Letters and Literary Memorials of Samuel J. Tilden, v. 1

by Samuel J. Tilden

"But what shall we think, what shall we say, of the spirit exhibited and the sentiments expressed in the following passage of Mr. Greeley's letter, which we have read with astonishment and regret:

"'... And now to revert to the main question—the organization of the new Territories, and the allowance or disallowance of slavery therein—I have been confidently hoping for an early and peaceful adjustment of the whole vexation. The bills of which Mr. Douglass, in Senate, gave notice on reaching this city—to provide for the organization of California as a State and New Mexico as a Territory—were signs of promise. Upon the basis here suggested, it seemed to me practicable to settle the whole difficulty without farther excitement or peril. I thought we should ultimately agree to permit New Mexico, as well as California, to take the requisite steps for organizing as a State, and bring them both into the Union in the course of the next two years, leaving them free to frame their own institutions. This done, the North would be morally certain that slavery would not be tolerated in either State, and the South would save the point of honor by the almost certain defeat (in Senate) of the Wilmot proviso, which, to an established and admitted State, is confessedly inapplicable. And thus would close the grave of agitation with regard to slave territory.'

"And the letter then proceeds to say that 'the bright sky has been overcast' by the modification by which it is proposed to annex the portion of New Mexico east of the Rio Grande to Texas, which is stated as the only objection to the bill.

"The first remarkable thing in this letter is the spirit in which it speaks of the question of extending slavery to the Territories now free. If the only thing to be done was to get rid of a troublesome question, Mr. Greeley's mind would seem to be directed exactly to the object. If the writer were one of the conservatives of the Syracuse convention of 1847, who laid the Wilmot proviso on the table, or one of the Whig Dough Faces of the Philadelphia convention, who 'kicked it out' of that body, the terms in which the measure is spoken of would be very characteristic. To adjust 'the whole vexation'—'to settle the whole difficulty without farther excitement or peril'—'to close the grave of the agitation,' was precisely what they desired to do. But if there is something more to be done than to evade this great question in order to save party arrangements from embarrassment—if it is of any importance to make freedom in the Territories certain instead of leaving it to chance—if the opinion, which has been so frequently and earnestly maintained by Mr. Greeley, as well as all who profess to be friends of freedom, that for this purpose an express enactment by Congress ought to be made, be not an utter imposture and fraud, then we submit that the spirit manifested in this letter is not that in which this great question should be treated.

"The second remarkable thing in the letter—and by far the most remarkable—is the mode in which it purposes to adjust 'the whole vexation.' A Territory extensive enough to make thirteen States as large as New York has been acquired; it is wholly unoccupied, except by a small population in a few localities. The question is, shall slavery be allowed to be established in it during its territorial condition? Neither party to the controversy regards as of practical moment the territorial condition, except as it will influence and practically control the conditions, in this respect, of the States which are to be formed out of the Territory. And it is gravely proposed at once to declare this Territory, which is in no proper situation to be formed into States, and which nobody would think of forming into a State now except for the purpose of getting rid of the necessity of acting on this subject, to be a State. And this is called by Mr. Greeley 'settling,' instead of dodging, the question!

"Gen. Cass proposed, in his Nicholson letter, to leave to the scattered inhabitants who are to be found in some small portions of this vast region to decide the question by a territorial legislature. Mr. Greeley, in his letter, proposes to leave it to precisely the same individuals 'free to frame their own institutions' by a State legislature.

"What essential difference is there between the two plans, so far as the extension or restriction of slavery is concerned?

"Suppose that on the 3rd of March next, at the close of the session, Mr. Greeley's plan should be adopted; that on the 3rd of July a territorial legislature should be elected; and that on the 3rd of September it should meet and adjust the 'whole vexation.' Or suppose that on the 3rd of March Gen. Cass's plan should be adopted; that on the 3rd of July a State legislature should be elected; and that on the 3rd of September it should meet and decide the question.

"Would it be important whether the government were called 'State' or 'territorial,' so long as it had equal power to act on this subject, and constituents and representatives were the same, assumed their functions at the same time, in the one case as in the other? Would it affect in the slightest degree the actual extension or restriction of slavery which should be decreed by them?

"But Mr. Greeley evidently thinks that this little change of names gets him over the whole difficulty. And he touches what he obviously regards as the point of the case when he adds that 'the Wilmot proviso' is 'to an established and admitted State' confessedly inapplicable.