The New Compromise—Grand “Ultimatum of the South”
The Charleston Mercury,
May 3, 1860
We suppose that there was not a man, in or out of the Charleston Convention,
who did not anticipate the proposal of a new compromise on the rights of the
States in the Territories, as a necessary consequence of the withdrawal of
the Cotton States from the Convention. The Southern people have been so often
cheated by words in the shape of compromises, that, of course, it would be
presumed that they could be cheated again. Accordingly, after the close of
the twelfth ballot for President had taken place, and the Convention was about
to adjourn, Mr. HOWARD, of Tennessee, announced that the Tennessee, Kentucky,
and Virginia delegates, had agreed on a resolution, which was presented to
them by the delegation from New York, as follows:
Resolved, That the citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle
with their property in the Territories of the United States; and that,
under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which
we recognize as the correct exposition of the Constitution of the United
States, neither the right of persons nor property can be destroyed by
Congressional or Territorial legislation.
He proposed to offer the resolution, whenever the proper opportunity occurred,
as the ultimatum of the South.
Our readers will understand the true purpose of this “ultimatum of
the South,” when they remember, that no party at the North has contended
that “the right of persons or property can be destroyed by Congressional
or Territorial legislation.” The Abolitionists at the North contend
that there can be no property in slaves, and that, therefore, there is none
to destroy. The resolution does not use the word slave or slavery. It does
not recognize the right of property in slaves. Thus, therefore, the most rabid
Abolitionist might vote for the resolution. But, again, it does not touch
the question of Squatter Sovereignty. Mr. DOUGLAS never contended that a Territorial
Legislature could “destroy slave property.” He admits that there
is property in slaves; but he asserts that a Territorial Legislature, by “unfriendly
legislation” (by taxation, for instance) can prevent slaves from entering
a Territory, whilst by failing to legislate for the protection of slave property,
it might be exposed to such hazards as will effectually exclude it from a
Territory. Slave property, like property in obscene prints or opium, or ardent
spirits, may be subjected to a heavy license law or discriminating taxation,
by which it can be prevented from entering a Territory. This is the position
of Squatter Sovereignty. When, therefore, the resolution offered by Mr. HOWARD
affirms that “neither the right of persons nor property can be destroyed
by Congressional or Territorial legislation”—every Squatter Sovereignty
adherent in the Convention can vote for it. It does not touch their heresy,
nor is it intended to touch it. The resolution is the old device of deceiving
those who are willing to be deceived. The reference to the Dred Scott case
is equally evasive—“That under the decision of the Supreme Court
of the United States, which we recognize as the correct exposition o f the
Constitution o f the United States.” But what is the exposition of the
Constitution of the United States this decision has made? The Squatter Sovereignty
Democrats contend that it has made no exposition condemning their heresy.
If this is so, the recognition of its expositions commits them to no denial
of Squatter Sovereignty; and they manifest what they suppose the decision
determines when they say in the words following in the resolution, that “neither
the rights of persons nor property can be destroyed by Congressional or Territorial
legislation.” Even WILLIAM H. SEWARD, and the whole Black Republican
party, could vote for this resolution. They contend that Congress can, by
its legislation, prevent slavery from entering a Territory; but they do not
claim the power in Congress to “destroy” it. The Southern Delegates
in the Convention present, as their patriotic and triumphant ultimatum, what
every Black Republican and Squatter Sovereignty Democrat in the whole Union
may support. That is, certainly, a most “remarkable way of vindicating
the rights of the South! And when do they propose to present this august “ultimatum?”
Why, after the nomination of President and Vice President of the United States
is completed. By a resolution, which they voted for, the Convention determined
that no nomination for President or Vice President should be made until the
Convention had first settled the platform of principles upon which the nomination
should rest. The Convention, after six days’ agitation and debate, has
adopted the platform upon which it proposes to put its nominees. That platform
is Squatter Sovereignty. The resolutions, affirming the rights of the South,
have been rejected; and now, after both platform and nomination shall be completed—and
not before—these heroic vindicators of the rights of the South propose
to introduce into the Convention the miserable cheat invented by New York
“as the ultimatum o f the South.” Suppose that this ultimatum
was rejected (of which, however, there is not the slightest probability),
what would they do? Go out of the Convention? The Convention will go out itself;
for, having accomplished by their aid all it came to do (made a platform and
nominated candidates on it for the Presidency), of course it will adjourn.
The only danger is that the Convention, having finished its business, may
adjourn without considering the grand “ultimatum of the South,”
and thus get out before the delegates from Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky.
There may yet be a pretty race.
