The great Webster was here. He had opposed the annexation
of Texas and the Mexican War, and was the spokesman of the Whig party.
He had split metaphysical hairs with Calhoun, also here. Calhoun
declared that the Constitution was over the territory and by that fact
carried slavery into it; no imperialism in America. To this Webster
rejoined that the territory was the property of the United States and
not a part of it. Hence the Constitution was not over it and slavery
could be kept out of it. This was implied powers in favor of liberty.
Calhoun's doctrine was: Constitutional government in the interests of
slavery. To such dialectics had the matter come. Mazzini might contend
for liberty, equality, and fraternity for individuals and nations. Here
in America the questions were more subtle. Clay was not here but soon to
be here. Hale of New Hampshire was here, an astringent personality,
eager to challenge young Douglas from Illinois.
The question was the Mexican treaty. Senator Hale injected abolitionism
into Douglas' speech. Calhoun characterized Douglas' retort to Hale as
equal in offensiveness to Hale's remark, which elicited the retort. The
battle was on. We now had occasion to be proud of our friend. He stood
forth with such self-possession, such dignity. With great emphasis he
announced that he had no sympathy with abolitionism; but neither did he
look with favor upon the extreme view of the South.
Pages:
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253