And what was this “unanimous opinion of the legislature of Massachusetts”? Among many other things equally decisive, the Massachusetts legislature, on the 26th of March, 1845,—and, of course, long after the annexation resolutions had been passed,—declared as follows:—
“And whereas the consent of the executive and legislative departments of the government of the United States has been given, by a resolution passed on the 27th of February last, to the adoption of preliminary measures to accomplish this nefarious project, [the admission of Texas, with the stipulation to admit four more states out of its territory;] therefore, be it
“Resolved, That Massachusetts hereby refuses to acknowledge the act of the government of the United States, authorizing the admission of Texas, as a legal act, in any way binding her from using her utmost exertions, in coöperation with other states, by every lawful and constitutional measure, to annul its conditions, and defeat its accomplishment.
“Resolved, That no territory hereafter applying to be admitted to the Union, as a state, should be admitted without a condition that domestic slavery should be utterly extinguished within its borders, and Massachusetts denies the validity of any compromise whatsoever, that may have been, or that may hereafter be, entered into by persons in the government of the Union, intended to preclude the future application of such a condition by the people, acting through their representatives in the Congress of the United States.”
Such were the opinions which Mr. Webster then openly expressed, and such the resolutions of the legislature of Massachusetts, which he fully indorsed. Yet he now professes to wonder that any body can see any difference between the doctrine of those speeches and resolutions, and those of his speech delivered on the 7th of March.[14]
6. A reference to a few other misstatements of facts will close my remarks on this subject.
Mr. Webster says that, previous to writing his Newburyport letter, he made “diligent inquiry,” of members of Congress from New England, to ascertain how many arrests of fugitive slaves had been made in their time; and he adds, “the result of all I can learn is this: No seizure of an alleged slave has ever been made in Maine.”
Now, two such cases have happened in the State of Maine. One took place in the eastern part of the state, about 1835 or ’36. The other happened at or near Thomaston, a little later. In this latter case, the fugitive came to Maine in a Thomaston vessel, whose master was afterwards demanded as a fugitive from justice. This demand gave rise to a prolonged correspondence, I think, with no less than three governors of Maine. This correspondence was extensively circulated through the newspapers, or referred to by them, and it would seem hardly possible that Mr. Webster should not have seen it. Since the Newburyport letter was published, this misstatement of fact has been noticed in the Maine newspapers, yet no retraction is made. The misstatement is allowed to be spread over the whole country, uncorrected by its author. Mr. Webster then adds, “No seizure of an alleged fugitive slave has ever been made in Vermont.” Tradition, and, as I believe, authentic history, contradict Mr. Webster here. It is said by “members of Congress” from Vermont, that an alleged fugitive was carried before Judge Harrington of Vermont, in 1807, and on his being asked what evidence would satisfy him that the person was a slave, he replied, “A bill of sale from Almighty God.”
But even if these statements of Mr. Webster, with regard to the New England States, were all true, it would avail him nothing; for, in the eye of patriotism, it matters not where such seizures are made. I refer to it only to show that Mr. Webster is not to be relied upon in these matters, either for the accuracy of his original positions, or for a retraction of them, when their error is pointed out by the public press. I wish not to be understood, on this particular point, as imputing to Mr. Webster an intentional misstatement; because he accompanied his original statement with a salvo. He confessed,—and he is entitled to the full benefit of the confession,—that his information might not be “entirely accurate,” though he supposed it not to be “materially erroneous.” It is “materially erroneous;” and though one error has been exposed in the Maine papers, he does not rectify it. Possibly he does not know it.
While holding Massachusetts up to reproach for “growing fervid on Pennsylvania wrongs,” Mr. Webster draws succor and encouragement from the Society of Friends, and especially from the Friends of Pennsylvania. He says that they remain “of sound and disposing minds and memories;” and he contrasts their wisdom and composure with the “vehement and empty declarations, the wild and fantastic conduct of both men and women which have so long disturbed and so much disgraced the commonwealth” of Massachusetts. He then adds, “I am misled by authority which ought not to mislead, if it be not true, that that great body, [of Friends,] approves the sentiments to which I gave utterance on the floor of the Senate.” I will now show that this alleged approval by the Friends, though worthy of any price but truth, was too dearly bought.