature in its instructions to the
members of Congress with reference to that question;41 but some went
to the extent of declaring, with their delegates in Congress, that they
regarded the attempt to admit California then being made in Congress,
as an effort to pass the Wilmot proviso in another and far more odious
form.42 The Whigs, for the most part, supported the minority report of the
joint committee on federal relations.43 In a meeting, at the state
capital, February 15, 1850, of the "Friends of General Taylor and
the Union' ' under the leadership of prominent Whigs in both houses
of the legislature, resolutions were adopted declaring that it was the
"well defined opinion" of the meeting "that the people of Mississippi
would sustain their Senators and Representatives in aiding to carry
out the policy of the President in reference to the admission of Cali
fornia into the Union, as unfolded in his admirable message to Con
gress on the subject," and expressing an abiding confidence in the de
votion of the people of Mississippi to the constitution and the Union
and the assurance that the admission of California was not such an
emergency as would cause them to think for a moment of pursuing
any course calculated to endanger either the one or the other.44
40 Natchez Weekly Courier, February 19, 1850.
41 Southern Meeting in Jackson, February 19, 1850, of citizens and strangers
opposed to the admission of California, with its anti-slavery constitution. Missis
sippi Free Trader, March 6, 1850.
Governor Quitman presided over the meeting and John I. Guion, a Whig, was
chairman of the committee on resolutions.
42 Public Meeting at Raymond, Hinds county, April 8, 1850. Ibid., May 4, 1850.
43 Resolutions of a Meeting in Natchez, Natchez Weekly Courier, March 8, 1850.
*> Ibid., February 26, 1850.
The committee that drew up the resolutions adopted by this meeting were, for
the most part, members of the legislature. Their names are as follows: Gen.
Peter B. Starke, of Bolivar; Luke Lea, of Hinds; E. S. Fisher, of Yalobusha; Walter
Brooke, of Holmes; W. C. Harper, of Rankin; James M. Tait, of De Soto; J. W.
Watson, of Marshall, A. E. Reynolds, of Tishomingo; L. M. Garrett, of Madison;
Dr. Isaac V. Hodges, of Smith; A. K. Farrar, of Adams; Roderick Seal, of Harri
son; George H. Foote, of Noxubee; and Gustavus H. Wilcox, of Jefferson.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 87
But Judge Winchester, in a speech before a meeting in Natchez,
March 9, 1850, without doubt expressed the real sentiment of many,
both Whigs and Democrats, in regard to the admission of California.
He asserted that he believed that the South was right in objecting
to the admission of California as a free state and in trying to prevent
it, until she received solemn and sufficient security that her rights,
secured to her by the constitution, should be respected by the free
states and no longer trampled on; that the opposition to the admis
sion of California was the only rod the South held over the North to
compel it to recognize her just and lawful claims; and that, if that were
thrown into Northern hands, the South would be completely in
their power whatever might be the fanaticism that might be domi
nant. He admitted that California was legally entitled to admission,
but declared that the unconditional admission of one free state should
not be permitted to the injury of fifteen slaveholding states already
in the Union.45
In all these public meetings, neither the Whigs nor the Democrats
showed any weakening in their support of the demands of the Octo
ber convention. On the contrary, the more vehemently they opposed
including among those demands the rejection by Congress of the appli
cation of California for admission into the Union under her existing
constitution, the more emphatically they seemed to think it neces
sary to declare their support of them. In addition, in some of the
meetings the demand for the passage by Congress of a more effect
ive fugitive slave law was added to those of the October convention.46
In the resolutions and other expressions of opinion in regard to the
demands of the South with reference to the issues involved in the

46 Proceedings of the Whig rally in Natchez, March 9, 1850, Mississippi Free
Trader, March 13, 1850.
The resolutions of a public meeting of the people of Lafayette county, April 30,
voice this same opinion in regard to the admission of California by declaring "That
it is our opinion California ought not under any circumstances to be admitted into
the Union as a non-slaveholding state, unless with such admission the rights of
the South are amply secured on the slavery question in such a manner as effec
tually to guard against future aggressions of the North and restore quiet to the
public mind, for the South will not be satisfied with less than that and hardly with
that." The Organizer, May 6, 1850.
46 The Whig Rally in Natchez, March 9, 1850, Mississippi Free Trader, March
13, 1850; Rally for the Union in Jefferson county, April 1, 1850, Ibid., April 3, 1850;
Public Meeting of the People of Lafayette County, April 30, 1850. The Organ
izer, May 6. 1850.

88 Mississippi Historical Society.
controversy over slavery, the attitude of the state toward the Union
is revealed. There was a unanimous agreement in the declaration
of the October convention that the people of Mississippi continued
to entertain a devoted and cherished attachment to the Union, but
that they desired to have it as it was formed and not as an engine of
oppression.47 Some added that the people of the state had no love
or veneration for any other Union than that which was defined in
the constitution;48 and others went so far as to declare that, without
the constitution, they considered it a curse.49 All agreed, however,
with Jefferson Davis, that Mississippians would never abandon the
Union, with the constitution.60 But many were convinced that the
spirit of fanaticism and aggression in the North would never be
stayed until the guarantees of the constitution on the subject of sla
very were broken and that the people of the South should not and
would not submit to such encroachment on their rights, the preser
vation of which involved not simply their prosperity and happiness
but their very existence, and entertained grave fears for the Union.61
Declarations were made, it is true, expressing the determination of
the people of the state to secure their rights in the Union, if they could,
but out of the Union, if they must;62 but, with few exceptions, the
47 Resolutions of the legislature of Mississippi appointing delegates to the Nash
ville convention, Laws of the State of Mississippi, 1850, 522-526.
48 Inaugural Address of Governor John A. Quitman, January io, 1850, Clai
borne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 24.
49 Speech of Jefferson Davis, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong. 1 Sess., 137, January 10,
1850. 89 Ibid.
61 Message of Governor Matthews to the Mississippi Legislature, January 7,
1850. Senate Journal, 1850, 23-28; Report of the Joint Committee of the Legis
lature on State and Federal Relations, Mississippi Free Trader, January 30, 1850;
Rally for the Union in Jefferson County, Mississippi Free Trader, April 3, 1850.
62The Vicksburg Sentinel declared, March 12, 1850: "The South cherishes the
Union of these States with a patriotic devotion. It is honorable to the patriotism
and creditable to the intelligence of our people, that they look upon the severance
of the bond of Union which binds together this mighty Republic, with all its prob
ably disastrous and bloody consequences, with no composure of feeling and though
they are determined to require of the free States due security for our rights under
the constitution, they would avoid the last resort with a reluctance which no lan
guage can express."
"The South has remonstrated, argued, entreated and demanded, in vain. They
have been met with reckless, careless, insulting innovations and trespasses upon
their rights and will submit to them no longer. They desire to live under the Fed
eral constitution, in its true and correct version, or else they wul secede and form
one for themselves under which they can enjoy their rights and privileges."
"The citizens of Hinds county in a public meeting held, without distinction of

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 89
citizens of the state thought, with Judge Winchester, that the disso
lution of the Union was not necessary to secure their rights.63 The
ability of the South to protect its rights within the Union had not
yet been tested and they believed that, by perfect unanimity and cor
dial co-operation among the slave states in presenting their demands,
they could secure all that the constitution held out to them and pre
serve both their rights and the Union. The Vicksburg Sentinel,
April 2, 1850, denied there was a disunionist in the South and de
clared that no one could point out one.
During these months when Mississippi was formulating its position
on the measures before Congress affecting slavery, the other Southern
States were also concerned with the same problem and their action
in regard to it greatly affected that of Mississippi and was in turn
influenced by it. The legislature of Alabama declared that Alabama
would never submit to the passage by Congress of the Wimot proviso
or any similar act.54 That of Maryland opposed the abolition of
slavery in the District of Columbia, asserted that Congress had no
power to exclude slavery from any of the territories of the United
States, and declared that the state of Maryland would take her posi
tion with her Southern sisters in the maintenance of the constitution
with all its compromises and the vindication of her own just rights.65
The Virginia assembly made provision for the calling of a convention
of the state in the event of the passage by Congress of the Wilmot
proviso, or an act prohibiting slavery in the District of Columbia,
or the slave trade between the states.66 But in none of these states
did the legislature proclaim its attitude toward the admission of Cali
fornia as a state.
The legislature of Tennessee, however, after having passed, by a
strict party vote, a resolution solemnly asserting that the state of Ten-
party, at Raymond, April 8, 1850, asserted: "Our rights under the constitution we
cannot consent shall be encroached upon  These rights we have de
termined, as far as this meeting can have a voice in the matter, to protect in the
Union if we can — out of the Union if we must. 'Come what will, should it cost
every drop of blood and every cent of propertywe must defend ourselves' — The
Union is dear to us — freedom and our constitutional rights are dearer." Missis
sippi Free Trader, May 4, 1850.
63 Speech of Judge Winchester before the Whig Rally in Natchez, March 9, 1850,
Mississippi- Free Trader, March 13, 1850.
64 Du Bose, The Life and Times of William Lowndes Yancey, 241.
65 National Intelligencer, January 26, 1850.
«* National Era, February 21, 1850.

90 Mississippi Historical Society.
nessee would not submit to the passage of the Wilmot proviso, declared
in regard to California, that the whole matter should undergo a rigid
scrutiny, but that it would not try to prescribe any rule of action.67
/'Finally, the legislature of Georgia resolved that it would be the
immediate and imperative duty of Georgia to meet in convention to
consider redress in any of five contingencies: the passage of the Wilmot
proviso, the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, the pro
hibition of the slave trade between the states, the continued refusal
of the non-slave states to deliver up fugitive slaves as prescribed in
the constitution, or the admission of California with its pretended
constitution.68 A Southern state had, at length, included the ad
mission of California with the measures against slavery that would
require redress. But the action of the Georgia legislature with refer
ence to California was weakened by the fact that the Whig members
of that body, although they had concurred in the other resolutions,
had resisted the one in regard to California, as violating the funda
mental state rights principle that had been proclaimed by Calhoun
\ in 1847, an<i maintained by the Whig party for years.69
It is evident that, in the early months of 1850, the majority of the
people of the South, as well as the people of Mississippi, were united
in the demand that Congress should not enact the Wilmot proviso,
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, or prohibit the slave
trade between the states and in the determination to resist those
measures if they were passed. But it is even more evident that
neither Mississippi nor the South as a whole could be united in the
demand that California should not be admitted into the Union under
the constitution it had drawn up. Public sentiment would support
the members of Congress only in their using all "honorable and con
stitutional means" to limit the southern boundary of California to
360 30' and in their making the most out of the admission of Cali
fornia to force concessions from the North in regard to the other
questions at issue between the two sections.60
67 National Era, Febuary 21, 1850.
t8 Ibid., New York Semi-weekly Tribune, March 30, 1850.
69 Quotation from the Richmond Whig in the National Era, February 21, 1850.
60 Ibid.. Speech of Judge Winchester in Natchez, March 9, 1850, Mississippi
Free Trader. March 13, 1850.

CHAPTER V.
the formation of the compromise.
While Mississippi and the other Southern states were formulating
the demands of the South with reference to the action that should
be taken by Congress in regard to the questions connected with sla
very, the struggle in that body over these issues was being waged with
fierce intensity by the delegates from the two sections. The great
leaders of the country were in the Senate, where Calhoun, Clay,
Webster, Benton, and Cass represented the generation under which
the issues involved in slavery had grown acute, and Davis, Douglas,
and Seward the younger generation that would have to grapple with
those issues in the last great crisis. Therefore, to the Senate, the
country looked for a solution of its difficulties and in that body the
measures of compromise were to be worked out.
Clay, who had returned to the Senate, after nearly eight years of
absence, to resume his part in national affairs, being convinced that
the Union was in danger, set himself to construct a plan of compro
mise, which he hoped would give peace to the country for thirty years,
as the Missouri compromise had done. On January 29, 1850, he pre
sented this plan to the Senate in a series of eight resolutions. These
recommended that California, with suitable boundaries, should be
admitted to the Union without the imposition of any restrictions
in regard to slavery; that, as slavery did not exist by law in any of
the territory acquired from Mexico and was not likely to be intro
duced, territorial governments should be established by Congress in
that territory without any restrictions in regard to slavery; and that
the boundary between Texas and New Mexico should be settled by
the giving up by Texas of her claims on the territory in dispute in
return for the payment of her public debt contracted prior to annex
ation and not exceeding a certain sum to be agreed upon later. The
resolutions further declared that it was inexpedient for Congress to
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia and that it had no power
91

92 Mississippi Historical Society.
to interfere with the slave trade between the states; but that it was
expedient to prohibit the slave trade within the District of Columbia
and that a more effectual provision should be made for the restitu
tion of persons bound to service or labor.1
In spite of Clay's request that the members of the Senate should
deliberate well and dispassionately on his resolutions before they
took ground against them, Ruske, Foote, Mason, Davis, King, Downs,
Berrien, and Butler hastened to object to them; and all together made
it evident that the measures proposed by the senator from Kentucky
did not form a compromise acceptable to the South.
Foote found a number of points in which the resolutions seemed
objectionable to him. They asserted only that it was not expedient
that Congress should abolish slavery in the District of Columbia;
whereas, he held that Congress had no such power of legislation.
The resolutions, also, asserted that slavery did not exist by law in
the territories acquired from Mexico; and he was of the opinion that
the treaty with Mexico carried the constitution, with all its guarantees,
to all the territory obtained by that treaty and secured the privilege
to every Southern slaveholder to enter any part of it, attended by
bis slave property, and to enjoy the same therein free from all moles
tation or hindrance whatever. He also thought that whether sla
very was or was not likely to be introduced into any part of that
territory was a proposition too uncertain to be positively affirmed
and was unwilling to make a solemn legislative declaration on that
point. In addition, he objected to the resolutions adjusting the
boundary of Texas, because he thought that the title of Texas to all
the territory embraced in the boundaries as laid down in her law of 1836
was undeniable and that one of the resolutions called that title into
question; and, also, because he was opposed to the principle of assum
ing state debts and preferred that Texas should be paid money for the
soil that he favored, under certain appropriate safeguards, buying
from her.
However, he saw no objection to the abolition of the slave trade in
the District of Columbia and approved the resolutions providing for
the restoration of fugitives from service and labor, and for the estab
lishment of territorial governments free from all restriction on the
1 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 246.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 93
subject of slavery; also, the resolution asserting that Congress had no
power to prohibit the trade in slaves from state to state. Finally,
he declared that if all other questions connected with the subject of
slavery could be satisfactorily adjusted, he saw no objection to ad
mitting into the Union all California above the line 360 30'; provided
another new slave state could be laid off within the limits of Texas,
so as to keep up the "equiponderance" between the slave and the
free states of the Union; and provided, further, that all this was done
by way of compromise and in order to save the Union.2
Jefferson Davis followed Foote in a protest in which he took the
same position that Foote had taken in his contentions that Congress
could not prohibit slavery in the District of Columbia and had no
power to deprive Texas of its rightful boundary of the Rio Bravo del
Norte from its mouth to its source; and, also, in his objections to the
assertion in Clay's resolutions that slavery was excluded from Cali
fornia by Mexican laws and would never, under any circumstances
be established there. Davis declined to receive the measure pro
posed by Clay as a compromise; for he declared that he did not con
sider a measure in which the minority received nothing a compromise,
and that he looked upon Clay's proposal but as a modest mode of
taking that, the claim to which had been more boldly asserted by
others. That his position might be understood and that it might go forth
to the country with the sentiments of the senator from Kentucky,
Davis definitely stated his demands in regard to the extension of
slavery in the territories. He declared:
I here assert that never will I take less than the Missouri compromise line ex
tended to the Pacific ocean, with the specific recognition of the right to hold slaves
in the territory below that line; and that, before such territories are admitted into
the Union as States, slaves may be taken there from any of the United States at
the option of their owners.3
This declaration of Davis brought out an essential point of dif
ference between him and Foote in regard to slavery in the territories.
Although both demanded that the southern boundary of California
should be fixed on the line of 36° 30' north latitude, Foote gave his
hearty approval to that portion of Clay's resolutions that declared in
2 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., ± Sess., 247.
3 Ibid., 249.

94 Mississippi Historical Society.
favor of the establishment of territorial governments free from all
restriction on the subject of slavery; whereas Davis demanded that
the Missouri compromise line should be extended to the Pacific, with
the specific recognition of the right of slaveholders to carry their
slaves into the territories below that line and hold them there until
those territories were admitted into the Union as states.
Both of the senators from Mississippi did not long delay in express
ing at greater length and in a more formal manner their views in
regard to the questions embodied in Clay's resolutions. Foote for
mulated a series of resolutions and submitted them to the Senate as
an amendment he proposed to offer to Clay's compromise measure.
The first resolution of the series is significant because it shows Foote
at variance with the doctrine concerning the power of Congress in
the admission of new states enunciated by Calhoun and generally
accepted in the South. Foote declared:
Congress posesses under the Constitution full and exclusive power to admit or
refuse to admit new States into the Union, of its own discretion, which discretion,
though ought in no case to be exercised arbitrarily, unjustly, or to the injury of any
of the sovereign members of the Confederacy, or to the injury or disparagement of
any of their reserved rights.
Having stated the basis of his views in regard to the admission of
California, Foote offered the following resolution in regard to that
question: That in the judgment of the Senate, California is not, at the present time, ab
solutely entitled to admission into the Union as a State; that whether she should
be admitted or not is a simple question of expediency; that it would be altogether
impolitic to admit her with the boundaries specified in the constitution recently
adopted by her Convention, or with a territorial surface extending south of the
compromise line of 360 30'; that it would be unwise to grant such admission, if it
should be hereafter made to appear that her present civil organization has been
brought about by unfair, unconstitutional, or coercive action on the part of the Fed
eral Government, or any of its functionaries; and that, all other impediments being
removed, such admission should, under existing circumstances, only be allowed
to take place under a clear and distinct understanding and agreement that a new
State may be hereafter formed within the present territorial limits of the State of
Texas, in accordance with the articles of Texan annexation, and be admitted into
the Union at as early a period as practicable.
The solution that Foote suggested in regard to the organization
of the territories was that, without attempting to provide by law
either for the admission of slavery into the territories or its exclusion,
Congress should establish, with as little delay as practicable, terri
torial governments so framed as to be exempt from all restriction,

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850— Hearon. 95
limitation, or condition in reference to slavery and to afford full pro
tection and security to life, liberty, and property, in conformity with
the provisions of the constitution of the United States.
In regard to the boundary of Texas, Foote again asserted that the
title of Texas to all the territory within her boundaries as specified
in the act of the Congress of the Republic of Texas in 1836 was clear
and unquestionable; but he expressed a willingness to propose to
Texas that, in consideration of a sum of money to be agreed upon,
she should cede to the United States all that portion of her territory
north of the line of 34 degrees, north latitude. He specified, however,
that the principle of the compromise embodied in the Texas annexa
tion resolutions should be reserved permanently within the limits
of the territory to be ceded and that the money paid to Texas should
be disposed of by her at her own discretion.
In the other resolutions, Foote declared that Congress could not
properly or justly legislate for the abolition of slavery in the District
of Columbia, except with the unanimous consent of all the slaveholding
states of the confederacy; that it was inexpedient to legislate at that
time in regard to the prohibition of the trade in slaves in the District
of Columbia and that such legislation might well be left to the munici
pal authorities of the district; that more effectual provisions ought
to be made for the restitution of fugitive slaves; and that Congress
had no power to prohibit or obstruct the trade in slaves between the
slaveholding states.4
During his remarks on Clay's resolutions at the time of their intro
duction, Davis was challenged by Clay to a discussion; and so, on the
thirteenth and fourteenth of February, in a long speech, carefully
prepared to refute the arguments made by Clay in his speech of Feb-
4 Resolutions submitted by Foote to the Senate, February 8, 1850, Cong. Globe,
31 Cong., 1 Sess., 323.
On January 16, 1850, Foote had introduced a bill in the Senate for the settle
ment of the question of the extension of slavery into the territories that it is
interesting to compare with this. That bill provided for the organization of terri
torial governments in California, Deseret, and New Mexico without reference to
slavery, and the formation of the state of Jacinto within the boundaries of Texas
and its admission into the Union upon an equal footing with all the other states,
provided its constitution were republican in character and not repugnant to the
constitution of the United States. This bill is important only as a statement of
the settlement that Foote and the other Southerners would have liked, for it was
referred to the committee on territories and nothing came of it. Ibid., 170.

96 Mississippi Historical Society.
ruary fifth and sixth, Davis explained his position on the questions
at issue in this crisis and sought to bring the Senate to a realization
of the danger threatening the Union.
The movement against the interests of the South, he declared, was
the result of the cold calculating purpose of those who sought sec
tional dominion; for the spirit upon which the abolition movement
originally rested had long since passed away and that movement was
no longer the clamor of a noisy fanaticism, but the steady advance
of a self-sustaining power to the goal of unlimited supremacy. Al
ready, a large part of the non-slaveholding states had declared war
against the institution of slavery and announced that it should not
be extended. Moreover they had coupled with their annunciation
the declaration that slavery was a stain upon the Republic, a moral
blot which should be obliterated. Davis asked:
Now, sir, can any one believe, does any one hope that the Southern States of
this Confederacy will continue, as in time gone by, to support the Union, to bear
its burdens, in peace and in war, in a degree disproportioned to their number, if
that very government is to be arrayed in hostility against an institution so_ inter
woven with its interests, its domestic peace, and all its social relations, that it can
not be disturbed without causing their overthrow? This Government is the agent
of all the States; can it be expected of any of them that they will consent to be
bound by its acts, when lie agent announces the settled purpose in the exercise
of its power to overthrow that which it was its duty to uphold? That obligation
ceases whenever such a construction shall be placed upon its power by the Fed
eral Government. The essential purpose for which the grant was made being
disregarded, the means given for defence being perverted to assault, State alle
giance thenceforward resumes its right to demand the service of all its citizens.
To guard against this state of affairs, Davis believed that it was
essential that neither section of the Union should have such power in
Congress as would render it able to trample upon the rights of the
other and asserted that it would be a blessing and an essential means
of preserving the Confederacy for the North to have a majority in
one branch of Congress and the South in the other.
With reference to the question of slavery in the territories, Davis
supported the right of a slaveholder to go with his slave into any
portion of the United States, except into a state where the funda
mental law had forbidden slavery, and denied that the government
of the United States had the sovereign power to prohibit slavery in
the territories or that a territorial community, "a dependence of the
United States," had any such power. For, according to Davis, the
sovereignty over the territories "rests in the States." He added:

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 97
There is no power, save that of the States, which can exclude any property, or
can determine what is property, in the territories so held by the States in common.
That power the States have not delegated; it can be exercised rightfully only by
compact or agreement of the States. It is, therefore, that I have held and hold
that the Missouri compromise derived its validity from the acquiescence of the
States, and not from the act of Congress.
The argument of Clay that slavery was prohibited by law in Mexico
and that this prohibition under Mexican law continued in the terri
tory acquired by the United States from Mexico, Davis utterly re
jected. He pointed out that, if the argument were good with refer
ence to slavery, it must be equally good with reference to some sixty
articles of ordinary commerce and the Protestant religion, which were
also prohibited by Mexican law in the territories in question. But
he declared that free trade wifh the United States and freedom of
worship extended to the territories because the constitution overrode
the laws of Mexico; and that, since the constitution recognized prop
erty in slaves and secured equal privileges and immunities to all citi
zens of the United States, the South claimed the abolition of slavery
by Mexico to have died with the transfer of the territories to the United
States. Davis then proceeded to inquire into the character of property in
slaves to determine what it was that excluded it from the general
benefit of the principle applied to all other property. He denied that
property in slaves was local in its nature and derived its existence
from municipal law. This property like all other, he asserted, was
not the creation of statutes; it was regulated by law like other tenure
and relations of society, but like other property must have existed
before laws were passed concerning it; like other property, it resulted
from the dominion of mind over matter, and more distinctly than
most other species of property is traced back to the remotest period
of antiquity. It was not established in America by law, nor did it
originate here. It came into the colonies, as all other property did,
subject to the common law which governed them; and, from time to
time, laws were passed to regulate it, but never to establish it.
Davis declined to discuss property in slaves as an abstract question
of justice or injustice. It was enough for him, in Congress, he asserted,
to know that Congress was not called upon to legislate either for its
amelioration or to fix the places in which it should be held, and cer
tainly had no power to abolish it. It was enough for him, elsewhere,

98 Mississippi Historical Society.
"to know, that it was established by decree of Almighty God, that it
is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Reve
lations; that it has existed in all ages; has been found among the
people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest profi
ciency in the arts." He added:
Testimony might be produced to show that many blessings spring from it in
proportion to the evils that are so loudly denounced as an inherent part of it. But
I ask of those who entertain opinions opposite to mine, is it well to denounce an
evil for which there is no cure. Why not denounce criminal laws, declaim against
disease, pain, or poverty, as wrong? There are many evils in the condition of man
which we would be glad to remedy; but, not being able, we permit them to exist
as less than those which would follow an interference with them.
From the other argument of Clay that slavery was excluded from
the territory acquired from Mexico by a decree of nature, Davis also
dissented. He held that gold washing and mining and a system of agri
culture which demanded irrigation were peculiarly adapted to slave
labor and believed that slavery would be very essential to the develop
ment of, at least, a portion of California and New Mexico. He con
cluded the discussion of Clay's resolutions on the territories by a
statement of the demands of the South, as he understood them, in
regard to the territories. He declared:
We do not ask Congress to express an opinion in relation to the decrees of nature,
or say that slavery shall be planted in any of the Territories of the United States.
We only claim that we shall be permitted to have the benefit of an experiment,
that we may have that equal participation in the enjoyment of the Territories
which would secure to us an opportunity to be heard in tie determination of their
permanent institutions. We have only said that we are entitled to a decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States, and that we should be allowed to try the insti
tution of slavery, that thus it might be ascertained what the decree of nature is.
Both these have been denied to us. We have been denied by Congress an appeal
to the Supreme Court; we have been debarred by congressional agitation from
obtaining the decree of nature.
As to the more effective fugitive slave law recommended in Clay's
resolutions, Davis declared that, if such a law were passed at that
session of Congress, it would be a dead letter in any state where the
popular opinion was opposed to the rendition of fugitive slaves, be
cause the government of the United States, more than any other,
depended on the consent of the people and so emphatically was this
true that the laws of Congress could not be executed in any state of
the Union if that state were resolved to resist them. He had never
expected any benefit to result to the South from the legislation by Con-

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 99
gress, in regard to fugitive slaves and he believed that upon this, as
upon every other subject, Southerners must rely more on the patri
otism, the good sense, and the morality of the people of the North
than upon any tribunal to preserve their rights. For he believed
that if the wrongs and the injuries heaped upon the South were under
stood by the great body of the people at the North, the whole conduct
of their politicians would be rebuked and peace and harmony would
be restored.
In regard to the other points in Clay's resolutions, Davis denied
that the boundary of Texas was an open question, that Congress had
a right to prohibit slavery in the District of Columbia or to appropri
ate money for the purpose of emancipation, declared that he preferred
the Wilmot proviso to the admission of California under the consti
tution it had drawn up, and denied that the resolutions contained
any concessions to the South.
Davis closed his long speech with a statement of the grounds of
complaint of the South against the North and a warning of the danger
facing the country. As the grounds of complaint of the South, he
pointed to the agitation in the two halls of Congress in relation to the
domestic institutions of the South; the action of the legislatures of
the Northern states defeating the provisions of the constitution that
were among its compromises for the benefit of the South; the denun
ciation heaped upon the slaveholders by the press of the North and
the attempts to degrade them in the eyes of Christendom; and the
sectional organization for the purpose of hostility to the southern
portion of the Union. These, Davis declared, were weakening the
bonds of union and threatening their final rupture.
He denied the responsibility of the South for the sowing of seeds of
disunion. Every charge of disunion that was made against the part
of the South that he, in part, represented, he pronounced grossly
calumnious and defended the conduct of Mississippi in calling a
convention as the result of patriotism and a high resolve to preserve,
if possible, the constitutional Union. Every movement taken there
in, Davis asserted, was independent of the action of anybody else,
unless the principles of those who had gone before, leaving the rich
legacy of their free institutions, were referred to. In that case,
Davis significantly declared, they must go back to the bold spirit
of the barons of England. That spirit, he asserted, had come down

ioo Mississippi Historical Society.
to Southerners and they would defend their rights, and, if it were
necessary, claim from the government of the United States, as the
barons claimed from John, the grant of another Magna Charta for their
protection. He solemnly warned the North that if Southerners were denied
the benefits guaranteed by the constitution their self-respect would
require them to maintain them. It was not interest or fear, he assert
ed, that bound the South to the Union, but mainly a feeling of attach
ment; and he asked the members of the Senate to consider how long
affection could be proof against such trials and injuries and provo
cations as the South was continually receiving.
It depended on the majority, Davis stated, to say whether this
strife between the sections should be arrested or whether it should
proceed to a final catastrophe. It was for those who had the power
to pass a measure of compromise, to propose one. Since his section
had no such power, he had no measure to suggest; but he was willing
to meet any fair proposition which promised security for the future
and gave assurance of permanent peace. If he strictly measured
his conduct by the recent expressions of opinion in his state, he would
have no power to accept any terms save the unqualified admission
of the equal rights of the citizens of the South to go into any of the
territories of the United States with any and every species of their
property; but he was willing to take his share of the responsibility that
the crisis demanded and to rely on the known love for the whole
country of the people whom he represented and their abiding respect
for the Union of the states.6
Foote, with other Southerners, was convinced that the only hope
of imposing conditions on California and securing proper compensa
tion for the South for her admission lay in combining California with
the other questions at issue. Therefore he took advantage of the
additional tension caused by the message of the president, on Feb
ruary 13, transmitting to Congress the " Constitution of the State of
California,"6 to propose the selection of a special committee of fifteen
to which should be referred the president's message, with the accom
panying documents, and the various propositions before the Senate
6 Speech of Jefferson Davis, February 13 and 14, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong.,
1 Sess., appx., 149-157.
• Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 355.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 101
relating to the question of slavery in all its bearings; and the duty
of which should be to report, if it found it practicable to do so, a plan
for the definite settlement of the unhappy controversy.7
Since this measure was opposed by Clay on the ground that the ques
tion of California should be kept separate and settled as expeditiously
as possible, Foote proceeded to urge the necessity of embracing all the
questions at issue in one compromise bill. He declared it to be his
solemn dispassionate conviction that, it California were dragged into
the Union in the mode proposed, the Southern states would feel that
all hope of fraternal compromise had become extinct, and that
such intolerable oppression had been imposed upon them "as to justify,
nay, to demand secession from the Union, in order to save themselves
from evils worse than disunion itself." He was not urging disunion
as a remedy for the existing grievances, he explained; he was not
authorized in his official capacity to so so; and he could honestly de
clare that nothing but dire necessity could, in his judgment, justify
a resort to measures so extreme. He added:
And yet I do believe that the Congressional legislation so long threatened, and
at this time as fiercely threatened as ever on the subject of slavery, will, when
it shall occur, be productive of that very state of things; a state of intolerable
oppression, which, according to Andrew Jackson himself, whose love for the Union
no one can question, would justify secession, not as a constitutional, but as a revo
lutionary remedy.9
Although Foote thus warned the North that the South might be
driven to seek safety out of the Union, he defended his section from
the charge of desiring a dissolution of the Union. He asserted that
disunion meetings had been held in Massachusetts, New York, and
other states north of Mason and Dixon's line, but that south of that
line no such meeting or convention had ever been held, nor any dis
union sentiment avowed to his knowledge; but that only God knew
what results might be brought about by continued oppression and
insult. He cordially reiterated the views of his colleague, Senator
Davis, on that subject, especially that portion of his remarks that
referred to the proceedings of the Mississippi convention. He de
clared: 7/6^.,356.
Foote gives the credit of suggesting this measure to Thomas Ritchie, editor of
the Washingtom Union. Foote, Casket of Reminiscences, 25.
8 Speech of Foote, February 14, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 366.

102 Mississippi Historical Society.
Our object in proposing the convention at Nashville so much misunderstood,
and oftimes, as I think, so wilfully misrepresented, was not to subvert the Union,
but to save it from destruction; not to overturn the constitution, to which the
Union itself owes its existence, but to preserve it in all of its purity and vigor, and,
by preserving it, to preserve and perpetuate the Union also  I do
not doubt, though, that such a convention might serve as a convenient rallying
point, in the event of our being driven out of the Union by intolerable oppression,
and enable us to save ourselves from utter degration and ruin.
He hoped, however, that the occasion for using the convention for
such a purpose might not arise.9
Although it was generally recognized that the real settlement of
the sectional contest would be devised in the Senate, the members of
the House from Mississippi, together with those from the other
Southern states, rallied to the support of the demands of their section
and made it quite evident that they would not allow a bill for the
admission of California to pass the House unless the other questions
at issue were satisfactorily adjusted.
A. G. Brown, more unrestrained in speech than Davis or Foote,
warned the North that the South would submit to injustice no longer;
that the issue was made up and that the North must choose between
non-interference with Southern rights, on the one side, and a disso
lution of the Union, on the other. The people of the South, he assert
ed, had the same right to go into the territories with their slave prop
erty as those of the North had to go with their personal estate10 and
they would resist the denials of that right to the last extremity. In
substantiation of this, he pointed to the position of Virginia, Georgia,
Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina and the warnings that were
coming up from those and the other Southern states.
Brown proclaimed that it was useless to deny that the Union was
9 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 368-369.
10 This assertion Brown based on his theory of the sovereignty of the states and
the character of the United States government. According to Brown, the states
were co-equal sovereigns and the United States a mere agent for them, holding
certain political powers in trust to be exercised for their common benefit. The
common agent acted for the sovereignties in carrying on the war with Mexico; but
the people that the agent called upon to fight the battles of tie war was not the
people of the United States — for there was no such political body — but the people
of the states, respectively. The territory acquired as a result of the war belonged
to the people of the respective states in common; and the states being co-equal
sovereigns — for there is no such thing as sovereigns of great and of small degree —
it followed that one half of the sovereignties could not exclude the other half from
equal participation in the joint property acquired'by all. In fact, so long as one of
the sovereignties protested against a disposition of what belonged to all such a
disposition could not be rightfully made. Ibid., 257.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 103
in danger. While the other sections had been heaping outrage upon
outrage, adding insult to insult, the people of the South had been
calmly calculating the value of the Union. They had considered the
question in all its bearings and their minds were made up. They
had designated a point beyond which they would not submit because
submission beyond that point would involve consequences more terri
ble than disunion, the fearful consequences of sectional degradation.
He warned the men of the North that, if they attempted to force
sectional degradation on the South, the men of the South would re
sist, and that, if in the conflict, the Union should be dissolved, Southern
ers would not be responsible.
Brown denied that he harbored disunion sentiments, but boldly
proclaimed that he preferred a dissolution of the Union to sectional
and social degradation. He exclaimed:
Does any man desire to know at what time and for what cause I would dissolve
the Union, I will tell him. At the first moment after you consummate your first
act of agression upon slave property, I would declare the Union dissolved; and for
this reason: such an act, perpetuated after the warning we have given you, would
evince a settled purpose to interpose your authority in the management of our
domestic affairs, thus degrading us, from our rightful position as equals to a state
of dependence and subordination. Do not mistake me; I do not say that such an
act would, per se, justify disunion; I do not say that our exclusion from the Ter
ritories would alone justify it; I do not say that the destruction of the slave trade
in the District of Columbia, nor even its abolition here, nor yet the prohibition of
the slave trade among the States, would justify it. It may be, that not one, nor
two, or all of these combined would justify disunion. These are but the initiative
steps — they lead you on to the mastery over us, and you shall not take those steps.
He begged the North to remember, before the first fatal step was
taken, that Southerners had interests involved that they could not
relinquish. The direct pecuniary interest bound up with the issue
was not less than twenty hundred millions of dollars, and yet the loss
of that would be the least of the calamities that would be entailed on
the Southerners. For their country would be made desolate and they
would become landless and homeless exiles; or, ten thousand times
worse, they would remain in the country and see themselves degraded
to a social position with the black race. Sooner than submit to this,
Brown declared, the South would dissolve a thousand unions.
Turning his attention to the admission of California, Brown urged,
in addition to the objections based on the course of the aciministra-
tion, the more serious one that the admission of California as a state
would unhinge the balance between the two sections of the Union,

ro4 Mississippi Historical Society.
give the North the dangerous preponderance in the Senate so long
desired by ambitious politicians, and open the way for the admission
of other free states until the North would have the majority of states
required to amend the constitution. When this was done, Brown
asserted, that pubic opinion to which Senator Seward so significantly
alluded would make its power felt, universal emancipation would
become the rallying cry, and the constitution would be changed.
To prevent this, Southerners should resist the introduction of Cali
fornia as a state by their votes first and then by other means. The
Southern members of Congress could, at least, force an adjournment
without the admission of California; and, this being done, the South
was safe, for the Southern states, in convention at Nashville, would
devise means for vindicating their rights. What those means would
be, Brown did not know; but he did know that they might with pro
priety and safety be the carrying of slaves into southern California,
as the property of sovereign states, and the holding of them there,
and the defending of them if they were molested.
Brown concluded his speech by summing up in one sentence his
position in regard to the course the South should take concerning the
extension of slavery in the territories:
We ask you to give us our rights by non-intervention; if you refuse, I am for
taking them by armed occupation.^3-
Clingman, of North Carolina, had, already, in a speech as extreme
as Brown's, proclaimed to the country that Southern Whigs, as well
as Southern Democrats were ready to dissolve the Union if justice
were not done their section.12 Finally, the Whigs and the Democrats
in the House from the South proved their determination to force
Congress to offer a measure of compromise acceptable to the slave-
holding states by uniting in a successful filibuster to prevent the
passage of a resolution instructing the committee on territories to
prepare and report a bill providing for the admission of California
into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, with the
boundaries denned in her constitution, and forbidding the committee
to embrace in the bill any matter relating to territory without the
limits of the proposed state of California.13

u Speech of A. G. Brown, January 30, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 261.
12 Speech of Clingman in the House, January 22, 1850, Ibid., 200.
aIbid., 37S-38S.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 105
It is evident, from what has been said, that the senators and repre
sentatives from Mississippi and other members of Congress from the
South were seriously alarmed in the early months of 1850, both for
the preservation of the rights of the South and for the safety of the
Union. As the strength of the opposition in Congress developed,
they became less hopeful of an adjustment of the questions in dispute
by peaceable or constitutional means and of the preservation of
Southern rights within the Union.14 But believing that the only
hope of preserving the Union lay in securing a measure of compromise
that would protect the rights of their section, they threw themselves
wholeheartedly into the task of convincing the North that a dissolu
tion of the Union would follow a denial of the demands of the South.
They had speedy evidence of their success. Before the end of
January the National Era declared that Meade, Toombs, Stephens,
Colcock, Hilliard, and Johnson in the House and Foote, Borland,
Clemens, Mason, Butler, and Davis in the Senate were disunionists
and, if they fairly represented the South, it could not see how the
Union could continue much longer.16 But, most significant of all,
the National Intelligencer was at last convinced that the Union was
in danger. On February 2, that important Whig journal broke its
silence on the questions that were threatening to convulse the country.
It declared that there was a deep and settled determination in the
Southern states, accompanied by a highly excited state of feeling,
to try the strength of the South against Northern friends as well as
fanatics. The revelation of the actual state of things, the Intelli
gencer asserted, was so recent that it was still stunned. There had
been no signs of the storm in the presidential contest of 1848 and
there were no new grounds for alarm. It could not understand what
could have come over the South, especially Georgia, North Carolina,
Virginia and Maryland, and what was the secret of all its preparation,
solemnity, and mystery.16
The New York Tribune also lent its aid to convincing the North
that the South was preparing to dissolve the Union if its demands
14 Letter of Alexander H. Stephens to his brother, January 21, 1850, Johnston
and Browne, Life of A.H. Stephens, 244; Letter of Colonel McWillie to Governor
Quitman, Columbus Democrat, February 23, 1850; Letter of Calhoun to Hammond,
February 16, 1850, Calhoun Corresp., 781.
16 National Era, January 24, 1850.
18 National Intelligencer, February 2, 1850.

106 Mississippi Historical Society.
were not granted. It published a communication from a Washington
correspondent concerning a disunion organization in Washington
composed of Southern senators and representatives. The members
of the organization, according to the communication, were opposed
to any compromise and would consider only the one proposed by
Jefferson Davis in his objections to Clay's resolutions, i.e., the exten
sion of the Missouri compromise line to the Pacific.17 The editor of
the Tribune declared:
Instead of scouting or ridiculing as chimerical the idea of a dissolution of the
Union, we firmly believe that there are sixty members of Congress who this day
desire it and are plotting to effect it. We have no doubt that the Nashville Conven
tion will be held, and that the leading purpose of its authors is the separation of
tie slave states from the free, with the formation of an independent Southern
Confederacy."18 But the crisis had passed. Even in the early days of February
indications began to appear that the conservative element was in the
majority in both sections and would be willing to make concessions
that would effect a compromise, which would not satisfy the demands
of the extremists of either side. The vote in the House, on February
4, to table Root's resolution, showed that that body was willing, at
last, to give up the Wilmot proviso.19 Clay's resolutions and his
speech in support of them had great effect on Southern Whigs in
quieting their alarm and making it appear possible to them to effect
an adjustment that would protect the rights of the South within the
Union. Moreover, as public sentiment in the slaveholding states
became more definitely formulated and authoritatively expressed,
it became evident that, although the majority in the South were op
posed to the admission of California with its extended boundaries and
under the constitution it had adopted, they were unwilling to declare
17 New York Semi-weekly Tribune, February 6, 1850. The correspondent stated
that the members of the organization had intimidated several Southern senators
who were advocates of the Union and had made others from the North believe that
the organization had gone so far so as to make separation inevitable if their demands
were not granted, by disclosing to them that through committees of correspond
ence and vigilance their organization was in daily communication with every slave
state, exhibiting the program of the constitution for a new republic to be sub
mitted to the Nashville convention, and pretending that a course of action was
agreed upon that would render a collision between the United States forces and
theirs inevitable and thus unite with them every slave state.
18 Ibid., February 27, 1850.
19 Roots resolution instructed the committee on territories to report to the
House a bill or bills providing for a territorial government or governments for all
that part of the territory ceded to the United States by Mexico lying eastward of
California, and prohibiting slavery therein. Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 276.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 107
that such a measure should be resisted. The Southern Whigs were
especially opposed to committing the South to such a policy and the
extreme pro-slavery Whigs in Congress took the position that they
were willing to acquiesce in the admission of California as a free state
pro-vided the right of the citizens of the slaveholding states to carry
their property in slaves into the remainder of the territory acquired
from Mexico and to have it protected there was recognized.20
Thus even before Calhoun, the dominant factor in the Southern
movement and the great exponent of Southern rights, set forth his posi
tion, it was evident that he could not carry his section with him in an
extreme policy. During the first three months of this Congress Cal
houn was convinced that he had at length succeeded in his great task
of uniting the South in defense of its rights, and that it was agreed on
terms of settlement and would consent to no diminution of them by
way of compromise.21
But, although he saw no prospect for an adjustment satisfactory
to his section within the Union, since he believed the North was as
determined as the South to grant no concessions,22 before he said the
final word in favor of dissolution, Calhoun made one last effort to
secure the protection of Southern rights within the Union.
Too ill to speak, he carefully prepared a speech and, with the
shadow of death upon him, lent the influence of his sombre presence
to the reading of it in the Senate by his friend and follower, Mason, of
Virginia. After warning the country that the agitation of the slavery
question had endangered the Union, Calhoun declared that there was
but one way by which it could with any certainty be saved and that
was by a full and final settlement, on principles of justice, of all the
questions at issue between the sections.
The North, as the stronger section, could easily effect such a settle
ment, he asserted. She had only "to do justice by conceding to the
South an equal right in the acquired territory, and to do her duty
by causing the stipulations relative to fugitive slaves to be faithfully
20 Letter of Alexander H. Stephens to his brother, February 24, 1850, Johnston
and Browne, Life of A. H. Stephens, 249; Speech of Toombs, February 27, 1850,
Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., appx., 198-201.
21 Letters of Calhoun, December 1849, and January and February, 1850, Calhoun
Corresp., 776-783.
22 Letters of Calhoun December, 1849, ana January and February, 1850, Cal
houn Corresp., 776-783.

108 Mississippi Historical Society.
fulfilled — to cease the agitation of the slave question, and to provide
for the insertion of a provision in the constitution, by an amendment,
which will restore to the South in substance the power she possessed
of protecting herself, before the equilibrium between the sections was
destroyed by the action of this government."
Whether the North would agree to this, was for its representatives
in Congress to answer. The time had come for an open avowal on
all sides as to what was intended to be done. If the senators who
represented the stronger portion of the Union could not agree to
settle the questions at issue on the broad principles of justice and
duty, they should say so and let the states agree to separate and part
in peace. But, if they were unwilling that the South should depart in
peace, they should so declare and the South would know what to do
when the question was reduced to submission or resistance. If the
Northern senators remained silent, the South would be compelled to
infer by their acts what they intended and, in that case, California
would become the test question. If they admitted her, under all
the difficulties that opposed her admission, they would compel the
South to infer that they intended to exclude it from the whole of
the acquired territories, with the intention of destroying irretrievably
the equilibrium between the two sections. Southerners would be
blind not to perceive, in that case, that the real object of their oppo
nents was power and aggrandizement, and infatuated not to act
accordingly.23 But Calhoun, in the terms of settlement he prescribed, had not
simply overshot the demands of Southern Whigs, but had also exceed
ed those of the more radical Southern Democrats. Even the Missis
sippi senators declined to support his demand for an amendment to
the constitution to restore to the South the power of protecting her
self. Foote, who had been active in the Southern movement since
its inception and in close touch with Calhoun, broke with the South
Carolinian on this question; and, from this time, there is evidence
of the growing cleavage between him and the Southern radicals and
of his approach to the position of Clay and the other Southern Whigs.2'
28 Speech of Calhoun, March 4, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 451-455.
24 It is but fair to Foote to call attention to the fact that, though he had helped
to organize the Southern movement and had worked energetically to arouse and
unify the South and to alarm the North, he had never completely agreed with Cal-

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 109
Fearing that Calhoun's speech would be considered in the North
as voicing the public sentiment of the South, and that its effect would
be adverse to all efforts at compromise and fearing especially its in
fluence on the formation of the compromise committee for which he
was working,25 Foote took the first opportunity to seek to reassure
the growing spirit of compromise so seriously imperilled by the great
South Carolinian, by disavowing, for himself and his section, the
extreme demand of Calhoun. He said that Calhoun's speech had,
in his opinion, been written without consultation with any other
Southern senator and that no other senator would be willing to be
come responsible for portions of it.26 He protested against the demand
for an amendment to the constitution to restore to the South the power
of protecting itself as impossible of performance, or certainly of being
complied with at that session of Congress; as wholly repugnant to
the attitude previously assumed by the South and by Southern sena
tors and representatives in Congress, who had up to that time con-
houn in regard to either policy or doctrine. In September, 1849, he had sought
to get Calhoun to support the policy of admitting California as a state under South
ern auspices and of making provision for New Mexico by providing for its admis
sion when a sufficient number of persons of American birth should become resident
there and, in the meantime, prohibiting all legislation on the subject of slavery
either by Congress or by the territorial legislature. It seemed to him that in that
way the honor of the South might be saved and the population of both California
and New Mexico so effectually conciliated as, in time, to lead to most advanta
geous results. (Letter of Foote to Calhoun, September 25, 1849, Calhoun Corresp.,
1205). From his speeches and resolutions in Congress, it has been seen that he
differed from Calhoun on the essential points of the power of Congress in the ad
mission of new states and of the constitutional right of secession. Finally, he was,
from the first, eager to effect a compromise acceptable to the South by combining
all the questions in dispute in one measure and had introduced in the Senate
both a bill and resolutions for that purpose and was, at that time, actively engaged
in advocating the appointment by the Senate of a committee to report such a meas
ure. But there was a more fundamental difference between the two men than these
of doctrine and policy, which made a break between them in a crisis like this inevi
table. Foote was an opportunist in character and politics; Calhoun was not.
25 On February 25, Foote made another effort to secure a committee of compro
mise by making a motion for the appointment of a committee of thirteen with
instructions for the purpose of maturing a scheme of compromise for the adjust
ment of all pending questions growing out of the subject of slavery. Cong.
Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 416, 418. Davis supported Foote's motion for the appoint
ment of the committee, but he was careful to state that he would not be bound
by the decision of the committee. Ibid., 420.
28 Foote afterwards explained that he made his objections to Calhoun's speech
after a conference with Clemens, Mangum, and Turney, all of whom were friends
of Calhoun and agreed with him that one of Calhoun's friends should put in a pro
test against Calhoun's demand for a constitutional amendment and thus, by
anticipating Benton, save themselves and their cause from a highly detrimental
assault. Cong. Globe, 32 Cong., 1 Sess., 51.

no Mississippi Historical Society.
tented themselves with relying upon the constitution as it was; as
most inopportunely proposed at a time when the spirit of brotherly
consideration and compromise was beginning to mark the proceedings
of Congress and of large pubhc assemblages, and when he, for one,
confidently hoped that if a special committee of thirteen could be
raised in the Senate a general scheme of pacification would be speedily
agreed upon; and, finally, as tending to procrastinate a settlement
and make disunion inevitable.27
Even Davis, who, unlike Foote, was in complete harmony with
Calhoun in political principles, was not ready to declare that an amend
ment to the constitution was necessary to settle the issue between
the sections. In expressing his agreement with Calhoun as to the
measures that were necessary to settle the slavery question, he stopped
when he came to the final one of an amendment to the constitution.
But out of respect for Calhoun, or because he was not unwilling to
hold such a measure in reserve, he added that events had forced upon
him the conviction that such an additional protection to the South,
if it were not then necessary, would become so. In fact, the demands
of Davis had not varied since the beginning of the session of Congress,
and in setting them forth again on March 14, he, rather than Cal
houn, delivered the ultimatum of the group of Southern Democrats
to which they belonged. What he preferred above all, he declared,
was non-intervention, "that is, an equal right to go into all terri-
27 Speech of Foote, March 5, 1850, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 461-463.
Later Foote more than intimated that Calhoun was working to break up the
Union. He charged Calhoun with obstructing all compromise by denouncing the
very name of compromise, by actively opposing the raising of the committee of thir
teen, and by deliberately undertaking to raise a new issue that he know was cal
culated to add to the existing irritation and postpone, if not utterly defeat, all satis
factory settlement, when he knew that the meeting of the Nashville convention
was but little more than two months off, that excitement was every day growing
more intense, and that a delay in settling the questions at issue would devolve,
on that body, the most fearful responsibility of a final decision of those questions.
In furtherance of compromise, Foote was unwilling to admit that, under existing
circumstances, Calhoun's influence could break up the Union and yet he wished to
point out the danger to which his course was exposing the country. Therefore,
he declared that Calhoun must have known that, if the Nashville convention had
been permitted to assemble without the healing influence of certain speeches in
Congress and public meetings in Philadelphia and New York, whether it was not
likely that his influence would have been strong enough to induce the convention
to demand the change in the constitution that he demanded; and that he also must
have known that, if such a demand had been made, it would not have been granted
and that its rejection would have resulted in a dissolution of the Union. Cong.
Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 520.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. in
tories — all property being alike protected;"28 but in default of this,
he added:
I will agree to the drawing of the line 360 30' through the territories acquired
from Mexico, with this condition, that in the same degree as slavery is prohibited
north of that line, it shall be permitted to enter south of the line; and that States
which may be admitted into the Union shall come in under such constitutions as
they think proper to form.29
Foote, however, would not support the ultimatum of Davis; and,
on this issue, he began his withdrawal from the radical Southern Demo
crats, which his break with Calhoun had foreshadowed, and his dis
pute with his colleague as to which represented the public sentiment
of their state. He took his position squarely upon non-intervention,
or the organization of territorial governments without the Wilmot
proviso or any other restriction on the subject of slavery; and declared
that, while he might not be in harmony with the South generally,
he was certain that he was in unison with his own state. In support
of this statement, he cited the resolutions of the October convention
and the speech of Chief Justice Sharkey before that convention as
proof that the people of Mississippi, occupying strict non-intervention
ground, demanded only that Congress should refrain from all legisla
tion hostile to Southern rights and relied upon the judiciary for the
decision of all questions which might arise in regard to the legality
of slavery in the territories.
But measures of compromise satisfactory to Foote were not suffi
ciently assured for him to be willing to renounce the threat of secession
or to abandon the plan of the Nashville convention. Therefore he
added that he understood "every state of the South, including Missis
sippi, to declare — that if the course of aggression, heretofore pursued,
should be obstinately persisted in — if tyranny and injustice should
be practiced, which might be justly regarded as amounting to intol
erable oppression — then would the right of secession arise as an extra-
constitutional, or, if you please, a revolutionary remedy — authority
to resort to which, in such a case, no freeman, worthy of the name,
will ever gainsay." Such he understood to be the precise attitude
of the state of Mississippi, upon the suggestion of which the proposi-
28 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 520.
29 Speech of Jefferson Davis, March 14, 1850, Ibid., 531.

112 Mississippi Historical Society.
tion to hold a Southern convention in Nashville was first entertamed
by the Southern states.
But since Foote's object was to promote a more yielding spirit in
the South, he hastened to add that the Nashville convention had not
been recommended by Mississippi for disunion purposes and that he
hoped that the holding of the convention would be rendered unneces
sary by the adoption by Congress of certain healing measures that
were beginning, as he thought, to be generally regarded as more than
likely to be ultimately matured and carried into effect. He declared
that he could not concur with his colleague in the rather despondent
opinion that there was no prospect of passing a bill through both
houses of Congress for the establishment of territorial governments
without any restriction in regard to slavery; but that, from informa
tion obtained from members of both houses of Congress, he had been
led to the conclusion that such territorial bills as he had described
would unquestionably pass both the Senate and the House, if they
could ever be put fairly in progress; and that he did not doubt but
that the other questions might be satisfactorily adjusted, whenever
the Senate should conclude its angry and unprofitable discussions
and enter, in the proper spirit, upon the pathway of practical duty.30
That Foote was right in the opinion that the questions at issue
between the two sections would be adjusted, even the most radical
in both sections were corning to believe. After Webster's speech of
the seventh of March, in which, for the sake of the Union, he supported
Clay's resolutions of compromise, Calhoun came reluctantly to the
conclusion that, if Webster were sustained by New England, it was
not improbable that the questions at issue between the two sections
might be patched up for a few years.31
The National Era had abeady lost faith in Northern congressmen's
holding out for the extreme demands of their section and prophesied
the success of the compromise. It asserted that the business interests
of the North had become alarmed at the threats of disunion spread
abroad by the Washington correspondents and had decreed that all
agitation must stop. As evidence of their success, it pointed out that
Winthrop, who represented the mercantile interests of Boston, had

784.

30 Speech of Foote, March 14, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 532-533.
Letter of Calhoun to Thomas G. Clemson, March 10, 1850, Calhoun Corresp.,

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 113
announced his adoption of the policy of the administration; that Web
ster, whose business it was to look after the interests of tlie cotton
spinners, consulted with Southern men and considered schemes of
compromise; that the shopkeepers of New York had assembled to
save the Union and passed resolutions in favor of the resolutions of
Clay; and that the people of Philadelphia had publicly confessed
their sins and promised to do all the South required.32
Indeed it was becoming evident to all that the conservative elements
were in the ascendency in both sections and that they were demanding
some adjustment of the slavery question that would stop all agitation;
and it was also beginning to be equally apparent that, in Congress,
a party in favor of compromise was forming around Clay and that
Southern Whigs and Northern Democrats would unite to carry
through the measures proposed in his resolutions.33
But the party of compromise was not yet sufficiently strong to put
through congress a measure over the opposition of the Southern Demo
crats, the Northern Whigs, and the administration, which the influ
ence of Seward was holding firm in the policy of admitting California
as a state and non-action in regard to the other territories. More
over the Southern Whigs were determined that a bill for the admis
sion of California should not be passed unless combined with it was a
provision for the organization of fhe other territories without excluding
slavery. Therefore, Clay welcomed the overtures of two such im
portant Southern Democrats as Foote, of Mississippi, and Ritchie,
editor of the organ of the Democratic party in Washington, and agreed
to support the plan, suggested by Ritchie and proposed in the Senate
by Foote, for the formation of a select committee of thirteen, the
object of which, according to Foote, was to link the settlement of
all the questions at issue in one bill, to get for such a settlement the
support of the united influence of the thirteen senators composing
the committee, and finally to carry the measure through by enab
ling "Senators and members of the other House to vote more boldly,
and resolutely, and safely, for measures perhaps somewhat distaste-
81 National Era, March 7, 1850.
38 Evidence of this is found in the McClernand bill, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess.,
628; Letter of C. S. Morehead to J. J. Crittenden, March 30, 1850, Coleman, Life
of J. J. Crittenden, I, 361; Letter of R. Toombs to J. J. Crittenden, April 25,
1850, Ibid., 364; Letter of Alexander H. Stephens to his brother, May 10, 1850,
Johnston and Browne, Life of A. H. Stephens, 254.

114 Mississippi Historical Society.
ful, as they might have reason to suppose, to their constituents, when
they are authorized and enabled to declare that they voted as they
did upon the counsel and example of distinguished gentlemen, whose
reputation and influence pervade the whole land."34
The Southern Democrats had already declared in favor of the ap
pointment of the committee and, in spite of the efforts of Benton
and Northern radicals to block the measure by excluding from the
consideration of the committee important questions in the contro
versy,35 on April 18, a resolution passed the Senate, by a vote of 30
34 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 713.
Foote gives the following account, in his " Casket of Reminiscences' ' of Ritchie's
overture to Clay in regard to the committee of thirteen: "Mr. Ritchie came to me
one morning a few weeks after Mr. Clay had reached Washington, in company
with General Bayley, of Virginia, and urged that we two should call on Mr. Clay
and ask him to offer a resolution in the Senate for the raising of a committee of
thirteen, through the instrumentality of which he thought that the great and
alarming differences then existing might be reconciled and general national brother
hood be re-established  Mr. Ritchie, in addition, authorized us to
give in his name to Mr. Clay a most explicit pledge that, should he conclude to
adopt the course thus indicated, he would support him to the utmost in the widely-
circulated newspaper he was then editing. General Bayley and myself called that
evening upon Mr. Clay in his parlor at the National Hotel. He met us in the most
gracious and cordial manner, and received with evident pleasure the communica
tion with which we had been entrusted by Mr. Ritchie. He declared his warm
approval of the plan of operation suggested by that gentleman, but stated that,
for various reasons of a very peculiar and delicate character, he would prefer that
the resolution proposing the committee of thirteen should be brought forward in
the Senate by some other individual. I agreed to offer it, on the express condition
that I should not be made one of its members, and that Mr. Clay himself should
consent to preside over the deliberations. No one will be surprised to learn that,
in a day or two after, Mr. Clay and Mr. Ritchie met, became cordially reconciled
to each other, and consulted together often in the most fraternal manner at every
stage of the great struggle which at last resulted in the adoption of the compromise
of 1850. Foote, Casket of Reminiscences, 25-26.
It is evident from Clay's opposition to the committee of thirteen when it was
first proposed, and from the course of Ritchie in the UnionaaA of Foote in the Senate
that this account of Foote's, given so many years after the interview between him,
and Clay, was not entirely accurate. But the pages of the Congressional Globe
and the Washington Union both furnish evidence of an understanding between
Clay, on the one hand, and Ritchie and Foote, on the other, and there is contempo
rary evidence of an interview between Clay and Ritchie that serves to fix the date
of their understanding more nearly than Foote's reminiscences. The National
Intelligencer of March 26, 1850, notes the change in the tone of the Union and C. S.
Morehead, a Whig representative from Kentucky, in a letter to Crittenden, dated
March 30, gives the following explanation of the change: "Mr. Clay sent for old
Mr. Ritchie and had a long confidential conversation with him upon this subject.
The tone of the Union is evidently changed since that time. You may notice that
he speaks much of tener in favor of the Union than he did. This is not generally
known." Coleman, Life of J . J. Crittenden, I, 364.
35 It was during this struggle over the appointment of the committee of thirteen
that the disgraceful scene between Foote and Benton took place in which Foote
"drew a pistol on" Benton. Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 762.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 115
to 22, for the referring of Clay's resolutions and others of similar
purport to a select committee of thirteen with instructions to mature
a plan of compromise for the adjustment of all pending questions
growing out of the institution of slavery and to report to the Senate
by bill or otherwise.36
As it had been understood, Clay was selected chairman of the com
mittee and the six representatives from each of the two sections were
evenly divided between the two parties. From the South, the Whigs
selected were Mangum, Bell, and Berrien and the Democrats were
Mason, King, and Downs; from the North, the Whigs were Web
ster, Cooper, and Phelps and the Democrats, Cass, Bright, and Dic
kinson.37 It was evident from the composition of the committee that
Clay's views would prevail and measures would be reported in har
mony with his resolutions.
On May 8, 1850, Clay made the report to the Senate from the com
mittee of thirteen and introduced the bills that it had drawn up for
settling the questions at issue. The recommendations contained in
his report Clay recapitulated as follows:
1. The admission of any new State or States formed out of Texas to be post
poned until they shall hereafter present themselves to be received into the Union,
when it will be the duty of Congress fairly and faithfully to execute the compact
with Texas by admitting such new State or States.
2. The admission forthwith of California into the Um'on with the boundaries
which she has proposed.
3. The establishment of territorial governments without the Wilmot proviso
for New Mexico and Utah, embracing all the territory recently acquired by the
United States from Mexico not contained in the boundaries of California.
4. The combination of these two last-mentioned measures in the same bill.
5. The establishment of the western and northern boundary of Texas, and the
exclusion from her jurisdiction of all New Mexico, with the grant to Texas of a
pecuniary equivalent; and the section for that purpose to be incorporated in the
bill admitting California and establishing territorial governments for Utah and
New Mexico.
6. More effectual enactments of law to secure the prompt delivery of persons
bound to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, who escape into
another State.
And 7. Abstaining from abolishing slavery; but, under a heave penalty, pro
hibiting the slave trade in the District of Columbia.88
No minority report was brought in; but Phelps, Cooper, Mason,
38 Ibid., tj$. The resolution was carried by the vote of all the Southern sena
tors, both Whigs and Democrats, except Benton, and of seven out of the sixteen
Northern Democrats.
"Ibid., 780.
38 Ibid., 946.

116 Mississippi Historical Society.
Downs, and. Berrien, immediately after the reading of the report,
made statements to the Senate of the points in the report to which
they objected. In fact, there was unanimity in the committee only
in the construction of the compact under which the state of Texas
was annexed. This, taken with the objections that were immediately
raised in the Senate against it, furnished ample evidence of the oppo
sition the program of the committee would receive in that body.
What action the Senate and the House would take in regard to these
recommendations of the committee of thirteen depended on the atti
tude of the country toward the question of compromise. The atti
tude of Mississippi and the other Southern states may be measured
by the progress of public sentiment in regard to the Nashville con
vention.

CHAPTER VI.

THE NASHVILLE CONVENTION.

The measure around which the leaders of the South sought to de
velop the Southern movement and through which they expected to
unite the South on a definite policy in defense of its interests was a
convention of all the slaveholding states. As has been seen, the
measure was advocated in South Carolina and other Southern states
in the beginning of the struggle over the Wilmot proviso. Although
it was not mentioned in the Southern address, Calhoun, in his corre
spondence, urged on his followers in different states the calling of such
a convention; and, finally, in accordance with his advice, the conven
tion composed of representatives of both political parties in Missis
sippi, in October, 1849, called a convention of the slaveholding states
to meet in Nashville on the first Monday in the following June, "to
devise and adopt some mode of resistance" to the proposed aggres
sions against the rights of the South.
The action of the Mississippi convention met with hearty approval
both in Mississippi and the other Southern states. The legislature
of Mississippi, when it met in January, 1850, in addition to sanction
ing the calling of the Southern convention, gave that meeting a more
formal character by disregarding the appointment of delegates by
the October convention and appointing others to represent Missis
sippi and directing that their expenses should be paid out of the
state treasury. The legislature, also, pledged the state of Missis
sippi to stand by and sustain her sister states of the South in what
ever course of action might be determined on by the convention.1
Through the press, public meetings, and their legislatures, the other
slaveholding states expressed their approval of the holding of the
convention to enable the South to unite in an effort to preserve its
xLaws of the State of Mississippi, 1850, 522-526.
117

t.i8 Mississippi Historical Society.
rights and save the Union.2 The strength of the movement became
such, during the stormy days of the efforts to organize the House
and the first attempts of Congress at legislation, that even the house
of delegates of the Maryland legislature passed, by a unanimous vote,
a resolution proclaiming the willingness of Maryland to be repre
sented at Nashville.3
But, with the arousing of the conservative sentiment in both sec
tions and the development of a spirit of compromise, the support
of the Nashville convention began to decline. As the Southern Whigs
joined the movement in favor of the compromise and became more
and more confident that measures would be devised by Congress
that they could accept, they began to think that the Nashville con
vention was unnecessary and to fear that its influence would be ad
verse to measures of adjustment that they would be willing to accept.
The supporters of the compromise, therefore, sought to discredit
the convention by urging against it the charge, which its enemies had
brought against it from the first, that its purpose was to bring about
a dissolution of the Union.4
The effect of the growth of sentiment in favor of the compromise
and in opposition to the Nashville convention soon made itself felt
throughout the South. The state legislatures that had not already
taken action with reference to the selection of delegates to Nash
ville refused to do so and in the states where elections had been
ordered the results were disappointing to the friends of the conven
tion.6 Only in South Carolina and Mississippi did public sentiment
seem to continue in favor of the convention.
On the latter state rested the responsibility of having called the
2 The approval of the Nashville convention by the legislatures of different South-
em states may be found as follows: Virginia, National Era, February 21, 1850;
Georgia, Cong. Globe,a.ppx., 32 Cong., 1 Sess., 344; Tennessee, National Era, February
21, 1850; Alabama, New York Semi-weekly Tribune, February 27, 1850; Louisiana,
Natchez Weekly Courier, March 6, 1850.
3 National Intelligencer, February 2, 1850.
4 National Era, February 21, 1850; New York Semi-weekly Tribune, March 2,
1850; Ibid., March 30, 1850; National Intelligencer, March 9, 1850; Ibid., March
26, 1850.
6 In Virginia, the northwest and Richmond, Petersburg, Norfolk, and the county
of Albemarle voted against sending delegates to the convention. Cong. Globe,
31 Cong., 1 Sess., appx., 599. In Tennessee, Nashville itself resolved by an over
whelming majority to choose no delegates. Ibid., 600. The vote in the election
of delegates in Georgia was so light as to amount to a condemnation of the con
vention. New York Semi-weekly Tribune, April 20, 1850.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 119
convention and, as both parties were equally responsible, neither
could lightly turn against the measure or charge it with having been
designed for the purpose of disunion. As the delegates had already
been appointed, there was no opportunty of testing the popular
sentiment in the state in favor of withdrawing from the movement.
But in Mississippi, as elsewhere in the South, as the sentiment in
favor of compromise developed, the Whigs began to turn from the
support of the Nashville convention. As early as March 9, a public
meeting in Hinds county declared that, since it was evident that
Congress would not pass the Wilmot proviso and infringe upon the
rights of the South in the new territories, it was advisable to
abandon the Nashville convention.6
By the first of April, the Columbus Whig, among other papers, was
engaged in belittUng the convention. It asserted in its issue of April
4: So far as our views are concerned, we are amongst the number of those who
attach little or no importance to the proposed meeting. We regard it much less
incapable of harm than its enemies apprehend, and far less powerful for good than
its friends imagine. It is now, we think, reduced to a certainty that the convention,
if held at all, will be too limited, in representation and numbers, to secure much
"faith or credit to its official acts" in behalf of the whole South. Not only from
present indications will a large number of the Southern States be unrepre
sented, but the delegates from those that are, in the absence of a popular commis
sion, will hardly be able to consider themselves as the regularly constituted minis
ters of State sovereignty, or even as the accredited organs of Southern sentiment.
In this state of things, the gentlemen who attend the deliberations at Nashville
will simply exercise the right which we all have of expressing our private and indi
vidual opinions upon questions of public interest. Should they assume to do any
thing more, such usurped privileges would meet the disregard, as the convention
itself seems to have met the indifference of the people.7
By the time of the report from the committee of thirteen, even
Judge Sharkey was convinced that "the convention movement would
result in a total failure." To him:
It seemed impossible to rally the South in vindication of her rights. The ad
vices from Washington City seemed to dispel any hope of a creditable convention,
and a failure could have no other effect than to encourage the aggressions on the
South.8

6 National Intelligencer, April 6, 1850.
7 Quoted from the Columbus Whig in the Hinds County Gazette, April 19, 1850.
8 Letter from Judge Sharkey to the editor of the Southron, Jackson, June 21,
1850, in which he explains his letter to Foote approving the compromise. Mis
sissippi Free Trader, July 3, 1850.

1 20 Mississippi Historical Society.
Therefore, believing that the compromise formulated by the com
mittee of thirteen was the best that could possibly be obtained,9 he
gave in his adherence to that measure. He, also, advised Foote to
support the compromise in the Senate and assured him that the mass
of the Southern people would be content with it and that he would
be sustained in its support by the Whigs generally and, also, by the
moderate men of his own party.10
In the meantime, the Democratic party in Mississippi, not satisfied
with the measures of compromise the Southern Whigs were becoming
willing to accept and undaunted by the evidences of a falling off in
the support of the Nashville convention, remained true, in the main,
to its earlier views in regard to a Southern convention.11 In early
April the Mississippi Free Trader sought to stay the progress of senti
ment in favor of compromise and in opposition to the convention by
calling attention to the disapproval of Webster's seventh of March

'Mississippi Free Trader, July 3, 1850.
10 The letter from Sharkey to Foote in answer to one from Foote asking advice
in regard to his course on the compromise is an interesting bit of evidence both as
to the progress of sentiment in Mississippi in favor of the compromise and also as
to the "rapprochement" between Foote and the Whigs of Mississippi. Sharkey
writes to Foote: "I have watched your course with great interest. I am not
a politician, and I flatter myself sufficiently above party bias to view events
dispassionately. Your whole course on the compromise question is commendable

" We must take things as they are and not as we would have them and shape our
conduct according to exigencies. It would have been folly to have insisted on what
you and I regard as strictly Southern rights. Nothing could have been obtained
by that course. If the compromise can be adopted, our honor at least is safe. In
deed, it secures the principle for which we have been contending. The mass of
the Southern people would be content with it. True, it does not suit all men. . .
Could you do anything that would please all even of your own party? I think not.
Ultra men can never be pleased. . . . Take my word for it, conservative men
will approve your course. The Whigs generally approve it, and the moderate men
of your own party. In short, I think it will be approved by the people. . . .
"I will proceed to answer your specific interrogatory. After stating the terms
of. the compromise as agreed on by the committee, if I mistake them not, you ask
' would we be justified in supporting this plan of settlement?' I think you would.
I would do so were I in your place. I have conversed with many men of both par
ties on this subject, and I do not think I can be mistaken in saying you will be sus
tained in that course. A few, chiefly of your own party, would not approve, but
I think the number will be small. Indeed, I think if the compromise can be ac
complished, it would be a subject of general rejoicing in this State. I say this,
too, whilst I would oppose the admission of Cal. as a distinct proposition, not on
constitutional grounds, but for other reasons." Natchez Weeklly Courier, June
18, 1850.
11 Resolutions of a public meeting of the people of Lafayette county, Oxford,
April 30, 1850. The Organizer, May 6, 1850.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 121
speech in the North and the approval of leading Whig papers of that
section of Seward's "infamous speech." It assured the people of
Mississippi that they had little to expect from Congress in the ad
justment of the existing difficulties and that the only reason that
the Northern majority hesitated to pass the measures of legislation
objectionable to the South was that they feared that it might be in
earnest in its expression of a determination to resist such measures.
This the Free Trader urged should show the importance of the South
ern states' acting together in the Nashville convention.12
The position of those who continued unwavering in their support
of the convention and their opposition to the proposed measures of
compromise was definitely set forth at a public meeting of the citizens
of Hinds county held at Raymond, April 8, 1850, to consider the
action of the legislature in regard to the admission of California and
the calling of a Southern convention.13 In the resolutions adopted,
those taking part in the meeting expressed the belief that the holding
of the convention was the most feasible mode that had been proposed
of sustaining the compromises of the constitution and, through them,
the rights of the South and thereby preserving the Union; and pledged
their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to sustain the meas
ures that it should agree upon. They held the failure of the South
ern states to respond promptly to the recommendation for the con
vention responsible for their not having long since secured all the
constitution held out to them and, therefore, severely censured those
who had been active in exciting opposition to the convention. They
also denied that those engaged in such proceedings were sustained
by the sympathy or support of any considerable portion of either
party in the state of Mississippi.
In regard to the charge that the design of the convention was to
dissolve the Union, they declared that it was false and calumnious so
far as the action of the people of Mississippi or of their legislature
was concerned; but they added that the question involved was a vital
one to them and that their rights under the constitution they were
determined to protect in the Union if they could, but out of the Union
if they must. They asserted, furthermore, that in all the controversy
12 Mississippi Free Trader, April 3, 1850.
13 The political character of the meeting may be easily determined by the fact
that Governor Quitman and C. R. Clifton delivered formal addresses before it.

122 Mississippi Historical Society.
the South had constantly stood on the defensive and on the consti
tution, and that, while it maintained that position, it could never be
responsible for the dissolution of the Union; and, finally, that, with
out the compromises adopted in the constitution, the Union never
could have been formed and that, if they were violated, the Union
would be dissolved and the constitutional rights of the states de
stroyed, even though no state should secede.
With reference to the measures that they wished considered and
proposed by the Nashville convention, they declared that they were
opposed to any settlement that would not fully secure their constitu
tional rights and place them for all time to come beyond the agitation
and aggressions of those who had waged unceasing was against them
for twenty years.14
As the time for the assembling of the convention approached,
the press was filled with expressions of opinion as to what it should.
do. Perhaps Felix Huston most accurately expressed the views of
the radical pro-slavery Democrats on that subject when he declared,
in an open letter to the members of the Nashville convention, that
the purpose of their assembling in convention was to take "into con
sideration the proper course for the slaveholding states to pursue in
14 Resolutions of the Public Meeting at Raymond, April 8, 1850, Mississippi
Free Trader, May 4, 1850.
In the final resolution of the series, the meeting requested the delegates from
Mississippi to bring before the Nashville convention for its consideration and delib
eration a list of subjects that reveals clearly the fears for the future that were
beginning to arouse in the non-slaveholders as well as the slaveholders of Missis
sippi the conviction that their interests were not safe within the Union. The list
is as follows:
"1. By the expiration of the present century, which of the present slave states
will probably become free ones? 2. By the same period the probable black popula
tion of the United States? 3 . The population of slaves to the square mile, which the
then slave states may be able to bear in tranquillity, with a due proportion of whites,
bearing in mind that at the commencement of the revolution in St. Domingo, the
blacks were less than fifteen to the square mile? 4. The legislation by Congress
necessary to produce and perpetuate an equilibrium in the two portions of the
confederacy? 5. Whenever the free states constitute three-fourths of the Con
federacy, is it not to be apprehended that the Constitution of the United States
will be amended, and slavery abolished throughout the Union, and is it not rea
sonable to believe it may be done at no remote period? 6. Nearly all of the free
states having prohibited the ingress of free blacks, and the prominent abolitionists
being opposed to colonization, it is not to be inferred that there is a fixed design
that the home of the black men shall be upon the soil last trod by the slave? 7.
As the slaves are being rapidly moved to the Southwest, is it not to be presumed
that whenever a general emancipation takes place, several of the southwestern
states will be abandoned by the whites and entirely populated by the blacks?"

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 123
order to secure their rights under the Constitution of the United States
and preserve their equality as members of the Confederacy; or, fail
ing therein, bring about a separation of the Union, and the establish
ment of a Southern Confederacy."16
On the other hand, T. J. Wood, a Whig delegate to the Nashville
convention had a very different opinion as to what the proceedings
of the convention should be. He writes the editor of the Safeguard:
I can say that I suppose the Legislature intended by its action that the conven
tion ought to meet; that it ought to set forth in a strong and unequivocal manner,
the aggressions of the North upon our rights; that it ought to point out the viola
tions of the Constitution; that it ought to say to the North "thus far you may
come, but no farther."16
The Southern convention assembled in Nashville, June 3, 1850.
The lack of support that had been long foretold for it was realized;
for only nine of the slaveholding states were represented17 and those,
16 Mississippi Free Trader, May 25, 1850.
16 Letter of T. J. Wood to W. P. Donnel, Editor of the Safeguard, Pontotoc,
April 22, 1850, The Organizer, May 11, 1850.
In this letter, in answering the question, addressed to him by the editor of the Safe
guard, "Do you, as one of the delegates, feel yourself authorized to attend a meet
ing that has for one of its objects, secession from the Union?" Wood made a skill
ful defense of the convention against that charge. "This interrogatory seems to
assume, as a fact," he asserts, "that one of the objects of the Convention at Nash
ville, IS SECESSION. I have not so understood the objects of the Convention.
But on the contrary, the principal object of the Nashville Convention, as I have
understood is to call our erring brethren of the North, back into the Union. I
hold that when Congress or the Government of the United States disregards the
Constitution, its acts are without authority. I hold that when Congress or the
Government of the United States takes jurisdiction of the subject of slavery, for
any other purpose than to fix the ratio of representation, direct taxes, and to pro
vide for the recapture of fugitive slaves, the Congress or the Government itself, so
far as any such act is concerned, (except the three cases above enumerated) has
seceded from the Union. I go further and say that the Northern States of this con
federacy, by failing to execute that clause of the Constitution which binds them
to give up our run-away slaves, have as to that subject, seceded and dissolved the
Union. And that tie Union without that clause of the Constitution, is not the
Union, handed down to us by our fathers. It is not such a Union as they would
have formed nor is it such a Union as we ought to form or submit to, OR DESIRE TO
SEE CONTINUED. And, in my judgment, the objects of the Nashville Con
vention are to call the Northern States, the Northern people and the Congress and
Government of the United States back to the Union, and to point out the dangers
of secession, to take steps by united and concerted action, throughout the whole
South, without distinction of party, whether Democrats or Whigs— progressive
or conservative — to resist at all hazards, these dangerous departures from the
Union  the Union given to us by our fathers — the Union upon the Constitution,
in letter and in spirit — and to prevent the calamities of secession and disunion."
17 The National Intelligencer, of June 8, gives 6 delegates from Virginia, 17 from
South Carolina, 12 from Georgia, 21 from Alabama, 11 from Mississippi, 1 from

124 Mississippi Historical Society.
for the most part, by very few delegates or delegates whose creden
tials were not of such character as to give weight to the proceedings
of the convention.18
Mississippi was represented by the full number of delegates fixed
by the October convention and confirmed by the legislature. But
the difference in the support given the convention by the two parties
in Mississippi is clearly indicated by the fact that every delegate
appointed by the legislature from the Democratic party attended,
while only three of the Whigs appointed were present.19
In organizing the convention, W. L. Sharkey, as head of the Mis
sissippi delegation and presiding officer of the Mississippi convention
that had called the Nashville assembly, was naturally chosen president
of that body. But since he was present in Nashville as much in the
hope of preventing the convention from taking any radical action
that would prevent Congress from passing measures of compromise
as in the expectation that it could devise means to induce that body
to modify those measures in favor of the South, his selection was a
point in favor of the conservative forces at Nashville. In his opening
address, he sought to make the preservation of the Union the key
note of the convention and to incline the members of that body to
moderation by impressing on them that the convention was called
to perpetuate the Union and not to dissolve it.20
Texas, 2 from Arkansas, 6 from Florida, and a large number from Tennessee. The
National Era, of June 13, gives 8 from Georgia, 19 from South Carolina, n from
Mississippi, 18 from Alabama, 2 from Arkansas, 1 from Florida, 2 from Texas,
and 3 from Virginia.
18 Hinds County Gazette, April 19, 1850. National Intelligencer, New York Tri
bune, and National Era, February-May, 1850. The National Intelligencer oi July
13, 1850, states that only South Carolina was regularly represented in the Nash
ville Convention since in that state alone were the delegates chosen by the people.
Alabama and Mississippi were represented, but irregularly, since their delegates
were chosen by the legislatures. But the other Southern states counted as present
had only a few delegates each, in the convention.
19 The National Era of June 13, 1850, gives a list of the delegates from Missis
sippi as follows: Judge Sharkey, Judge Smith, Judge Clayton, Governor Matthews,
Col. Wood, Maj. Neil, Messrs. Pettus, Prewit, Speight, McRay, Wilkinson. But
the New York Tribune, of June 7, states that T. Jones Stewart took his seat on June
5 and that Murphy and Campbell were appointed from Mississippi on the com
mittee on resolutions. The Tribune of June 12 also says that a resolution was
was introduced by Walker, of Mississippi. However, among these, only Stewart
was pne of the delegates appointed by the legislature. The delegates from Missis
sippi who were not appointed by the legislature may have been named by that body
as alternates.
20 New York Semi-weekly Tribune, June 5, 1850.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 125
The great question before the convention, as before the country,
was whether it would approve the plan of settlement embodied in the
report of the committee of thirteen. The members of the convention,
however, showed little disposition to accept the measure proposed
by that committee, but unanimously adopted resolutions sustaining
the position with reference to the demands of the South that had
been taken in Congress and consistently maintained by Jefferson
Davis and other members of that body from the South.
In these resolutions, they denied Congress any power under the
constitution to create or destroy slavery anywhere and affirmed that
it could derive no such power from foreign laws, treaties, the laws of
nations, or any other source but an amendment of the constitution
itself. They also denied the power of Congress to regulate or prohibit
the slave trade between the states and asserted that it was the duty
of that body to provide a more effective fugitive slave law.21 With
reference to the extension of slavery in the territories, the conven
tion declared that the territories were the common property of the
United States, that the citizens of the several states had an equal
right to migrate with their property to those territories and were
equally entitled to the protection of the federal government in the
enjoyment of that property as long as the territories remained under
the charge of the government, that it was the duty of Congress to
pass laws recognizing and protecting those rights, and that, by the
performance of its duty, Congress would remove the embarrassments
in which the country was then involved. But they added that, in
the event a dominant majority should refuse to recognize the great
constitutional rights they asserted and should continue to deny the
obligations of the federal government to maintain them, it was the
sense of the convention that the territories should be treated as
property and divided between the sections of the Union, so that the
rights of both sections should be adequately secured in their re
spective shares. Though the members of the convention admitted
that the course was open to grave objections, they asserted that they
were ready "to acquiesce in the adoption of the line 360 30' north
latitude, extending to the Pacific ocean, as an extreme concession,"
upon considerations of what was due to the stability of their institu
tions. 21 Second series of resolutions adopted by the Nashville convention, National
Intelligencer, July 13, 1850.

126 Mississippi Historical Society.
But having taken the extreme Southern position in regard to the
terms of settlement the South would accept, the convention was
unwilling to commit that section to a definite policy of resistance in
case its demands were not granted and stopped short of fulfilling the
purpose for which it was called. For, although the object of the
slaveholding states in meeting in convention, as stated in the resolu
tion of the October convention of Mississippi calling them together,
was "to devise and adopt some mode of resistance" to the aggres
sions against their rights threatened in Congress, the Nashville con
vention took the position that it would not conclude that Congress
would adjourn without making an adjustment of the controversy;
and that, in the condition in which it found the question before Con
gress, it did not "feel at liberty to discuss the methods suitable for a
resistance to measures not yet adopted, which might involve dis
honor to the Southern States."22 Accordingly it deferred the question
of resistance to the second meeting of the convention to be held at
Nashville six weeks after the adjournment of Congress.23
The address to the people of the slaveholding states issued by the
convention was a more radical document than the resolutions. In
recounting the history of the agitation against slavery, the address
set forth abolition as the ultimate end of it all and the logic of its
reasoning admitted only one conclusion and that was that safety for
the South was to be found only without the Union. It wholly con
demned the measures of compromise reported from the committee
of thirteen. The admission of California, it declared, was simply
the enactment by Congress of the Wilmot proviso in another form;
the adjustment of the Texas boundary took from Texas territory
sufficient for two large states and, no matter what the territorial
bills contained with reference to slavery, gave it up to be free territory
and thus, also, effectively hemmed in the slaveholding states on their
western boundary; in forbidding the slave trade in the District of
Columbia, Congress simply began the abolition of slavery there; and,
finally, an effective fugitive slave law was the constitutional right of
the South and could not be considered by that section as compensa
tion for the sacrifices it was asked to make to the prejudices of the
North. 22 First series of resolutions adopted by the October convention, National Intelli
gencer, July 13, 1850.
23 Second series of resolutions adopted by the October convention, Ibid.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 127
The address asserted, with the resolutions, that the only compro
mise that the South could accept was the extension of the Missouri
Compromise to the Pacific, with a distinct recognition of the right
of the citizens of the Southern states to enter, with their slaves, the
territory south of the line 36° 30'.
In conclusion, the address admitted that the delegates of the con
vention were not entirely unanimous in the approval of all its argu
ments, particularly those that related to the compromise bills pend
ing in the Senate, but it asserted that none of them were in favor of
those bills unless they were amended in conformity with the resolu
tions of the convention or in some other way so as to secure Southern
rights.24 In Mississippi, as elsewhere, the proceedings of the Nashville con
vention had little effect on public sentiment.26 Though Judge Sharkey
trusted that the whole South would unite, in a spirit of firm de
termination, to insist upon the line of compromise recommended by
the convention26 and other leaders of the state urged that the bills
reported from the committee of thirteen contained no concession to
the Southern states and that they could obtain the compromise
demanded by the Nashville convention if they would only unite upon
it,27 the conservatives in the state had given up all hope of obtaining
such a concession and turned more and more to the support of the
measures of compromise before the Senate as the best policy for the
South under the circumstances.
On the other hand the opponents of the compromise devised by
the committee of thirteen, through public meetings and through the
24 Address to the People of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Caro
lina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Louisiana, Texas, Missouri,
Mississippi, and Arkansas, National Intelligencer, July 13, 1850.
This address was written by Robert Barnwell Rhett, of South Carolina. It was
adopted unanimously in the vote given by states; but the delegates being given
an opportunity to enroll their names for or against it, the following voted against:
Davis, Abercrombie, Murphy, Judge Byrd, Hunter of Alabama, Gholson of Vir
ginia. Freeman of Florida, Sharkey of Mississippi, New York Semi-weekly Tribune,
July 15, 1850.
26 The National Era, June 20, 1850, says, with reference to the Nashville conven
tion, "Its proceedings have excited little interest. It was an abortion and is not
worth a word of comment."
28 Letter from Judge Sharkey to the Editor of the Southron, Jackson, June 21,
1850, Mississippi Free Trader, July 3, 1850.
27 Letter of W. S. Featherston, July 12, 1850, Mississippi Free Trader, August
7. 1850.

128 Mississippi Historical Society.
Democratic press, enthusiastically supported the demands of the
Nashville convention.28 The line of 360 30', as established by the
Missouri compromise, they considered "as fair and equitable an
adjustment of the question as the South should offer;"29 and declared
that as the South had been thus liberal with a view of preserving the
Union, she ought not to forget that she owed a corresponding duty
to herself, the duty of "maintaining her position with unwavering
determination, without regard to consequences."30
In regard to the address, the supporters of the compromise differed
very materially from its opponents. The former declared that the
ultraism of the address "would kill any cause or party — east, west,
north or south — on earth below, or in the skies above, in Hell or
in Heaven."31 While the latter characterized it as a "calm, dispas
sionate, truthful, and able recitation of the wrongs that had been in
flicted on the South"32 and held that its criticism of the report of the
corrunittee of thirteen was masterful and unanswerable.83
However, notwithstanding the support the address and the reso
lutions received in Mississippi and the other Southern states, the
Nashville convention served only to reveal more clearly, what had
been apparent to many for several months, that the great effort of
the leaders of the Southern movement to unite the South in the support
of a definite program with reference to questions before Congress
concerning slavery had signally failed. Therefore, the convention
had little or no influence on the progress of the compromise meas
ures through Congress.
28 Public Meeting in Jasper County, Mississippi Free Trader, August 14, 1850;
The Southern Meeting in Wilkinson County, Ibid., August 28, 1850; The Attala
Democrat, July 13, 1850; The Vicksburg Sentinel, July 6, 1850, declared: "We most
religiously believe that nine-tenth of our people approve the action and recom
mendations of the convention."
29 Public Meeting in Lafayette county, Oxford, July 11, 1850, The Organizer,
July 13, 1850.
30 Ibid., June 29, 1850.
31 Quoted from the Columbus Democrat in the Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, August
6, 1850. According to Jefferson Davis the Columbus Democrat awas the only Demo
cratic paper in Mississippi that supported the compromise at this time.
32 Ibid., June 29, 1850.
33 Carrollton Mississippi Democrat, June 29, 1850; Paulding Clarion, June 29,
1850.

CHAPTER VII.

THE PASSAGE OF THE COMPROMISE.

The recommendations reported to the Senate from the committee
of thirteen, as will readily be seen, were, in the main, those embodied
in Clay's resolutions of January 29, which had failed so entirely to
satisfy the demands of the members of Congress from Mississippi.
In the meantime, the position of Davis and the representatives from
Mississippi had not varied and it is easy to determine what would
be their attitude in regard to the bills reported from the committee.
But since Foote's break with Calhoun over the amendment to the
constitution proposed by the latter in his fourth of March speech,
it had been becoming more and more apparent that he was approach
ing the position of the Southern Whigs and becoming willing to agree
to the admission of California with the boundaries that it proposed,
provided the remainder of the territory acquired from Mexico was
organized under territorial governments without reference to slavery.
During this period, Foote had directed his efforts, for the most
part, against the passage of the California bill as a separate measure
and for the combining of it in a general scheme of compromise. With
these ends in view, he had urged the appointment of the committee
of thirteen and, together with Thomas Ritchie, had entered into an
understanding with Clay that, without doubt, included both the
formation of the committee of thirteen and the. measures of compro
mise that it should propose. For before Clay made the report from
the committee to the Senate, Foote was using his influence with Demo
cratic senators from the South in favor of the bills to be proposed.1
Later amid the chorus of objections from Southern senators against
the report and the bills of compromise, when they were submitted to
the Senate, Foote came out openly in their support though he deemed
it better policy not to commit himself to them too completely, ;at
first. He declared in the Senate:
1 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 952-953- 129

130 Mississippi Historical Society.
The general tone and bearing of the report, awakened my highest admiration.
Though there may be some features in the plan to which, hereafter, I may feel
compelled to express some objection, I must confess that I have heard nothing
yet that could induce me, even in a whisper to suggest disapproval of the labors
of the committee. I do not doubt, Sir, that this report will be adopted in the main;
that it will be approved as a whole. It may undergo some modification of a
trivial character, but whether it should undergo modification or not, I do not
doubt, that it will tend to settle the great questions which have so long vexed the
peace of the country.
Furthermore, Foote threw down the gage of battle to his former
friends in Congress from Mississippi and the other Southern states
by assuring them that as much as he should delight to cooperate
with them, if it should turn out that he could concur with the corn-
mittee, he would endeavor in every way to satisfy his countrymen,
North, South, East, and West, that the report was worthy of their
approval.2 Jefferson Davis, on the day of the report from the committee of
thirteen, contented himself with asserting that the object of the re
port of the committee was to support the bills that had been intro
duced into the Senate by the territorial committee and that, since
he had been opposed to those bills when they had been separately
introduced into the Senate and had found no new reasons for support
ing them, he must be opposed to them when they were connected.3
The members of the House from Mississippi had not experienced
any change of heart with reference to the compromise and were,
therefore, ready to align themselves with Davis in opposition to the
plan proposed by the committee of thirteen. Since there was com
plete agreement among them on the essential points of the questions
at issue, the letter of A. G. Brown, ever the most aggressive and out
spoken, to his constituents may be regarded as expressing not simply
2 Speech of Foote, May 8, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., r Sess., 952.
Additional evidence of the growing divergence between Foote and the other
members of Congress from Mississippi was given in the "Address to the People
of the Southern States" by Southern members of both houses of Congress with
reference to the establishment in Washington of a paper that should be devoted to
the rights and interests of the South, so far as they ware involved in the questions
growing out of African slavery. The address was drawn up May 6, and was signed
by sixty-four members of Congress from the South, including all from Mississippi
except Foote. But, as the movement for the establishment of a Southern organ
in Washington was regarded as a rebuke to Ritchie for the course that had been
taken by the Washington Union in regard to the compromise, Foote, very naturally,
did not sign the address. The address is goven in Cluskey, Political Text-Book,
543-S46. 3 Speech of Jefferson Davis, May 8, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 956.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 131
his own views in regard to the compromise, but those of his col
leagues as well.
In this letter, after a long argument to prove that the course of
both the administration and Congress with reference to California
and the other territories acquired from Mexico had been adverse to
the interests of the South, Brown proceeded to enquire whether the
measures proposed in the first bill reported from the committee of
thirteen offered a compromise with reference to the extension of slav
ery worthy of the consideration and the support of his constituents.
He asserted that the admission of California into the Union under
its constitution excluding slavery was equivalent to the passage by
Congress of the Wilmot proviso, and that the question was whether
the South was offered any adequate consideration for the sacrifice
of feeling and principle it would make in admitting California.
In considering the rest of the bill with reference to this point, he
asserted that by the terms of the resolutions annexing Texas to the
United States, the South had the clearest possible recognition of the
title of Texas to the country up to 360 30' as slave territory; and that,
since he believed that the territory sold out and annexed to New
Mexico would be dedicated to free soil and that its institutions would
be anti-slavery, that part of the proposed bargain by which Texas
was to cede to New Mexico a portion of her territory nearly twice as
large as the state of Mississippi and to receive from the United States
in payment a sum of from five to fifteen million dollars, of which the
South would have to pay more than its due proportion, did not make
the admission to California a whit more palatable to him.
In regard to the last proposition in the bill, namely, the establish
ment of territorial governments for New Mexico and Utah without
the "Wilmot proviso," Brown declared that if that were an indepen
dent proposition tendered in good faith and accepted by the North
with a fixed purpose to abide by it, he would have no hesitation in
saying that it would receive his cordial support, for while he demanded
that Congress should not oppose the entrance of Southerners into the
territories with their slaves, he did not ask it to assist them in going
there. But he assured his constituents that the measure was not
tendered in good faith and that the North had no intention of abiding
by it. He informed them:
Mr. Webster is positive that we can never introduce slaves into the territory.
"The laws of God," he thinks, will forever forbid it. He, and those who go with

132 Mississippi Historical Society.
him, will not vote for the "proviso," because it is unnecessary. They are opposed,
uncompromisingly opposed, to the introduction of slaves into the territories; and
they are ready to do anything that may be found necessary to keep them out. It
is easy to see what they will do, >'f we commence introducing our slaves. They
will at once say, "The laws of God" having fatted us, we must try what virtue there
is in the "Wilmot proviso." Mr. Clay and those who follow him are quite certain
that "we are already excluded by the laws of Mexico." They, too, are opposed
to the introduction of slavery into the territories, and stand ready to see it excluded.
The Northern men who stand out against the compromise, insist, and will continue
to insist, on the Wilmot proviso, as the only certain guarantee that slavery will
be permanently excluded. All, all are opposed to our going in with our slaves,
and all are ready to employ whatever means may be necessary to keep us out. I
assert the fact distinctly and emphatically, that we are told every day, that if we
attempt to introduce our slaves at any time into New Mexico or Utah, there will
be an immediate application of the "Wilmot proviso," to keep us out. Mark you
the proposition is to give territorial governments to New Mexico and Utah. These
are but congressional acts, and may be altered, amended, explained, or repealed,
at pleasure. No one here understands we are entering onto a compact, and no Northern man
votes for this compromise with the expectation or understanding that we are to take
our slaves into the territories. Whatever additional legislation may be found neces
sary hereafter to effect our perfect exclusion, we are given distinctly to understand
will be resorted to.
Brown also found in this section of the bill an additional difficulty
to the extension of slavery, a more serious obstacle than either the
"laws of God" of Webster or the "laws of Mexico" of Clay, a provi
sion as prohibitory as the proviso itself. This was the denial to the
territorial legislature of the right to legislate in respect to African
slavery. "With these facts before us, it becomes us to enquire how much we
give and how much we take, in voting for Mr. Clay's bill," Brown
asserts; and sums up the answer to these enquiries as follows:
We admit California, and, being once in, the question is settled so far as she is
concerned. We can never get her out by any process short of a dissolution of the
Union. We give up a part of pro-slavery Texas, and we give it beyond redemption
and forever. Our part of the bargain is binding  This much we give;
now what do we take? We get a government for New Mexico and Utah, without
the Wilmot proviso, but with a declaration that we are excluded already "by the
laws of God and the Mexican nation," or get it with a prohibition against territorial
legislation on the subject of slavery, and with a distinct threat constantly hanging
over us, that if we attempt to introduce slaves against these prohibitions, the "Wil
mot proviso" will be instantly applied for our more effectual exclusion.
In conclusion, he assures his constituents that he cannot vote for
Clay's compromise. With very essential changes and modifications
he might be reconciled to its support, but these he has no hope of
obtaining and, therefore, he expects to vote against it.4
4 Letter of A. G. Brown to His Constituents, Washington City, May 13, 1850,
Cluskey, Speeches, Messages and Other Writings of the Hon. A. G. Brown, 178-190.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 133
The views expressed by Brown in this letter represented not simply
the sentiment of the members of the House from Mississippi, but
also that of the Southern Democrats, generally, in both the Senate
and the House. They, therefore, together with the Northern Whigs
and the members of the Free Soil party, who were equally dissatis
fied with the terms of the compromise, opposed the passage of the
bills and, aided by the influence of the administration, succeeded in
blocking their way through the Senate; while the supporters of the
compromise, for the most part Southern Whigs and Northern Demo
crats, conferred daily under the leadership of Clay, assisted by Web
ster and Cass, to promote their passage.6
For nearly three months "the bill for the admission of California
as a state into the Union, to establish territorial governments for
Utah and New Mexico, and making proposals to Texas for the estab
lishment of her western and northwestern boundaries," or " the Omni
bus bill," was before the Senate for consideration almost daily. The
opponents of the measure conducted their long fight against it through
a series of amendments, by which the Southern Democrats, at least,
hoped to modify the bills so that they would meet the demands of
their section or, failing in this, to make the measures more objection
able to the North and thus secure their defeat.8
In these efforts to amend the Omnibus bill to meet the demands of
the South, the Southern Democrats were supported by Southern
Whigs who were not entirely satisfied with the terms of the compro
mise. They understood as perfectly as the Southern Democrats
that local laws in respect to African slavery were necessary wherever
such property was held and that the clause in the territorial bill that
denied the territorial legislatures the power to pass a law "in respect
to African slavery" would effectively prevent the establishment of
slavery in New Mexico and Utah.7 Therefore, they joined the South
ern Democrats in support of the amendment offered by Jefferson
Davis to substitute for the objectionable phrase one forbidding the
territorial legislature to pass any law interfering "with those rights

6 Speech of Douglas, September 9, 1859, Quoted in Rhodes, History of the United
States, I., 173; Speech of Davis, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., Appx., 1573.
6 Speech of Davis, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 1083.
7 Letter of A. H. Stephens to his brother, May 10. 1850, Johnston and Browne,
Life of A. H. Stevens, 255.

134 Mississippi Historical Society.
of property growing out of the institution of African slavery as it
exists in any of the States in the Union."8
During the weeks in which the Senate debated this amendment,
the difference in the attitude of the senators from Mississippi toward
the compromise developed more fully and Foote's policy of voting
for the measures favored by his colleague and the other Democratic
senators from the South and, at the same time, supporting the com
promise was revealed. Although Foote declared that he could see
no necessity for any restriction's being imposed "in respect to the
system of African slavery," upon the territorial governments about
to be established, since the courts of the country would be bound to
declare, on the one hand, a law passed by a territorial legislature ex
cluding slavery void and, on the other, one protecting slavery valid,
and that he preferred a simple territorial government leaving the
people who inhabited the territories the power to regulate all their
domestic concerns, yet he asserted that, if his friends from the South
insisted upon the imposition by Congress of restrictions upon terri
torial legislation in regard to that subject, he would be willing to vote
for the restrictive clause contended for in almost any form which it
could be made to assume.9
At this time, however, Foote had openly joined the party that had
formed around Clay and was enthusiastically working for the passage
of the conpromise. In defending himself from the charge of incon
sistency, he declared that the compromise bills contained the meas
ures that he had been laboring for since the beginning of the session:
a bill for the admission of California as a state, as part of a general
scheme of settlement; a proposition to establish territorial govern
ments for New Mexico and Utah without the Wilmot proviso — all
that the South had desired on that head twelve months before; a
proposition for the adjustment of the Texas and New Mexico bound
ary question upon satisfactory principles; and finally an efficient bill
8 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 1003, May 15, 1850.
This amendment Davis modified at the request of Senator Pratt, of Maryland,
a Whig, by substituting a phrase forbidding the territorial legislature "to intro
duce or exclude African slavery" and adding as a proviso "that nothing herein
contained shall be construed so as to prevent said territorial legislature from passing
such laws as may be necessary for the protection of the rights of property of every
kind which may have been of may be hereafter introduced into said territory,"
Ibid., 1019, 1074.
9 Speech of Foote, May 15, Ibid., appx., 581.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 135
for the restoration of fugitives from labor. He begged his colleagues
to bear in mind that:
They must vote for the compromise or they must sustain the policy of non
action. They must agree to the admission of California, coupled with certain
compensating advantages of inestimable value, or they must prepare to see Cali
fornia come in alone; the territories without governments; the Texas and New
Mexico boundary line unsettled; and the fugitive slave bill (the only truly efficient
bill of the kind ever yet devised) subjected to defeat.10
Davis, on the other hand, actively engaged with other Southern
Democrats in efforts to secure amendments to the "Omnibus bill,"
and although he refused to discuss that measure until it had passed
all the proposed stages of amendment, he let it be distinctly under
stood that he would not support it unless it was materially amended.11
During the long months of bitter struggle in the Senate that followed,
the course of the two senators from Mississippi in regard to the com
promise continued along the fines that had been marked out in the
days immediately following the report of the committee of thirteen.
Jefferson Davis bent every effort to amend the bills so as to secure
the ultimatum he had earlier laid down: the extension of the line of
360 30' through the territory acquired from Mexico with a definite
recognition by Congress of the right of the people of the Southern
States to carry their property in slaves into the territories south of
that line and to have it protected there until the territories should
be admitted as states, and an admission of the right of such states
to come into the Union with or without slavery as they might pro
vide in their constitutions.12
Foote, on the other hand, while voting for the amendments pro
posed or supported by his colleague and even himself offering one
looking to the fixing by California, after her admission into the Union,
of the line of 35 degrees as her southern boundary,13 gave such hearty
10 Speech of Foote, May 21, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., appx., 592.
n Speech of Davis, May 28, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 1083.
12 In addition to the amendment proposed by Davis on May 15, he also proposed
one, on June 19, to repeal all the laws of Mexico preexisting in the territory ac
quired by the United States from Mexico that obstructed the full enjoyment of
any right of person or property of a citizen of the United States as recognized or
guaranteed by the constitution or laws of the United States; and another, on July
31, to limit the southern boundary of Utah to 360 30.' All of these amendments
were lost, although the first was supported by every Southern senator voting, except
Benton, of Missouri, and Spruance, of Delaware. Ibid., 1134.
13 Ibid., appx. 1271.

136 Mississippi Historical Society.
support to the compromise that the National Era characterized him
as "the most zealous, the most indefatigable, the most efficient ad
vocate of the Compromise bill."14
By the twenty-seventh of June, Davis was convinced that the com
promise bill could never be amended so as to receive his vote,16 and
from the moment he came to that conclusion, he tells us later, he
determined to vote to kill the bill.16 However, the debates on that
measure and the efforts to amend it continued through another month
and Davis did not get the opportunity to effect his purpose until
the last day of July.
On that day the opponents of the compromise rallied in a deter
mined effort to destroy the "Omnibus bill" by stripping it of its pro
visions. As this struggle involved not simply the amending of the
bills in that measure so as to make them more satisfactory to the
South, but their very existence, Foote, at length, parted company
with his colleague in voting. In the divisions on striking out the
provisions relating to New Mexico and Texas and on the indefinite
postponement of the bill and also, in the first division for striking out
the provisions relating to California, he voted in the negative and
Davis in the affirmative. But when the adjustment scheme had been
broken up by the striking out of the portions of the bills relating to
New Mexico and Texas, Foote, true to his opposition to the admission
of California save as a part of such a scheme, joined his Southern
colleagues in voting on the second proposition for striking out that
portion of the bill relating to California. By the success of this latter
measure the compromise bill was stripped of all its provisions except
that for the organization of a territorial government for Utah.17
In this state the bill was passed the following day. But in recogni
tion of the fact that the compromise measure reported from the com
mittee of thirteen had been defeated, the title of the bill was changed
to that of a bill to establish a territorial government for Utah.18
14 National Era, August 8, 1850.
By this policy Foote, no doubt, hoped to win the approval of those of his con
stituents who were in favor of accepting the compromise and, at the same time,
not to alienate others by failing to support any effort to modify the compromise
in favor of the South.
15 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., appx., 993.
18 Ibid., 1509.
17 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 1490-1491; appx., 1470-1485.
18 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 1504.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 137
In this bill, the South did not secure in Utah all that Davis and the
extreme pro-slavery group to which be belonged demanded with
reference to the extension of slavery in a territory; but it did
secure what Foote and many of the Southern Whigs desired with
reference to non-intervention, through the striking out of all provi
sions in the bill concerning the power of the territorial legislature
to pass laws concerning slavery and the leaving of all questions con
cerning such power to the courts for decision. In addition, it se
cured an amendment providing that when the territory or any part
of it was admitted as a state, it should be received into the Union
with or without slavery as its constitution might prescribe.19
Although the opponents of the compromise had succeeded in defeat
ing the scheme of adjustment proposed by the committee of thir
teen, circumstances were in favor of the party of compromise and it
was very generally believed that the defeated bills would be carried
as separate measures. On July 0, President Taylor, the unwavering
opponent of the compromise20 had died and Millard Fillmore, the
vice-president, had succeeded to the presidency. Though there was
some doubt at first as to what course Fillmore would pursue in
regard to the compromise,21 the personnel of the new cabinet, with
Webster as Secretary of State, made it evident to all that he would
support that measure, and the full power of the administration was
soon felt in favor of the passage of the adjustment bills.22
The situation in Texas, also, favored the passage of the compromise
measures. In a message to Congress, on August 6, Fillmore pointed
out the imminent danger of a conflict between the forces of Texas
and those of the United States over jurisdiction over that part of
New Mexico claimed by Texas and urged upon Congress the neces
sity of making provision for the settlement of the Texas boundary
question.23 The influence of the president, aided by the fear that in
a clash between Texas and the United States the slave states would
19 United Stales Statutes al Large, DC, 453-454.
20 An interview, just before his death, between Taylor and the representatives
of the Southern Whigs in Congress gives evidence of the unchanged attitude of
Taylor towards the compromise. J. F. H. Claiborne, Life and Corrsepondence of
John A. Quitman, IL, 32-33.
21 Letter of Horace Mann, July 12, 1850, Mann, Life of Horace Mann, I., 307.
22 Letter of Horace Mann, August 23, 1850, Ibid., 316; Letter of Horace Mann.
September 6, 1850, Ibid., 322.
28 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 1525-1526.

138 Mississippi Historical Society.
support Texas and the whole country would be involved in war,24
induced a majority of the Senate to favor a speedy adjustment of the
boundary of Texas. Accordingly, three days after the president's
message, in spite of the opposition of both the ultra Southern and the
radical Northern senators, the Texas boundary bill passed the Senate
by a vote of 30 to 20, Foote voting in the affirmative and Davis in
the negative.25 A precedent was thus established for the passage of
the provisions of the compromise as separate measures.
But the measure of compromise against which the sentiment of
the South was most opposed and which Southern senators were
most determined to defeat, was the bill for the admission of California.
The struggle over that measure had been joined before the passage
of the Texas bill, Douglas having moved, the day after the striking
of the provisions relating to California from the compromise bill, the
taking up of the separate bill for the admission of California introduced
by him earlier in the session.26
As the legislature of Mississippi had instructed the members of
Congress from that state to resist the admission of California by all
honorable and constitutional means and as he had always declared his
opposition to the admission of California as a separate measure, Foote
declared his intention of voting against this bill. In the struggle over
the measure, he joined the other Southern senators in the effort to
secure the division of California27 and, failing in that, he endeavored
to postpone the passage of the California bill until the territorial
questions were adjusted.28 But in his speeches he made it quite evi
dent that he was ready to acquiesce if the bill were passed and was
outspoken in his denunciation of those who counselled resistance to it.29
24 Letter of A. H. Stephens, June 29, 1850, National Era, July 11, 1850.
25 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 1555.
With the exception of Benton, of Missouri, and Underwood, of Kentucky, the
Southern senators who voted against the bill belonged to the extreme pro-slavery
group to which Jefferson Davis belonged and which had so consistently opposed
the compromise. They were Atchison of Missouri, Barnwell and Butler of South
Carolina, Davis of Mississippi, Hunter and Mason of Virginia, Morton and Yulee
of Florida. Soulfi of Louisiana, and Turney of Tennessee.
™Ibid., 1513.
27 Ibid., appx., 1504.
He proposed making an amendment making the line 35' 300 the southern boun
dary of California, which he afterwards modified, at the request of Davis, by sub
mitting 360 30' for 350 30'; and supported other amendments, to the same effect,
proposed by his Southern colleagues.
28 Ibid., appx., 1504.
29 Speech of Foote, August 12, 1850, Ibid., appx., 1521.
"Thank God I am no secessionist," Foote exclaimed, in a speech very much

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 139
Davis, however, as his whole course had shown, was utterly opposed
to the admission of California with the boundaries it had prescribed
for itself; therefore, he was not content with the measures of opposi
tion that satisfied his colleague. But, for the purpose of defeating
the California bill, he entered into a written agreement with nine of
his Southern colleagues in which they declared that they would avail
themselves of any and every measure on which a majority of those
signing the paper might determine to prevent the admission of Cali
fornia as a state, unless her southern boundary should be reduced
to 360 30'; and that, if California should be admitted with the
boundaries prescribed, then such admission should be allowed only
after the people of California should have assented thereto.30
quoted afterwards by the " submissionists" in Mississippi, "no disunionist, and
thank God that in one sense I am a submissionist. I am, and shall be, I trust,
willing to submit to any constitutional enactment adopted by Congress, that does
not amount to gross oppression. And I furthermore say, that, in my opinion, it
will not only not be disgraceful to the South to submit to this enactment, but it will
be particularly disgraceful, unpatriotic, and unpardonable in any part of the South
to utter language of resistance to any such law. I regret very much that Cali
fornia is to come in with these unrestricted boundaries, but I have the consolation
to know that it was not through any fault of mine that they were not restricted.
I shall vote against the admission of California, according to my instructions, as
I always intended to do if presented as a separate and distinct measure; but if
California be admitted, I shall never counsel resistance, and I shall be prepared to
rebuke resistance, to denounce secessionists, and to make every kind of opposition
to those men who shall dare to raise their arms against the Government for the
purpose of counteracting laws which they admit themselves to be constitutional."
30 List of Manuscripts, Wisconsin Historical Society, 146.
This manuscript in the Wisconsin Historical Society reads as follows: "John
G. Pankhurst, Coldwater: Following is an exact copy of a paper in my possession.
It was found at Winchester, Term., by some of my scouts and turned into me, as
provost-marshall of the Fourteenth Army Corps, August 6, 1863.. It carries the
autograph signatures of ten of the most prominent Southern Statesmen in 1850:
"We will avail ourselves of any and every means which a majority of those
signing this paper may determine to prevent the admission of California as a state,
unless her southern boundary be reduced to 360 30' and if California be admitted
with the boundaries prescribed, then such admission be allowed only after the
People of California shall have assented thereto .... this admission may
be allowed if necessary, on proclamation of the Presdt.
August 2, 1850. H. S. Torney
A. P. Butler
D. R. Atchison
D. L. Yulee
Pierre Soule
Jefpn: Davis
Jere: Clemens
John Mason
Jackson Morton
R. W. Barnwell

140 Mississippi Historical Society.
At a meeting of the senators entering into this agreement to deter
mine what means they should use to carry out their purpose, Davis
supported a motion of Soule, that they resist by all parliamentary
means the passage of the California bill; but as the vote stood five
to five, the motion was lost.31 From subsequent proceedings in the
Senate, it is evident that a majority of those signing the agreement
decided in favor of resisting the bill only by debate and Davis, as he
declared, was forced, for want of power to give up all other opposi
tion to the bill.32
But before the passage of the California bill, Davis made a most
effective use of the only means of opposition left him in a solemn ap
peal to the members of the Senate against the measure. He warned
them that they were about to destroy permanently the balance of
power between the sections of the Union; and that, too, when sectional
spirit was rife over the land and when those who were to have the
control in both houses of Congress and also over the executive power
had shown, by unmistakable indications, a disposition to disregard
the constitution, which made all equal in rights, privileges, and immu
nities. When that barrier for the protection of the minority was
about to be obliterated, he felt that they had reached the point at
which the bonds that had held the government together were to be
broken by a ruthless majority, and that the next step might lead to
the point at which aggression would assume such a form as would
require the minority to decide whether they would sink below the
condition to which they were born, or maintain it by forcible resist
ance. Such were the momentous consequences that Davis foresaw as
possibly flowing from the act admitting California; nor were his fore
bodings, in any degree, reduced by the spirit in which the act was
done. In the temper manifested, he felt forewarned of the fate of
"Reverse of the document in the List of Manuscripts, Wisconsin Historical
Society, 146. "August. Mr. Soula moved that we resist by all Parliamentary
means the Passage of the bill and the vote stood as follows, for the motion was
Messrs. Davis, Tourney, Soute, Morton, Yulee— 5. Against it was Barnwell, But
ler, Mason, Hunter, Atchison — 5. Lost by a tie vote."
It will be seen that the name of Clemens, of Alabama, does nor appear in this
vote, but that of Hunter, of Virginia, does.
32 On August 12, Davis declared in the Senate: "I was prepared to go to any
possible limit in opposition to this measure  It is not, therefore, for
want of will, but for the want of power, that I have not offered further opposition
than I have. Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., appx. 1533.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 141
the South when it should become permanently a minority in both
houses of Congress. In that spirit of aggression and reckless disre
gard of the rights of the minority, he believed they might see, like
the handwriting on the wall, the downfall of the Confederacy.
Controlled by such opinions, Davis declared, he had required
nothing to prompt him to the opposition that he had made to the Cali
fornia bill. But if he had, it was at hand, he asserted, in the expres
sions of popular will by primary meetings and legislative action. The
legislature of his state had instructed him to resist the bill for the
admission of California, under the circumstances of the case, by all
proper and honorable means; the same legislature had made an appro
priation of money to enable the governor to offer proper resistance
to the Wilmot proviso, if it should be passed by Congress and approved
by the president; and in the California bill, as it was proposed, he saw
nothing in any essential degree differing from the Wilmot proviso.
Davis concluded:
Then, Senators, countrymen, brethren, by these, and by other appellations,
if there be others more endearing and impressive than these, I call upon you to
pause in the course which, pressed by an intemperate zeal, you are pursuing, and
warn you, lest blinded by the lust for sectional dominion, you plunge into an abyss
in which will lie buried forever the glorious memories of the past, the equally glo
rious hopes of the future, and the immeasurable happiness of our common country.
It is not as one who threatens, nor as one who prepares for collision with his enemies
but as one who has a right to invoke your fraternal feeling, and to guard you against
an error which will equally bear on us both; as one who has shared your hopes and
your happiness, and is about to share your misfortunes, if misfortunes shall befall
us; it is as an American citizen that I speak to an American Senate — it is in this
character that I have ventured to warn you; it is with this feeling that I make
my last solemn appeal.33
But, notwithstanding the appeal of Davis, the Senate passed the
California bill, August 13, by a vote of 34 to 18, Davis and Foote
both voting in the negative.34
Davis and the others of the group of Southern senators that had
agreed on united action against the admission of California made a
final effort to give emphasis to their opposition to the California
bill. On the day following its passage, Hunter, of Virginia, presented
to the Senate a protest signed by himself and all the senators, except
33 Speech of Davis, August 13, 1850, Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., appx., 1534.
34 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 1573.
All the senators from the South who were present voted in the negative, except
Bell, of Tennessee, Underwood, of Kentucky, Benton, of Missouri, Spruance, of
Delaware and Houston, of Texas. Clay was absent.

142 Mississippi Historical Society.
Clemens, of Alabama, who had entered into the agreement to oppose
the bill, and requested that it might be received and spread upon
the journal of the Senate. The object of the senators, as stated in
the protest, was to leave in the most solemn and enduring form a
memorial of the opposition that they had made to the bill admitting
California as a state and of the reasons by which they had been gov
erned. But, no doubt, their real purpose was, by this impressive
and convenient method, to defend their course in regard to the bill
before their own constituents and to influence public sentiment in
the South to refuse to acquiesce in that measure.
To carry out the purpose of their protest, the Southern senators
severely arraigned the California bill in giving their reasons for ob
jecting to it. They declared that they dissented from the bill, first,
because validity was imparted by it to the unauthorized action of a
portion of the inhabitants of California by which an odious discrimin
ation was made against the property of the fifteen slaveholding
states of the Union; second, because, should the bill become a law,
Congress must sanction and adopt a system of measures manifestly
contrived without the authority of precedent, of law, or of the consti
tution, for the purpose of defeating the right of the slaveholding
states to a common and equal enjoyment of the territory of the Union;
third, because to vote for a bill passed under such circumstances
would be to agree to a principle that destroyed the equal rights of
their constituents, the equality of their states in the confederacy, the
equal dignity of those whom they represented as men and as citizens
in the eye of the law, and their equal title to the protection of the
government and the constitution, and that might exclude forever,
as it did then, the states that they represented from all enjoyment
of the common territory of the Union; fourth, because all the prop
ositions had been rejected, that had been made to obtain either a
recognition of the rights of the slaveholding states to a common en
joyment of all the territory of the United States, or a fair division of
that territory between the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding
states of the Union; and fifth, because, in sanctioning measures so
contrary to former precedent, to obvious policy, to the spirit and
content of the constitution of the United States, for the purpose of
excluding the slaveholding states from the territory to be erected
into a state, the government in effect declared that the exclusion of

Mississippi and the Compromise ot 1850 — Hearon. 143
slavery from the territory of the United States was an object so high
and important as to justify a disregard not only of all the principles
of sound policy, but also of the constitution itself. Against this
conclusion, the senators declared, they must then and forever pro
test, as it was destructive to the safety and liberties of those whose
rights had been committed to their care, fatal to the peace and equality
of the states that they represented, and must lead, if persisted in,
to the dissolution of that confederacy in which the slaveholding
states had never sought more than equality, and in which they would
not be content to remain with less.36
Foote, very naturally, opposed the protest since he feared it would
tend to stimulate the South to resist the compromise measures and
his political fortunes were bound up in the acquiescence of his state
in those measures, to which he was thoroughly committed. There
fore, he joined the majority in the Senate in refusing to receive the
protest.36 With the protest against the California bill, the struggle of Davis
and his extreme pro-slavery colleagues against the passage of the
compromise bills practically ended. In the divisions on the other
three measures, Davis acted in accordance with his course from the
beginning. He did not vote on the bill to establish a territorial
government in New Mexico,37 and voted against the abolition of
slavery in the District of Columbia38 and in favor of the fugitive
slave law.39 In the latter measure, however, he declared, he felt
no great interest, because he had no hope that it would ever be exe
cuted to any beneficial extent. But if the border states, the ones
most interested in the question, hoped to derive any benefit from it
he was willing, within the limits of his opinion as to what Congress
aCong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 1578, August 14, 1850.
86 Ibid., 1579.
37 Ibid., 1589, August 15, 1850.
The vote on this bill was 27 to 10; the negative votes were all cast by senators
from the North.
38 Ibid., 1830, September 16, 1850.
The vote on this bill was 33 to 19; the nays were 12 Southern Democrats and 7
Southern Whigs. Benton and Houston and 3 Southern Whigs, Clay, Underwood,
and Spruance, voted in the affirmative.
39 Ibid., 1647, August 23, 1850.
The vote on the engrossing and third reading of this bill was 27 to 12. The nays
were 8 Northern Whigs, 3 Northern Democrats, and Chase. There were fifteen
senators from the free states who did not vote.

144 Mississippi Historical Society.
might do and what the constitution imposed, to allow them to frame
the law as they thought best.40
Foote, on the bill to organize a territorial government for New
Mexico, paired with an opponent of the measure, voted in the affirma
tive on the fugitive slave bill, and did not vote on the bill for the
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, though he was present
just before the division.41
During the long period of the struggle in the Senate over the com
promise, the representatives from Mississippi in the House had not
wavered in their support of the ultimatum of Davis and their oppo
sition to the measures proposed by the committee of thirteen,42 and
had rendered effective service in the successful efforts of the Southern
representatives to prevent any action by the House, unfavorable to
the South, on the questions at issue between the sections.
Finally when it grew evident that the compromise measures would
be passed by the Senate as separate bills, they joined a movement
in the House for uniting the Southern members of that body to de
feat those measures.43 For this purpose, a caucus of the representa
tives from the South was held on August 8, at which a committee of
fifteen, one from each slave state, was appointed to report proper
measures for the action of the South respecting the slavery and terri
torial question.44 On the eleventh, Toombs, the chairman of the
committee, reported to a meeting of the Southern members of the
House a series of resolutions, which were adopted by that body. In
these resolutions, the Southern representatives took their stand upon
the position that had been taken by Jefferson Davis and confirmed
by the Nashville convention. They declared in favor of non-inter-

40 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., appx., 1588.
41 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 1830.
42 Speeches of Thompson, June 4, 1850, Ibid., 1123, and June 5, 1850, Ibid.,
appx., 660; Speech of McWillie, July 23, 1850, Cong. Globe, 1 Cong., 1 Sess., 1470.
Speech of Browne, June 13, 1850, Ibid., 1197; Letter of Featherston, July 12, 1850;
Mississippi Free Trader, August 7, 1850.
43 This movement, called by tie New York Tribune a conspiracy, was doubtless
designed as a counterpart of the one in the Senate to defeat the passage of the
California bill.
44 National Era, August 15, 1850.
This committee consisted of seven Whigs and eight Democrats and was made up
as follows: Toombs, Burt, Hilliard, Thompson, of Mississippi, Cabell, Howard,
Johnson, of Arkansas, Morse, Green, Seddon, Clingman, Thomas, McLean, Hous
ton, and Bowie.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 145
vention with slavery in the territories; but asserted that, in the event
of the non-slaveholding states' objecting to that policy, they would
insist upon a division of the country on the line of 36° 30', with a
distinct recognition and protection of property in slaves. In addition,
they agreed that they would not vote for the admission of California,
unless the southern boundary should be restricted to the parallel 36°
30' north latitude ; that they would not agree to any boundary between
Texas and New Mexico that proposed to cede to New Mexico any
portion of territory south of the parallel of 360 30' north latitude and
west of the Rio Grande, prior to the adjustment of the territorial
question; and that they would resist "by all usual legislative and
constitutional means the admission of the State of California and the
adjustment of the Texas boundary, until a settlement of the terri
torial questions."45
These resolutions, however, were not assented to by a number
sufficient to secure the success of the movement. As the Southern
Whigs, for the most part, had been won over to the support of the
compromise and many of the Democrats were unwilling to resort
to measures of obstruction to defeat it, only about forty of the South
ern representatives were present at this meeting and of these not all
approved the proceedings.46 Therefore, like Davis, the members of
the House from Mississippi were forced, against their wishes, to aban
don the plan of defeating the compromise by "parliamentary means."
All that was left for the representatives from Mississippi was to
record their opposition to the compromise in their votes on the pas
sage of the measures. McWillie and Thompson voted in favor of the
passage of only the fugitive slave bill and the Utah bill;47 while Brown
and Featherston voted on the negative in every measure except the
fugitive slave bill.
46 Quoted from the Southern Press in the National Era, August 15, 1850.
The meaning of the last resolution was differently interpreted. No doubt it
was intentionally left vague.
46 A Washington correspondent of the New York Tribune stated on August 11,
that the conspiracy was assented to by forty Southern members of the House, the
number requisite to defeat legislation in that body. New York Semi-weekly Trib
une, August 14, 1850. But a few days later a special message from Washington
to tie Tribune declared that the claim of the Southern Press as to the unanimity
of the caucus had been exploded; that it had turned out that only forty-two were
present at the meeting and only thirty sanctioned the proceedings; and that there
was a card in the Intelligencer from Houston, of Delaware, dissenting from the
resolutions and saying that he had been appointed on the committee without his
consent. New York Semi-weekly Tribune, August 17, 1850.

146 Mississippi Historical Society.
But in spite of the opposition of the representatives from Missis
sippi, all the compromise measures were passed by the House, mainly,
as in the Senate, by the support of the Southern Whigs and the
Northern Democrats. As it was certain they would receive the signa
ture of the president, the great question, immediately was what atti
tude the states would assume toward those measures.
That subject had been much discussed in the Senate in the debates
on the compromise. As Foote had differed in his attitude toward
the compromise from his colleague and the members of the House
from Mississippi, he had especially endeavored to demonstrate that
public sentiment in Mississippi was in favor of the compromise and
approved his course in regard to it.48 Since Davis could not let his
assertions for that purpose pass unchallenged, there had been several
discussions between the two on that subject.49
In the last, just before the passage of the last of the compromise
measures, Foote declared that, in his opinion nine-tenths of the en
lightened freemen of the state of Mississippi were now, and had been
all along, cordially in favor of the much abused plan of adjustment,
and he predicted that they would deliberately and formally sanction
it and avow their concurrence in all that he had done and said as one
of their senatorial representatives.60 Davis, on the other hand, de
clared that he was well assured that Foote would not find nine-tenths
in any one county, still less in the state of Mississippi, favoring his
course on the measures; and that he knew of no community in Missis
sippi, not a single town, where he believed Foote could find a majori
ty in favor of all the compromise measures.61
In this discussion, both Foote and Davis expressed the intention
of appealing to their constituents to decide between them. Accord
ingly as soon as Congress adjourned, they, together with the members
of the House from Mississippi, returned to the state to take up with
the people of Mississippi the question of their acceptance or rejec
tion of the compromise. Foote, alone of the Mississippi delegates

47 The New Mexico bill was united with the Texas boundary bill and was, there
fore, voted against by all the representatives from Mississippi.
48 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., appx., 990; Ibid., 1096; Ibid., 1390-1391.
^Ibid., 993-995; Ibid; 1390-1391-
50 Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., 1830.
61 Ibid., 1830.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 147
in Congress, undertook the defense of that measure; while Davis
and the members of the House actively engaged in the struggle, al
ready begun, against acquiescence in it. For an understanding of
this struggle and the final decision of the state of Mississippi in re
gard to the compromise, it is necessary to follow the development
of public sentiment in Mississippi in regard to the compromise, since
the Nashville convention.

CHAPTER VIII.
THE BEGINNING OF THE STRUGGLE IN MISSISSIPPI OVER THE COM
PROMISE.
After the Nashville convention as it became more and more likely that
the Senate would pass the measures of compromise reported from
the committee of thirteen, excitement grew in Mississippi and the line
of cleavage between the supporters and the opponents of the com
promise became more definite. The entire Whig press came out in
favor of the compromise; while the Democratic press, with a few ex
ceptions, opposed it. The members of the two great parties in Mis
sissippi followed, in the main, the same alignment, — the Democrats,
for the most part, opposing the compromise measures, and the Whigs,
with some very notable exceptions, favoring acquiescence in them.
The Democratic papers, also, pointed out a line of cleavage other
than the political, but one which was in fact the basis of that. This
was the division between the commercial and the large planter classes,
on the one hand, and the small planters and the farmers, on the other.1
The editor of the Mississippi Free Trader saw that the cause of the
approval of the compromise by the former was in their more extended
business connections and their greater financial dependence on the
North, but was too bitterly hostile to the compromise to reason fairly
concerning this fact. The banking and the other business interests
of the state, he asserted, were in the hands of Northern men who coop-
1 The Vicksburg Sentinel of July 16, 1850, said:
"We have repeatedly stated that four-fifths of the people of Mississippi are op
posed to the 'compromise' of Mr. Clay. Judging by the recent expositions of opinion
we are inclined to believe that there is hardly one man in twenty in the interior of,
the State who is not opposed to it. In the cities and large towns, it is different.
There are in such congregations of human vapors various obstacles to an unbiased
formation and expression of opinion; but in the South the towns and cities are
insignificant. They form a very small part of the population, and their influence
is proportionately small. The rural population of the South is composed of the
genuine sovereigns. They control the cities, not the cities them."
An assertion of Governor Quitman also points out this division. "With the
exception of the merchants, the traders, the bankers, the millionaires, and their
dependents, the people are with us," he writes to J. J. McRae, September 28, 1850.
Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 46.
148

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 149
erated with and were in "cahoot" with all the wealthy planters
and commission merchants whom money or cupidity could seduce
into their service. As for the largest slaveholders, whom the Whig
press pointed out as favoring the compromise, there was not one
that he knew of who was not a Northern man, a foreigner, or a dyed-
in-the-wool Federalist. These "largest slaveholders," he added,
dealt mostly in New York, Philadelphia, Paris, or New Orleans, and
spent considerable portions of the year out of the South, trading or
trafficking or making money negotiations with the North by the force
of which they kept up opposition to the Southern defenses and
drowned the true Southern feeling.2
In the struggle in Mississippi over the compromise before its passage
by Congress, much of the contest was waged over the course of Foote,
since he was the only member of Congress from Mississippi who sup
ported that measure. Before the Nashville convention, the oppo
nents of the compromise, through the Democratic press and public
meetings, began to repudiate Foote because of bis action in regard to
the compromise and to call upon him to resign.8 After that conven
tion they became insistent on Foote's either seeking to carry out the
resolutions of that body or resigning.4 They declared that he grossly
misrepresented the feelings and opinions of a large majority of his
constituents in advocating the report of the committee of thirteen
and should in accordance both with honesty and with his previously
expressed opinions on that subject resign.6 The Canton Madisonian
suggested that the dispute in the Senate between Davis and Foote
as to which most correctly represented Southern sentiment on the
compromise bill could be very easily determined, if the seats of both
8 Mississippi Free Trader, September 18, 1850.
3 Quotation from the Mississippian in the Mississippi Free Trader, June 22,
1850. 4 Resolutions of a meeting in De Soto county, August 5, 1850, Ibid., September
4, 1850.
6 Resolutions of a Public Meeting of the Democracy of Leake county, Yazoo
Democrat, August 29, 1850; quotation from the Yazoo Democrat in the Mississippi
Free Trader, June 19, 1850.
The Mississippi Free Trader, of June 19, 1850, asserted: "We would respect
fully call Mr. Foote's attention to a convention which took place in the city of
Jackson, wherein the gentleman addressing him stated, 'Your democracy, sir, is
doubted:' the reply was, 'When I fail to discharge that duty and am informed of
the fact by six democrats, I will resign.' If we mistake not, there are six to one
voters of this state who would sign that call for his withdrawal from the Senate,
sooner than sustain the proposed compromise."

150 Mississippi Historical Society.
gentlemen were vacated and an election held to fill them; and pro
phesied that one of them would be most triumphantly reelected and
that the other would be sustained by none of his own party and by
only a small portion of the Whigs.6
But since there was no likelihood of Foote's complying with the
requests for his resignation, many opposed to the compromise con
fined themselves to censuring his course on that measure7 or commend
ing Davis and the representatives from Mississippi for their devotion
and energy in seeking to maintain the rights of the South and ignoring
the course of Foote.8
In the meantime, the Whigs very naturally rallied to the defense
of Foote, and through the press and resolutions of public meetings
approved his course and thanked him for his "unwavering firmness,
his untiring perseverance, his able and eminent services, and his
patriotic efforts in the cause alike of the South and of the Union."9
The Mississippi Free Trader welcomed with satisfaction this adop
tion of Foote by the Whigs. It exclaimed:
This parrotty quibbler, endless explainer and talker is getting into his true
company at last — the party of the "Whig free-soldiers"  Whenever
the unprincipled desert the ranks of the Democracy, they are taken into the
holy keeping of all-the-decency as jewels. We surrender to the Whig free-soilers
Benton, Houston, Bob Walker, Gwin, and Foote. They will truly represent the
principles of that party. Spoils ! — Spoils ! — Spoils !10
But the attitude of the people of Mississippi towards Foote is im
portant only as an evidence of their attitude toward the compromise,
and this they did not hesitate to show in other ways than in censure
or approval of the course of Foote. The favorite method of securing
an expression of popular opinion was through public meetings in the
different counties. At this time, such assemblies of those opposed to
the compromise took the form of non-partisan meetings called to
ratify the proceedings of the Nashville convention. The Democratic
8 Quoted from the Canton Madisonian in the Mississippi Free Trader, July 27,
1850. 7 Meeting of both political parties in Attala county, August 17, Ibid., September
4, 1850; Public meeting in Adams county of those opposed^to the compromise,
September 9, 1850, Ibid., September 11, 1850.
8 Meeting in Copiah county, August 19, 1850, Ibid, September 4, 1850; Public
meeting in Jasper county, July 15, 1850, Ibid., August 14, 1850.
"Rally for the Union, Natchez, September 23, Natchez Semi-weekly Courier,
September 24, 1850.
10 Mississippi Free Trader, August 31, 1850.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 151
press was very careful to call attention to the attendance of these
meetings by members of both political parties and even Whig papers
admitted the presence of Whigs in them, in censuring the course of
such members of the party.11 However, it is perfectly clear that the
majority in each meetmg was Democratic.
Carrying out one object for which they were called, these meetings
ratified and adopted the resolutions and address of the Nashville
convention.12 But the opponents of the compromise in Mississippi,
understanding clearly that the immediate purpose of the endeavor
to unite the South on the Nashville platform was to defeat the com
promise measure in Congress, did not stop, in the meetings, with the
ratification of the proceedings of the Nashville convention, but added
thereto statements of opposition to the compromise.
In some instances these expressions of opposition to the compromise
were both concise and sweeping. The citizens of De Soto county
contented themselves with declaring: "That the bill, as reported by
the committee of thirteen, is in direct violation of Southern rights

11 Public Meeting in De Soto county, August 5, 1850. Mississippi Free Trader,
September 4, 1850. The Hernando True Whig says: "Amongst the actors in this
meeting, we recognize prominent Whigs, for whom we entertain a high opinion
and regret to differ with them."
Public Meetmg in Attala county, August 17, 1850, Ibid. The Mississippi
Free Trader declares: "Among the officers of the occasion, the two political par
ties were pretty nearly equal."
Public Meeting in Yalobusha county, August 17, 1850, Ibid. The Free Trader
says that this meeting "was composed of all parties, and the unanimity, among
at least four hundred Southerners, was truly remarkable."
Public Meeting in Hinds county, held the first week in September, Yazoo Demo
crat, October 3, 1850. According to the Free Trader, this was the largest meeting
ever held in that county. Those taking part in it asserted in the preamble to the
resolutions adopted : " We come into this meeting, not as Whigs, not as Democrats,
but as Southern men. We know no party on the vital question of Southern rights,
and we will permit no party or faction or leader of either to absolve us from our
just allegiance to our State and the South. We unite here as a band of brothers
at the common altar of our country. We are threatened with common dangers
and bound to one common duty, and one destiny awaits us all. We are resolved
to make a common cause in defense of the institutions, the rights, liberties and inde
pendence guaranteed to us by the constitution of our fathers."
12 Public Meeting in Jasper county, July 15, 1850, Mississippi Free Trader,
August 14, 1850; Public Meeting in De Soto county, August 5, 1850, Ibid., Sep
tember 4, 1850; Public Meeting in Attala county, August 17, 1850, Ibid., Public
Meeting in Yalobusha county, August 17, 1850, Ibid.; Public Meeting in Copiah
county, August 19, 1850, Ibid.; Public Meeting in Kemper county, August 24,1850,
Ibid., September 7, 1850; Public Meeting in Hinds county, held the first week in
September, The Yazoo Democrat, October 3, 1850; Public Meeting in Adams county
September 9, 1850, Mississippi Free Trader, September 11, 1850.

152 Mississippi Historical Society.
and all constitutional usages, and ought not to be submitted to."u
But, for the most part, the opponents of the compromise went more
into detail in objecting to that measure.
Taking the position as to sovereignty and legislative power in the
territories so generally accepted in the South by the followers of
Calhoun, they declared that any act of the general government,
whether of commission or of omission, by which the Southern people
would be shut out from as free and full enjoyment of the territories
as the Northern, would be a gross violation of the rights of the
South. With regard to the admission of California, they varied somewhat
in their expressions of opinion. All agreed that the admission of
California with the boundaries defined in its constitution would be
inexpedient, improper, and unjust to the Southern states.14 But
some went farther and declared that such an act would be a violation
of the constitution and equivalent to the passage of the Wilmot pro
viso,16 and the citizens of Hinds county added that the South should
never submit to it, for it would be, in the language of the Mississippi
convention and of the legislature, "such a breach of the Federal
compact as in that event will make it their duty as it is the right of
the slaveholding states to take care of their own safety, and to treat
the non-slaveholding states as enemies to the slaveholding states
and their domestic institution."16
In regard to other provisions in the compromise, the abolition of
the slave trade in the District of Columbia was held to be an assump
tion of authority by Congress to legislate adverse to slavery17 and
declared to be inexpedient and insulting to the South.18 But the
Texas boundary bill aroused much greater opposition. The title of
Texas to the boundaries fixed by her laws was upheld,19 and the inter-
18 Public Meeting in De Soto county, August 5, 1850, Mississippi Free Trader,
September 4, 1850.
"Public Meeting in Copiah county, August 19, 1850, Ibid., September 4,
1850; Public Meeting in Jasper county, July 15, 1850, Ibid., August 14, 1850.
u Public Meeting in Adams county, September 9, 1850, Ibid., September 11,
1850; Public Meeting in Hinds county, Yazoo Democrat, October 3, 1850.
18 Public Meeting in Hinds county, Yazoo Democrat, October 3, 1850.
17 Public Meeting in Adams county, September 9, 1850, Mississippi Free Trader,
September n, 1850.
18 Public Meeting in Jasper county, July 15, 1850, Ibid., August 14, 1850.
" Ibid.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 153
est of Mississippi and the other Southern states in sustaining her
claims, even to the extent of taking up arms in support of them,
asserted.20 Although it is true, no doubt, that a majority of the people of Mis
sissippi approved of these expressions of opposition to the compromise;
yet there was an ever increasing minority that believed that the
compromise measures were the best that the South could secure and
that it was unwise to oppose them. These rallied to the support of
the compromise and sought to convince the citizens of the state of
the wisdom of accepting it. The resolutions passed September 23,
just after the last of the compromise measures became a law, by the
"Rally for the Union" in Natchez, a stronghold of Whig influence in
the state, may be taken as typical of the declarations of those in favor
of the compromise. In accordance with the purpose of the meeting
as stated in the call, those taking part declared their attachment to
the Union, their approval of the compromise measures, and their
opposition to the platform of the Nashville convention, and endorsed
the course of Foote and others who supported the compromise.21
In these resolutions on the compromise, they asserted that they
recognized in that measure the observance of principles maintained
and relied on by the South for the protection of her interests; that it
rejected and put to rest the odious Wilmot proviso, and left the terri
tories open equally to the immigration and enjoyment of citizens
from all sections of the Union, with their property of every species
guaranteed by the constitution; that it furnished the most stringent
and ample remedy for the recovery of fugitive slaves; and that it
recognized in the people of the territory, without regard to its locality,
the right in organizing themselves into a state, to settle the question
of slavery for themselves in their own organic law. Not being able
to find anything to commend, however, in the measure admitting
California, they contented themselves with acquiescing in it as a ques
tion subject solely to the discretion of Congress.
In dissenting from the recommendations of the Nashville conven
tion, they declared that their right of immigration, with slave prop-

so Public Meeting in Adams county, September 9, 1850, Mississippi Free. Trader,
September 11, 1850; Public Meeting in Hinds county, the Yazoo Democrat, October
' a Rally for the Union, September 23, 1850, Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, Sep
tember 24, 1850.

154 Mississippi Historical Society.
erty, to the territories of the United States, did not depend upon
Congressional permission, nor could it be wrested from them constitu
tionally by Congressional authority; but that the Nashville platform
substantially surrendered to Congress the right of unlimited legisla
tion over slave property in the territories, and placed "it at the dis
cretion of the majority in that body — thereby cutting off all grounds
for conciliation, harmony and adjustment, and presenting as the
only alternative, Disunion, with all its horrors and calamities."
They added, as an argument in favor of the compromise, that in that
settlement, the claim by the North to such power of unlimited legisla
tion by Congress had been abandoned by both houses, not merely
with regard to territory on both sides of the line 360 30' but also with
regard to the territory that, at the time of the annexation of Texas,
was placed within the reach of such prohibatory enactment.
Finally they extended the thanks of the meeting not only to Foote,
but also to Clay, Cass, Dickinson, Webster, and the other distinguished
members of Congress, who, abandoning all party, sectional, and per
sonal considerations, had united in patriotic endeavors to settle a
most threatening and dangerous controversy, and thereby cement
the more closely and permanently the bonds of the glorious Union.22
In this struggle in Mississippi to form public opinion with refer
ence to the compromise and, if possible, influence Congress in regard
to the passage of that measure, the supporters of the compro
mise freely charged the opponents with cherishing and seeking to
propagate disunion sentiments and endeavored to fix on them the
name "disunionists." The opponents of the compromise, however,
insisted they were not disunionists. They declared that there
were certain rights that the South could not give up even for the sake
22 Rally for the Union, Natchez, September 23, 1850, Natchez Semi-weekly Cour
ier, September 24, 1850. The Mississippi Free Trader printed tie resolutions of
this meeting in its issue of September 25, and added as its comment on them: "Re
solved, that we consider the whole batch of the foregoing resolutions as the contempt
ible spawn of Southern submissionism, unworthy of citizens of the State of Missis
sippi; and which should be and doubtless will be repudiated by nineteen-twentieths
of the people of the State."
That these resolutions were regarded as an important expression of the views
of the supporters of the compromise is shown by the fact that they were answered
by no less a person than Jefferson Davis. In an open letter, dated November 10,
and published in the Free Trader, November 30, 1850, Davis defended his course
on the compromise and pointed out what he considered the fallacies in the reso
lutions.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 155
of preserving the Union and that they, in working to prevent the
passage of the compromise and to secure these rights, were working
to save the Union; and charged the supporters of the compromise
with being the real disunionists, because they were contributing to
the bringing about of conditions to which the South would find it
impossible to submit.
While many of the opponents of the compromise took the position
that the South ought not to submit to the compromise measures if
they were passed, they were very guarded in their suggestions as to
what should be done. This was no doubt due to the difficulty of
formulating a plan of resistance that could not be charged with dis
union tendencies and the knowledge, on the part of the leaders, that
the giving of grounds for such a charge would alienate many who were
unwilling to acccept the compromise, but who were not ready to go
to the extent of endangering the Union to defeat it.
But, on the passage of the compromise measures, the excitement
became so intense that it was no longer possible to restrain the ex
pressions of disunion sentiments. While the roar of cannon gave
expression to the joy of the "submissionists" of Natchez and other
cities of the South and North over that event, the Mississippi Free
Trader threw aside all hesitation and concealment and recommended
state secession as a constitutional, peaceful, and safe remedy. It
exclaimed: We see but two ways, secession or submission. Let our people determine. . .
Let our Legislature at once recall our Senators and Representatives, and call a
State Convention and let the issue be presented fairly to the people — Secession or
Submission. Let us keep the peace amongst ourselves; argue the matter in each
county; and then the voice of the people will decide.28
Although the opponents of the compromise in Mississippi had been
very cautious in expressing their views as to the course the Southern
states should pursue if the compromise were adopted, they had not
failed to give careful consideration to that question. John. A. Quit
man, as governor of the state and an earnest advocate of the poficy
of active resistance to the compromise, naturally became the center
of the opposition to that measure and his correspondence and public
papers reveal something of the desires and plans of those who favored
resisting the compromise.
28 Mississippi Free Trader, September 25, 1850.

156 Mississippi Historical Society.
A letter, dated September 19, from General Felix Huston to him
shows that, at the time of the passage of the compromise, others
than the editor of the Free Trader had come to the conclusion that
secession or submission to that measure was the only alternative
before the people of Mississippi; and, furthermore, clearly indicates
that there must have been an understanding, among the leading
men in Mississippi in favor of resisting the compromise, that the
public expression, at that time, of an opinion in favor of secession
would be unwise. Huston urged upon Quitman the policy of separate
state secession and declared that they would be defeated if they
called a general Southern convention. He wrote:
Let Georgia or Mississippi take the lead and secede, and that brings the neces
sity of the general government using force — and gradually other states will join.
 If the Legislature is called together as no doubt you will do — the
course I would suggest would be for them to pass decided resolutions and call a
state convention — No time ought to be lost. . . . Now my dear Gen'l. is the
time for decision and nerve and we must not be discouraged by opposition.24
But influence was being brought to bear on Quitman against sepa
rate state secession and in favor of united action by all the slaveholding
states. On the same day that Huston addressed to Quitman his
letter favoring separate secession, Senator Barnwell, of South Caro
lina, also wrote to Quitman outlining a course of cooperative action
and urging it upon him. This letter is of great interest and impor
tance because it came from Washington, from one of that group of
Southern senators that had united in opposing the admission of Cali
fornia and in protesting against the California bill after its passage,
and because so many of its suggestions were accepted by Quitman.
The opponents of the compromise in Washington, Barnwell wrote,
were utterly prostrate and looked homeward for further opposition to
to that measure. He turned to the reassembling of the Nashville
convention as the first moment at which the South could unite and
declared that that meeting should take place in Georgia, that its pro
ceedings should be able and firm, and that the resolutions and address
should come from Mississippi or Georgia. But he warned Quitman
that the delegates sent before by those states would not suit the occa
sion or draw the proper kind of papers, and expressed himself as "ex-
24 Letter of Huston to Quitman, Natchez, September 19, 1850, Claiborne Papers,
State Archives, Jackson, Mississippi.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850— Hearon. 157
tremely anxious' ' that Mississippi should draw them. Then, doubt
less to influence the formulation of those documents, Barnwell stated
his own views as to the issues the South should make up. He
thought that the slaveholding states should hold a congress, to which
should be submitted the question of seceding or demanding guar
antees; that, until the assembling of that congress, non-intercourse,
political as well as commercial, might be recommended; and that
some center of political opinion other than the federal government
should be created for the slaveholding people.
If the five states of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida,
and Mississippi should assemble in this congress, Barnwell believed
that their objects would be accomplished, but he did not think that
the friends of Southern rights in Georgia would be able to carry their
convention for decisive measures. He deemed it inexpedient for
South Carolina to move alone, but if any state would give assurance
of sustaining her, he was for South Carolina's seceding and thus
forcing a congress. However, he concluded they would first counsel
together in Nashville.26
Letters from other public men of South Carolina show the reliance
of the leaders of that state on the cooperation of Mississippi with
South Carolina in resisting the compromise. Governor Seabrook
wrote to Quitman to advise him that Georgia would shortly be sum
moned by her executive to meet in convention and to ask whether
Mississippi was prepared to assemble her legislature, or adopt any
other scheme to second that commonwealth in her noble effort to
preserve unimpaired the Union of '87, and, also, to assure Quitman
that South Carolina, though moving cautiously for satisfactory rea
sons, was prepared to support any movement for resistance made by
two other states.26
Influenced by these and hundreds of other letters he received from
all portions of Mississippi and from other states,27 and by an un
wavering conviction that it was both the right and the duty of the
slaveholding states to refuse to acquiesce in the compromise, Quit-
26 Letter from R. W. Barnwell to Quitman, Washington, September 19, 1850,
Claiborne Papers, State Archives, Jackson, Mississippi.
n Letter of Governor Seabrook, of South Carolina, to Governor Quitman,
September 20, 1850, Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II,
36. "Ibid., 35-

158 Mississippi Historical Society.
man issued a proclamation calling the legislature of Mississippi to
meet in special session, November 18, 1850.28
In the proclamation, Governor Quitman based his convening the
legislature on the grounds that the people of Mississippi had repeat
edly claimed and asserted their equality of right with the other states
of the Union to the free use and enjoyment of the territory belonging
to the United States, and had frequently declared their determination,
at all hazards, to maintain those rights; and that, by the recent acts
of Congress, they, in common with the citizens of all the slavehold
ing states had been virtually excluded from their just rights in the
greater portion, if not all, of the territories acquired from Mexico;
and, in addition, that the abolition, by Congress, of the slave trade
in the District of Columbia, and other acts of the federal government,
done and threatened, left no reasonable hope that the aggressions
upon the rights of the people of the slaveholding states would cease
until, by direct or indirect means, their domestic institutions were
overthrown. Therefore, Governor Quitman asserted, he convened the legisla
ture: That the proper authorities of the state may be enabled to take into consideration
the alarming state of our public affairs, and, if possible, avert the evils which impend
over us, that the state may be placed in an attitude to assert her sovereignty, and
that the means may be provided to meet any and every emergency which may
happen.29 This proclamation, setting in motion the machinery provided by
the legislature for resisting acts of Congress designated by it as vio
lations of the constitution and dangerous to the rights of the South,
precipitated the great struggle in Mississippi over the course the
state should pursue in regard to the compromise.
88 Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 43.
29 Ibid., 43.

CHAPTER DC.
THE CALLING OF THE CONVENTION OF 1851.
The struggle in Mississippi over the policy of the state toward
the compromise of 1850, which had been precipitated by the
proclamation of Governor Quitman convening the legislature in
special session, first centered around the action of that body when
it should meet; and the object of the first campaign in that struggle
was to influence the legislature in regard to the calling of a conven
tion of the people of the state "for the assertion and defense of their
sovereign and constitutional rights."
The general position of the Democratic and the Whig parties in Mis
sissippi in the beginning of this campaign is indicated by the attitude
of the press of the two parties toward the governor's proclamation.
The Democratic press, with a few exceptions,1 approved the proc
lamation; while the Whig papers condemned the assembling of the
legislature, denied the truth of the assertions made by the governor
justifying that act, and declared that the time had not yet arrived
when the South "should follow Robert Barnwell Rhett or John An
thony Quitman in their circumgyrations in the tempest of high-
pressure Southern partisanship."2
The members of Congress from Mississippi played an important
part in this contest. Davis and the members of the House, having
consistently opposed the compromise to the very end, by every means
in their power, threw themselves into the campaign in defense of
their course and also in support of the adoption by the state of a
policy of resistance to that measure. Foote, on the other hand,

1 The Columbus Democrat condemned Quitman's proclamation and declared
that the governor had made a great blunder. _ The Grenada (Yalobusha county)
Republican stated that it had not heard of a single person's approving the procla
mation and declared that the extra session of the legislature boded no good to the
people or to the Union, which they loved and cherished. Natchez Semi-weekly
Courier, October 15, 1850.
8 Quotation from the Yazoo Whig in the Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, October
iS, 1850. 159

160 Mississippi Historical Society.
had been one of the most active and persistent supporters of the com
promise and had declared in the Senate that it would be preemi
nently disgraceful and unpardonable on the part of the South to
utter the language of resistance to such a law and that he should never
counsel resistance, but that he should be prepared to resist the re-
sisters and to denounce the secessionists. Therefore, on his return
to Mississippi, he proceeded to make an energetic fight against the
adoption by the state of a policy of resistance to the measure.
He identified himself with the party in favor of submission to the
compromise, which had already begun to form in Mississippi; and,
by bis remarkable gifts as an eloquent and plausible campaign speaker
and an aggressive and resourceful party leader, soon began to arouse
and organize, in the state, a really effective opposition to the party
of resistance. A less hardy and self confident man than Foote
would have been dismayed by the overwhelming odds confronting
him in the beginning of this struggle; for the other members of Con
gress from Mississippi, the governor of the state, a majority of the
legislature, and, finally, a majority of the party that had sent him
to the Senate and that dominated the state so completely, all were
arrayed against him. But this served only to call forth greater au
dacity and energy from Foote; and fighting for the acquiescence
of Mississippi in the compromise, the success of the party with which
he had identified himself in state and national affairs, and for his
own political existence, he began the extraordinary campaign that
was to turn what, at first, promised to be an overwhelming defeat
into a great victory.
Foote wished to open, formally, his campaign in Mississippi by a
joint debate with Quitman in the state capital, on the seventeenth
of October. Quitman, although he accepted Foote's challenge, did
not appear,3 but Foote was there prepared to give the "key note"
to his party for the contest, and to propose a definite measure on which
it could unite. He defended the compromise and charged all those
who were opposed to submitting to it with seeking the dissolu
tion of the Union as their first object;4 and as the first movement
in the campaign, he announced his determination to go over the state
8 Foote says that Quitman was suddenly taken sick, Foote, Casket of Reminis
cences, 353.
4 The Mississippian, October 25, 1850.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 161
and urge those who were opposed to resistance to assemble in Jack
son on the day that the legislature had been summoned to meet.6
Meantime, the leaders of those opposed to submission to the com
promise were forming plans to carry out their purpose and endeavor
ing to influence public opinion in favor of resistance to that measure.
Although Quitman in the proclamation convening the legislature
had not indicated any measures that he thought the legislature
ought to adopt in carrying out the purpose for which it was called,
letters from him to John J. McRae and to Governor Seabrook, of
South Carolina, shortly afterwards, show that he was carefully con
sidering what he should recommend to that body when it came to
gether. In addition, the letters and speeches of other public men,
the resolutions of public meetings, and the utterances of the press
indicate that, before the assembling of the legislature, a definite
policy was being formed and accepted by those in Mississippi in favor
of resistance to the compromise.
In a letter to McRae, September 28, 1850, Quitman declared that
it was highly important for the Southern party, both in the agitation
before the people and in the action of the legislature, to move in con
cert; otherwise it would fail, and its failure would plunge the country
into irretrievable ruin. For the purpose of securing this unity of
action, he communicated to McRae a program for the future move
ments of the party, which he asserted was still undigested and on
which he wished the full benefit of the views of all the true men of
the state, especially of those in position.
Before outiining his program, Quitman, in stating the convictions
on which it was based, definitely declared his belief in secession as
the only effectual remedy before the South. He asserted:
First, then, I believe there is no effectual remedy for the evils before us but se
cession. If any other measure short of it can be shown to promise a radical cure
of the evils I am willing to adopt it.6 '

6 Foote asserts that in carrying out this determination he made some forty
public addresses. Foote, Casket of Reminiscences, 353.
8 There is also additional evidence that Quitman had secession in view in the
plans he was forming at this time. In his letter to Governor Seabrook, of South
Carolina, of September 29, 1850, he writes: "Having no hope of an effectual rem
edy for existing and prospective evils but in separation from the Northern States,
my views of state action will look to secession." Claiborne, Life and Correspond
ence of John A. Quitman, H, 37.

162 Mississippi Historical Society.
His program he set forth to McRae as follows:
My idea is that the Legislature should call a convention of delegates elected by
the people, fully empowered to take into consideration our federal relations, and
to change or annul them, to adapt our organic law to such new relations as they
might establish, to provide for malting compacts with the other states, etc.,
etc., and that in the meanwhile an effective military system be established, and
patrol duties most rigidly enforced. My message should glance at all these meas
ures.7 But since the object of Quitman in writing to McRae was not simply
to communicate his own views, but also to devise a program that
would receive the support of "the Southern party," he asked McRae
for suggestions and advice on all the subjects included in his program
and informed him that he should ask, in like manner, the free opinion
of Davis, Thompson, Brown, Barton,8 Stewart,9 and other friends.
He also suggested that, for the purpose of securing united action,
a committee should be appointed to meet and frame a plan of opera
tions based on the suggestions that he should receive as, otherwise,
the framing of such a plan must be intrusted to his discretion. What
ever plan should be thus determined on, he urged, should be fully
sustained by every Southern man, and he pledged to it his time,
his labor, his fortune, and his life. He declared:
In the meantime, every patriot should leave no point untouched where his in
fluence can be exerted. Cheer on the faithful, strengthen the weak, disarm the
submissionists with instructions; send the fiery cross through the land, and summon
every gallant son of Mississippi to the rescue. Hold meetings and challenge the
submissionists to discussion, and agitate the question everywhere.
The letter to McRae also reveals that Quitman and his party were
keeping in close touch with the other movements in the South in
favor of resistance. He writes:
My proposed movement is not antagonistical, but in harmony with the Nash
ville Convention. I have not much confidence in its efficacy beyond presenting
7 Letter from Governor Quitman to Hon. J. J. McRae, Jackson, September 28,
1850, Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 44-45.
In his letter to Governor Seabrook of September 29, Quitman gives this same
program of the measures that he intended to recommend to the legislature. Ibid.,
37- 8 Roger Barton was a Democrat and a member of the legislature from Marshall
county. 9 T. Jones Stewart was a Whig, a state senator from Wilkinson county, a member
of the first Nashville convention, and an opponent of the compromise, and headed
the list of 318 citizens of Wilkinson county who signed a letter to Davis approving
his course on the compromise.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 163
a plan of joint action for the states We, therefore, call into exercise the state
powers to receive it. I do not believe Judge Sharkey will give notice of its reas
sembling; he is opposed to it. If that convention shall meet, our Legislature will
meet on the following week: we can then communicate daily by telegraph. At
the same time the Georgia Convention will be in session; the Legislature of South
Carolina also, and probably Alabama.
We will take care to have confidential reporters at each point.10
While plans of action were thus being formed by the leaders, the
agitation in favor of resisting the compromise even to the extent
of secession, urged by Governor Quitman, was vigorously carried on.
Through the press and public meetings the constitutional right of
secession was proclaimed11 and political theories in support of that
right were advocated. It was asserted:
That the State of Mississippi is a sovereignty, that her people owe obedience to
the general government, but that they owe allegiance to her, and that this duty of
allegiance to their state is paramount to any and all claims of obedience from any
quarter; that the condition of the Union is but a compact and covenant between
sovereign states, that the powers that made it can unmake it when they please,
have the right to withdraw from it peaceably at any time without opposition or
complaint, and in the language of Jefferson to judge of all infractions of the com
pact and of the mode and measure of redress.12
It was also asserted that provisions of the compromise were in
fractions of the constitution; that it was the duty and the right of the
slaveholding states to resist those infractions by all the means with
which they would resist any other palpable violations of the consti
tution;13 and that regard for their political equality and independence,
the preservation of their social relations and the peace and security
of their homes, required that the Southern states should call to their
10 Letter of Governor Quitman to McRae, September 28, 1850, Claiborne, Life
and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 45.
u A meeting of the citizens of Claiborne county in favor of Southern rights re
solved, "That the right of peaceable secession is an inherent and reserved right,
and affords no cause for war." Mississippi Free Trader, November 6, 1850.
The Mississippi Free Trader, October 9, 1850, declared: "If any of the Southern
States secede, we do not believe that the mere fact of peaceful secession is, of it
self, a violation of the constitutional compact, or just cause of war. Some of the
States positively reserved the right to withdraw from the Union, and the very
nature of the Confederate government implies that the members who formed the
confederacy may dissolve it."
a Southern Rights Meeting in Yazoo, October 7, 1850, Yazoo Democrat, Octo
ber 10, 1850.
The Seashore Sentinel also asserted: "No greater truth was ever uttered than
that the allegiance of a citizen is due to the State which gives him protection, and
to the Union through the State." Mississippi Free Trader, October 12, 1850.
u Southern Rights Meeting in Yazoo, October 7, 1850, Yazoo Democrat, Octo
ber 10, 1850.

164 Mississippi Historical Society.
aid their sovereignty and resume the powers delegated to the gen
eral government.14
Opponents of the compromise also urged secession not simply as
a constitutional remedy but also as a peaceable measure of redress.1*
They agreed in declaring that if the South were united on that measure
and if it had made adequate preparation for defense, separation could
be accomplished without war;16 but this they were careful to state
would not be the case unless the South were united.
The constitutionality of secession, however, was not yet held to
be beyond denial even by some of the most ardent advocates of the
state's seceding and they were not disposed to rest their arguments
in favor of the state's withdrawing from the Union as a measure of
resistance to the compromise on that doctrine alone. The editor
of the Mississippi Free Trader, a most thoroughgoing advocate of
secession, declared that, although he did not believe that the mere
fact of peaceful secession was, of itself, a violation of the constitu
tional compact, he was not disposed to rely on debatable points,
but that he considered that "the wrong perpetuated against, and
impending over the slaveholding states, would justify revolution by
armed force, if it was necessary.17
But those in favor of resorting to secession as an ultimate measure
of resistance to the compromise did not confine their arguments to
justifying the use of that remedy either as a constitutional or a revo
lutionary right. They sought to arouse in the people of Mississippi
a determination to resist the compromise by setting before them the
14 Mississippi Free Trader, October 9, 1850.
The Seashore Sentinel declared that "The slave states in order to be free, will
be forced to erect a separate republic." Mississippi Free Trader, October 12,
1850. The Southern Meeting in Marshall county, October 14, 1850, adopted unani
mously the resolution offered by Roger Barton: "that if we have to choose between
a disgraceful submission to said measures and secession from the Union, we pre
fer the latter." Yazoo Democrat, October 31, 1850.
According to the Yazoo Democrat this was "a numerous meeting" of the citi
zens of Marshall county and the call to it was " signed by many of the most respect
able citizens, without regard to old party distinctions."
16 Meeting of the citizens of Claiborne county, Mississippi Free Trader, No
vember 6, 1850, Supra Mississippi Free Trader, October 9, 1850, Supra.
16 Letter of Jefferson Davis to Messrs. B. D. Nabors, Chas. B. Ames, C. F. Hem-
mingway, W. D. Lyle, C. R. Crusoe, Gen. H. Foote, W. Brooke, Jas. E. Sharkey,
and A. M. West, November 19, 1850, Ibid., November 30, 1850.
17 Ibid., October 9, 1850.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 165
results of submission and the advantages of secession. They pro
claimed that the inevitable result of submission to the compromise
would be the abolition of slavery and the consequent desolation of
the South by the extermination of the white race or the indiscrimi
nate butchery of the slaves. 18
In proof of this, they pointed out that the admission of California,
by destroying the balance of power between the free and the slave
states, gave the North power to control the admission of new states,
and that it was simply a question of a few years before the non-
slaveholding states would be in a sufficient majority to abolish slavery
by an amendment to the constitution. Then, even if the North
did not exercise its power and abolish slavery, they declared, the
very fact that it possessed it would produce the same result. For
the border states would sell their slaves and abolish slavery; the slaves
would be crowded into the extreme Southern states; and having no
room for expansion and looking to the North for encouragement
and support, they would be likely to rise in an insurrection that would
lead to the extermination of one of the races of the South.
In addition, they urged in favor of secession in resistance to the
compromise that, by the separation of the slave states from the free
states, the pretext of the abolitionists that the North by its connec
tion with the South was implicated in the sin of slavery would be
destroyed and, also, that the abolitionists could be restrained from
all interference with slavery in the Southern states by the law of na
tions. Furthermore, although they admitted that there was no
certainty of the border states uniting with the other states in seces
sion, they pointed out that their doing so would be still more uncer
tain in a few years, for the causes that would influence them at that
time to act with the South operated more forcibly then than they
would in the future.19
But not all those opposed to the compromise were in favor of re
sorting to secession in opposition to it even as a last resort. Some
of the Democratic papers, in opposing the agitation in favor of that
measure, reveal a cleavage, in the ranks of the opponents of the com

18 Mississippi Free Trader, October 5, 1850; Yazoo Democrat, November 6,
1850. w Mississippi Free Trader, October 5, 1850.

166 Mississippi Historical Society.
promise, on that question, in the very beginning.20 The Kosciusko
Chronicle based its opposition to secession on the ground that it would
not accomplish the results the South sought. It asserted:
We cannot believe our rights will be as much respected under a separate politi
cal existence as they have been under the Federal Constitution. In an event like
the one under consideration, the vast boundary line separating us from foreign free
states would prove most disasterous to the safety of slaveholders. The South
would be literally hemmed in with free states, and a population on all sides opposed
to our institutions. There would then be no restraining influence, no check to
their depredations; those who now acknowledge our rights, and endeavor to protect
them and our property, would at once cease their exertions, and leave our exposed
frontiers abandoned to the wholesale depredations of lawless fanaticism. Ab
stractly considered, secession would perhaps be but an act of justice, but its policy
must be ruinous in all its consequences, and therefore to be carried into effect only
as a dernier resort.21

20 The Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, October 22, 1850, in a discussion of the
position of the Mississippi press on disunion, also shows this cleavage in the be
ginning. It says: "The enquiry is often made of us, 'How stands the press upon
the Union and disunion question?' It is no easy matter to tell exactly, because
many papers shun the direct issue. Many talk largely about continued agitation,
who would spurn the idea of being classed for disunion. This generally arises
from an unwillingness to abandon and condemn a Governor and Congressional
delegation, to whom they feel the strong attachment of party ties. They, there
fore, go as far as they can in following their lead, and when they come to the dis
union doctrine, they prefer to stop and be silent. Hence arises the difficulty of
correct classification.
"We can count up about forty-six political journals in the State. Of these, we
exchange with all but two or three. There are, besides four neutral papers, not
one of which we believe has the slightest affinity to disunionism. The political
press we classify as follows:
Whig, and for the Union  22
Democratic, and for the Union  7
Democratic, and avowedly disunion  5
Democratic, and strongly agitationist  9
Democratic, and favoring Governor's proclamation, but opposed to dis
union as a present remedy  2
Unknown  1
"There is one remarkable thing too about this. Every one of the five avowed
ly disunion presses is published, it is believed, in a community decidedly opposed
to the pernicious doctrine they inculcate."
21 Quotation from the Kosciusko Chronicle, Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, Octo
ber 18, 1850.
The Democrat of Carroll county was, also, opposed to disunion and declared
that in a recent meeting held in Carroll county it did not believe "that there was
a man in the house who believed that the measures passed by Congress afford
sufficient grounds for a dissolution of the Union." Natchez Semi-weekly Courier,
October 15, 1850.
The Columbus Republican assured its readers that of one thing they might rest
assured, "the people of Lowndes county, in spite of infinite shades of opinion re
specting the late adjustment, are for the Union yet awhile, and do not regard the
late bills as sufficient cause for dissolution." Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, No
vember 8, 1850.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 167
But even those most actively engaged in the agitation in favor of.
secession as a final resort in resisting the compromise denied that
they were working to break up the Union. The Mississippian
asserted, in its reply to the charges against the Democratic party in
Mississippi made by Foote in his speech in Jackson on October 17:
We are not seeking to dissolve the Union. Our great object is to preserve the
Union, by demanding our rights under the constitution, and it is only in the event
that we are driven to secession by the failure of all modes of redress that such an
event can possibly take place.22
The Yazoo Democrat, also, claimed that "the Southern Rights
party" was "the conservative party." It declared:
The Southern Rights men see the danger and believe that it will and ought to
cause a dissolution of the Union, and alarmed for its safety, call upon lovers of the
Union to band together and if possible come to its rescue by adopting some effec
tual mode of saving it.23
The leaders who advocated secession as a final resort in opposing
the compromise also defended themselves and their followers from
the charge of favoring a dissolution of the Union. Jefferson Davis
asserted that a most unfair attempt had been made to put in the
foreground the question of union or disunion, by those who were
violating or surrendering the constitutional rights to the South. He
declared: To yield to aggression is to produce, certainly in the future, that condition from
which dissolution must, and civil war probably will spring; unless it be assumed,
that the Southern minority will hereafter consent to occupy such position towards
the Northern majority as the colonies of North America, on the 4th of July, 1776,
determined not to hold towards the Kingdom of Great Britain  To
preserve the Union, the principles, the spirit of the constitution must be preserved.
I do not think the North has given us reason to expect this service from that quarter;
22 Quoted from the Mississippian, October 25, 1850, in the Mississippi Free
Trader, October 30, 1850.
23 Yazoo Democrat, November 20, 1850.
In defending the leaders of the Southern Rights party from the charge of being
"disunionists," the Yazoo Democrat declared that "these shameless calumniators
dare an immorality of infamy" by denouncing as disunionists and disorganizers
such patriots as Quitman, Wilkinson, Davis, Guion, Tompkins, and a host of
others, for their bold advocacy of Southern Rights; and added: "The clear expo
sition which Col. Davis made of his position, when in Yazoo, pleased and met
the approbation of all parties, a few individuals only excepted; he was regarded
as laying down a platform upon which the whole South could unite. His posi
tion and that of the party acting with him was altogether conservative. His ob
ject was to anticipate the danger and prevent it, and not sit quietly by and await
the evil and then dissolve the Union."

i68 • Mississippi Historical Society.
how shall the South effect it? This, to my mind, is the question to which we
should direct our investigation.
Whatever can effect that end will give perpetuity to the Union; if it cannot be
reached, the government changes its character; there might remain an Union,
but not the Union.24
But A. G. Brown, as he was most outspoken in favor of resorting
to secession as a final measure of resistance to the compromise, was
also most emphatic in defending himself against the charge of being a
disunionist. In his speech at Ellwood Springs, November 2, 1850,
he made a strong defense of himself against that charge in staunchly
maintaining the necessity of resisting the compromise to preserve
the Union. He said:
Let me say to you, in all sincerity, fellow citizens, that I am no disunionist.
If I know my own heart, I am more concerned about the means of preserving the
Union than I am about the means of destroying it. The danger is not that we
shall dissolve the Union, by bold and manly vindication of _ our rights, but rather
that we shall, in abandoning our rights, abandon the Union also. So help me
God, I believe the submissionists are the very worst enemies of the Union. There
is certainly some point beyond which the most abject will refuse to submit. If
we yield now how long do you suppose it will be before we shall be called upon to
submit again? And does not every human experience admonish us that the more
we yield, the greater will become the exaction of the aggressors 
The best friend of the Union is he who stands boldly up and demands equal
justice for every state and for all sections. If I have demanded more than this
convince me, and I will withdraw the demand.
This justice was denied us in the adjustment bills  But we
are not to infer the fault was either in the Union or in the constitution 
Every thinking, reasoning man knows that in the war upon slavery, the consti
tution and the Union have been diverted from their original purpose. Instead
of being shields against lawless tyranny, they have been made engines of oppres
sion to the South. And am I, a Southern citizen, to be deterred from saying so
by this senseless cry of disunion  I will demand my rights and the
rights of my section, be the consequences what they may. It is the inperative
duty of every good citizen to maintain and defend the Constitution and the Union
and this can only be done by demanding and enforcing justice. Let us make the
demand and let us enforce it, and let the consequences rest on the heads of those
who violate the Constitution and subvert the Union in the war upon justice, equality
and right.
We are told that our difficulties are at an end; that, unjust as we all know the
late action of Congress to have been, it is better to submit, and especially, is it better,
since this is to be the end of the slavery agitation  I might be
willing to submit if this was to be the end of our troubles. But I know it is not to
be the end. I know it has not been the end thus far  Listen to the
notes of preparation everywhere in the Northern States, and tell me if men do
not wilfully deceive you when they say that the slavery agitation is over. I tell
you fellow citizens, it is not all over. It never will be over so long as you continue
24 Letter of Jefferson Davis in response to a letter of inquiry addressed to him
by B. D. Nabors, Chas. B. Ames, C. F. Hemmingway, W. D. Lyle, C. R. Crusoe,
H. Foote, W. Brooke, Jas. E. Sharkey, A. M. West, Jackson, Mississippi, No
vember 19, 1850. Mississippi Free Trader, November 30, 1850.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850— Hearon. 169
to recede before the pressure of Northern power. You cannot secure your rights;
you cannot save the Union or the constitution, by following the trivial counsels of
the submissionists. Pursue these counsels, and they will lead to a sacrifice of all
that we hold dear— of life, liberty, property, and the Union itself. By a submis
sion you may secure, not a Union, but a connection with the North. It will be
such a connection as exists between Ireland and England, Poland and Russia,
Hungary and Austria. It will not, it can not be the Union of our fathers— it can
not be a Union of equals.25
During the agitation in favor of resistance to the compromise,
those opposed to that measure continued the formation of plans for
carrying that policy into effect. The people in public meetings rec
ommended that the legislature should call a convention of the state
to determine the mode and measures of redress26 and instructed their
representatives in the legislature to vote for such a measure;27 while
the leaders formulated and advocated the demands that should be
made by that convention and the measures of redress that it should
recommend. A. G. Brown, as would be expected, boldly advocated a definite
and clear cut program of resistance. In his speech at Ellwood Springs,
after expressing the hope that the legislature would call a convention
through which the sovereign will of the state could be spoken and that
such movement in Mississippi would be responded to in most, if not
all, the Southern states, Brown proceeded to set forth with the ut
most freedom his opinion as to the course Mississippi and the other
Southern states should pursue.28 He said:
We should demand a restoration of the laws of Texas in haec verba over the
country which has been taken from her and added to New Mexico. In other words,
we should demand the clear and undisputed right to carry our slave property to
that country, and have it protected and secured to us after we get it there; and
we should demand a continuation of this right and of this security and protection.
We should demand the same right to go into all the territories with our slave
property, that citizens of the free states have to go with any species of property,
85 Speech of A. G. Brown at Ellwood Springs, near Port Gibson, Mississippi,
November 2, 1850. Cluskey, Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon.
Albert G. Brown, 256-258.
28 Southern Rights Meeting in Yazoo, October 7, 1850, Yazoo Democrat, Octo
ber 10, 1850; Southern Meeting in Marshall county, October 14, 1850, Yazoo
Democrat, October 31, 1850; Meeting in Claiborne county, Mississippi Free Trader,
November 6, 1850.
27 Southern Meeting in Marshall county, October 14, 1850, Yazoo Democrat,
October 31, 1850.
28 Brown was careful to say that he spoke for himself alone and that no man or
party was in any way responsible for what he said. Cluskey, Speeches, Messages,
and Other Writings of the Hon. A. G. Brown, 259.

170 Mississippi Historical Society.
and we should demand for our property the same protection that is given to the
property of our Northern brethren. No more, nor less.
We should demand that Congress abstain from all interference with slavery in
the territories, in the District of Columbia, in the states, on the high seas, or any
where else, except to give it protection, and this protection should be the same
that is given to other property.
We should demand a continuation of the present fugitive slave law or some
other law which should be effective in carrying out the mandate of the constitu
tion for the delivery of fugitive slaves.
We should demand that no state be denied admission into the Union because
her constitution tolerated slavery.
In all this we should ask nothing but meagre justice; and a refusal to grant such
reasonable demands would show a fixed and settled purpose in the North to op
press and finally destroy the Southern States If the demands here set forth,
and such others as would most effectually secure the South against further distur
bance, should be denied, and that denial should be manifested by any act of the
Federal Government, we ought forthwith to dissolve all political connection with
the Northern States.29
Davis, ever more cautious and reserved in expressing his opinions
than Brown, contented himself with more general recommendations.
He proposed that the legislature should submit to the people the
question of assembling a convention of the state to consider the
existing conditions and future prospects and to decide on the meas
ures that should be adopted; to prepare for the defense of the state,
armed if need be; and to propose a convention of the slaveholding
states, to be composed of formally elected delegates, to unite all those
states who were willing to assert their equality with the other states of
the Union and their right to an equal enjoyment of the common prop
erty and to equal protection in that enjoyment. The states united
in this convention should, in his opinion, demand of the other states
such guarantees as would secure to them the safety, the benefits,
and the tranquillity that the Union was designed to confer. If these
demands were granted, the minority could live in equality under the
temple of the federal compact; but if they were refused, it would be
conclusive evidence of the design of the majority, to crush all paper
barriers beneath the heel of power, and the gulf of degradation would
yawn before the minority. If the alternative of slavish submission
or manly resistance was thus presented to the South, Davis declared
that he should be in favor of the latter. Then if full provision had
been made, in the preparation of arms, of munitions of war, of manu
facturing establishments, and all the varieties of agriculture to which

29 Speech of A. G Brown at Ellwood Springs, November 2, 1850, Cluskey,
Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon. Albert G. Brown, 259-260.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850— Hearon. 1 7 1
their climate and soil were adapted, he asserted that the slaveholding
states, or even the planting states, might apply the last remedy,— the
final alternative of separation, without bloodshed or severe shock to
commercial interests.30
While those opposed to submitting to the compromise were thus
seekmg to arouse the state against that measure, those in favor of
submission were working with equal ardor to prevent the state's
adopting any policy of resistance. Although the Port Gibson Herald
asserted, with seeming confidence: "That the legislature will be
prepared to sustain the Governor, we cannot for a moment believe
and the probability is, that they will assemble, receive the message
and adjourn sine die,"31 the "submissionists" really felt no such
confidence. For the legislature had been elected in the fall of 1849,
when the South was deeply moved over the anti-slavery sentiment
manifested in the North in behalf of the passage of the Wilmot pro
viso and the abolition of slavery and the slave trade in the District
of Columbia; and its members were, for the most part, men of ex
treme Southern views, who might be counted on as strongly in favor
of resisting the compromise. Therefore, the "submissionists" strove
to arouse public sentiment against resistance to the compromise so
as to bring pressure to bear on the legislature to prevent its taking
any action to further that policy.
They actively supported Foote in canvassing the state to insure
the success of the mass meeting of the friends of the Union from
every part of the state called by him, in the opening speech of his
campaign, to meet in Jackson, on the day of the assembling of the
legislature. In addition, through speeches, public meetings, the
press, and every other available means, they sought to influence
popular sentiment in Mississippi in favor of their views.
Judge SKarkey, whose influence was great because of the conspic
uous part he had played in the Southern movement, lent effective
support to this campaign in favor of submission to the compromise.
80 Letter of Davis in response to a letter addressed to him by B. D. Nabors,
Chas. B. Ames, C. F. Hemmingway, W. D. Lyle, C. R. Crusoe, Gen. H. Foote,
W. Brooke, Jas. E. Sharkey, A. M. West, Jackson, Mississippi, November 19,
1850, Mississippi Free Trader, November 30, 1850; Speech of Davis at Benton in
Yazoo county, Yazoo Democrat, November 6, 1850.
31 Quotation from the Port Gibson Herald, Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, Octo
ber 15, 1850

172 Mississippi Historical Society.
His part was to demonstrate that the purpose of the Southern move
ment was accompUshed in the compromise and that the party in
favor of resisting that measure was going far beyond the demands of
Mississippi as formulated by the October convention and the legis
lature and, also, the demands of the South as expressed by the
Nashville convention.
In sustaining this position, in a speech before a Union meetmg in
Vicksburg, October 8, 1850, Judge Sharkey advanced many of the
arguments that were to be used with the most effect by those in favor
of submission to the compromise. The object of the October con
vention in Mississippi, he declared, was to protect the constitutional
rights of the people of the state and to preserve the Union unimpaired
by preserving the constitution inviolate. He asserted:
We desired to concentrate public opinion and to act in advance of the meeting
of Congress, so that by the moral force of our movement, extreme action by that
body might be prevented. We did not meditate anything but preventive meas
ures, except upon the contingency that we should be forced to take an extreme
stand  We did not wish to endanger the Union, and therefore hoped
that violent measures might not be forced upon us.
In proof of this, he referred his hearers to the address which pre
ceded the meeting of the convention, the resolutions adopted by
that body, and the address prepared by the committee appointed
by the convention for that purpose, — all of which, he declared,
breathed a spirit of devotion to the Union.
The convention, according to Sharkey, expressly declared a de
termination to keep within the pale of the constitution; and, having
so declared, enumerated, as the acts to which it would not submit,
the passage by Congress of a law abolishing slavery in the District
of Columbia, prohibiting the slave trade between the several states,
or prohibiting the introduction of slavery into the territories of the
United States. But it refused to say that it would regard the action
of Congress on a mere question of expediency, confessedly within
its power, as a ground of resistance. Furthermore, the legislature,
also, refused to go beyond the demands of the October convention
and declare that the admission of California would be a breach of
the constitution and pledge forcible resistance to it.
Therefore, Sharkey held that, in the measures of the compromise,
Congress had respected the demands of Mississippi. He, also, thought
that the action of Congress and the speeches made in that body in-

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850— Hearon. 173
cheated an abatement of the desire, which had been so generally ex
hibited in the North, to press offensive measures upon the South.
The resolutions of the Nashville convention, he held, did not go
further than those of the Mississippi convention, and perhaps not so
far. Resistance was not spoken of or alluded to in them, except in
one contingency, that was, if Congress should discriminate against
the right to take slaves into the territories; and it was fair to infer
that nothing else was thought worthy of resistance. The eleventh
resolution, he admitted, took a wider range than was taken by the
October convention, and proposed a readiness to acquiesce in the
Missouri compromise line extended to the Pacific. Although this
was generally construed as laying down an ultimatum, he could
not believe it was so regarded by the convention. He did not so re
gard it and was satisfied that many others did not; and, as such, he
did not believe it would have received the vote of the convention.
For he and others regarded the admission of California as a mere
question for Congress to determine and they would, therefore, have
been unwilling to commit themselves to that line as an ultimatum.
Even the address, he declared, did not hold the position that the ad
mission of California would violate the constitution. In his oppo
sition to it in the convention, he had taken the ground that it did so
in argument, at least, and that he could not approve it for that
reason, amongst others; but he had been stopped by the gentleman
who had introduced it and told that that was an unwarranted as
sumption. In concluding this speech, Sharkey advanced the arguments that
were really to decide a majority of the people of Mississippi against
resistance to the compromise. He said:
Now, the question is, what is to be done. Shall we submit or secede from the
Union? There is no middle ground that I can see in the present attitude of affairs
— If there were, I might be content to take it, but I see none. We must take our
stand on the one side or the other. To resist, is to dismember the Union, for there
is no law on the disputed subjects operating within our state for us to resist, and
California is beyond our reach; we cannot remove her from the Union, nor can we
obtain any portion of her  But whilst it is admitted by many
that the admission of California is not of itself a sufficient cause for assuming a
hostile attitude, yet it is contended that it evmces a determination on the part of
the North to persevere in its object, and, therefore, we should resist. Then we
are to dissolve the Union in the anticipation of a good cause. This will not do;
let us wait until it comes. It may never come.32
32 Speech of W. L. Sharkey before a Union meeting in Vicksburg, October 8,
1850, Hinds County Gazette, October 31, 1850.

174 Mississippi Historical Society.
The need of secession as a measure for the protection of the minor
ity had not yet been sufficiently felt in Mississippi for the people,
generally, to have accepted it as an article of their political creed of
which they would permit no denial. Accordingly, those in favor
of submission to the compromise sought to enforce the arguments
against resistance by denying that a state had the right under the
constitution to secede and, also, by asserting that peaceable secession
was impossible. The Natchez Courier, as proof that Mississippi had
no such constitutional right, pointed to the ordinance drawn up by
the first constitutional convention of Mississippi in which the con
vention in behalf of the people of Mississippi renounced certain rights
forever and declared the ordinance to be irrevocable without the
consent of the United States. The Courier also argued that if the
Union were a compact, as those who believed in the right of secession
asserted, it was made by the assent of not one but of many, and,
therefore, if Mississippi had the right to say she would, of her own
volition, go out of the Union, in which she was but one of thirty-one
states, every other state had the same privilege of saying she should
not go out, except by common consent. As there was no umpire be
tween these sovereign states but the sword, the Courier asked,
"Where, then, is peaceable secession?"33
As the date for the meeting of the legislature drew near, the Whig
papers became increasingly emphatic in their declarations that the
people of Mississippi were opposed to disunion and in favor of acqui
escing in the compromise. They asserted that they received daily
proofs of the determination of the people of the state to rebuke the
fell spirit of disunion, and to stand by the constitution and its safe
guards; that the people of Mississippi were opposed to any further
agitation on the subject of slavery and did not desire to hold any
more conventions on that subject; and that they were heartily tired
of the whole question and would be perfectly satisfied to acquiesce
in the action of Congress, if they were permitted to judge for them
selves.34 However the leaders of those in favor of resisting the compromise
were not moved by these arguments of the "submissionists" and
33 Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, October 18, 1850.
84 Quotation from the Lexington Advertiser in the Natchez Courier, November
8, 1850.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 175
continued their campaign to influence the legislature to carry out
their views and to prepare the people of the state to support them.
As a means to further these objects as well as to unite the South on
definite measures of resistance, they advocated the reassembling of
the Nashville convention.
Although Judge Sharkey refused to call a second meetmg of that
convention, delegates from Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, Missis
sippi, Florida, Tennessee, and Virginia assembled in Nashville, No
vember 11, 1850.36 With the exception of those from South Caro
lina, these delegates were irregularly chosen36 and from the manner
of their choice were, for the most part, more radical in their views
than those who had been present at the first meeting of the conven
tion. But they were not unanimous as to the action the convention should
take. The South Carolina delegates were in favor of a resolution
introduced by Langdon Cheves, declarmg that secession by the joint
action of the slaveholding states was the only effective remedy for
their wrongs;37 whereas those from Tennessee advocated acquiescing
in the adjustment effected by Congress and opposed the calling of
a convention of the Southern states unless Congress should commit
further aggressions on the rights of the South.38 A majority of the
delegates, however, were in favor of a course between these two and
the convention adopted, as its official utterance, a preamble offered
by Governor Clay, of Alabama, and a series of resolutions based on
those presented by the Mississippi delegates.

88 According to the National Intelligencer November 16, 1850, there were 5 dele
gates from Alabama, 16 from South Carolina, 11 from Georgia, 8 from Mississippi,
4 from Florida, 14 from Tennessee, and 1 from Virginia. The delegates from
Mississippi were as follows: J. M. Acker, J. J. Davenport, A. Hutchinson, W. H.
Kilpatrick, Pearson Smith, Thos. J. Wharton, J. C. Thompson, Chas. McLaran.
National Intelligencer, November 28, 1850.
88 None of the delegates appointed by the legislature of Mississippi attended
the second session of the Nashville convention. John D. Freeman says that Gov.
Quitman, without any authority, appointed three delegates to represent him in
this convention (Cong. Globe, 32 Cong., 1 Sess., appx., 338). Others were appointed,
as had been suggested in the address issued by the first meeting of the convention,
by public meetings in the various counties. Meeting in Yazoo county, October
7, 1850, Yazoo Democrat, October 10, 1850; Southern Meeting in Marshall county,
October 14, 1850, Ibid., October 31, 1850; Meeting in Claibome county, Missis
sippi Free Trader, November 6, 1850.
37 National Era, November 21, 1850.
88 Cluskey, Political Text-Book, 535-53<5.

176 Mississippi Historical Society.
These resolutions asserted the sovereignty of the states and the
right of secession, declared that in the measures of the compromise
all the evils that had been anticipated by the South had been real
ized, and recommended that all parties in the Southern states should
refuse to take part in any national convention for the nomination of a
president or a vice-president until the constitutional rights of the South
were secured, and that the slaveholding states should meet in a con
gress or convention "intrusted with full power and authority to
deliberate and act with the view and intention of arresting further
aggression, and, if possible, of restoring the constitutional rights of
the South, and, if not, to provide for their future safety and inde
pendence."39 On the day of the adjournment of the Nashville convention, the
legislature of Mississippi and the mass meeting of " the friends of the
Union" assembled in Jackson. Governor Quitman submitted to
the former body a long and elaborate message which, although he
assumed entire responsibility for the suggestions it contained, was
framed with the advice of the leaders of the party of resistance and
may be regarded as an expression of the views of that party, colored
somewhat, of course, by the extreme opinions of Quitman himself.
After discussing the progress of the anti-slavery sentiment and
pointing out the injustice done the South by the compromise meas
ures and the dangers that menaced the state, Governor Quitman
proceeded to set forth the program of resistance that he had formed.
To devise and carry into effect the best means of redress for the past,
he recommended:
That a legal convention of the people of the state should be called, with full
and complete powers to take into consideration our federal relations, the aggres
sions which have been committed upon the rights of the Southern States, the dan
gers which threaten our domestic institutions, and all kindred subjects; and jointly
with other states, or separately, to adopt such measures as may best comport with
the dignity and safety of the state, and effectually correct the evils complained of.
Although he had little hope that the guarantees indispensably
necessary to the safety of the South would be yielded by a majority
flushed with recent victories and encouraged by apparent divisions
among the Southern people, yet to leave no effort at conciliation
untried, and still more to unite with them those of their own people
39 Cluskey, Political Text-Book, 534-535.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. iyj
who still looked for a returning sense of justice in the North, he rec
ommended that the convention should distinctly make to the people
of the non-slaveholding states a proposition to remedy the wrong
done the South, so far as it might be in the power of Congress to do
so, by obtaining from California concessions south of 360 30' or other
wise, and to consent to such amendments of the federal constitution
as would thereafter secure the rights of the slaveholding states from
misconstruction and further aggression.
But Quitman did not hesitate to express the decided opinion that,
if these demands were refused, the only effectual remedy for the evils
that must continue to grow from year to year was to be found in the
prompt and peaceable secession of the aggrieved states. Hence,
he urged that the probability of the ultimate necessity of a resort
to this effective and unquestionable right of sovereign states should
be kept in view, whatever measure might be adopted by Mississippi,
either alone or in concert with her sister states, to remedy the exist
ing evils.
Furthermore, he declared that, in the meantime, it was of the high
est importance that some common center of opinion and action should
be authoritatively established and suggested that this might be
effected by the conventions of the several assenting states providing
for a committee of safety for each state. These committees, he ad
vised, should periodically assemble for the transaction of business
and should be invested with adequate power, absolute or contingent,
to act for their respective states upon all questions connected with
the preservation and protection of their domestic institutions and
their equal rights as sovereign states. Such a body of men, he held,
even if clothed with the authority of only two or three states, would
command respect and secure quiet and peaceable results to their
determinations. Quitman and his advisers, however, clearly understood that the
success of their plans depended on the cooperation of other Southern
states and the support of the people of Mississippi. Therefore
Quitman, in concluding his message, said that the suggestions he
made might be modified or changed by the results of the Nashville
convention then in session or by the action of the Georgia convention,
which was soon to meet. Moreover, he yielded the right of deciding
the questions at issue to the people of Mississippi and declared that

178 Mississippi Historical Society.
when the sovereign power had spoken all good citizens, whatever
might be their opinions, would acquiesce.40
In another message to the legislature Governor Quitman recom
mended, further, the organization of volunteer companies, providing
a fund for their equipment and support, and requiring that the officers
and men should take an oath to serve for the term of five years.41
The opponents of the policy of resisting the compromise were,
also, prepared, through the mass meeting that had assembled in
Jackson, to send in their message to the legislature. This meeting
was respectable in numbers42 and both parties were represented in
it, though the Whigs were greatly in the majority.43 Judge Sharkey
was made president and Foote, standing in an opening made by the
removal of a window so that he could speak to those assembled both
within the hall and on the outside, made the great speech of the
occasion.44 The proceedings of this meeting, however, were of more importance
in other respects than as an attempt to influence the action of the
legislature. For those present were evidently convinced that the
legislature would follow the advice of Quitman and call a convention
of the people of the state; and, therefore, for the purpose of making
a more effective struggle against resistance to the compromise in
the election of delegates to the convention, they proceeded to organ
ize "the Union party" and to draw up a platform on which they
could appeal to the people of the state for a decision, in that contest,
in favor of acquiescing in the compromise.
After denouncing the message of Governor Quitman as treasonable
to the nation,46 those participating in the meeting proceeded to ex
press their views on the questions before the legislature. They de
clared that Congress had passed no law inconsistent with the prin-
40 Message of Governor Quitman to the legislature November 18, 1850, Clai
borne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, H, 46-51.
°-Cong. Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., appx., 337.
42 Foote says that 1500 people took part in this meeting. Foote, Casket of
Reminiscences, 353.
48 The New York Tribune, December 7, 1850, says there were more Whigs than
Democrats in this meeting and A. G. Brown gives the proportion of Whigs to
Democrats as five to one. Cong. Globe, 32 Cong., 1 Sess., 356.
44 Foote, Casket of Reminiscences, 353. The New York Tribune mentions
Foote, Gen. I. N. Davis, and John D. Freeman as among the speakers and mana
gers of the meeting, New York Semi-weekly Tribune, December 7, 1850.
45 Speech of J. D. Freeman, Cong. Globe, 32 Cong., 1 Sess., appx., 337.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 179
ciples asserted by the convention of October, 1849, and that, there
fore, no contingency had arisen that could excuse or palliate forcible
resistance to its action; that the compromise measures were consti
tutional enactments and were the laws of the land and imperatively
demanded the acquiescence of every citizen of the United States
so long as they should remain unaltered and unrepealed; that the
friends of the Union were the friends of the safety, prosperity, and
happiness of the people of Mississippi; that they were resolved with
the assistance of Almighty God to preserve that Union, because they
believed that therein they should preserve to themselves the inesti
mable blessing of civil and religious liberty bequeathed to them by
their forefathers; and that, as American citizens, duly appreciating
the advantages of that Union, they held themselves ready at all
times to respond to the call of their common country and to peril
their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in its defense.
But even these "friends of the Union" in Mississippi, who were
willing to accept the compromise measures as & fait accompli, were
ready to declare that there were certain proposed measures of legis
lation to which they would not submit. They definitely announced:
"That whilst we acquiesce in the enactments of the late session of
Congress and feel a strong attachment and veneration for the Union
established by our forefathers, still we declare that violations of our
rights may occur which would amount to 'intolerable oppression.'
and would justify a resort to measures of resistance; amongst which
are the following:
1. The interference by congressional legislation with the institution of slavery
in the states.
*. Interference in the trade in slaves between the states.
3. The abolition by Congress of slavery in the District of Columbia.
4. The refusal by Congress to admit a new state into the Union on the ground
of her tolerating slavery within her limits.
5. The passage of any law by Congress prohibiting slavery in any of the terri
tories. 6. The repeal of the fugitive slave law, or the refusal by the General Govern
ment to enforce the constitutional provisions for the reclamation of Fugitive Slaves.48
48 The New York Semi-weekly Tribune, December 7, 1850, after giving the reso
lutions added: "And this the Union party."
This mass meeting did not originate tiis platform for it was set forth in an edi
torial in the Washington Union, November 14, 1850, urging that the compromise
must be sustained as a treaty of peace and amity between the two sections. It
was later adopted by the convention of the state of Georgia and, as the "Georgia
platform," was accepted by the majority in the South as the basis of submission

180 Mississippi Historical Society.
"But," they added, "we are now and at all times opposed to any
agitation by conventions or otherwise, of these questions, reserving
the mode and measures of redress until such injury shall be inflicted."
The meeting, also, approved the efforts of Foote to preserve the
Union and declared that his patriotic endeavors for that purpose
entitled him to their confidence and gratitude.
Finally, they asserted that they believed that there was ample
evidence of the prosecution of an organized plan by "agitators, dis-
organizers, and disunionists of the South" for the purpose of de
stroying the glorious Union and forming a Southern confederacy, and
that therefore they heartily concurred in the necessity of a full and
complete organization of the friends of the Union in Mississippi47 and
recommended the citizens of the several counties to form associa
tions the object of which should be the preservation of the Union.
Furthermore, those taking part in this meeting declared that they
regarded the existing crisis and the momentous questions at issue
as justifying the obliteration of all party lines; united, heart and hand,
as "a Union party" for the preservation of the Union; and called a
convention of the friends of the Union to be held the first Monday
of May, 1851.48
The legislature, as the "Friends of the Union" had foreseen, was
unmoved by the proceedings of the mass meeting and, though the
minority made a gallant opposition,49 proceeded to support the policy
of resistance to the compromise. It passed resolutions approving
the course of Davis and the representatives in Congress from Mis
sissippi on all questions involving the slavery controversy before
Congress at the late session, and censuring that of Foote and declaring
that it did not consider the interests of the state of Mississippi com
mitted to his charge, safe in his keeping.

to the compromise. It was originated, no doubt, by those in favor of acquies
cing in the compromise, both to forestall further aggressions on the rights of the
South and to reassure those who were hesitating to acquiesce in the compromise
because they feared such aggressions.
47 The suggestion for such an organization, according to the resolution, was
made by the citizens of Noxubee county.
48 Resolutions of the Great Mass Meetmg and Convention of the Friends of
the Union at Jackson, November 18, 1850, Vicksburg Whig, November 27, 1850.
49 The excitement in Jackson, at this time, was intense, the administration and the
opposition parties held meetings every night, and the discussions in the legislature
were very bitter. New York Semi-weekly Tribune, November 30, 1850.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 181
It also fulfilled the purpose for which it was called together, by
providing for a convention of the people of the state of Mississippi.
It justified this measure on the grounds that the legislation of Con
gress, controlled, as that body was, by a dominant majority regard
less of the constitutional rights of the slaveholding states and reflect
ing the will of a section that was hostile in feeling and opposed in
principle to a long established and cherished institution of Mis
sissippi and the other Southern states, afforded alarming evidence
of a settled purpose on the part of the majority to destroy that in
stitution and subvert the sovereign power of Mississippi and the other
slaveholding states; and that it was becoming and proper that a sov
ereign state when it was assailed should promptly resort to the most
efficient means for the maintenance of its sovereignty and the pres
ervation of its constitutional rights as a member of the confederacy,
by the exercise of the highest power recognized under its republican
form of government, — the expressed will of the sovereign people.
In providing for the convention, the legislature enacted that each
county should be represented by as many delegates as it had repre
sentatives in the lower house of the legislature, that the delegates
should be elected on the first Monday and the day following in Sep
tember, 1851, and that the convention should be held the second
Monday in November, 185 1. Furthermore, the legislature enacted
that the convention, when it had assembled, should proceed "to
consider the then existing relations between the Government of the
United States and the Government and people of the State of Mis
sissippi, to devise and carry into effect the best means of redress for
the past, and obtain certain security for the future, and to adopt
such measures for vindicating the sovereignty of the State, and the
protection of its institutions as shall appear to them to be demanded."60
Those in Mississippi who favored resisting the compromise, had
won in the first campaign over the course of Mississippi in regard
to that measure. But as, with only a few exceptions, they were
convinced that any effective resistance to the compromise depended
on the cooperation of the Southern states, the legislature had fixed
the time of the election and the assembling of the convention so as
to give the people of Mississippi ample opportunity of learning
68 Laws of the State of Mississippi passed at a called session of the legislature,
1850, 25.

182 Mississippi Historical Society.
definitely what support they might expect from other Southern
states in resistance to that measure. Therefore, a longer and greater
campaign lay before those in favor of resisting the compromise, in
which their appeal would have to be made not to the legislature, but
to the people of the state and in which the success of that appeal
would be determined largely by the attitude of the other Southern
states toward resistance.

CHAPTER X.
THE ELECTION OF DELEGATES TO THE CONVENTION OF 1851.
Old party lines having given way in Mississippi to some extent,
in the beginning of the struggle over the convention of 1851, new
parties were organized for the election of delegates to that convention,
on the definite issue of submission or resistance to the compromise.
As has been seen the Union party was formed, in the mass meeting
in Jackson, November 18, 1850, by those in favor of acquiescing in
the compromise, and provided with a platform and a definite plan
for both central and local organizations. In addition, it was furnished
an official organ, to offset the influence of the Mississippian, in the
Southron, the former organ of the Whig party in the state capital,
under the name of the Flag of the Union.1
Those in favor of resisting the compromise, not being so fortunate
as to have assembled, at this time, a mass meeting of the citizens of
the state, turned to other machinery, which they found at hand, for
the organization of a Southern Rights party. In July, 1850, "The
Southern States' Rights Association" had been formed in Jackson,
the object of which was "to protect, maintain, and defend the con
stitutional rights of the South by all legal and proper means,"2 and
similar organizations had, also, been formed in other parts of the
state. The leaders of the party of resistance determined to use
these associations to organize a Southern Rights party. Accordingly,
the one in Jackson was made "The Central Southern Rights Asso
ciation of Mississippi," the others already formed were invited to
affiliate with it, and, in counties where there were no such asso-

1 New York Semi-weekly Tribune, December 7, 1850.
2 Mississippi Free Trader, July 27, 1850.
The association was to meet at least once a fortnight and some member was to
be appointed to deliver an address at each meeting, after which there was to be a
general discussion. The officers elected were president, John A. Quitman, vice-
president, John I. Guion, secretary, J. T. Simms, treasurer, C. R. Dickson, ex
ecutive committee, Hon. C. R. Clif ton, Colonel George R. Fall, and General John
M. Duffield. 183

184 Mississippi Historical Society.
ciations, prominent advocates of Southern rights were urged to form
them immediately.3
Furthermore, to set forth the views of the party on the questions
at issue and to furnish a statement of principles to which the members
of these associations could be invited to subscribe and on which they
could rally the state against the platform of the Union party, the
Central Southern Rights Association appointed a committee4 to draw
up a formal address to the people of the state.
The address recounted the grievances of the South, proposed
measures that the convention of the people of Mississippi should
adopt to remedy those grievances, and pointed out the necessity of
the state's obtaining such redress. After reciting the history of the
aggressions against slavery under the government of the United States,
the address declared that the bitter warfare against that institution
would not stop short of its destruction, if it were not stayed by the
action of the South, and held up the measures of the compromise as
steps in the consummation of the purpose of the abolitionists. More
over, it charged that agitation against slavery rent the country with
dissentions on that subject and that the abolitionists, behind the
constitution as a rampart, committed acts against the rights of prop
erty in slaves that would, without the constitution and without the
Union, be the cause of war. Therefore, it asserted the constitution
had failed in its object, as declared in the preamble, "to establish
justice, provide for the common defense, and insure domestic tran
quillity;" and urged that it was time "to seek for security in amend
ments of its provisions, or in some other mode."
It then suggested that the convention of the people of the state
should ask for amendments of the constitution by which each of the
two great sections of the confederacy should, in the future, be deprived
of the power of oppressing the other by unequal or unjust taxation,
whether direct or indirect; by which fugitive slaves should be deliv
ered up in the same way that fugitives from justice were and state
8 Letter to Major R. Elward from A. Hutchinson, C. S. Tarpley, and E. Barks
dale, the corresponding committee of the Central Southern Rights Association
of Mississippi, Jackson, Mississippi, December 27, 1850, Mississippi Free Trader,
January 8, 1851.
4 This committee composed of both Whigs and Democrats, was as follows: J.
M. Clayton, J. I. Guion, Roger Barton, T. Jones Stewart, J. J. McRae, C. R. Clif
ton, C. P. Smith, J. A. Quitman, and J. O. Bell. Ibid., January 8, 1851.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 185
authorities should assist in and compel their delivery; and by which
all further discussion or agitation of the subject of slavery should be
excluded from the halls of Congress, unless it were carried on with
a view of extending to slavery the protection given to other descrip
tions of property.
In addition, the address proposed that the convention should ask
that Congress should extend the Missouri compromise line to the
Pacific ocean and, to that end, obtain the consent of California to
that line's constituting her southern boundary; and that the right of
the people of the slaveholding states to carry their slaves to all terri
tory south of that line should be acknowledged and secured.
It declared that, if redress like this could be obtained, the whole
difficulty between the sections would be ended by means which could
not meet objection from any quarter. It, also, asserted that it was
in the power of the South to secure such redress, that all that was
needed was for the Southern states to satisfy the North that they
were determined to maintain their rights at all hazards, and that the
remaining patriotism of the North, and much more, its interest in
preserving its commerce with the South, would induce it to recognize
and guarantee the equal and just rights of the Southern states,
"both as political communities, having distinct interests, ,and as
states united under the compact of the constitution." At all events,
the address declared, thus far Mississippi was bound to go and take
her stand, and thus far her sister states of the South might go with
her and stand by her side; and, if the North should act in a spirit of
good faith and justice by redressing the grievances of the South,
a great result would be accomplished, peace and fraternal kindness
restored, and a guarantee afforded of the perpetuity of the Union.
But the address continued:
If the North shall refuse to accede to our just demands, then will come up for
decision the question whether we shall submit to grievous wrongs, and take the
position of inferiority assigned to us in the Union, or look to ourselves for the pro
tection of our rights and our institutions out if it. The evidence of hostility on
their part will be complete — the cup of Submission on ours will be full. Non
action, beyond that point, will be unconditional submission. If we would remain
a free people, we must resort to such remedies as under existing circumstances,
should then promise to be most effectual.
The address then advanced arguments in proof of the doctrine of
state sovereignty and of the right of secession. It declared that the

186 Mississippi Historical Society.
federal Union was formed of equal, independent sovereignties and
rested on the consent of the parties to the compact; that the consti
tution was the bond of union and that each state had the right to
judge, in the last report, of infractions of it; that, as each state ac
ceded to the constitution and became a member of the Union volun
tarily, each one might in the exercise of its high sovereign right,
withdraw from the Union, without any violation of obligation to
those that remained, and that if justice and good faith governed their
intercourse, there could be no occasion for hostile collision. This,
it asserted, was the doctrine of the fathers of the constitution. More
over, several of the states at the time of the adoption of the consti
tution had expressly claimed the right to resume the power granted
under the constitution and, hence, it followed that the right to se
cede belonged to every member of the Union and that it was a right
never given up.
But the expediency of the exercise of that right, the writers of the
address declared, was quite a different question. They asserted
that they were by no means prepared to recommend to the people
of Mississippi, at that time, to take such a step in advance of the
other Southern states, even should their complaints go unheeded;
but that, as a measure of precaution, it would become the duty of
the convention to act with reference to the consequences of a refusal,
on the part of the government of the United States, to redress those
grievances, and to afford guarantees for the future protection and
safety of the rights of the South, and, to that end, to provide for the
appointment of delegates to meet those from the other Southern states
in convention for the purpose of considering the grievances of their
section and divising modes and measures of redress to be submitted
to the people of the states represented in the convention for their
final adoption or rejection.
The writers of the address further asserted:
If that convention, with all the lights which may be thrown upon this subject
by the events of the past as well as those which may have transpired in the inter
val, shall then come to the solemn conclusion that the safety of the South, the exis
tence of their institutions and the honor of their people can only be preserved by
a secession from the Union and the formation of a Southern confederacy, and
should recommend that course, we know no power but that of the people in these
States, who would have a right to question the justice or propriety of adopting the
recommendation.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850— Hearon. 187
In conclusion, the address set forth the necessity of Southerners
insisting on the measures that it had proposed. They could not
get rid of slavery if they would, it urged; and, since there could be
no equality of the races, the negroes must live among them either
as their slaves or as their masters. The past success of the aboli
tionists, it warned the people of the South, only made them more
keen for future victories and if they were not stayed they would
finally attack the institution of slavery in the states. But the address
declared that, if the people of the whole South would unite, the crisis
would be passed and the country might be saved.8
Thus, before the close of 1850, two parties had been formed in Mis
sissippi on the issue of submission or resistance to the compromise
and had announced the platforms on which they proposed to fight
out the question as to the action the state should take in regard to
that measure. The Union party was composed of the great body of
the Whigs and, also, of some Democrats who favored acquiescence
in the compromise; while the Southern Rights party was made up of
a large proportion of the Democratic party and a small munber of
state rights Whigs. The first had the advantage of the incomparable
partisan leadership of Foote and the more dignified, if less effective,
guidance of the Whig leaders of the state, and of the support of the
federal aclministration, with the full power of the federal patronage,
and the Union party that was forming in Congress and the Southern
states. To offset these advantages, the other party had, as leaders,
the public men of the state whom the rank and file of the voters had
grown accustomed to follow, and, through these leaders, control over
the machinery of the state government and, what was of more impor
tance, of the party that had so long dominated the state and with
which the great majority of its voters were thoroughly identified.
But, unfortunately for the Southern Rights party, its success in
this struggle did not depend on the people of Mississippi alone. For,
although a majority of the people of the state were opposed to the
compromise, they believed that the success of any measure of resis
tance to it depended on the cooperation of the Southern states.
Moreover, the Southern Rights party, reflecting these views, had
'Address of the Central Southern Rights Association, Jackson, December io,
1850. Mississippi Free Trader, January 8, 1851.

1 88 Mississippi Historical Society.
declared against separate state action, if its demands were not
granted, and in favor of cooperation with the other Southern states
in devising and enforcing measures of redress. Therefore, to under
stand the struggle in Mississippi over the policy the state should
adopt in regard to the compromise and the changes in the position
of the Southern Rights party during its course, it is necessary to
follow the progress of the movement in favor of resisting the com
promise in the other Southern states.
When the compromise measures were passed by Congress, it was
generally understood that, although some of the senators and repre
sentatives who had most strenuously opposed them to the very end
were from the border states, those states would acquiesce in the
measure provided they were not forced into a policy of opposition by
the action of the cotton states. Therefore, those in favor of resistance
placed their hopes in the action of the latter, particularly South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi; and the real contest
over the policy the South should adopt with respect to the com
promise was fought out in those states.
Soon after the passage by Congress of the bills embodying that
measure, a movement in favor of resistance was under way in each
of these four states. In response to it, Governor Quitman, of Mis
sissippi, as has been seen, convened the legislature of his state for the
purpose of calling a convention of the people of Mississippi. The
governor of Georgia, also, issued a proclamation calling a convention
of that state to meet December io, 1850,6 and Governor Seabrook,
of South Carolina, gave assurance that his state was ready to support
the others in a determined resistance to the compromise, without
regard to the consequences.7 But the governor of Alabama, although
great pressure was brought to bear upon him,8 did not deem it wise
to summon an extra session of the legislature to call a convention of
the state "to redress Federal outrage and oppression."
In fact in the last named state, those who opposed the compromise
made a losing fight from the beginning against the submission to
that measure. For both the senators, William R. King and Jere-
6 National Era, October 3, 1850.
7 Letters of Governor Seabrook, of South Carolina, to Governor Quitman,
September 20, 1850, and October 23, 1850, Claiborne, Life and Correspondence
of John A. Quitman, II., 36-38.
8 National Era, October 3, 1850.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850— Hearon. 189
miah Clemens, threw their influence in favor of submission and Henry
W. Hilliard, in its behalf, matched his eloquence against that of the
fiery Yancey, the preeminent orator of the secessionists. Moreover
mass meetings in Montgomery and Linden, the centers of the two
most populous slave counties in the state, declared in favor of acqui
escing in the compromise and it soon became evident that not only
the Whigs but also a large percentage of the Democrats in the state
were opposed to resisting that measure.9
The greatest interest, however, was centered in the campaign in
Georgia for the election of delegates to the state convention. For
in that election the people of a Southern state had their first oppor
tunity of expressing their sovereign will in regard to the compromise
and, furthermore, many understood that the decision of Georgia
would largely determine the success of the plans for cooperative action
against the compromise by the Southern states, if not the fate of the
whole movement in favor of resistance. In this campaign, two par
ties were developed in Georgia, as in Mississippi: the Union party,
in favor of submission to the compromise and composed principally of
Whigs, and the Southern Rights party, in favor of resistance to that
measure and made up mostly of Democrats. The state was canvassed
by both with great zeal, Cobb, Toombs, and Stephens rendering
effective service to the Union cause. When the returns from the
election were in, it was found that the Union party had carried the
state by a large majority and elected all except a small number of
the delegates to the convention.10
The convention that assembled in Milledgeville, December 10,
1850, being virtually a Union convention, proceeded to set forth, in
a series of resolutions, principles which had already been enunciated
as the platform of the Union party in the South11 and accepted as
such by the convention that organized the Union party in Mississippi,12
but which were to become famous and to be accepted by the South
as the Georgia platform.13 The convention, in these resolutions,
declared that while the state of Georgia did not wholly approve of
'Du Bose, Life and Times of William Lowndes Yancey, 251-252; Hodgson.
Cradle of the Confederacy, 286.
10 National Era, December 19, 1850.
n Quotation from the Washington Union, National Era, November 14, 1850.
12 Vicksburg Weekly Whig, November 27, 1850.
13 Cluskey, Political Text-Book, 536-537, contains a part of the report and all
the resolutions adopted by this convention.

ioo Mississippi Historical Society.
the measures of the compromise, it would abide by it as a permanent
adjustment of the sectional controversy. But it added:
That the state of Georgia, in the judgment of this convention, will and ought
to resist, even (as a last resort) to the disruption of every tie which binds her to
the Union, any future act of Congress abolishing slavery in the District of Colum
bia, without the consent and petition of the slaveholders thereof; or any act abol
ishing slavery in places within the slaveholding states, purchased by the United
States for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, navy-yards, and
like purposes; or any act suppressing the slave trade between slaveholding States;
or any refusal to admit as a State any Territory applying, because of the existence
of slavery therein, or any act prohibiting the introduction of slaves into the Terri
tories of Utah and New Mexico; or any act repealing or materially modifying the
law now in force for the recovering of fugitive slaves.14
The members of the convention realizing the strength of the oppo
sition to the compromise in Georgia and the other Southern states,
understood the necessity of united action to put down the movement
in the South in favor of resistance to it. Therefore, "The friends
of the Union' ' in the convention, declaring that the exigency of pub
lic affairs demanded that patriots of all parties should unite for the
preservation of their rights and of the Union of the states and that
all party issues should be held in subordination to the fundamental
questions dividing the country, organized themselves into the Con
stitutional Union party on the basis of the Georgia platform, pledged
themselves to use all proper means for the maintenance and success of
its principles throughout the state and the Union, and recommended
a national convention to be held in Washington, on the twenty-
second of February, to devise means for securing their supremacy
throughout the extent of the Republic.16
Members of Congress, who had helped to carry through the com
promise, were also alarmed at the unwillingness to accept that meas
ure manifested in both sections and, equally with the members of
the Georgia convention, convinced of the necessity of united action
on the part of the North and the South in opposition to the move-
14 Johnston and Browne, Life of A. H. Stephens, 259.
These resolutions were adopted by a vote of 237 to 19. Cluskey, Political
Text-Book, 536.
There is an essential difference between these resolutions and the enumeration
of "intolerable oppressions" by the meeting in Mississippi that formed the Union
party. In regard to the territories, the former declared that Georgia would and
ought to resist any act prohibiting the introduction of slaves into the territories
of Utah and New Mexico; while the latter declared that the passage of any law
by Congress prohibiting slavery in any of the territories would justify resistance.
15 National Era, January 9, 1851.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 191
ment in favor of resistance. Accordingly, about forty members of
Congress, for the most part Southern Whigs,16 signed a pledge to
resist all attempts to repeal or alter the compromise acts and, not to
support for the office of president, vice-president, senator, represen
tative in Congress, or member of a state legislature any man who
was not known to be opposed to disturbing the settlement effected
by those acts.17
Notwithstanding the alarm of those in favor of submission to the
compromise over the strength of sentiment in the South in oppo
sition to that measure, the outlook in South Carolina alone furnished
encouragement to the party of resistance in Mississippi. But the
leaders of that state took the position that resistance to the compro
mise should be made by cooperative action on the part of the South
ern states and that it would be the wiser policy for South Carolina
not to take the lead in any such action.18 Hence, they allowed pub
lic sentiment in the state to crystalize in a desire to exhaust the scheme
of joint action before favoring the taking of an independent step by
South Carolina and in the belief that the cause would receive a fatal
blow if South Carolina should attempt to take the lead.
To carry out their design, the public men of South Carolina sought
to induce the Nashville convention, the legislature of Mississippi,
or the Georgia convention to call a Southern congress, composed of
delegates elected by state conventions, with power to make recom
mendations to the state conventions, or better, with full authority
from the states represented to withdraw those states from the Union,
or to submit "to the supreme authorities of the country" proposi
tions for a new bargain between the states, by which equality among
the members of the confederacy and protection of Southern property
should be put beyond the possibility of hazard in the future.19
18 Cobb was the only Democrat in the House who signed this pledge and Foote,
Rusk, Clemens, and Gwin the only ones in the Senate. On February 6, the
National Era asserted there were but two Northern Whigs, besides the eight Silver-
Grays of New York, then on the list, Eliot, of Boston, and Cooper of Pennsyl
vania. National Era, February 6, 1851.
17 Ibid., January 30, 1851.
"Letter from R. W. Barnwell to Quitman, Washington, September 19, 1850,
Claiborne Papers, State Archives, Jackson, Mississippi; Letter from Governor
Seabrook to Governor Quitman, Pendleton, South Carolina, September 20, 1850,
Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 36.
19 Letter from Governor Seabrook, of South Carolina, to Governor Quitman,
Charleston, October 23, 1850, Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quit
man, II, 37-38.

192 Mississippi Historical Society.
However, only the Nashville convention carried out even in part
the wishes of the South Carolina leaders. As has been seen, it rec
ommended the holding of a convention of the slaveholding states
with the full power and authority entrusted to it desired by the South
Carolina leaders; but it left the time and place of such a meeting to
be designated by the states desiring to be represented.20 The legisla
ture of Mississippi referred all action on the subject to the convention
of the state to assemble in November of the following year; while
the Georgia convention declared against resistance of any kind to
the compromise measures.
Disappointed in their desire that some other state should take
the lead in the movement for the Southern congress, and seeing the
time in which there was any hope for success in such a movement
slipping away, and, also, encouraged by the assurance of Governor
Quitman that they might rely on the cooperation of Mississippi, the
South Carolina leaders in the movement against the compromise, at
length decided that South Carolina should name the time and the place
for the meeting of the Southern Congress recommended by the Nash
ville convention. Though there was opposition to the state's break
ing with her policy of not taking the lead, in December, 1850, bills
were passed through the legislature, with only a few opposing votes
in each house, recommending the Southern states to meet in Congress
at Montgomery, January 2, 1852, and providing for a convention of
the people of the state to assemble the fourth Monday of February,
1852, to consider the acts of the Southern congress.21 The election
of the delegates to the state convention was ordered on the second
Monday in February, 185 1, and the day following, and the election
of the delegates to the congress on the second Monday in October,
1851, and the day following.22 In addition $350,000 for arming the
state was put at the disposal of the governor.23
Thus, at the beginning of the campaign in Mississippi over the
selection of delegates to the convention of the state, there were two

20 Cluskey, Political Text-Book, 535.
21 Letter from Governor Seabrook to Governor Quitman, Columbia, December
14, 1850, Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 39-40.
22 National Intelligencer, January 4, 1851.
23 Letter from Governor Seabrook to Governor Quitman, December 14, 1850,
Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 39-40.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 193
courses open to the people of the state: one was to respond to the
call of South Carolina and meet her in a Southern convention for the
purpose of obtaining guarantees for the protection of their rights in
the Union or of seceding from it; the other was to follow the lead of
Georgia and agree to acquiesce in the compromise as a permanent
adjustment of the controversy between the two sections. The South
ern Rights party threw itself into the campaign in favor of the former
policy; while the Union party supported the latter.
Each of these parties sought to prove that it stood on the platform
of the October convention of 1849 and that the other had abandoned
the principles upon which the people of the state had been united.
The Unionists charged that the Southern Rights party by raising
new issues had divided the state and produced the want of unanimity
in it so deeply deplored by all its true friends. But the main charge
the Union party brought against their opponents and urged most
persistently was the one that Foote had, with unerring judgment,
seized upon in his first speech in Mississippi in favor of the compro
mise, namely, that the success of the Southern Rights party would
mean a disruption of the Union. Sweeping aside all declarations made
by the Southern Rights party against separate state secession and in
favor of united action on the part of the Southern states, they declared:
All must act with the party who demand amendments to the Constitution, and
a division of California, and if they are refused, Secession; or they must act with
the Union men, who oppose that platform. Neither wise man nor fool can expect
these demands will succeed. The issue is therefore between secession and acqui
escence. Let us range ourselves then where we can be seen; for the Constitu
tion as it is and for the adjustment, or for an amendment and disunion.24
The leaders of the Southern Rights party sought to parry this
charge by proving that they were the true Union party and that the
"Unionists" were the real "disunionists."26 They declared that
the Union party enumerated a series of acts of Congress that would
amount to intolerable oppressions and justify a resort to measures
of resistance; but made no efforts to secure the country against the
passage of such acts. It was asserted:
u Columbus Democrat, January 18, 1851; Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, January
28, 1851.
25 Speech of Jefferson Davis in Jackson, June 16, 1851, before the meeting of
the Democratic Southern Rights party of the state. Mississippi Free Trader,
June 21, 1851.

194 Mississippi Historical Society.
Now the guarantees we demand are that these "intolerable oppressions" which
"would justify a resort to measures of resistance" shall not occur. The conclu
sion is as clear as that two and two make four, if the guarantees are not given,
and the "intolerable oppression" occurs, — to-wit, "the repeal of the Fugitive
Slave Law or the refusal of the General Government to enforce it" — disunion
will stalk abroad in the land. The submissionists, or Union men par excellence,
by a "resort to measures of resistance" must inevitably occasion a dissolution of
the Union; unless, as we are more than half inclined to believe, their "measures
of resistance" will consist in "marching up the hill and very bravely marching
down again."28
In addition, it was urged, that the formation of a Union party in
the South in that crisis should be discountenanced by every patriot
because it would operate as an encouragement to the enemies of South
ern institutions. For if the Union party should triumph, the ene
mies of Southern institutions would claim that their predictions had
been verified and that the love of the Union was stronger in the
people of the South than their fancied love of their rights of property;
and, as their plans were but half completed, they would be stimu
lated to make still further aggressions upon the rights of the South.
Therefore, the inevitable result of the triumph of the Union party
would be the consolidation of the government and the destruction
of the cherished institutions of the South. Moreover, even if such
a party were unsuccessful, it would dampen the ardor of the South
and stay the power that, if left untrammeled, would carve out for
the section the security and the integrity of its rights.27
But in spite of the efforts of the leaders of the Southern Rights
party to repel the charge of being disunionists and to convince the
people of Mississippi that a dissolution of the Union or, what was
to them much more serious, consolidation of the government and
the destruction of slavery would result from the policy of the Union
party, public sentiment in the state began, very early in 1851, to be
affected both by the fear that resistance to the compromise might
result in disunion and by the failure of the movement in the other
states for the adoption of a policy of resistance, and to waver in its
support of that policy. Evidence of this is found in two Democratic
newspapers in different parts of the state. The Monroe Democrat,
on January 29, 1851, and the Woodville Republican, on February 4,
28 Yazoo Democrat, April 31, 1851.
27 Resolutions submitted by Hon. Jacob Thompson to the States Rights meeting
in Lafayette county, March 31, 1851, and his speech upon it. The Constitution,
(Oxford, Mississippi), April 5, 1851.

Mississippi and the Compromsie of 1850 — Hearon. 195
gave up resistance to the compromise. The editor of the Monroe
Democrat explained that he withdrew from the support of the state
rights cause because he had become convinced that its leaders were
working for a dissolution of the Union.28 The Woodville Republican,
on its part, declared that although the late adjustment law met
its unequivocal disapproval, for the sake of peace, harmony, and
union, it was willing "in common with the mass of the Southern
people' ' to acquiesce in that measure.29
But of far more importance as to the effect on the movement in
Mississippi in behalf of resistance to the compromise of the failure
of that movement in the other states is an address issued from Wash
ington, February 13, 1851, by Jacob Thompson, renouncing all hope
of successful resistance to the compromise. In it he declared:
Thus divided upon what we cannot do and what we will not do, I despair. All
hope of resistance to the late measure which passed Congress, to any satisfactory
end, is gone. I believe there is patriotism, justice, and love of the Union still existing
in the free States to an extent sufficient to enable the South to obtain whatever,
with a united voice, she might demand as necessary for her security and protec
tion for the future. But if the South is divided in her requests or demands, nothing
of course, will be obtained. It is vain and futile to expect it.30
The failure in the Southern states of the movement to resist the
compromise presented grave difficulties to the Southern Rights party
in Mississippi. For it had been organized on the basis of resistance
to the compromise by the united action of the South and when it
began to grow evident that that policy had failed, it became necessary
for the leaders of the Southern Rights party to agree on a new basis
on which to maintain that organization. Differences of opinion in
the party on that subject immediately, appeared ranging all the way
from submission to the compromise to separate state secession in
resistance to it.
Jacob Thompson, in his address issued February 13, took a de
cided position in opposition to the latter policy and earnestly advised
the people of Mississippi against acting alone. Every step Mis
sissippi had taken, he declared, had been based upon the idea that

88 Letter of J. F. M. Caldwell, editor of the Monroe Democrat, to the Public,
January 29, 1851. The Independent, (Aberdeen), February 1, 1851.
29 Quotation from the Woodville Republican in the Natchez Courier, February
30 Address of the Honorable Jacob Thompson written in Washington, February
13, 1851, Mississippi Free Trader, March 27, 1851.

196 Mississippi Historical Society.
she could not and would not act single-handed and he urged her not
to change her position or to pledge herself to the attempt to secede.
He said:
I regard secession for Mississippi alone, hemmed in and compassed about as
she is, as impracticable. And to make the attempt will injure the cause which we
seek to maintain.31
Quitman, on the other hand, favored separate state action rather
than submission to the compromise. In a letter to Colonel John S.
Preston, of South Carolina, March 29, 1851, he set forth at length
his views concerning public sentiment in Mississippi and the other
Southern states at that time, with respect to the compromise, the
measures that would be adopted by Mississippi in resistance to it,
and the course that South Carolina should pursue in view of the sit
uation in the other Southern states.
Public sentiment in the state, Quitman wrote, was unquestionably
hostile to the so-called compromise measures of Congress, and daily
becoming more so; but there was not sufficient evidence to prove
that the feeling had settled down into any definite plan of action.
He believed, however, that an increasing majority regarded the ex
isting state of things as inconsistent with the safety of the Southern
states, were not disposed to acquiesce in its continuance, and were
ready to adopt some practicable mode of resistance. Therefore, he
had no fears for the success of the Southern Rights party in the con
test for the convention, if the members of Congress, state officers,
and other prominent friends of Southern rights acted in concert in
support of some efficient measure of resistance.
He gave it as his opinion that some such plan as the one proposed
in the address of the Central Southern Rights Association would be
adopted by the convention. But he revealed the essential difference
in the views and aims of those who advocated it by asserting:
There are many of us who believe, indeed are well assured, that neither the ma
jority in Congress nor the non-slaveholding states will assent to either of these
just propositions, unless demanded by the Southern States with a unanimity not
to be expected; but still we think the propositions are due to our confederates be
fore we part with them, and again, there are some among us who still have hopes
that the people of the North, when deliberately and solemnly appealed to with
the alternative of separation distinctly made, will yield to our demands.
31 Address of the Hon. Jacob Thompson written in Washington, February 13,
1851, Mississippi Free Trader, March 27, 1851.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 197
From the state of public sentiment in Mississippi, Quitman asserted,
there was but a step to that which prevailed in South Carolina; but
that step, the last in anticipation of unconditional separation, would
be deliberated on long and cautiously. The slightest exciting cause,
however, would carry the state onward; yet, without it, public senti
ment, alarmed by the imaginary evils of an unknown future, might
recoil and pause a long time in doubt and uncertainty. He believed,
then, from the indications at that time, that Mississippi, if her prop
ositions were not promptly acceded to, would invite her neighboring
sister states to form with her a new confederacy; but that she might,
from her weakness and the inconvenience of her position, withhold
the final act until one of her immediate neighbors should be willing
to join her; and that she would not, probably even if redress and
guarantees were absolutely refused, venture to secede alone, for many
of her boldest and staunchest Southern Rights men would not advise
separate secession under any circumstances, although a few, inclu
ding himself, thought that there were evils in the future even greater
than separate secession.
As to cooperative action on the part of the Southern states, he had
no hope, at that time, that a majority of the slaveholding states
would unite in any effective measures for curing the evils complained
of, and did not look beyond the cotton states for united action. In
deed he feared that the frontier states would never abandon the Union,
however great its oppressions, unless rudely driven from it by the North,
or forced to chose between a Southern and a Northern confederacy.
Neither did he think there was a prospect of the cotton states authori
tatively taking joint action at that time. While it was true, that in
some of those states, particularly Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana,
much discontent with the action of Congress prevailed, and the
spirit of resistance was extending itself among the people; yet nowhere,
except in South Carolina and Mississippi, was it proposed to act
authoritatively on those questions. Therefore, to those states alone,
could they look for any efficient action. The latter was not yet
fully prepared for final action; it had less capital, was younger and
weaker than the former, and had no seaport. The former should,
then, take the lead, and fearlessly and confidently act for herself
and Mississippi would, Quitman felt assured, take position by her
side, and soon all the adjoining states would follow her example.

i08 Mississippi Historical Society.
In conclusion, he urged the separate secession of South Carolina
in a way that showed how completely he had lost confidence in co
operative action and with arguments that proved to be sound under
the conditions of the next great crisis over slavery, at least. He wrote :
If, therefore, the people of South Carolina have made up their minds to with
draw from the Union at all events, whether joined by other states or not, my ad
vice would be to do so without waiting for the action of any other state, as I be
lieve there would be more probability of favorable action on the part of other
Southern States after her secession than before. So long as the several_ aggrieved
states wait for one another, their action will be over-cautious and timid. Great
political movements, to be successful, must be bold, and must present practical
and simple issues. There is, therefore, in my opinion, greater^ probability of the
dissatisfied states uniting with a seceding state than of their union for the purpose
of secession. The secession of a Southern state would startle the whole South,
and force the other states to meet the issue plainly; it would present practical
issues and exhibit everywhere a wider-spread discontent than politicians have
imagined. In less than two years all the states south of you would unite their
destiny to yours. Should the federal government attempt to employ force, an
active and cordial union of the whole South would be instantly effected, and a
complete Southern confederacy organized. All these results are problems which
the future alone can solve.32
The South Carolina leaders were convinced, with Quitman, that
they had failed in their efforts to unite the Southern states in a move
ment to resist the compromise.33 Therefore, many of the most deter
mined opponents of that measure turned to separate state action.
In the elections in February for the state convention, the extremists
had won an overwhelming victory. Of the 167 delegates chosen,
the Charleston Mercury declared that it was safe to say that 127 were
in favor of separate secession on the part of South Carolina.34 But
this convention was elected for the purpose of receiving and act
ing upon the recommendations that might be made by the Southern
convention called to meet in January, 1852, and was, therefore, not
to meet for more than a year. Consequently, those in favor of sep
arate secession initiated a movement in favor of an earlier meeting
of that body for the purpose of adopting a plan of separate state
32 Letter of Quitman to Colonel John S. Preston, of South Carolina, Monmouth,
March 29, 1851, Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 123-
127. 33 They were confirmed in this belief by the action of the Virginia legislature.
That body passed with great unanimity, resolutions expressing kind feelings for
South Carolina, but declaring in favor of abiding by the compromise measures,
pronouncing against secession; and announcing the purpose of Virginia to send
no delegates to the Southern congress. National Era, April 3, 1851.
34 New York Semi-weekly Tribune, February 26, 1851.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 199
action on the part of South Carolina in resistance to the compromise,
by calling a convention of delegates from the State Rights associa
tions of South Carolina to meet in Charleston, May 5, 185 1.
Although strenuous opposition was made to this movement by
Senator Barnwell, Langdon Cheves, and others who had been fore
most in support of cooperative action on the part of the South against
the compromise, Robert Barnwell Rhett carried the convention
with him. The result was that body adopted a series of resolutions
in which they asserted the right of secession and declared that it was
necessary for South Carolina to relieve herself from the wrongs and
aggressions that had been perpetrated against her by the federal
government with or without the cooperation of the other Southern
states and that they looked with hope and confidence to the conven
tion of the people to exert the sovereign power of the state in defense
of its rights at the earliest practicable period, and to the legislature
to adopt the most speedy and effectual measures towards that end.36
In the campaign that followed in South Carolina, those who favored
cooperative action of the Southern states in resistance to the com
promise, but were opposed to separate secession on the part of South
Carolina united with the members of the Union party in the state
and, under the guidance of such leaders as Barnwell, Butler, Orr,
Perry, and Poinsett, ably opposed those in favor of separate state
action, led by Rhett, Maxy Gregg, Ex-governor Seabrook, and Gov
ernor Means. But even these leaders of the party of separate se
cession counted on other Southern states coming to the support of
South Carolina when once it had committed itself to the policy of
secession, and recognized that the people of South Carolina would be
influenced in the adoption of that policy by the attitude of the other
states.36 But, at that time, as Quitman wrote to Governor Means, of South
Carolina, every other Southern state, except Mississippi, had bowed
her neck to the yoke or silently submitted and nowhere but in that
state had any authoritative step been taken to meet South Carolina
n National Era, May 15, 1851. _
38 Letter of Colonel Maxy Gregg to Quitman, May 9, 1851, Claiborne, Life
and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 132-133; Letter of Colonel Maxy Gregg
to Quitman, May 15, 1851, Ibid., 134-135; Letter of Whitemarsh B. Seabrook to
Quitman, June 9, 1851, Ibid., 139-141; Letter of Whitemarsh B. Seabrook to Quit
man, July 15, 1851, Ibid., 141-143-

200 Mississippi Historical Society.
in a Southern congress.37 So to Mississippi the leaders of the seces
sion party in South Carolina, urged on in their course by the advice
of Quitman and encouraged by his assurances of the public sentiment
in Mississippi, turned for support.38 How far Quitman was right
in his belief that his state would support South Carolina in her policy
of resistance was to be determined by the results of the elections in
Mississippi. The views of Quitman were, however, important. For, although,
at that time, he was a private citizen, his popularity had been greatly
increased by the circumstances that had led to his resignation as
governor to stand trial before a federal court under an indictment
charging him with having violated the neutrality laws of the United
States;89 and, as a consequence of what was regarded by many as
his persecution by the federal government because he was "the re
sistance chief of a resistance state," he was very generally regarded
as the candidate his party would place in nomination for governor in
the elections for state officers that were to be held in September, 1851.
Therefore, his position received much attention in the campaign that
was being waged over the course of the state toward the compromise.40
37 Letter from General Quitman to Governor Means, of South Carolina, Mon
mouth, May 25, 1851. Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman,
II, 135.
88 Letters of Whitemarsh B. Seabrook to General Quitman, June 9, and July 15,
1851, Ibid., II, 130-143.
89 Quitman had been interested in the liberation of Cuba and in June, 1850, the
grand jury of the United States Circuit Court in New Orleans had returned indictments
against him, John Henderson, of Texas, and others for "setting on foot, and fur
nishing the means for a military expedition against the island of Cuba." Al
though Quitman and his advisers denied the power of the United States courts
to order the arrest of the chief magistrate of a state until he had been first removed
from office, and some of his friends urged him to resist arrest and thus precipitate
a collision between the federal and the state authorities, which would, in its sequel,
involve the other Southern states, Quitman wisely decided not to confuse the ques
tions at issue between the South and the federal government by the question
of his arrest, and resigned the office of governor and reported to New Orleans
for trial. The trial of General Henderson resulting in a mistrial, the other cases,
including Quitman's, were dismissed. The result of the whole affair was to increase
the popularity of Quitman and the bitterness of feeling in the state towards the
federal government. Ibid., II, 53-79.
40 Foote made it one of the main points in his attack on the Southern Rights
party. He openly stated, in a public speech in Jackson, that Quitman, in a pri
vate conference with him, in Vicksburg, during the preceding winter, had told
him that he was in favor of unconditional secession; that he was a disunionist per
se; and that he believed that secession was the only remedy for past aggressions
and would recommend direct and prompt secession in his special message to the
legislature. Foote insisted, furthermore, that Quitman so interpreted his message

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850— Hearon. 201
The leaders of the Union party were quick to perceive the advan
tage of having Quitman, the most extreme and uncompromising of
the states' rights leaders, as the candidate of their opponents for
governor and also the effective campaign that Foote, as their candi
date, could make against him. The Natchez Courier asserted:
If Gen. Quitman runs, as the embodiment of the principles of secessionism,
there is evident propriety that Gen. Foote should run as the exponent of the Union
P.?*1?  Wlth these two candidates there could be no mistaking
the issue. . . . . In Quitman's person, the people would decide upon the
propriety of his calling the Legislature; upon his message; upon the Convention
bill; upon the demands made for amending the United States Constitution, and
upon the Executive recommendation of peaceable secession. In Gen. Foote's per
son, they would pass upon the policy of acquiescence in the compromise as an ad
justment, as long as it was fairly acquiesced in; upon the sufficiency of the pres
ent Constitution; upon the propriety of contending for our constitutional rights
in the Union, rather than struggling for existence out of it, and upon the wisdom
and fairness of censuring Gen. Foote for his zeal displayed for the American Union.41
The Union party, as a whole, agreed with the Natchez Courier as
to the standard bearer it should name for the approaching elections;
and, as it had firmly taken its stand on the platform on which the
party had been organized, the proceedings of the Union state con
vention held, in Jackson, on the first Monday in May, for the purpose
of nominating candidates for state offices, were marked by great
unanimity. Although the convention was made up, for the most
part, of Whigs,42 the nominations were equally divided between the
two old parties, Foote, of course, being nominated for governor.
The resolutions of the mass meeting held in Jackson, November 18,
1850, were unanimously adopted as a platform by the convention
and the organization of Union associations in every county of the
state was recommended.43
and spumed any other construction of it. Letter from J. McDonald to Quitman,
Jackson, April 3, 1851, Claiborne Papers, State Archives, Jackson, Mississippi.
41 Quoted from the Natchez Courier in the Mississippi Free Trader, April 7, 1851.
42 The Mississippian declared that " the submission Whig State convention' '
was made up of the same old Whig party with the exception of a few Democrats
who had gone over to them. In the entire convention of nearly 200 delegates,
it did not think there were more than 20 Democrats; and, except from one county,
there was not a single Democratic member north of Carroll county. Quotation
from the Mississippian in the Mississippi Free Trader, May 14, 1851.
48 Natchez Weekly Courier, May 13, 1851.
The committee on resolutions was made up of the following prominent men
of the party: Gen. Thos. G. Polk, Gen. Jno. D. Freeman, Gen. Patrick Henry,
Gen. Wm. Clark, Col. Chas. Clark, Col. Wm. H. Johnston, Jas. L. Alcorn, Esq.,
Col. E. Rush Buckner. A. G. Horn, Esq., Col. H. C. Adams, Hon. C. L. Dubuis-
son, Dr. Wm. D. Lyles, Dr. Edward Pickett.

202 Mississippi Historical Society.
But there was no such unanimity in the Democratic State Rights
party, as the members of the Southern Rights party had begun to
call their organization, as among their opponents in regard to either
the platform it should adopt at its convention to be held in June, or
the nominee for governor. Although many of the leaders of the party
continued to express their approval of Governor Quitman's message
to the legislature44 and to stand upon the platform laid down in the
address of the committee of the Central Southern Rights Associ
ation,46 yet they realized that the basis of their earlier position had
been swept from under them by the failure of the resistance movement
in all the other states except South Carolina. Furthermore, they
understood the effect on public sentiment in the state of the ac
quiescence of the other Southern states in the compromise and of
the fear that resistance on the part of Mississippi, under the circum
stances, would lead to secession; and, for the most part, became con
vinced that they could not carry the state on their first platform.
Therefore, especially after the nomination of Foote by their oppo
nents, many began to urge the modification of their earlier position.
The extent to which some of them thought it necessary to make
this modification and their reasons for their belief are well set forth
in a letter to Quitman, dated May 20, 1851.46 The writer stated:
This cry of Union and disunion has frightened many of the timid but well mean
ing Democrats. They have come to a pause, and scarce know what to do. ... A
convention to form a plan of ultimate disunion can not now be carried. If the issue
be made approval or disapproval of the adjustment measures, then I am confident
the non-contents have the majority — the lowest point short of acquiescence, and
short of an abandonment of state rights, will be most certain to secure the major
ity. Success with a very moderate platform is better than defeat with one based
upon higher ground. The battle to be fought will be a hard one; every topic will
be urged, and every argument insisted on that will at all subserve their ends, by
the Foote men. Disunion per se — secession — a small spice of treason, just enough
to escape the trator's doom, will be charged upon the State-rights men. All this
must be repelled, and must be met by a moderation which, while it does not sur
render our rights, adopts that show of remedy which is most in accordance with
the spirit of the times. Should it be said that the State-rights party has aban-
44 Speech of Jefferson Davis in Jackson, June 16, 1851, Mississippi Free Trader,
June 21, 1851.
48 Letter of John J. McRae to S. R. Adams, Enterprise, Mississippi, April 30,
1851. Ibid., May 17, 1851.
48 Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 121-122. Clai
borne carefully suppresses the name of the writer of tiiis letter and the place from
which it was written; but he says that the letter was "from one of the ablest and
purest men of his party, a state-rights man of the strictest sect, and of great influ
ence."

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850- -Hearon. 203
doned its position, all that is necessary to reply is to show the changes and ter
giversations of their leader. 6
Surely they do not desire a monoply on that score. The change in Virginia
in Georgia in Alabama indeed m all the slave states, fully justifies Mississippi
in saying she will not take a step which those whose interests are identical will not
aid her m maintaining. The question is to be looked at practically. What Mis
sissippi ought to do, under the altered circumstances which surround her is the
tiue pomt, nor what she ought to do if all her sister Southern States sustained her.
The mere abstract point of right will seldom do to stand upon in public affairs.
The sentiments expressed in your last message, even the more subdued tone of
what is styled the Clayton address, are too strong for the popular feeling in this
section. Perhaps the public mind might be brought up to that standard, but I
do not believe it can. '
What, then 1 can be done? But little I fear. First, it can be declared that our
state thinks the Compromise Acts were unjust to the South; next that while she
is unwilling to secede, m the present posture of affairs, she will always be readv
to go hand m hand with her sisters of the South in repelling aggression Non-
intercourse with abolition states, as far as practicable, may also be recommended.4'
The movement in South Carolina in favor of separate state action
also raised the question as to the course the Democratic State Rights
party would advocate for Mississippi to pursue toward South Caro
lina if she should secede alone. Although Quitman, in his correspond
ence with the public men of South Carolina who were working to
bring about the separate secession of that state, reaffirmed the opinions
that he had expressed earlier to Colonel Preston and his assurance
that Mississippi would support South Carolina in her determination
to regain her equality in the Union or to maintain her independence
out of it,48 others in the party did not approve of that policy. They
declared that, if Mississippi were contiguous to South Carolina, there
were many grave considerations to induce her to link her destiny
with that of her sister state; but that, since Mississippi had no ports
of entry and all the states contiguous to her would remain in the Union,
secession on her part would not be wise nor render aid to South Caro
lina.49 Even Quitman, at length, was forced to give way, somewhat, be
fore the rising tide of public sentiment against disunion. In defend
ing himself against the charge of being a disunionist, he gave expres
sion to views strangely unlike those he set forth in his letters to the
South Carolina leaders. He asserted that the Union party had done
47 Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A Quitman, II, 1 21-122.
48 Letter of Quitman to Governor Means, of South Carolina, Monmouth, May
25, 1851. Ibid., n, 135-136.
49 Yazoo Democrat, June 4, 1850.

204 Mississippi Historical Society.
him an injustice in construing his message delivered at the called
session of the legislature, in 1850, so as to make him a disunionist
per se and the advocate of immediate and separate secession, when
the whole tenor of the message contradicted any such idea, for he
was utterly opposed to Mississippi's taking any steps without con
cert with her sister states. He did not hesitate to say that the South
had suffered sufficiently to justify resistance, but he declared that
separate and disjointed resistance might ruin all; while joint action
might, nay would protect the South and save the Union.60
When the Democratic State Rights convention met in June, its
proceedings gave unmistakable proof of the modification of public
sentiment in Mississippi in regard to resistance to the compromise.
In framing the platform, the counsels of those who favored "the lowest
point short of acquiescence and short of an abandonment of state
rights" prevailed. In the resolutions adopted, the members of the
convention expressed their condemnation of the compromise measures;
but in regard to the real issue of the campaign, namely, the measures
that the state convention should adopt to redress the grievances in
flicted on the Southern states by the compromise, they contented
themselves with asserting that they relied on that convention to esti
mate justly the wrongs they had suffered and to indicate the mode
and measures of redress. Moreover, they sought to shift the issue
of the campaign to approval or disapproval of the course of the mem
bers of Congress from Mississippi with respect to the compromise
by expressing their condemnation of the Southern senators and rep
resentatives who voted for those measures and their approval of the
course of those who opposed their adoption, and appealing to the
people of Mississippi for their verdict on that question.
The convention, also, while maintaining the doctrine, to which
the leaders of the party were thoroughly committed, of the right of a
state to secede, tried to protect their party from the charge of seeking
to promote a dissolution of the Union. They asserted " that no right
can be more clear or more essential to the protection of the minority
than the right of the state peaceably to withdraw from the Union,
without denial or obstruction from any quarter whatever;" but
declared that the exercise of the right of secession "by the State of
50 Summary of a speech of Quitman, Yazoo Democrat, June 11, 1851.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 205
Mississippi, under existing circumstances, would be inexpedient and is
a proposition which does not meet the approval of this convention."61
As might be inferred from the failure of the convention to sustain
the position taken in the address by the committee of the Central
Southern Rights Association, of which Quitman was a member, much
less the more extreme position that had been taken by Quitman in his
message to the legislature, there was strong opposition in the con
vention to the nomination of Quitman for governor. The delegates
feared both that he was too inflexible in his views and also that he
was too thoroughly identified in the minds of the people with the
more extreme principles and policies that he had advocated, for the
party to be able to maintain under his leadership the position that
the convention assumed. In addition, they understood that the
efforts of the Union party to make the issue of the campaign union
or disunion would be furthered by the nomination of Quitman, and
believed that by the nomination of Jefferson Davis they could make
the issue the approval by the people of the state of his course in regard
to the compromise, or Foote's.
But since the right to the nimination as governor had been generally
conceded to Quitman because of the circumstances under which he
had resigned that office, the convention could not risk a division in the
party by putting him aside without his consent. Therefore, the com
mittee on nominations, after consultation with Davis, proposed to
Quitman that he should withdraw in favor of Davis and accept the
senatorship that Davis would resign. Quitman, however, refused
to agree to the proposal and nothing was left for the convention to
do except to nominate him as the candidate of the Democratic State
Rights party for governor.62
The campaign that followed was one of the bitterest and most
81 Resolutions of the Democratic State Rights convention, June 16-17, 1851,
Mississippi Free Trader, June 25, 1851.
Jefferson Davis drew the resolution in regard to secession. Letter of Jefferson
Davis to James Alfred Pierce, August 22, 1852. Varina Howell Davis, Jefferson
Davis, I, 471.
62 Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, I, 19; Reu
ben Davis, Recollections of Mississippi and Mississippians, 315. Reuben Davis
was one of the delegates from Monroe county to the convention and says that on
his way to the meeting of that body he passed no man without asking his preference
between Jefferson Davis and Quitman and found that three out of four voters
were for Davis and that many said that, in a choice between Foote and Quitman,
they would vote for the former.

206 Mississippi Historical Society.
exciting in the history of the state. In every county, contests were
carried on between candidates of the two parties for the convention
and for the legislature; while the candidates for the state offices and the
more important leaders of the two parties canvassed the state to
arouse enthusiasm and win support for their respective tickets.
The Union party, as the members of the Democratic State Rights
convention feared when they nominated Quitman, succeeded in
fixing the issue, and the campaign was fought largely on the ques
tion of secession. The Unionists, for the most part, denied that a
state possessed a constitutional right to secede from the Union63 and
sought to fix on their opponents the charge of working for the se-
session of Mississippi in opposition to the compromise. The mem
bers of the Democratic State Rights party, on the other hand, took
their stand on the position assumed by the state convention of then-
party in regard to secession. In defending that position, they main
tained the right of a state to secede from the Union sometimes as a
constitutional right and sometimes as a revolutionary right, but, in
general, without carefully discriminating between the two. They, also,
insisted that they were neither "submissionists" nor "disunionists"
and that they regarded both extremes as equally dangerous to the
rights of the state and the Union.64
The position of the Democratic State Rights party in the campaign
following the convention of the party in June, was, perhaps, best set
forth by Jefferson Davis. In a speech at Fayette, he declared that
if the secession of Mississippi from the Union presented the only al
ternative to social and political degradation, he would say "secession"
and that he believed that the state of Mississippi would adopt that
alternative. But he asserted that there were many steps between those
two open to the state, and proceeded to set forth the course of action
that it should follow. The people of Mississippi, he declared, should
organize for the purpose of claiming their rights in the territories.
Then, they should endeavor to meet the other Southern states to con
fer with them as to the best means of repelling aggressions and ob
taining security for the future; and, if there was unanimity of feeling,
68 The Independent (Aberdeen, Miss.), April 5, 1851; Natchez Semi-weekly Cou
rier, October 1, 1851.
"Letter to the people of Lowndes county, from the State Rights candidates
for the convention, William L. Harris, George H. Young, and James M. Wynne,
Columbus, July 3, 1851, Southern Standard, July 5, 1851.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850— Hearon. 207
a proposition might be adopted requiring certain securities from the
North. But if the other Southern states did not join Mississippi
in her efforts in behalf of Southern rights, then Mississippi should
stand aloof in readiness so that, when eventually the other states
should be forced, by future calamities, to join her, she could arrange
with them for mutual cooperation.
^ In addition, Davis urged that Mississippi should meet South Caro
lina in the Southern congress, both because she had drawn South
Carolina into the controversy and, therefore, should not leave her
to bear the difficulties and encounter the dangers before her alone,
and also because, by that means, Mississippi might be able to save
her from taking that last resort to which she had determined to recur,
although she might be abandoned by all the other states. For, if
Mississippi met South Carolina, the two states could make propo
sitions that one of them could not, and thus South Carolina might
be prevented from separate state secession. But, Davis added, if
he were asked to go out of the Union with South Carolina his answer
would be "no," for unless the people of Mississippi were attached to
coterminous states in secession, they would be worse off than before;
and, further, Mississippi would be more effective in the Union than
out of it, for she would be able to give South Carolina more assist
ance and advice.
Though Davis asserted in this speech the right of a state to secede
from the Union, he did not maintain it as a constitutional right. It
was truly said, he declared, that secession was the right of revolution;
and if the colonies had a right to secede from British rule, although
that secession was opposed, by the same reason a state had a right
to secede from the federal government.65
Public interest in this campaign centered largely in the contest
between Quitman and Foote, who, as the candidates of their respec
tive parties for governor, were, also, the officially recognized leaders
in the struggle over the selection of delegates to the convention.
Unfortunately for the success of the Democratic State Rights party,
Quitman agreed to meet Foote in a series of joint debates. For while
Quitman was neither an orator nor yet a ready and plausible campaign
88 Summary of a speech delivered by Jefferson Davis at Fayette, Mississippi
Free Trader, July 23, 1851.

208 Mississippi Historical Society.
speaker, Foote was one of the best stump speakers of his day.86
He was a master of irony and satire and the art of provoking his
enemy and understood thoroughly how to make an issue and also
how to evade one. Moreover, the lack of dignity and restraint in
his style and manner that often made his speeches unsuitable to
the formality of the senate chamber served to add to his effective
ness on the hustings. Pitted against Quitman he appeared at his best.
In the canvass, Quitman attacked the course of Foote on the com
promise and his desertion of the Democratic party;87 while Foote
charged Quitman and his party with seeking to promote a dissolu
tion of the Union and assailed him and the other leaders of the Demo
cratic State Rights party in the most merciless manner.68 Quit
man's friends soon perceived that he was not sustaining himself in
the debates and urged him to crush Foote with personalities,69 but
Quitman could not and would not resort to such tactics. Leaders
of the Union party, however, were not content with Foote's triumphs
over Quitman in the joint debates, but urged him, if possible, to drive
Quitman from the field, by using all his arts of buffoonery to provoke
him to the highest pitch.60 Accordingly, Foote became so heated and
personal in his remarks as to tax too heavily the forbearance of his
adversary, — and the joint debates were closed by a fight between the
two, on July 18, at Pontotoc.61
This termination of the debates in which Quitman appeared at
such a disadvantage would have been to the advantage of the Demo
cratic State Rights party, if new appointments had been made by
both candidates. But Foote was allowed to fill all the old appoint
ments; while Quitman followed two days behind him. Therefore,
Foote boasted everywhere, to the large crowds that gathered to
hear him, that he had driven Quitman from the field.62

88 Reuben Davis describes Quitman's style of speaking as "poor and flat," and
speaks of Foote as "the best stump speaker then living." Reuben Davis, Re
collections of Mississippi and Mississippians, 317.
87 Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A . Quitman, II, 145-146.
88 Reuben Davis, Recollections of Mississippi and Mississippians, 317-318.
89 Letter from L. Saunders to Quitman, Natchez, July 13, 1851, Claiborne Pa
pers, State Archives, Jackson, Mississippi.
80 Letter from F. W. Quackenboss to Quitman, Yazoo City, July 23, 1851,
Claiborne Papers, State Archives, Jackson, Mississippi.
81 Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II, 146.
82 Reuben Davis, Recollections of Mississippi and Mississippians, 318.

THE COUNTIES THAT GAVE A MAJORITY
_ IN FAVOR OF THE. DEMOCRATIC STATE'
RIGHTS CANDIDATES IN THAT ELECTION.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850— Hearon. 209
In the election of delegates to the state convention, on the first
Monday and the day following in September, 1851, the people of
Mississippi were, at length, given an opportunity to express their
will in regard to the policy the state should pursue with respect to
the compromise and they gave their decision in favor of acquiescing
in that measure. The candidates of the Union party were elected to
the convention from all except eighteen counties and together they
received a majority of more than seven thousand votes in the state.63
Although the Union party might well rejoice over its great vic
tory, the policy of acquiescing in the compromise had not received
such emphatic approval from the people of Mississippi as might be
supposed. For in spite of the exciting campaign, the vote in this
election fell below that in the election for governor in 1849, the de
crease being almost equal to the majority by which the Union ticket
had carried the state.6* In fact, the Union party, notwithstanding
the large majority with which it had carried the election, had not
received a majority of the votes in the state.66
The failure of a large number of the citizens of Mississippi to vote
in this election was, no doubt, due to their unwillingness to support
either of the two courses open to the state at that time. For the
state and congressional elections beginning in the Southern states
in the summer of 1851 confirmed the view, which had been already
generally accepted} that public sentiment in the other Southern states,
except South Carolina, was in favor of acquiescing in the compro
mise;66 and in September, the people of Mississippi understood that
63 Mississippi FreeTrader, October 25, 1851; Tribune Almanac, 1852, 44. By
comparing map 1 and map 2, it will be seen that not one of the counties that re
turned State Rights delegates to the convention was a populous black county pro
ducing 10,000 bales of cotton.
"The official returns for the election for governor in 1849 gives 33,117 votes
for Quitman and 22,996 for Lea (Senate Journal, 1850, 314-315); and the Trib
une Almanac of 1852 gives 28,402 votes for the Union ticket in the election of
delegates to the state convention in 1851 and 21,241 for the State Rights ticket,
with no returns from Coahoma, a county with about 325 votes. (Tribune Al
manac, 1852, 44). This makes a total of 56,113 votes cast in the first election and
of 49,643 in the second.
66 The total vote cast for Davis and Foote in the election for governor in No
vember, 1 85 1, was 57,717-
KNew York Semi-weekly Tribune, August 12-15, 1851; National Era, August
21, 1851.
In these elections the people of Alabama, at length, had an opportunity to ex
press their sentiment in regard to the compromise and they declared, unequivo
cally in favor of submission to that measure on the basis of the Georgia platform

210 Mississippi Historical Society.
only the alternative was left to them of acting with South Carolina
alone in resistance to the compromise or acquiescing in that measure.
Many were restrained from voting for the former policy from the be
lief that it would accomplish nothing or the fear that it might lead to
separate state secession and yet were unwilling to declare themselves
in favor of acquiescing in the compromise. Consequently they re
frained from voting at all.
The result of the election in Mississippi of delegates to the state
convention, therefore, simply proclaimed that the people of the state,
in view of the failure of the movement to resist the compromise in
all the Southern states except South Carolina, were unwilling to
adopt a policy of resistance to that measure.
by reelecting Governor Collier, who stood upon that platform, over Shields, who
presented the issue of unconditional submission, and by returning to Congress a
Georgia platform Whig or Democrat from every district except the fourth, where
a triangular contest among a Southern Rights Democrat, a Georgia platform
Whig, and an unconditional submissionist resulted in the triumph of the latter.
Du Bose, Life and Times of William Lowndes Yancey, 261-266; Hodgson, Cradle
of the Confederacy. 301-314.

CHAPTER XI.
THE END OF THE STRUGGLE IN MISSISSIPPI OVER THE COMPROMISE.
The struggle in Mississippi over the compromise of T850 did not
end with the election of delegates to the state convention. For the
issues connected with that measure had also become the basis of the
contest for the election of state officers and members of Congress,
which was not to be decided until November. Therefore, the impor
tant questions in the contest over the compromise in Mississippi,
after the election of delegates to the state convention, were the inter
pretation that each party would put on the results of that election
and its effects on the course of each in the rest of the campaign for
the election of state officers and members of Congress.
Public meetings of members of the Democratic State Rights party
in the counties of Madison and Attala, soon after the September
elections, declared that the people of Mississippi in the selection of
delegates to the state convention had not decided in favor of sub
mission to the adjustment measures, since a large and patriotic por
tion of the people of the state had voted against the convention, or
declined to vote at all, under the impression, produced by the false
denunciation of unprincipled demagogues, that the Democratic State
Rights party contemplated a dissolution of the Union, either directly
or indirectly, by means of the convention, and that the issue in the
election was "Union or Disunion;" and asserted that it was their
firm and deliberate conviction that a great majority of the people of
Mississippi were in favor of the principles and policy set forth in
the resolutions of the Democratic State Rights Convention in June.1
But the members of the Democratic State Rights party, for the most
part, interpreted the election as a declaration by the majority of the
people of Mississippi in favor of acquiescing in the compromise and
'Resolutions adopted by a meeting in Madison county, September 8, 1851,
Weekly Independent, October 18, 1851; Resolutions adopted by a meeting in Attala
county, September 15, 1851, Ibid.

212 Mississippi Historical Society.
gave in their submission to that decision as "the verdict of the
sovereign people."2
Quitman agreed with the majority of the members of his party in
this interpretation of the results of the election and, deeply chagrined
at what he considered the condemnation by the people of Mississippi
of his policy on the slavery question while governor and the princi
ples upon which he was again nominated for that office, resigned as
the candidate of his party for governor.3 The Democratic State
Rights party was thus left, as the result of the election of delegates
to the state convention, in the midst of a campaign for the election
of state officers and members of Congress, without a platform and
without a candidate for governor.
As a standard bearer to replace Quitman, the sentiment of the party
was unanimously in favor of Jefferson Davis. Accordingly, he was
placed in nomination for governor by the executive committee of the
party, ten days after Quitman's resignation; and, with true self-sacri
fice, resigned his office as senator to serve the party in its hour of
need. But as to the issues upon which the campaign should be continued,
there was not the same unanimity of opinion among the members
of the Democratic State Rights party as there was in regard to the
nominee to replace Quitman. Those who did not regard the election
as a decision by the people of Mississippi in favor of acquiescing in
the compromise insisted that it was the duty of the party to sustain
the platform adopted by it in the June convention.4 Some argued
that, although the people had agreed to acquiesce in the compromise,
it did not follow that they approved that measure; and urged that
the contest for governor should be based on the issue whether the
compromise measures and the conduct of the Southern men who sup
ported them were approved or disapproved.5 Others urged that
all issues connected with the compromise should be dropped and the
1 Yazoo Democrat, September 17, 185 1; Meeting of the Southern Rights Associa
tion at Benton, Yazoo county, September 13, 1850, Ibid.
'Address of Quitman to tie Democratic State Rights Party of Mississippi,
September 6, 1851, Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, II,
146-147. * Resolutions adopted by a meeting in Madison county, September 8, 1851,
Weekly Independent, October 18, 1851; Resolutions adopted by a meeting in Attala
county, September 15, 1851. Ibid.
' Yazoo Democrat, September 17, 1851.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850— -Hearon. 213
campaign made on the old ones of Democratic principles in opposition
to Whig measures.6
But on Jefferson Davis, who agreed to assume the leadership of
the party in its defeat, rested, to a great extent, the responsibility
of determining its interpretation of the results of the September elec
tions and its course in the rest of the campaign for the other elections.
Recognizing this, he issued, soon after his nomination, an "Address
to the People of Mississippi," discussing these questions.
In regard to the first he wrote:
Since the recent election of delegates to the State Convention I have asked my
self what have the people decided? Have they decided the issue which was pre
sented by one party, but never accepted by the other — of Union or Disunion,
in favor of the Union? Then I am with the majority, and know of no party in the
State opposed to the decision. The people of Mississippi have given too many and
conclusive proofs, by acts which speak louder than words, of their attachment to the
Union, and willingness to make all proper sacrifices for it. The "Democratic
State Rights Convention" of June last, speaking of State secession, in their 15th
resolution, said: "Whilst we assert the right we consider it the last remedy, the
final alternative, and also declare that the exercise of it, by the State of Mississippi,
under existing circumstances would be inexpedient, and is a proposition which
does not meet the approbation of this Convention." Did the election, then, de
cide that Mississippi should not secede from the Union? I know of no party,
and trust there are few, very few individuals, who desired that she should adopt so
suicidal a policy. Did the election decide that the people of Mississippi approved
the action of Congress on the subject of slavery, and the territories of the United
States? I hope not, I believe not. For the future as well as the past, I should
deeply lament such a decision. Have the people decided that, though not satis
fied, not approving, yet they will bear the evil without seeking any remedy, and
shape their future action by the course of future events? I bow to the popular
judgment, and but fulfill the declaration I have heretofore made, and comply with
the duty of a citizen when I say I acquiesce in the decision of the people, the
source of all power in the State, whatever that decision may be.7
Having accepted the results of the election as an expression of the
will of the people to acquiesce in the compromise, Davis proposed
to continue the campaign on the issue of the domestic policy of Mis
sissippi. Therefore, putting aside all issues relating to the position
of the state in its federal relations with the declaration that the con
vention of the state to assemble in November and the subsequent
action of the people upon its proceedings would settle those questions,
he closed his address to the people of Mississippi by presenting his
views in regard to the educational and economic development of
the state.8

6 Mississippi Free Trader, September 16, 1851.
7 Address of Jefferson Davis to the People of Mississippi, September 25, 1851,
Ibid., October 8, 1851.
8 Ibid.

214 Mississippi Historical Society.
The Union party, however, had been too successful with the old
issues to allow them to be discarded for new ones without opposition.
They declared that the "Secessionists and Disunionists" were under
taking an " unmitigated swindle" in endeavoring to produce the im
pression that the question of secession was settled and that they
acquiesced in the decision of the people, for they did not acquiesce
nor did they consider the question settled.9 The Whig press main
tained that there was no change in the campaign except the substi
tution of the name of Davis for that of Quitman since the issues were
the same; asserted that there was not a voter in the state who did
not know that the tendencies of the principles of Davis were as dan
gerous to the perpetuity of the Union and the peace and harmony
of the country as were those of Quitman;10 and ridiculed the attempt
of Davis to make the people believe that there had been no disunion
party in the state, or if there had been, it was the Union party.11
The Democratic papers that had gone over to the support of the
Union party, but adlmired Davis, were fairly caught in the unexpected
turn the campaign had taken. They took no pleasure in opposing
Davis and the difference between their treatment of him in this can
vass and that of the Whig papers is of great significance for the fu
ture of the Union party. The attitude of the Primitive Republican
towards Davis is typical of that of other Democratic papers support
ing the Union ticket. It declared in an editorial on Davis's "Ad
dress to the People of Mississippi:"
Like everything emanating from Davis, the address is a calm, dignified, and
plausible production. It is mainly devoted to an exposition of his course on the
compromise measures, the whole being pervaded by a substratum of Democracy.
In the present antagonism which Davis has arbitrarily assumed towards Foote,
our convictions of justice constrain us to sustain the latter. We repeat, however,
that those who contemplate with pleasure the political destruction of Davis find
no sympathy in our breast, while we are free to confess that he has adopted the most
promising means of his own martyrdom in the position which he now occupies.
Upon what principle he could resign his commission as Senator, and invoke the
support of the people for Governor, we do not understand, unless upon the falla
cious idea that there is not room enough in the public service for both Foote and
himself.12

• Hinds County Gazette, September 25, 1851.
10 Vicksburg Daily Whig, September 24, 1851.
--"Criticism of Davis's Speech in Aberdeen, October 20, 1851, Weekly Indepen
dent, October 25, 1851.
n Primitive Republican, October 9, 1851.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 215
The elections took place on the third and fourth of November and
resulted in a victory for the Union party, though its majorities were
not so great as in the election of delegates to the convention. Al
though Davis had been ill at the time of his nomination and, conse
quently, had not been able to canvass during a part of the short pe
riod between that event and the election, the vote cast for him was
only 999 less than that for Foote.13 This great reduction in the ma
jority of Foote below that of the candidates of the Union party for
the convention was not due to a loss of votes by Foote, for he received
more votes than they did; but to the fact that many people who
had not voted in the September elections voted for Davis in No
vember. In the contests for the other administrative offices, the Union party
elected its candidates by majorities larger than Foote's. It, also,
returned sixty-three out of the ninety-eight members of the lower
house of the legislature, but elected only seven of the sixteen members
of the senate chosen that year.14 In the congressional elections, its
candidates, Nabors, Wilcox, and Freeman defeated Thompson, Fea-
therston, and McWillie, who had, as members of the thirty-first Con
gress, violently opposed the passage of the compromise and, as leaders
of the Democratic State Rights party, urged the adoption by the
state of a policy of resistance to it. But A. G. Brown, the most radi
cal and the most outspoken of all the delegates from Mississippi in
the thirty-first Congress both in opposition to the passage of the
compromise and in favor of the adoption by the state of measures
of resistance to it, was returned to his seat in Congress by the votes
of his loyal supporters in the "piney woods" counties.15
However open to different interpretations the elections of delegates
to the state convention may have been, only one construction could
be placed on the results of the November elections. His opponents
and even members of his own party had refused to accept the state
ment of Davis that the Democratic State Rights party regarded the
vote in the September elections as a decision of the people of the state

15 House Journal, 1852, 256. Foote received 29,358 votes; Davis, 28,359.
" Tribune Almanac, 1852, 44. .
The results of the election gave the Union party eleven members m the benate
and the Democratic State Rights party twenty-one.
" Ibid.

216 Mississippi Historical Society.
in favor of acquiescing in the compromise and accepted it as an ex
pression of the sovereign will of the state of Mississippi; and to allow
him to shift the election for state offices to domestic issues.16 There
fore, the question at issue in the November elections was again the
policy of the state in regard to the compromise; and the people, on
this occasion, gave their decision unmistakably in favor of acquies
cence in that measure.
However, the decision of the state in regard to the adjustment of
the issues that had risen in the great struggle over slavery was not
left to be settled by the interpretation of results of elections. For
the convention of the people of the state that met November io,
1851, officially set forth the "deliberate judgment" of the people of
Mississippi "on the great questions involved in the sectional contro
versy between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding states of the
America! Union" in the following resolutions:
i. Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention, the people of Mississippi,
in a spirit of conciliation and compromise, have maturely considered the action
of Congress, embracing a series of measures for the admission of California as a
State into the Union, the organization of Territorial Governments for Utah and
New Mexico, the establishment of the boundary between the latter and the State
of Texas, the suppression of the Slave Trade in the District of Columbia, and the
extradition of Fugitive Slaves, and connected with them, the rejection of the propo
sition to exclude slavery from the Territories of the United States, and to abolish
it in the District of Columbia, and whilst they do not entirely approve, will abide
by it as a permanent adjustment of this sectional controversy, so long as the same,
in all its features, shall be faithfully adhered to and enforced.
2. Resolved, That we perceive nothing in the above recited legislation of the
Congress of the United States which should be permitted to disturb the friendly
and peaceful "existing relations between the Government of the United States
and the Government and people of the State of Mississippi."
3. Therefore, Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention the people of
the State of Mississippi will abide by the Union as it is, and by the Constitution
of the United States without amendment — That they hold the Union secondary
in importance only to the rights and principles it was designed to perpetuate; that
past associations, present fruition, and future prosperity will bind them to it so long
as it continues to be the safeguard of those rights and principles.
4. Resolved, Further, That in the opinion of this Convention, the asserted right
of secession from the Union on the part of a State or States is utterly unsanctioned
by the Federal Constitution, which was framed to "establish," and not to destroy
16 The Mississippi Free Trader, November 1, 1851, declared that the issue in
the elections on the third and fourth of November was acquiescence or non-aqui-
escence in the absorption by free soilism of all the public domain owned, or to be
owned, by the United States, for the decree had gone forth from tie great mouthpiece
of the Whig administration, Daniel Webster, "that/rw» henceforth and forever, no
more slaveholding states shall ever be admitted into the Union-" and urged that, since
the popular convention had been lost, the people of the state should elect a firm
Southern legislature.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850— Hearon. 217
the Union of the States, and that no secession can in fact take place, without a
subversion of the Union established, and which will not virtually amount in its
effects and consequences to a civil revolution.17
5. Resolved, Further, That whilst in the opinion of this Convention, such are
the sentiments _ and opinions of the people of the State of Mississippi, still viola
tions of the rights of the people may occur which would amount to intolerable op
pression, and would justify a resort to measures of resistance, amongst which, in the
opmion of the Convention, the people of the State have designated the follow
ing: 1. The interference by Congressional Legislation with the institution of Slavery
m the States. 2. Interference with the trade in Slaves between the States. 3.
Any action of Congress on the subject of Slavery in the District of Columbia, or
in places subject to the jurisdiction of Congress, incompatible with the safety and
domestic tranquility— the rights and honor of the slaveholding States. 4. The
refusal by Congress to admit a new State into the Union on the ground of her
tolerating slavery within her limits. 5. The passage of any law by Congress pro
hibiting slavery in any of the territories. 6. The repeal of the Fugutive Slave
Law, and the neglect or refusal by the General Government to enforce the con
stitutional provisions for the reclamation of Fugitive Slaves.
6. Resolved Further, That in the opinion of this Convention the people in the
recent elections have been governed by an abiding confidence that the said adjust
ment measures of Congress would be enforced in good faith in every section of
the land.18
Though these resolutions expressed the opinions of the majority
of the convention, they did not meet the approval of all the delegates.
The three members of the Democratic State Rights party of the com
mittee on resolutions submitted to the convention a report, in which
they presented the views of their party on the questions discussed
in the majority report. The resolutions presented in the minority
report declared that the convention, believing that the position of
17 William Barksdale, of Lowndes county, a Union delegate, moved to strike out
this resolution, and Joseph B. Cobb, also a Union delegate from the same county,
while admitting the doctrine of the resolution, declared that it was inexpedient " to
adopt an open and abstract question as the permanent position of a sovereign State,"
and sought to have the doctrine asserted, as a matter of opinion by the members of
the convention, apart from the main body of its action; but the convention by a vote
of 22 to 67 declined to strike out the resolution and passed it by a vote of 73 to 17.
Those who voted against the resolution were Barksdale, of Lowndes; Backstrom,
of Neshoba; Cherry, of Jasper; Cannon, of Oktibbeha; Connelly, of Pike; Easterling,
of Jones; Edwards, of Pontotoc; Gilliland, of Attala; Jones, of Franklin; Keon, of
Smith; Miller, of Copiah; McLendon, of Clark; Phillips, of Marshall; Scales, of
Sunflower; Smith, of Scott; Sturgis, of Copiah; Sturgis, of Simpson. Journal of
the Convention of the State of Mississippi, 1851, 33.
18 Preamble and Resolutions as adopted by the Convention, Ibid., 47-48.
There were two other resolutions in this series. In the seventh, the convention
declared that it deemed it unnecessary to refer its action to the people of the state
for their approval or disapproval; on the ground that the people desired all further
agitation of the slavery question to cease and had already decided all the questions
acted upon. In the eighth resolution, the convention censured the legislature
for having called a convention of the state without having first submitted to the
people the question of whether there should be a convention or not.

2i8 Mississippi Historical Society.
the people of the state on the slavery question had been fully defined
in the report and resolutions of the October convention of 1849, con_
sidered it inexpedient to assume any new position on that question;
that it deemed it right and proper that full weight should be given
in its action to the will of a majority of the people of Mississippi, as
expressed in the election in September, in regard to the slavery ques
tion; that it considered acquiescence in the measures of Congress
called the compromise the settled policy of the people of Mississippi,
as indicated by that election; but that it did not regard the election
in September as an expression in favor of the justice or the wisdom
of the whole series of those measures, but rather as an assent yielded
to them, by the people, in preference to the adoption of any course
that might tend to endanger the union of the states, and that, while
the people had thus yielded their assent to those measures, in view
of all the surrounding circumstances, they had in nowise intended to
sanction them, so that they should be thereafter invoked as prece
dents of right against them; and, finally, that the convention deemed
it proper to declare that the government of the United States is one
of delegated power, formed by delegates from the several sovereign
states, and limited by a written constitution, which was ratified by
the states separately; that all powers not expressly delegated, or neces
sary to carry out the delegated powers, were reserved to the states
respectively, and that it necessarily followed, that any state possessed
the right to judge of infractions of the constitution, and that when
ever an exigency should arrive, which, in the opinion of the people
of the state, was sufficient to justify the step, a state had an unques
tionable right to resume the delegated powers and withdraw from the
Union.19 Although this report was laid on the table by a vote of 72 to 14,20
it is hardly second in importance to the resolutions adopted by the
convention, for it expressed the views of a large minority in the state,
19 Minority report submitted to the convention from the committee on resolu
tions by Wm. R. Cannon, W. P. Harris, and Sam'l N. Gilliland. Journal of the
Convention of the State of Mississippi, 1851, 27-30.
20 Journal of the Convention of the Stale of Mississippi, 1851, 42.
The delegates who voted in the negative were: Backstrom, of Neshoba; Cherry,
of Jasper; Cannon, of Oktibbeha; Connelly, of Pike; Easterling, of Jones; Gilliland,
of Attala; Harris, of Lawrence; Keown, of Smith; Miller, of Copiah; McLendon,
of Clark; Scales, of Simpson; Smith, of Scott; Sturges, of Copiah; and Sturges,
of Simpson.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 219
if not a majority, in the position it took in regard to the questions
before the convention.21
But both the resolutions adopted by the convention and those
supported by the minority in that body agreed that the majority of
the people of Mississippi had decided in favor of acquiescence in the
compromise, and accepted the decision as the verdict of the sovereign
will of the state. Therefore, the proceedings of the convention mark
the end of thegreat struggle in Mississippi over the compromise of 1850.
With the acquiescence of Mississippi in that measure, South Caro
lina was left alone in opposition to it. As has been seen, in the con
vention of the Southern Rights Association of South Carolina in
May, 1851, a movement had been launched in favor of separate se-
21 That the minority report, in addition to expressing the views of the Demo
cratic party also expressed the sentiment of some of those who had supported the
Union ticket in the elections, is shown by the attitude of the Primitive Republican
toward the resolutions adopted by the convention. In its issue of November 27,
185 1, this paper declared: "The policy of final acquiescence was urged — not be
cause the Compromise measures were liberal and just' — nor because sovereign
States had no redress — but 'for the sake of the Union' — the policy of acquiescence
being accompanied by an expression of disapproval of the settlement, while its
acceptance was proclaimed to be sacred and inviolable at all risks. Such is our
'Union platform.' ....
"In as far as the Union party of Mississippi was based upon the practical issue
of acquiescence in the slavery settlement, we were naturally allied with it — no
farther. This we expressly asserted when we placed its candidate at our mast
head. We repudiated the political theories which prevailed in that party, and
which the late convention embodied into a public creed. If the transient nature
of the issues which that Convention was alone called to determine for the State
of Mississippi, had not dissolved any connection of ours with it, its late actio n
inevitably produced that result  We propose to review the proceed
ings of the Convention next week."
In its next issue, December 4, 1851, the Primitive Republican asserted: "The
composition of the Union ticket for the Convention, in this county, furnished a
conclusive fact against the false and fradulent assumption that the right of seces
sion was in issue. If so, how was it that Capt. Wm. Barksdale was nominated and
elected as a Union candidate? We refer the reader to his remarks upon our first
page, in which he proclaimed in Convention what was known during the canvass
to be bis fixed views upon this subject. The truth is that the proceedings of the
body, and especially its fourth resolution, 'was not the entertainment to which we
were invited.' If it had been, we know of several prominent gentlemen in this
place who would have with us promptly declined 
"If we turn to the Union platform of the State we find it equally silent upon
the subject in regard to which the late Convention volunteered a sweeping affirma
tion a subject upon which at least there was an honest contrariety of opinion
amongst the friends of the Union cause, and one in no way connected with the
discharge of the practical and legitimate business 
"In view of these dogmatic tests, any connection of ours with the union party,
as contradistinguished from the UNION CAUSE, would have been inevitably
dissolved even if the decision of the isolated issue for which the Convention assembled,
had not IPSO FACTO, finished the mission of the Union party."

220 Mississippi Historical Society.
cession by South Carolina in resistance to the compromise. Time,
however, had been given for the intense excitement in that state to
subside and a soberer second thought to take its place. Therefore,
as one Southern state after another gave in its submission to the com
promise and, finally, even Mississippi refused to support a policy of
resistance to it, the people of South Carolina listened more willingly
to those who counselled against the rashness of separate state action;
and in the election of delegates to the Southern congress, on the
second Monday in October and the day following, gave their deci
sion against that policy by electing a large majority of delegates who
were its pledged opponents.22 But the people of South Carolina
understood that all the other Southern states had declined to meet
their state in this congress to which they were choosing delegates
and that cooperative action on the part of the Southern states against
the compromise had definitely failed; therefore, their decision, in
this election, against separate state action closed the struggle in the
state over the compromise of 1850.
It remained, however, for the state convention to meet, April 26,
1852, and the proceedings of that body fittingly mark the end of the
first great crisis over slavery. For, in the resolution and ordinance
adopted, South Carolina formally assumed the position to which a
large part of the South had advanced in this struggle in defense of sla
very and which the section, as a whole, was to occupy in the next
great crisis over that institution.
By a vote of 136 to 19 the convention resolved:
That the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States by the
Federation Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the
sovereign States of this Union, especially in relation to slavery, amply justify
this State, so far as any duty or obligation to her confederates is involved in dis
solving at once all political connection with her co-States; and that she forbears
the exercise of this manifest right of self-government from considerations of expe
diency only
and ordained:
That South Carolina, in the exercise of her sovereign will, as an independent State
acceded to the Federal Union, known as the United States of America; and that in
the exercise of the same sovereign will it is her right, without let, hindrance, or
molestation from any power whatsoever, to secede from the said Federal Union;
and that for the sufficiency of the causes which may impel her to such separation,
she is responsible alone, under God, to the tribunal of public opinion among the
nations of the earth.23
22 National Era, October 23, 1851; Ibid., November 13, 1851.
28 Journals of the Conventions of the People of South Carolina held in 1832, 1833,
and 1852, 150-151.

CHAPTER XH.
PERMANENT SIGNIFICANCE IN MISSISSIPPI OF THE CRISIS OVER THE
COMPROMISE OF 1850.
The permanent significance in Mississippi of the controversy over
the extension of slavery in the territory acquired from Mexico and
the compromise of 1850 lies in the relation of that controversy to the
long struggle waged by Mississippi, in common with the other South
ern states, in defense of slavery, which resulted in their withdrawal
from the Union.
In this crisis, the people of Mississippi definitely assumed the posi
tion in regard to slavery that they were to occupy throughout the
struggle between the sections over that institution. In 1850, be
cause of the great returns from slave labor in the production of
cotton, slaves had been introduced into Mississippi in such num
bers that they outnumbered the white population; and the people
of the state had accepted the institution of slavery as the basis of
their economic, political, and social order. Moreover, they saw no
practicable method of ever removing the negroes from their midst
and were convinced that the abolition of slavery without that pre
caution would result in a conflict between the two races, which would
end in the extermination of one or the other and the desolation of the
South. Consequently, all classes in Mississippi, deeply moved by
the strength of the abolition sentiment manifested in the North, in
this controversy, definitely assumed a position in defense of the
institution of slavery.
Furthermore, this crisis revealed not only that the people of Mis
sissippi were unanimous in support of slavery, but also that they had
ceased to regard it as an evil. For the public men, the press, and the
people in public meetings and conventions, almost without excep
tion, praised the institution as conducive to the welfare of both races
and defended it as founded on the laws of nature and sanctioned by
the Bible.

222 Mississippi Historical Society.
But, notwithstanding the unanimity of determination to defend
the institution of slavery manifested by the people of Mississippi in
this struggle, a cleavage, which was to continue throughout the con
troversy between the sections over slavery, was evident among them
in regard to the policy to be pursued in the defense of that institution.
The large slaveholders, because of their great property interests,
took a position in opposition to the adoption of a policy in defense
of slavery that might disturb the existing order; while the non-slave
holders, partly because they had less interests of property at stake,
but more because their social position was not so far removed from
that of the slaves as that of the great planters was, and because
there existed between them and the negroes great mutual distrust
and dislike, manifested a greater willingness to resort to extreme
measures in defense of slavery then the large slaveholders.
In spite of this cleavage, in regard to the extent to which they were
willing to go in defense of slavery, the people of Mississippi were thor
oughly alarmed and aroused by the strength of the abolition senti
ment manifested in the North and convinced that they could not
with safety allow any further encroachments by the majority section
upon the rights of the South. Therefore, they accepted the measures
of the compromise as a final adjustment of the questions concerning
slavery at issue between the sections and expressed the determination
to resist any further infringement or disregard of their rights in re
spect to that institution.
In this controversy, the people of Mississippi found it necessary,
as Calhoun and Quitman had foreseen in the days of nullification, to
turn to the doctrine of state sovereignty to protect their interests
bound up with slavery, from a majority hostile to that institution.
In the struggle to prevent the passage of the Wilmot proviso, both
the Whigs and the Democrats in Mississippi took the position that
the states were sovereign and that the federal government was their
agent and possessed only such powers as were granted to it by the
constitution, with such limited powers as might be indispensably
necessary as incident to the express grant.
But when a lack of unity developed in the state in regard to the
measures of the compromise, a corresponding divergence appeared
with respect to questions of political theory. Those in favor of re
sisting the compromise turned to the withdrawal of the Southern

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850— Hearon. 223
states from the Union as the only effective means of obtaining re
dress for the rights of the South injured or imperiled by that measure
and security from further encroachments, and, consequently, asserted
the right of a state to resort to secession from the Union as a final
measure in defense of its rights from assumptions of power by the
federal government not sanctioned by the constitution; while those
who favored the acquiescence of the state in the compromise, in op
position to the measures of redress advocated by those in favor of
resistance, denied the right of a state to secede from the Union. In
order to influence the people of the state to adopt the policy it advo
cated, each side, of course, advanced arguments in support of its
position concerning the right of secession, though the discussions
show that the main interest, during this controversy, in the question
of secession, was not in the right of a state to secede from the Union
but in the expediency.
The arguments of the spokesmen of both parties were based, for
the most part, on the compact theory of government and they quoted
copiously from the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Spencer Roane,
John Taylor, of Caroline, and other exponents of that school of polit
ical theory that characterized the members of the early state rights
school of Virginia, whom they were so fond of quoting. Of the polit
ical philosophy of Calhoun, who so ably set forth the organic theory
of government, which was later to serve as the basis for both the
assertion and the denial of the constitutional right of a state to se
cede from the Union, and of the arguments that great political genius
presented so convincingly, in the midst of this controversy, to estab
lish the doctrine of state sovereignty and the consequent right of
secession, the leaders of Mississippi showed, in the crisis, little knowl
edge or understanding.
That the people of Mississippi were not so keenly interested in the
constitutionality of the right of a state to secede from the Union as
they were to become later and that the leaders of the state did not
feel, with Calhoun, the necessity of estabhshing that measure as a
constitutional right is shown by the willingness manifested by many
of those who supported secession as a final resort in resistance to the
compromise to waive the question of its constitutionality and to
assert it as a revolutionary right. No less a person than Jefferson
Davis, in fact, advocated it as a revolutionary right. He said, if

224 Mississippi Historical Society.
he were asked what right states had to go out of the Union, his re
ply would be reserved rights not found in the constitution because
they were above the constitution. It was truly said, he added, that
secession was the right of revolution and if the colonies had a right
to secede from the British rule, although that secession was opposed,
by the same reason a state had a right to secede from the federal govern
ment.1 Although those in Mississippi who were in favor of secession as a
final resort for the protection of the rights of the people of the state
did not, in this struggle, insist upon the constitutionality of that
measure as they did later, and had not come to understand and ac
cept the political theories of Calhoun, upon which they were finally
to base the right of their state to secede from the Union, yet this
struggle was of great importance in the development of the seces
sion movement in Mississippi. For, during its course, the political
leaders whom the people of the state were accustomed to follow
accepted the right of a state to secede from the Union; and, under
their influence, the dominant political party in the state asserted that
no right could be more clear or more essential to the protection of
the minority than the right of a state peaceably to withdraw from
the Union, without denial or obstruction from any quarter whatever.
Furthermore, although the convention of the people of the state, in
November, 1851, declared that the asserted right of secession from
the Union on the part of a state or states was unsanctioned by the
federal constitution and that no secession could, in fact, take place
without a subversion of the Union, which would virtually amount
in its effects and consequences to a civil revolution, later events proved
that the position of the Democratic State Rights party on that
question rather than that of the Union party, which dominated the
state convention, represented the sentiment of the majority of the
people of Mississippi.
For the former party, without renouncing its views on secession,
was, within the next two years, returned to power by the people of
Mississippi and its leaders, who had been rejected in the elections of
1851 were restored to positions of honor and influence. In 1853, John
J. McRae was elected governor, a Democratic majority was returned
1 Speech of Jefferson Davis at Fayette, Mississippi Free Trader, July 23, 1851.

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850 — Hearon. 225
to both houses of the legislature, and a solid Democratic delegation
elected to the lower house of Congress. Jefferson Davis entered the
cabinet of Pierce and, at the end of his administration, was returned
to a seat in the United States Senate. In January, 1854, A. G. Brown
was elevated to the upper house of Congress and, finally, in 1855,
John A. Quitman was elected to the lower house of that body from
the fifth congressional district of Mississippi. Of the leaders of the
Union party who had been so triumphantly elected to office in 1851,
Foote resigned as governor before his term expired and emigrated
to California, and the others, as soon as their terms of office were
over, retired to private life and were never again honored with posi
tions of leadership in the state.
In this crisis, the practicability of the protection of the rights of
the South through the cooperative action of the slaveholding states
was thoroughly tested. For the leading men in Mississippi and the
other Southern states believed that, if the South presented to the
country its demands with a united voice, it would obtain all that it
had a right, under the constitution, to ask; and consequently they
based the measures that they advocated, in this struggle, for the pro
tection of the rights of their section, upon the policy of the coopera
tive action of the Southern states. They were successful in uniting
the South in the demands that neither the Wilmot proviso nor a
bill prohibiting the slave trade between the states or abolishing
slavery in the District of Columbia should be passed by Congress,
and prevented the passage of those measures. But they were not
able to effect a union of the South in opposition to the admission of
California under her constitution excluding slavery and with her ex
tended boundaries. For the Whigs, partly because of reasons of
party and partly because of the fact that as a property holding and
conservative group they became alarmed over the possibility of a
disruption of the Union so freely discussed by the representatives
of both the North and the South, refused to support the extreme
demands of their section and, at length, accepted the compromise
as the best policy, under the circumstances, for the security of the
interests of property in slaves.
The opponents of the compromise, however, convinced that the
destruction of the balance of power between the two sections of the
Union by the admission of California would lead eventually either

226 Mississippi Historical Society.
to the overthrow of slavery or the dissolution of the Union, were un
willing to acquiesce in that measure; and, not discouraged by the
failure of their efforts to prevent the passage of the bills of the com
promise through Congress by the cooperative action of the Southern
States, again had recourse to the same policy to obtain redress for
the injuries inflicted on their section by the compromise and security
for their interests in the future.
Jefferson Davis, A. G. Brown, Jacob Thompson, and other Mis
sissippi leaders who advocated the adoption of a policy of resistance
to the compromise were firmly persuaded that, if the South united
in presenting to the country the alternative of granting its demands
or seeing the Southern states withdraw from the Union, the North
would give way and grant all the South desired; therefore, they were,
without doubt, sincere in denying that they were seeking to promote
a dissolution of the Union in agitating the presentation of this alter
native. Moreover, though the leaders of the movement in Missis
sippi in favor of resisting the compromise may have preferred the
secession of the Southern states and the formation of a Southern
confederacy to submission to that measure, yet, with the exception
of Quitman and perhaps a few others of less importance, they were
opposed to separate secession on the part of Mississippi in resistance
to the compromise and were convinced that, if all the Southern states,
or a group of them even, were ready to secede, secession on their
part would be unnecessary.
However, in the contest in Mississippi over the course the state
should pursue towards the compromise, the policy of cooperative
action on the part of the Southern states in opposition to it, advo
cated by the leaders of the party of resistance, very early became
impracticable because of the failure of the movements in favor of
resisting the compromise in all the other Southern states except
South Carolina; and those in favor of submission to the compromise
succeeded in fixing on their opponents the charge of seeking to pro
mote a dissolution of the Union in opposition to that measure and
favoring separate state secession. Accordingly, the elections of 1851
turned upon the question of submission to the compromise or the
adoption by the state of a policy of resistance to it in conjunction with
South Carolina, which might lead to the secession of Mississippi with

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850— Hearon. 227
South Carolina alone; and the people of Mississippi pronounced in
favor of the former policy.
To recapitulate, in this struggle over the extension of slavery into
the territories acquired from Mexico and the compromise of 1850,
the people of Mississippi were thoroughly alarmed by the strength
of the hostility to slavery manifested in the North and convinced
that their political, economic, and social interests were seriously im
periled by the abolition sentiment in the majority section; and united
in the determination to allow no further encroachments on the rights
of the South connected with slavery. Moreover, the right of a state
to secede from the Union as a final measure in defense of its rights
against the assumption of power by the federal government not
sanctioned by the constitution, was accepted by the political leaders
whom the people were accustomed to follow, proclaimed by the domi
nant party in the state, and made familiar to all; and, finally, the
policy of uniting the slaveholding states to secure the protection
of the rights of the South within the Union or to secede and form a
separate confederacy for that purpose was tested and found to be
impracticable. Therefore, in the controversy over the extension of slavery in the
territory acquired from Mexico and the compromise of 1850, the
people of Mississippi were prepared to defend their interests bound up
with slavery, in the next great crisis between the sections over that
institution, by the policy of separate state secession.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Documentary:
Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon. Albert G. Brown, a Sena
tor from the State of Mississippi, edited by M. W. Cluskey. New York,
1859.
The Correspondence of John C. Calhoun, edited by J. F. Jameson, Annual
Report of the Americal Historical Association, 1899, Vol. II.
The Works of John C. Calhoun, edited by Richard K. Crall6, 6 Vols. New
York, 1854-1861.
Census Reports of the United States.
The Claiborne Papers, State Archives, Jackson, Mississippi.
The Private Correspondence of Henry Clay, edited by Calvin Colton, LL.D.
Cincinnati, 1856.
The Political Text-Book or Encyclopedia, edited by M. W. Cluskey. Washing
ton, 1857.
Congressional Globe and Appendix.
Journal of the Convention of the State of Mississippi, 1832. Jackson, 1832.
Journal of the Convention of the State of Mississippi and the Act Calling the
Same, 1851. Jackson, 1851.
Journal of the Senate of the Stale of Mississippi, at a regular biennial session
thereof, convened January 7, 1S50. Jackson, 1850.
Journal of the House of the State of Mississippi, as a regular biennial session
thereof, convened January 7, 1850. . Jackson, 1850.
Journals of the Conventions of the People of South Carolina, held in 1832, 1833,
and 1852. Columbia, i860.
Laws of the State of Mississippi Passed at a Regular Session of the Mississippi
Legislature held in the city of Jackson, January, February, and March, 1850.
Jackson, 1850.
Laws of the State of Mississippi passed at a called Session of the Mississippi
Legislature held in the city of Jackson, November, 1850. Jackson, 1850.
Mississippi Territorial Archives, ijg8-i8ij, compiled and edited by Dun
bar Rowland, Vol. I, Nashville, 1905.
The Diary of James K. Polk during His Presidency, 1845-1840, edited by
Milo Milton Quaife. Chicago, 1910.
The Tribune Almanac for the Years 1838 to 1868. New York, 1868.
Newspapers:
National Era, 1847-1852.
National Intelligencer, 1847-1852.
New York Tribune, 1847-1852.
Niks' National Register, September 5, 1846 — June 27, 1849.
Columbus Democrat, September 9, 1848 — Feburary 5, 1853. (Union Demo
cratic.)
The Constitution (Oxford), March 22, 1851 — September 27, 1851. (Demo
cratic.)
Mississippi Free Trader (Natchez), November 30, 1848— January, 1852.
(Democratic.)
Natchez Weekly Courier, October 4, 1848— May 1, 1850. (Whig.)
Natchez Semi-weekly Courier, May 3, 1850 — December 30, 1851. (Whig.)
The Organizer (Oxford), March 31, 1840— December 4, 1850. (Democratic.)
228

Mississippi and the Compromise of 1850— Hearon. 229
Hinds County Gazette (Raymond), July 6, 1849— December 30, 1852. (Whig.)
Primitive Republican (Columbus), January 9, 1851— November 25, 1852.
(Union Democratic.)
Weekly and Triweekly Sentinel (Vicksburg), October 3, 1848— June 4, i8«>.
(Democratic.)
Southern Standard (Columbus), February 1, iSsi^-February 31, 1853. (Demo
cratic.)
Vicksburg Whig, 1848-1852. (Whig).
Weekly Independent (Aberdeen), December 21, 1850— January 28, 1858.
(Whig.)
Yazoo Democrat, August 7, 1850— October 11, 1854. (Democratic.)
Biography: W. E. Dodd, Jefferson Davis. (American Crisis Biographies) Philadelphia,
1907.
J. W. Du Bose, Life and Times of William Lowndes Yancey. Birmingham,
1892.
J. F. H. Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, 2 vols. New
York, i860.
Thomas Hart Clay, Henry Clay. Philadelphia, 1910.
Mrs. Chapman Coleman, The Life of John J. Crittenden with Selections from
His Correspondence and Speeches, 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1871.
Varina Howell Davis, Jefferson Davis, Ex-President of the Confederate States
of America; a Memoir by His Wife, 2 vols. New York, 1890.
Gaillard Hunt, John C. Calhoun. (American Crisis Biographies) Phila
delphia, 1908.
Johnston and Browne, Life of Alexander H. Stephens. Philadelphia, 1878.
James D. Lynch, The Bench and Bar of Mississippi. New York, 1881.
B. F. Perry, Biographical Sketches of Eminent American Statesmen with
Speeches, Addresses, and Letters. Philadelphia, 1887.
General:
J. F. H. Claiborne, Mississippi as a Province, Territory and State, with Bio
graphical Notices of Eminent Citizens. Vol. I., Jackson, 1880.
Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, 2 vols.
New York, 1881.
Reuben Davis, Recollections of Mississippi and Mississippians. Boston and
New York, 1891.
Henry S. Foote, Casket °f Reminiscences. Washington, 1874.
George Pierce Garrison Westward Extension (American Nation Series). New
York, 1906. »
Joseph Hodgson, The Cradle of the Confederacy; or the Times of Troup, Quit
man and Yancey. Mobile, 1876.
Herman E. von Hoist. The Constitutional and Political History of the United
States. Vol. III. Chicago, 1881.
J. F. Rhodes, History of the United States, 1830-1877. Vol. I. New York, 1902.
Franklin L. Riley, editor, Publications of the Mississippi Historical Society, 12
vols. University, Mississippi, 1899-1912.
Franklin L. Riley, A School History of Mississippi. Richmond, 1900.
Dunbar Rowland, Encyclopedia of Mississippi History Comprising Sketches
of Counties, Towns, Events, Institutions, and Persons. Planned and Edited
by Dunbar Rowland, 2 vols. Madison, Wis., 1907.
B. L. C. Wailes, Report on the Agriculture and Geology of Mississippi. Jack
son, 1854. . . .
James L. Watkins, King Cotton. A Historical and Statistical Review, 1790-
igo8. New York, 1908.

YALE UNIVERSITY

-a.3aOQ2_OOJ2110rj.l 7b