John C. Calhoun and the secession movement of 1850

John C. Calhoun and the

Secession Movement

of 185^0

BY
HERMAN V. AMES

Pmertcatt pnliquatian ^utititi

John C. Calhoun and the

Secession Movement

of 18^0

BY

HERMAN V. AMES

RiaWINTED FROM THE PROCEEDING OF THE AMERICAN AnTIQCABIAJ* SOCIETY

FOR April, 1918.

WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS, U.S.A.

PUBLISHED BY THE SOCIETY"

1918

The Davis Prebs

Worcester, Mass.

JOHN C. CALHOUN AND THE SECESSION
MOVEMENT OF 1850

HERMAN V. AMES

It has been truly said that "state rights apart
from sectionalism have never been a serious hinderance
to the progress of national unity"; on the other hand
''sectionahsm is by its very nature incipient dis-
union," as its ultimate goal is poHtical independence
for a group of states. ^ Prior to the Civil War there
were numerous instances of the assertion of state
rights. Almost every state in the Union at some time
declared its own sovereignty but on other occasions
denounced as treasonable similar declarations by
other states. Only, however, when the doctrine of
state rights has been laid hold of as an effective
shibboleth by some particular section of the country,
to give an appearance of legality to its opposition to
measures of the federal government, has the doctrine
threatened the integrity of the Union.

The great and outstanding sectional movement
prior to the Civil War, which rallied under the banner
of state rights, was due to the divergence of interests
and views between the North and the South, caused
by the growth of the institution of slavery. Indeed
the increasing antagonism between the slave and free
labor systems and States had revealed itself from time
to time even in the first quarter of the Nation's
history. Its sectionalizing tendency was reahzed
by the time of the Missouri Compromise in 1820, and
pointed out by several, but especially by Jefferson,
when he wrote this oft-quoted passage, ''This mo-

»An8on D. Morse in Political Science QxMTterlv, I, 158.

mentous question, like a fire bell in the night, a-
wakened and filled me with terror. I considered it
at once the knell of the Union. ... A geographical
line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and
political, once conceived and held up to the angry-
passions of men will never be obliterated, and every
new irritation will make it deeper and deeper. "^

Although the tariff was the ostensible reason for
the nullification movement in South Carolina, Calhoun
admitted in a private letter in 1830 that it was but
''the occasion, rather than the real cause of the
present unhappy state of things. The truth can no
longer be disguised that the peculiar domestic in-
stitutions of the Southern States and the consequent
direction which that and her soil and climate have
given to her industry, has placed them in regard to
taxation and appropriations in opposite relations to
the majority of the Union; against the danger of
which, if there be no protective power in the reserved
rights of the States, they must in the end be forced
to rebel or submit to having their permanent interests
sacrificed."^

President Jackson also recognized slavery as the
real issue. Following the settlement of the nullifica-
tion controversy he wrote to a friend that "the
tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and a
southern confederacy the real object. The next
pretext will be the negro or slavery question."*

A striking and interesting example of the effect
of environment and the sectionalizing movement
on the thought and policy of a statesman is revealed
in the public career of John C. Calhoun, whose name
is more closely identified with state rights doctrines
than that of any other public man prior to the Civil
War.

^Writings, X, 157.

•Calhoun to Maxey, Sept. 11, 1830. Quoted in Bassett, Jackson, II, 547.
^Letter of May 1, 1833 to Rev. Andrew J. Crawford, given in Congressional Globe-
36 Cong., 2 Sesa., I, 32.

In his early life he was conspicuous for his strong
nationalism and his advocacy of a liberal construction
of the constitution. John Quincy Adams' contemporary
estimate of Calhoun as recorded in his Diary at this
period is especially noteworthy. He writes, "He is
above all sectional and factional prejudices more than
any other statesman of this Union with whom I ever
acted. "^ The causes which led to his change of
views have been variously ascribed and doubtless
always will be subject to discussion. It has been
claimed by some of his contemporaries, as well as
by some writers of more recent times, that he was
led to give up his former views to identify himself
with the nullificationists who had become the dom-
inant political party in South Carolina in the late
twenties, out of consideration for his future political
career and by his burning ambition to become Presi-
dent. While it must be admitted that Calhoun
would not have been human if considerations for his
political future had not had their weight, and that
there is abundant evidence that, like his contempo-
raries Clay and Webster, he had a laudable ambition
for the Presidency, nevertheless we are loathe to
accept the view that such crass and selfish motives
could have been the dominating ones in the mind of
so great and commanding a character. Rather are
we inclined to the opinion already suggested that,
as a true son of the South, he was affected by his
environment. He became convinced that the econo-
mic life of the South was destined to grow increasingly
divergent from that of the North, and that the interests
identified with and resulting from the institution of
slavery would lead to its permanently being in the
minority in the general government of the country.
He, therefore, was led seriously to consider the
means by which the peculiar interests of his section
could be safe-guarded, while at the same time the
Union, which he loved could be preserved. Hence

^Memoirs, V, 361.

he laid hold with eagerness upon the doctrine of
nullification as the device by which the rights and
interests of the minority were to be preserved in the
Union. The theory was an attempt to devise a
theoretical reconciliation between the most complete
state sovereignty and the existence of a general
government. Shortly after drafting the South Caro-
lina Exposition of 1828, he writes to a private corre-
spondent, "To preserve our Union on the fair basis of
equality, on which alone it can stand, and to transmit
the blessings of liberty to the remotest posterity is
the first great object of all my exertions."®

If this is a correct explanation of Calhoun's reason-
ing, we can understand why the doctrine of nullifica-
tion appealed to him; first, because it reconciled
his devotion to the Union as well as to his state and
section; and secondly, it enabled him honestly to
declare, as he did declare, that it was the great
conserving feature of our system of government.^
The right of secession, which, since the establishment
of the government under the Constitution, had been
held from time to time in the North as well as in
the South as a theoretical possibility, was reserved
by Calhoun's Exposition as a last resort.

The acceptance of the view just advanced of
Calhoun's motives will go far in explaining his
subsequent course. Although he championed south-
ern interests, he restrained the radicals of his state
and section for nearly two decades longer, until at
last he became convinced that the interests of the
two sections were so irreconcilable that the Union
ought not to be preserved except at the price of
specific constitutional concessions.^ Apparently, the
year 1847 marks the date when Calhoun, alarmed by
the aggressiveness of the northern advocates of the

•Calhoun's Correspondence, American Historical Association Report, 1899, 11,269-
270.

'Calhoun, Works, VI, 50, 123.

'Beverley Tucker's letter, March 25, 1850. William and Mary Quarterly, XVIII, 46.
See Tpost.

Wilmot Proviso, deemed it high time to arouse the
South "to calculate the value of the Union." In a
private letter, dated March 19, 1847, he writes,
"The time has come when it (the slavery question)
must be brought to a final decision."^

The part that Calhoun played in the sectional
agitation during the next three years, the last of his
life, and especially his part in launching and promoting
the project for a Southern Convention, as also the
history of the movement for such a Convention of the
Southern States, which was to demand protection
for the rights of that section in the Union, or to
concert measures for secession from the Union, is
the theme of the remainder of this paper. The idea
of a Southern Convention, however, was not new.^"
It had been proposed as early as 1844, both at the
time of the Texas agitation and in connection with
the tariff agitation of that year. The project at
that time found considerable support in South
Carolina both in the press and with the public, as
fiery and radical speeches, resolutions, and toasts
threatening disunion testify. The Hon. R. Barnwell
Rhett, Calhoun's colleague in the United States
Senate, especially championed the measure. The
movement, however, met with general opposition in
the other Southern States and Calhoun and his
friends opposed it, favoring a more astute policy and
awaiting the results of the Presidential election.
The resulting election of Polk led to the abandonment
of the project, even by its former advocates.

The demand of the North that slavery should be
excluded from all the new territory that it was
expected would be acquired as a result of the Mexican
War revived the sectional issue. Calhoun now takes

•Correspondence, 720. See also letter to a naember of the Alabama Legislature,
Benton, Thirty Years View, II, 698.

loLouisiana.February 20,1837,had proposed one "to determine the best possible means
to obtain peaceably if they can, forcibly if they must, that respect for their institutions
to which they are entitled by the enactments of the Federal compact," etc. Act* of
Louisiana, 1837, 18, 19.

8

the lead. Following the adoption of the Wilmot
Proviso by the House of Representatives for the
second time, on February 15, 1847, he delivered a
speech in the Senate in which he denounced the
Proviso and summoned the South to repudiate
compromise and stand upon her rights. At the same
time he presented a set of resolutions containing a
new doctrine that Congress can impose no restriction
upon slavery in the territories.^^ They became known
as "the Platform of the South." Although these
resolutions were not pressed to a vote, the principles
underlying them were generally adopted by the
southern Democrats, and soon found expression in
the resolutions of several of the Southern State
legislatures, notably by Virginia, which was the first
to adopt them. ^2 Apparently, Calhoun was fully
convinced that it was high time that something should
be done to unite the South in order to preserve her
interests in the Union. In a private letter of this
period he wrote that instead of shunning, we ought
to court the issue with the North on the slavery
question. I would even go one step further, and add
that it is our duty due to ourselves, to the Union and
our political institutions to force the issue on the
North. "15

Partially abandoning his previous policy of re-
straining the radicals in South Carolina, he threw
himself into the movement to arouse the people. On
his return from Washington early in March, he was
greeted with great enthusiasm by the Mayor and
Council of Charleston and a mass meeting of the
citizens. This meeting, after listening to Calhoun's
plea for the union of the South on the slavery issue
regardless of party ties, adopted a strong report and
resolutions similar to those that he had presented
in Congress. 1*

"Calhoun, Works, IV, 339-349.
i^March 8, 1847, Acts of Virginia, 1846-47, 236.
"Benton, Thirty Years View, II, 698.

"Calhoun's Speech, March 9, 1847, Works, IV, 382-396; Niles' Register, LXII,
73-75; Calhoun, Correspondence, 718, 720; McMaster, VII, 486-489, 494-495.

Some both in and out of the State suspected that
Calhoun was playing politics-^^ President Polk in
particular held this view. Following the former's
efforts to secure the signatures of prominent south-
erners to an address to the people of the United
States on the subject of slavery and the making of
this question a test in the next Presidential election,
Polk records his condemnation in his Diary under
date of April 6, 1847. "Mr. Calhoun has become
perfectly desperate in his aspiration to the Presidency,
and has seized upon this sectional question as the
only means of sustaining himself in his present fallen
condition, and that such an agitation of the slavery
question was not only unpatriotic and mischievous,
but wicked. I now entertain a worse opinion of
Mr. Calhoun than I have ever done before. He is
wholly selfish, and I am satisfied has no patriotism.
A few years ago he was the author of nullification and
threatened to dissolve the Union on account of the
tariff. During my administration the reduction of
duties which he desired has been obtained, and he
can no longer complain. No sooner is this done than
he selects slavery upon which to agitate the country,
and blindly mounts the topic as a hobby. "^'

Calhoun's suggestion was not sufficiently encour-
aged, so the proposed address was not issued at this
time. The presidential campaign of 1848 led to a
postponement of the issue. Calhoun endeavored to
maintain a neutral position during the contest. His
correspondence for the year 1848, however, shows
that he was carefully considering the utility of a
Southern Convention. In a speech delivered in

i^See note, next page.

uDiary, II, 458-9. James H. Hammond writes to W. G. Simms, March 21, 1847.
that he has just read Calhoun's Charleston speech. His object is to gain Southern
votes for himself for President. Every one in S. Carolina will see this. It will be said
that he agitates the slavery question for selfish purposes—" South Carolina under present
auspices can do nothing if she puts herself foremost but divide the South and insure
disastrous defeat." Hammond Manuscript, Vol. 13, Library of Congress. For this
and other references to the Hammond collection, 1 am indebted to Mr. PhUip M. Hamer.
a member of the Graduate School, University of Pennsylvania.

10

Charleston, August 20, he intimated more clearly
than in any previous public utterance that the
question of southern union and secession might soon
be a vital one.^^ The press and public meetings
throughout the State favored resistance and some
urged that South Carolina should take the lead in
calling a Southern Convention. As will appear later,
Calhoun, while sympathizing with the movement,
believed for reasons of expediency it should be initiated
in one of the other states, and so he exercised to some
extent a restraining influence. On the assembling
of the legislature in November of 1848, Governor
Johnson in his message, while stating that the present
time, owing to the election of Taylor, a Southern man
as President was not propitious for action, declared
that ''unity of time and concert of action are indis-
pensable to success, and a Southern Convention is
the most direct and practical means of obtaining
it. "^^ The legislature on December 15, after a visit
of Calhoun to Columbia, on his way to Washington, ^^
unanimously adopted resolutions which were apparent-
ly in harmony with his wishes. These declared
"that the time for discussion had passed, and that
this General Assembly is prepared to co-operate with
her sister states in resisting the application of the
principles of the Wilmot Proviso to such territory
at any and all hazard. "^^

On the re-opening of Congress after the election of
1848, Calhoun renewed his effort to secure the issuing
of a Southern Address, this time with more success,
as the situation in Washington favored his project

"'Speech in Charleston, New York Semi-Weekly Tribune, August 28, 1848. Toombs
writes Crittenden, September 27, 1847, "Calhoun stands off too, in order to make a
Southern party all his own on slavery in the new Territories. Poor old dotard, to suppose
he could get a party now on any terms! Hereafter treachery itself will not trust him."
Correspondence of Toombs, Stephens, and Cobb, American Historical Association
Report, 1911, II, 129.

"November 27, 1848, J^ournaJ of Senate of S. Carolina, 1848, 26; Nilea' Register,
LXXIV, 368; Calhoun, Correspondence, 1184.

^*South Carolina Senate Journal, 1848, 61.

*^Report and Resolutions of South Carolina, 1848, 147.

11

inasmuch as the slavery question had re-appeared in
Congress in several different measures. The sec-
tionalizing effect of the renewed agitation soon
revealed itself. As a result of this, and of Calhoun's
labors, a gathering of sixty-nine Southern members
of Congress, drawn from both parties, assembled
on the evening of December 23, 1848, to determine
upon a common policy for the South. Calhoun and
the radical Democrats directed the movement. It
was commonly believed in Washington, wrote Horace
Mann, ''that Mr. Calhoun was resolved on a dis-
solution of the Union. "21 The attempt was made to
unite the representatives of both parties, but it failed
of success. President Polk threw the weight of his
influence against it. It soon appeared that the Whigs
had only entered the conference in order to try to
control or defeat the movement.^^ "An Address of
the Southern Delegates in Congress to their Con-
stituents" was drafted by Calhoun, in which he
arraigned_ the North for their infraction of the
Constitution in regard to fugitive slaves and their
general course relative to slavery. It denied that
Congress had any jurisdiction over slavery in the
territories, and it called upon the South to unite, to
subordinate party ties, and to prepare to protect
Itself. ''If you become united, " it read, "and prove
yourself in earnest, the North will be brought to
pause, and to a calculation of consequences; and
that may lead to a change of measures and to the
adoption of a course of policy that may quietly and
peaceably terminate this long conflict between the
two sections. If it should not, nothing would remain
for you but to stand up immovably in defence of
rights involving your all, your property, prosperity,
equality, liberty, and safety. "23

*>Lt/c and Works of Horace Mann, 273.
"See Letters of Toombs to John J. Cr
ort, 1911, II, 139, 141.

MCalhoun, Works, VI, 290-313; Niles, LXXV, 84-88.

«See Letters of Toombs to John J. Crittenden, American Historical Association Re-
port, 1911, II, 139, 141.

12

But the Whigs were not prepared to abandon their
party affiliations. As Toombs wrote Crittenden,
"We had a regular flare up in the last meeting, and
at the call of Calhoun I told them briefly what we
were at. I told him (Calhoun) that the union of the
South was neither possible nor desirable until we were
ready to dissolve the Union. That we certainly did
not intend to advise the people now to look any where
else than to their own government for the prevention
of apprehended evils. "^^ Alexander H. Stephens
tried to prevent action by the caucus, but failed in
this. An attempt to substitute an address drawn by
Senator Berrien, directed to the "People of the whole-
Country" and appealing to the patriotism and
fairness of the North, failed by a small margin^^
and the Calhoun Address slightly modified was
adopted and issued on January 22, 1849, but only
two Whigs were numbered among its forty-eight
signers. Only about one third of the southern repre-
sentatives signed.

Owing to the attitude of the Whigs, the effect of
the address was greatly weakened. In fact Toombs
declared "We have completely foiled Calhoun in
his miserable attempt to form a Southern Party. "^^
Calhoun, however, in a letter to his daughter two
days after the Address was issued, expressed satis-
faction. He writes, "My address was adopted by a
decided majority. ... It is a decided triumph
under the circumstances. The administration threw
all its weight against us, and added it to the most

rabid of the Whigs The South is more

aroused than I ever saw it on the subject."" Polk's
Diary bears out Calhoun's statement of the admin-
istration's hostility to their movement. The Presi-
dent records an interview with Calhoun on January

2<Coleman, Life of John J. Crittenden, I, 335-336.
«iVi7es, LXXV, 101-104.
"Coleman, Crittenden, I, 335.
^Correspondence, 762.

13

^j 16, 184^, and notes, "He (Calhoun) proposed no
/ plan of adjusting the difficulty (territorial), but
insisted that the aggression of the North upon the
South should be resisted and that the time had come
for action. I became perfectly satisfied that he did
not desire that Congress should settle the question
at the present session and that he desired to influence
the North upon the subject, whether from personal
or patriotic views it is not difficult to determine.
I was firm and decided in my conversation with him,
intending to let him understand distinctly that I
gave no countenance to any movement which tended
to violence or the disunion of the states, "^s

Just before the final meeting of the caucus, Polk
was so disturbed that he conferred with his Cabinet
on the matter and informed them that he "thought
it was wholly unjustifiable for southern members of
Congress, when a fair prospect was presented of
settling the whole question, to withhold their co- .
operation, and instead of aiding in effecting such an
adjustment, to be meeting in a sectional caucus and
publishing an address to influence the country."
"I added," he records, "that I feared there were a
few southern men who had become so excited that
they were indifferent to the preservation of the
Union." "I stated that I put my face alike against
southern agitators and northern fanatics and should
do everything in my power to allay excitement by
adjusting the question of slavery and preserving the
Union. "29 It was agreed that each member of the
Cabinet should be active in seeing members of
Congress, and urge them to support the bill to admit
California at once as a state. Polk promised to use
his influence with members, and records in his Diary:
— "This is an unusual step for the Executive to take,
but the emergency demands it. It may be the only
means of allaying a fearful sectional excitement and

"Diarj/, IV, 288.
'•Dtorj/, IV, 299.

14

of preserving the Union, and therefore I think upon
high public consideration it is justified."^"

Through the administration's influence, some of the
Democrats joined the southern Whigs in refusing
to support the address, yet the South Carolina legis-
lature, as previously stated, had declared that it
was prepared to co-operate with other Southern
States in resisting the extension of the Wilmot Proviso
to the new territory. In the course of the next few
weeks, the Democratic legislatures in Virginia, Florida,
and Missouri adopted resolutions of similar tenor,
and even the Whig legislature of North Carolina
joined in denouncing the proposed restrictive legisla-
tion and suggested the extension of the Missouri
Compromise line to the new territory. ^^ Virginia
took more radical action by providing for a special
session of the legislature, should Congress pass the
obnoxious laws. In several of the other states,
although there was no legislative action, there was a
renewal of popular agitation. While the sentiment
in both Georgia and Alabama was divided on the
Southern Address, the Wilmot Proviso was emphati-
cally condemned by both political parties. In Georgia,
Governor Town, who had declared himself in favor
of resisting the Wilmot Proviso to the limit, was re-
elected, and the Democrats gained control of the
legislature for the first time in several years. In
Alabama the Democrats also made substantial gains.
Moreover, Mississippi, as we shall presently see,
took up with zeal the proposal for the Southern
Convention.

Calhoun had not ventured in the "Address of the
Southern Delegates" to explicitly propose a Southern
Convention, but we know he had entertained the
possibility of one for some time. More than a year
previously he had stated in a confidential letter that

*0Diary, IV, 300.

*'iSenate Misc., 30 Congress, 2 session, I, Nos. 48, 51, II, Nos. 54, 58; Senate Misc.,
31 Congress, 1 session, I, No. 24.

15

such a Convention was "indispensable."'^ Within
a few weeks after the southern caucus, his personal
correspondence to poHtical friends in several states
shows that he was actively, although quietly, urging
the idea of a southern Convention and outlining the
plan of action. Thus we find him writing to John H.
Means, shortly afterward chosen Governor of South
Carolina. ''I am of the impression that the time
is near at hand when the South will have to choose
between disunion and submission. I think so, because
I see little prospect of arresting the aggression of the
North. If any thing can do it, it would be for the
South to present with an unbroken front to the North
the alternative of dissolving the partnership or of
ceasing on their part to violate our rights. . . . But
it will be impossible to present such a front, except
by means of a Convention of Southern States. That,
and that only could speak for the whole, and present
authoritatively to the North the alternative, which to
choose. If such a presentation should fail to save
the Union, by arresting the aggression of the North
and causing our rights and the stipulation of the
Constitution in our favor to be respected, it would
afford proof conclusive that it could not be saved,
and that nothing was left us, but to save ourselves.
Having done all we could to save the Union, we would
then stand justified before God and man to dissolve
a partnership which had proved inconsistent with
our safety, and, of course, destructive of the object
which mainly induced us to enter into it. Viewed
in this hght, a Convention of the South is an indis-
pensable means to discharge a great duty we owe to
our partners in the Union: that is, to warn them in
the most solemn manner that if they do not desist
from aggressions and cease to disregard our rights
and stipulations of the Constitution, the duty we
owe to ourselves and our posterity would compel us

»«Benton, Thirty Years View, II, 698-700. Letter of Wilson Lumkin to Calhoun,
November 18, 1847. Correspondence, 1135-1139.

16

to dissolve forever the partnership with them. But
should its warning voice fail to save the Union, it
would in that case prove the most efficient of all
means for saving ourselves. "^^

Scarcely more than a month after this letter was
written, in accordance with a plan privately suggested
by Calhoun, and publicly favored by district and
parish meetings in various parts of South Carolina,
a Convention of delegates assembled at Columbia,
May 14-15, 1849. After approving the Southern
Address and the action of the state government, it
called for a special session of the legislature to take
action in case any of the proposed obnoxious legis-
lation should be passed by Congress. This Convention
also appointed five prominent men as a Central Com-
mittee of Vigilance and Safety to correspond with
the other states to promote concert of action, and to
perfect the organization of the state — thus fully
accepting Calhoun's program.^'*

It was desired, however, that some state other
than South Carolina should take the lead. Miss-
issippi was the first to respond under the stimulus
of Mr. Calhoun's letters.^^ In May, 1849, an in-
formal meeting of prominent citizens was held at
Jackson to protest against southern exclusion from
the territories. This gathering issued a call for the
voters of the several counties to choose delegates to
a State Convention to be held at Jackson in October
'Ho consider the threatening relations between the
North and the South." A copy of their resolutions
was sent to Mr. Calhoun with the request that he
advise the promoters of the movement the proper
course for the Convention to take. Calhoun replied
in a letter addressed to Col. C. S. Tarpley, dated
July 9, 1849, outlining the course that it was desirable

"Calhoun to John H. Means, Correspondence, 765, 7C6.

»*National Era, May 24, 1849. National Intelligencer, May 24 and 26, 1849.
«D. T. Herndon in Alabama Hist. Society Transactions, V, 204-208; Cleo Hearon in
Publications of Miss. Hist. Society, XIV, ch. II and III.

17

to take. His letter was in part as follows:'* "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 in each county. Ours is already. It is indis-
pensable 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 the fall. 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 other states, and to
admonish them, in a solemn manner, of the conse-
quences which 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 alter-
native, should it be forced on us, of submission or
dissolving the partnership, would prefer the latter.
No state could better take the lead in this great
conservative movement than yours. " Calhoun wrote
a similar letter to Senator Henry S. Foote, August
2, 1849," to which Foote replied a few days before
the Mississippi Convention met, stating, "I am
gratified to have it within my power to inform you
that several leading gentlemen of both the two great
political parties in Mississippi have promised me at

•»" r/ie Southron," Jackson, Miss., published Mr. Calhoun's letter May 24, 1850.
Copied in National Daily Intelligencer, June 4, 1850, iiUo Cong. Globe, 32 Cong. 1 «m«.
Appendix 52.

"National Era, June 12, 1851.

18

our approaching convention to act upon your sug-
gestion relative to the recommendation of a Southern
Convention. "^^

His suggestions were expHcitly followed. The
State formally took the lead, a central committee
was organized and local committees were appointed
in the counties, ''firm and determined resolutions"
were adopted by the October Convention. These
condemned the policy of Congress, and appointed a
committee of seven which issued "An Address to the
Southern States," inviting them to send delegates
to a Convention to be held at Nashville, June 3, 1850,
"with the view and the hope of arresting the course
of aggression, and, if not practicable then to concen-
trate the South in will and understanding, and action,"
"and as the possible ultimate resort the call by the
legislatures of the assailed States of still more solemn
Conventions, — to deliberate, speak, and act with
all the sovereign power of the people. Should, in
the result, such Conventions be called and held,
they may look to a like regularly constituted con-
vention of all the assailed States, to provide in the
last resort for their separate welfare, by the formation
of a compact and a union that will afford protection
to their liberties and their rights. "^^

Calhoun's connection with the movement was not
generally known but was suspected.^" Following

"Letter of September 25, 1S49, Calhoun, Correspondence, 1204. See also letter
from A. Hutchinson to Calhoun of October 5, 1849. Ibid, 1206.

"For address and resolutions, Congressional Globe, 31, Cong. I, Sess., I, 578; 579, 942,

^oSenator Foote in a speech February 8, 1850, denied that the Mississippi movement
was instigated by South Carolina. Congressional Globe. 31 Cong. 1 sess. Appendix
100. In December, 1851, however, he acknowledged "that it was through me, in the
first instance that Mr. Calhoun succeeded in instigating the incipient movement in
Mississippi, which led to the calling of the Nashville Convention." Ibid, 32 Cong.
1 sess. Appendix, 52. A fewdayslaterhestated that he had not known of Mr. Calhoun's
letter to Mr. Tarpley and to others until recently, and added "the letters that I have
seen, according generally with this one (Tarpley) satisfied my mind that the modus
operandi of the Convention was more or less marked out by his great intellect. " Cong.
Globe, 32 Cong. 1 sess. 134-135.

Daniel Wallace was sent by Governor Seabrook of South Carolina as a special agent
to attend the Mississippi Convention. In a confidential letter he reports that he noted
there the influence of "our own old statesman. " (Calhoun). See Report of D. Wallace,
Special Agent from South Carolina to Mississippi, in collection of letters of W. B. Sea-
brook in the Library of Congress. For Wallace's denial that he was an agent of South
Carolina, see references cited by A. C. Cole. The South and the Right of Secession, in
Mississippi Valley Historical Review, I, 377, note 2.

19

his speech in Congress, March 4, 1850, just before
his death, it was asserted. Thus the Fayetteville,
(N. C.) Observer declared: ''The proposition to hold
such a convention was first authoritatively made in
Mississippi. But we presume nobody is so green as
to imagine that it originated there. No, we have
no shadow of doubt that the action of Mississippi
was prompted from South Carolina, and now in
Mr. Calhoun's speech we have a revelation of the
purpose for which the Convention is to assemble.
It is to demand impracticable and impossible con-
cessions, with no hope of their being granted, and
with a purpose and declaration that if not granted
the South will secede from the Union." His letter
to Colonel Tarpley was not made public until after
his death, shortly before the assembhng of the
Nashville Convention.

Calhoun followed the progress of events with great
interest and urged his correspondents in Georgia,
Alabama, and South Carolina to see that their states
supported the Mississippi movement."^ He writes
James H. Hammond, "As to myself, I lose no oppor-
tunity, when I can act with propriety, to give the

great cause an impulse I have made it a

point to throw off no one. Let us be one is my advice

to all parties in the South The time for

action has come. If the South is to be saved, now
is the time. "^2

His own State Government was the first to respond.
Governor Seabrook's message to the legislature,
when it assembled the last of November (1849)
reviewed the slavery agitation. He predicted that
''the enactment of any one of the contemplated
measures of hostility would probably, if not certainly,
result in severing the political ties that now unite
us the South has at last been aroused from

t^Correspondence, 762, 769, 773, 775, 77S. Letters to Calhoun, Ibid, 1195, 1196,
1199-1202, 1210-1212.

"Letter of January 4, 1850, Correspondence, 779.

20

its criminal lethargy to a knowledge of the dangers
of its position. For the first time in our political
history, party affinities are becoming merged in the
high obligation of co-operation for the sake of safety,
or for participation in a common fate." He con-
cluded by recommending the Southern Convention
as proposed by the people of Mississippi. This
recommendation was endorsed by the legislature,
meeting as a caucus, December 12, 1849, and the
election of delegates was provided for.^^ They also
adopted the measures recommended by the May
Convention.

Calhoun's fondest hope for the union of the men
of the South of both political parties seemed about
to be realized. Whigs vied with Democrats in
declaring that southern rights were in universal
danger, and that only a united and bold front would
prevent the enactment of measures that would force
the disruption of the Union. Southern men and the
southern press were even seriously considering the
value of the Union and the advantages of its dis-
solution.

On the assembling of Congress in December of
1849, Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia, a leading
southern Whig wrote "I find the feehng among the
southern members for a dissolution of the Union —
if the anti-slavery measures should be pressed to
extremity — is becoming more general than at first.
Men are now beginning to talk of it seriously, who,
twelve months ago, hardly permitted themselves
to think of it. "^^ Calhoun a little later wrote,
"The southern members are more determined and
bold than I ever saw them. Many avow themselves
to be disunionists, and a still greater number admit
that there is little hope for any remedy short of it. "^^

**The Tri-Weekly South Carolinian, December 8, 1849.
"Johnson and Brown, Life of Alexander H. Stephens, 239.

"January 12, 1850, Calhoun, Correspondence, 780, also December 8, 31, 1849; Ibid,
776, 778.

21

Similar opinions were expressed in many southern
papers. The Richmond Enquirer of February 12
declared, ''The two great political parties of the
country have ceased to exist in the Southern States,
so far as the present slavery issue is concerned.
United they will prepare, consult, combine, for prompt
and decisive action. With united voices — we are
compelled to make a few exceptions — they proclaim,
in the language of the Virginia resolution, passed a
day since, the preservation of the Union if we can,
the preservation of our own rights if we cannot.
This is the temper of the South; this is the temper
becoming the inheritors of rights acquired for freemen
by the hand of freemen. 'Thus far shalt thou come,
and no farther,' or else the proud waves of Northern
aggression shall float the wreck of the Constitution. "^«
A communication in the Columbia (S. C.) Telegraph,
February 15, 1850, reads: "My idea is, first, to
perfect the Union of the South, now so happily in
progress. A year ago I thought the South was
doomed, it seemed so dead to the true situation,
mouthing after the lessons of miserable demagogues
the sounding devices of party. But that day is
past. There are no more Whigs, no more Democrats
—there is but one party, 'The party of the South.'
The South is aroused, her banner is on the outer
wall, and the cry is still 'they come, they come,'
'Let the good work go on.' Second, to dissolve the
Union immediately, form a Southern Confederacy,
and the possession by force of most of all the territories
suitable for slavery, which would include all south of
the northern latitude of Missouri."''^

Even The Richmond Republican, a conservative
Whig paper, said editorially, "We are afraid these
men will find the South is in earnest when it is too

late It is melancholy to contemplate such

a state of things; for whatever Northern citizens

"Quoted in National Intelligencer, February 16, 1850.
•'Quoted in National Intelligencer, February 21, 1850.

22

may believe, or affect to believe, every Southern man

knows that to persist in those measures which form

the principal point of Northern policy upon the

subject of slavery, will result in a dissolution of the
Union, "''s

Robert Toombs, a Whig representative from Geor-
gia, wrote ''When I came to Washington, I found the
whole Whig party expecting to pass the Proviso, and
Taylor would not veto it .... 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 under-
stand that if it was passed he would sign it. My
course instantly became fixed. I would not hesitate
to oppose the Proviso, even to the extent of a dis-
solution of the Union. "^^ He, therefore, believed
that the Whigs should join with the southern Demo-
crats in presenting a determined resistance to this
obnoxious measure.

Stephens's letters from December to early in
February show a similar determination as well as
despair of the preservation of the Union. Thus he
writes his brother on January 21: "I see no hope
to the South from the Union. I do not believe
much in resolutions, anyway. I am a good deal
like Troup in this particular. If I were now in the
legislature, I should introduce bills reorganizing
the militia, for the establishment of a military school
the encouragement of the formation of volunteer
companies, the creation of arsenals, of an armory,
and an establishment for making gunpowder. In
these lies our defence. I tell you the argument is
exhausted, and if the South does not intend to be
overrun with anti-slavery doctrines, they must, before
no distant day, stand by their arms. My mind is
made up; I am for the fight, if the country will back
me. And if not, we had better have no 'Resolutions'

''Quoted in National Intelligencer, February 2, 1850.

♦»Coleman. Li/e of John J. Crittenden, 365, letter dated April 25, 1850.

23

and no gasconade. They will but add to our degrada-
tion."^" The National Intelligencer, a Whig paper
published in Washington, in the leading editorial
February 2, entitled, "The Evil of the Day," confirmed
this view of the attitude of the southern Whigs.
"What is most alarming of all," it declared, "is the
fact that gentlemen who have ever heretofore been
most conservative and even thoroughly Whig are
to be found still more excited than those who have
been habitually railers against the North, and under-
valuers of the Union. "

In the meantime the movement for the Nashville
Convention was taken up in the other southern
legislatures as they assembled. The legislatures of
Virginia, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi,
Texas, and Arkansas voted respectively that their
states would be represented, but not without
opposition in some states, and considerable difference
of opinion in regard to the methods to be employed
for the choice of delegates. In general, the Whigs
desired election by the people, the Democrats by the
legislature. As a result there were a variety of
methods adopted.

In some states all the delegates were chosen by the
legislature, in others a part were so chosen to represent
the state at large, and the remainder by the district
system. In a few states, where the choice was left
to the people it resulted in only a partial representa-
tion as was true of Virginia, Texas, and Arkansas.
The legislature of Tennessee, Louisiana and several
of the border states refused to indorse the Convention,
and from only one of these, Tennessee, were any repre-
sentatives present at Nashville." Four of the state
legislatures, namely, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi,
and Virginia also authorized the calling of a state
Convention in case the Wilmot^ Proviso or similar

.ojohnson and Brown. Stephens, 245. See also letter of February 13. 1850 to Jas.
Thomas, American Hist. Assoc. Report, 1911, II, 184. „,. tvt ».

MCole. The Whig Party in the South, 158-162, 170-171. D. T. Hemdon, The Nash-
ville Convention of 1850, in Transactions of the Alabama Historical Society, V. il,i-^lb.

24

obnoxious measures were adopted by Congress.
Mississippi added an appropriation of $220,000 as a
contingency fund.

From the moment of the introduction of Clay's
resolutions, the southern Whig sentiment began to
change, and it was soon evident that the majority
of their numbers were ready to accept the admission
of California, if the Wilmot Proviso was not applied
to the rest of the Mexican cession. It was otherwise
with the southern Democrats. On the 4th of March,
Calhoun's speech, the last great effort of his life, was
presented to the Senate. ^^ The scene was a dramatic
one. The knowledge that the veteran statesman
and great champion of southern rights was to emerge
from his sick room to present his views on the crisis
of the hour was sufficient to crowd the Senate Cham-
ber. Too ill to deliver the speech himself, it was
read by Senator Mason of Virginia. Calhoun, pale
and emaciated sat with eyes partially closed,
listening to the delivery of his last appeal and solemn
warning. ''A sombre hue pervaded the whole
speech," wrote Senator Cass. It was, indeed, clear
that the author, conscious of his approaching end,
was oppressed with anxious forebodings of the dis-
ruption of the Union. He declared that the Com-
promise proposed could not save the Union. This
could be done only by the North giving to the South
equal rights in the territories, by ceasing to agitate
the slavery question and by consenting to an amend-
ment to the Constitution which would restore to the
South the power to protect herself. The amendment
as explained in a posthumous essay provided for the
election of two Presidents, one from each section,
each to have a veto on all legislation.^^

This extreme demand did not command the support
of the southern Whigs, and Webster's ''Seventh of
March Speech" did much to reassure them,^^ and the

"Congressional Globe, 31 Cotig. 1 Sess., I, 451-455; Works, IV, 542-573.
"A Discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States.

25

southern press in general applauded it; while many
condemned Calhoun's remedy as impracticable. Thus
the Virginia Free Press declares: ''The necessity
of the Convention, if it ever existed is now at an end.
Since the delivery of Mr. Webster's speech
the great body of the people feel a confidence that the
agitating and exciting question of the day will be
amicably settled and the clouds which lately lowered
so darkly over the Union will be dispelled.^^ Even
the radical Charleston Mercury says: ''With such a
spirit as Mr. Webster has shown, it no longer seems
impossible to bring this sectional contest to a close,
and we feel now, or the first time since Congress
met, a hope that it may be adjusted.^^ The New
Orleans Bee declared that "the public sentiment of
nine-tenths of the people of the South will rebuke
the opinion of Mr. Calhoun and stamp it as calumny
upon the slave holding part of the community.""
The change in the attitude of the press in regard to
the Nashville Convention was general, but particu-
larly marked in the case of the Whig papers. The
Wilmington Chronicle states that of sixty papers
from ten slave-holding states from Maryland to
Louisiana, not more than one quarter take decided
ground for a Southern Convention. "The rest are
either strongly opposed to it, doubt its utility or are
silent on the subject. "^« The Jackson (Mississippi)
Southron had at first supported the movement, but
by March it had grown luke-warm and before the
Convention assembled, decidedly opposed to it.
The last of May it said, "not a Whig paper m the

MToombsin letter of March 22, 1850 to Linton Stephenawrote:— " We have a tolerable
prospect for a proper settlement of the slavery question. I should think it a strong
prospect if it were not that the Calhoun wing of the South seem to desire no settlement
and may perhaps go against any adjustment which would likely pass. Amerxcan
Historical Association Report, 1911, II, 188.

ii National Intelligencer, March 18 and 23.

W76td.

"National Intelligencer, March 11.

''^National Intelligencer, March 19.

26

state approves. "^^ The Savannah Republican early
in the year seemed to be in doubt what course to
recommend; by the latter part of March it had grown
fearful "that evil men may use it for their own
purposes," especially so since Calhoun's speech.
By the end of May it pronounces against such a
sectional assembly pending the action of Congress.^"

On the other hand leading Democrats and several
of the influential party papers tried to check the
rising tide of union sentiment and to urge the Con-
vention forward. A meeting of southern Senators
was held in Washington on April 16th, at which all
except four were present. They unanimously recog-
nized the importance of the Convention being held."
The Columbus Sentinel (Georgia) declared "Let the
Convention be held and let the undivided voice of
the South go forth, .... from the deliberations
of that Convention, declaring our determination to
resist even to civil war, and we shall then and not
till then hope for a respectful recognition of our
equality and rights. "^^

In South Carolina many declared openly in favor of
secession. Thus the Fairfield Herald of May 1
states its views: "The time for the Southern Con-
vention is nigh at hand, and with its approach con-
flicting opinions harass the mind. The question has
been frequently asked, with all seriousness, what will
be the probable action of the Convention? We have
hoped, and we still desire, that the Convention will
assume a decided position and declare to the North
that there is a line established beyond which, if they
dare trespass, a revolution shall be the consequence.
Further than this, we anxiously pray that the Con-
vention may entertain the proposition of the formation
of a Southern Confederacy. The Union, as it now

"Compare Southron, September 21, October 5, 1849, March 11, 15, 22, April 5, 19,
May 24, 31, June 7, 1850.

ioSamnnah Republican, March 21, 22, May 20, 1850.
*^M ontgomery Advertiser, April 16, 1850.
**National Intelligencer, March 11.

27

exists, has proved a curse and not a blessing. It
has been made the means of catering to northern
taste and inclinations, robbing from the southern
planter his pittance to pander to the craving pro-
pensities of northern leeches. In the language of
the Wilmington Aurora (which we unhesitatingly
endorse) we would say to our delegates, who will
shortly leave for the Convention, if they intend to
furnish us with barren addresses merely, they had
better stay at home. "®^

Such utterances as these led several of the Whig
delegates who had been chosen to the Convention,
especially in Georgia, to decline to attend on the
ground that the movement had not the support of
the people as shown by the small vote cast, and
because they were opposed to anything looking
toward disunion.®^ ''They saw," said the Southron,
"that South Carolina and portions of the loco foco
party in other states were determined to press the
consideration at the Nashville Convention the pro-
priety of the treasonable project of disunion."^
Some of the Whigs, however, decided to attend to
prevent extreme measures. William M. Murphy,
one of the delegates at large from Alabama, published
an open letter stating his reasons. "It is said that
the object of the Convention is to dissolve the Union;
if this be true no earthly power should prevent my
attendance — to prevent that awful calamity."®^

Chief Justice Sharkey and the Mississippi Whigs,
however, attended, and the former both before the
Convention met, ^^ and in his speech from the Presi-
dent's chair in that body, denied that the object of
the originators of the movement was to dissolve the
Union but to obtain relief from the "violations of
the Constitution which the North had made."

'^National Intelligencer, March 10, 1850.

**National Intelligencer, June 1850. Especially letter of Ex-Representative Jaa. A
Meriweathcr of Georgia. Augusta Chronicle quoted in National Intelligencer, May
7, 1850. Savannah Republican, quoted in Philadelphia Public Ledger, April 2, 1850.

"Jackson Southron, May 31.

28

"The Convention had not been called to prevent,
but to perpetuate union. "^^

As we have seen, Calhoun was largely responsible
for the assembling of the Southern Convention, and
it is apparent that he had hoped to guide its pro-
ceedings. Indeed he had suggested, as late as the
middle of February, that "at least two members
from each of the delegations should visit Washington
on their way to Nashville, in order to consult fully
with the members from the South that are true to
her. "^^ Had he lived doubtless he would have
exercised great influence in directing its work.™
From his correspondence of the last few months of
his life, as well as from articles in papers inspired by
him, we are able to form an excellent idea of what
he hoped the Convention would accomplish. In a
letter to the editor of his organ the South Carolinian,
Calhoun wrote early in the winter that "the great
object of the Convention is to make a solemn state-
ment of the wrongs of the South and to appeal to the
North to desist. Further, in case the latter should
refuse to alter its course, to devise some means of
action. "^^ It is probable that he intended the
Convention to embody in its demands the indis-
pensable guarantees that he had presented in his
last speech in Congress. This was the view taken
by Senator Foote, who the day following the pre-
sentation of Calhoun's speech protested in the Senate
against the demand for amendments to the Constitu-
tion as a sine qua non on the part of the South.
Calhoun immediately replied disclaiming having said
anything about a sine qua non but added, "I will

"Montgomery Alabama Journal, May 22.

"Letter of April 4 in National Intelligencer, April 27. Senator Foote in a speech
February 14, 1850, stated a similar view. Cong. Globe. 31 Cong. 1 Sess., I, 369.

•Weu) York Tribune, June 24, 1850.

'^Correspondence, 782.

'"Hammond wrote him March 5, 1850, "You must be there with your full power."
Correspondence, 1212.

i^South Carolina Triweekly, May 25, 1850.

29

say— and I say it boldly— for I am not afraid to say
the truth on any question, that as things now stand,
the Southern States can not with safety remain in
the Union. "72

In his last letter, dated March 10, Calhoun wrote,
"Nothing short of the terms I propose can settle it
finally and permanently. Indeed it is difficult to
see how two peoples so different and hostile can
exist together in one common Union. "^^ Judge
Beverly Tucker of Virginia, an ardent secessionist,
evidently believed that Calhoun had at last made
up his mind that secession was inevitable. On
March 25, 1850, he wrote his nephew, ''That the
action of South Carolina will be determined is abso-
lutely sure. She has been held in check by Calhoun
for seventeen years. Seeing now no room between
him and the grave for any ambitious career, he for
the first time looks on the subject with a single eye,
and his late speech does but give utterance to what
has been in his mind and in the mind of every man in
that State during this time."^^

''^Congressional Globe, 31 Cong., 1 Sess., I, 462-463. In December, 1851, Foote stated
in a speech that " I am now perfectly certain that it was the intention of himself (Calhoun)
and a few others closely associated with him to wield, as far as they might find it in their
power to do so, all the machinery of the Nashville Convention for the purpose of setting
up demands in favor of the Southern States alike unjust and unreasonable in themselves
— a compliance with which they could not have confidently expected. I entertain no
doubt also, at this time that he contemplated the breaking up of the Confederacy as
more than a probable event, and one to which he began to look forward with a good deal
of eagerness." Cong. Globe, 32 Cong., 1 sess. Appendix, 51. For Rhetts denial see
Ibid, 61.

The correspondence of Judge Beverly Tucker of Virginia to Ex-Governor Jas. H.
Hammond of South Carolina, both of whom were delegates to the Nashville Convention,
during the spring of 1850, shows that there were those who wished to use the Convention,
to force secession. Tucker desired that demands should be made on the North that
should be so extreme that they would not be accepted. See Tucker's letters of January
27, February 8, 1850, in Jas. H. Hammond Manuscripts, Vol. 17, Library of Congress.

''^Correspondence, 784.

''^William and Mary Quarterly, XVIII, 44-46. Tucker wrote Ex-Governor Hammond
May 7, 1850, Calhoun "died nobly, and his last act redeems all the errors of his life
.... I have heard of those who rejoiced in his death as providential. I hope it may
prove so, but not in the way intended by them. They considered him as the moving
cause of excitement in South CaroUna. You and I know that he restrained it and re-
strained himself. When he went home in March 1833, he was prepared to say all that
he said in his last speech and much more, had others been prepared to hear it. I know
it from his own lips." Hammond Manuscript, Vol. 17.

30

It would seem that Calhoun was now almost
convinced that secession was a necessary measure,
but apparently hoped to the last for the preservation
of the Union on the terms he had proposed. A few
days before his death he dictated an incomplete
draft of certain resolutions on the territorial question
then at issue. ^^ These were directed chiefly against
the admission of California under the proposed
constitution. It characterized the suggested action
as more objectionable than the Wilmot Proviso
because ''it would effect indirectly and surreptitiously
what the proviso proposes to effect openly and
directly. "^^ The series concluded as follows: — ''Re-
solved, "That the time has arrived when the said
Southern States owe it to themselves and the other
States comprising the Union, to settle fully and
forever all the questions at issue." Calhoun may
have intended this draft for use in the Senate or more
probably for the Nashville Convention, but they do
not seem to have influenced the text of the resolutions
adopted by the latter body." His death, occuring
two months prior to its meeting left the shaping of
the course of the Convention to other and less skilful
hands.

Owing to the developments in Congress, the move-
ment for the Convention lost importance and support
in the South, and the assembling of its members on
the 3rd of June aroused little interest in the North
as its action had been discounted. Representatives
from nine states were present. The body being
composed of seventy-five members from eight states,
and one hundred from Tennessee. The Convention
was organized with the choice of Judge Sharkey as
President. He made a pacific speech, but it probably

" Correspondence, 785-787.

"A similar view in his letter of January 4, 1850, Calhoun, Correspondence, 779-780,

"Joseph A. Scoville, wrote James H. Hammond, April 18, 1850, as follows: — "Mr.

Calhoun commenced dictating some resolutions a few days before he died — he did not

finish them, whether he intended them for the Senate or for Nashville, I never knew. "

Hammond Manuscript, Vol. 17.

31

did not express the attitude of the majority of the
delegates. A Committee on Resolutions consisting
of two from each state reported a series of resolutions
based on those presented by John A. Campbell of
Alabama, afterward Justice of the Supreme Court
of the United States, which were adopted unanimously
on a vote by states. These were rather moderate
in character. In fact Colquitt of Georgia character-
ized them as "tame." The resolutions condemned
the Wilmot Proviso and the other proposed hostile
measures, omitting all mention of the admission of
California. They demanded the extension of the
Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific. This was
pronounced '^as an extreme concession" and soon
came to be regarded as the ultimatum of the Conven-
tion. They declined ''to discuss the methods suitable
for resistance to measures not yet adopted, which
might involve a dishonor to the South," and voted
to re-convene six weeks after the adjournment of
Congress, in case it failed to comply with its de-
mands.'^^

An address to the people of the Southern States,
prepared by R. Barnwell Rhett of South Carolina,
was also reported and aroused much discussion.
It was far more radical than the resolutions, com-
prising the ''choicest specimens of disunion tenets,"
as one of the southern Whig papers remarked. '^^
The Southron declared that neither Calhoun, Hayne
nor McDuffie, "even in the palmiest days of ultra
nullification, ever conceived anything to surpass it. "^°
The address denounced expressly the Compromise

"i^Journal of Proceedings of the Southern Convention, 3-8. See S. L. Sioussat, Ten-
nessee, The Compromise of 1850 and the Nashville Convention, in the Mississippi
Valley Historical Review, II, 330-340, 343-346, for excellent account of the proceedings
of the two sessions of the Convention. T. D. Herndon, The Nashville Convention of
1850, in Alabama Historical Society, Transactions V, 216-233. Cleo. Hearon, Missis-
sippi and The Compromise of 1850, in Publications of Mississippi Historical Society,
XIV, ch. VI. Farrar Newberry, The Nashville Convention and Southern Sentiment
of 1850, South Atlantic Quarterly, XI, 259-273.

''*Southron, June 28.

*«Southron, June 28.

32

measures pending in Congress and expressed the
belief that sooner or later disunion must come. An
earnest attempt was made by the Whigs and a few
conservative Democrats to strike out this section,
and especially the statement in the address that it
would be unconstitutional to admit California. A
number of strong speeches were made in opposition
to this portion of the address. Beverly Tucker,
Professor of Law in the College of William and Mary,
however, made a fiery speech in favor of secession. ^^
The address was carried by a unanimous vote by
states, but on motion the votes of each member were
recorded, and from that it appeared that the Whigs
were opposed, while most of the Democrats supported
it.^^ After a session of nine days, the first session of
the Convention adjourned on June 12th. The North
by this time, refused to take the Convention seriously.
A Philadelphia paper declared, "the prospect is that
the members have each made good an excellent claim
to ridicule for life. "^^ The South, however, regarded
it quite differently. The Whigs generally repudiated
it, agreeing with The Republican Banner and Nash-
ville Whig that the spirit of the Convention and the
propositions discussed savor so strongly of disunion
that every friend of the Republic must feel that its
perpetuity is threatened. "^^ On the other hand, the
Democrats and Democratic press praised its work
and influence.

We are convinced that a careful study of the
Southern Convention movement must lead to the
conclusion that it was of much greater importance
and a more serious menace to the Union than has
been generally recognized by many historians. Mr.

^^Remarks of Beverly Tucker, Southern Convention, 16 pages, n. d. Copy in Virginia
State Library.

^'Republican Banner and Nashville Whig, June 12, 13, 14, 15. This paper said July 4,
"only some dozen or fifteen Whigs to some eighty Democrats."

^North American, quoted by National Intelligencer, June 20.

"June 17.

33

Rhodes states that "the Nashville Convention de-
serves mention more from the hopes and fears it
had excited than from its active or enduring effects.^^
While this is true, it is also true, as he points out in
another passage ''that had the Wilmot Proviso
passed Congress, or had slavery been abolished in
the District of Columbia, the Southern Convention
would have been a very different affair,
from the one that actually assembled at Nashville."^'
This, it is believed, is apparent from the facts that
have been presented. The South, it is clear, would
have been united without distinction of party
against any such measures. Their various legislative
resolutions against the Wilmot Proviso, for example,
were not mere gasconade, but represented a deep-
seated spirit of resistance that undoubtedly would
have led to bold and concerted measures to disrupt
the Union and to the formation of a Southern Con-
federacv. But this movement, for the time being,
was checked by the passage of the Compromise
measures.

While it is undoubtedly true that the project for a
Southern Convention and the threat of secession was
largely a movement of the politicians rather than one
emanating from the people, it is equally true that
the Compromise of 1850 was the work of pohticians,
which was soon to be rejected by the people of both
sections. Even at the adjournment of Congress it
was not certain that the lower South would accept
the Compromise. The Nashville Convention, less
representative than when it met in June, convened
for a second session from November 11 to 19, 1850.
All the delegates who accepted the Compromise
measures were absent. The extremists being in
control, after a series of disunion speeches had been
dehvered, adopted a set of radical resolutions. These
formally affirmed the right of secession, denounced

f^Hxstory of the United States, I, 174.
»/6»d, I, 135.

34

the recent Compromise Acts of Congress, and recom-
mended a general Congress or Convention of the
slave-holding states ''with a 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 safety and independence. "*^
But what was more alarming was the very definite
movement for immediate secession in the four states
of Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina,
which was with difficulty temporarily checked,*^
but not before the agitation had familiarized the
people of the South with this remedy for their griev-
ances and strengthened their belief in secession as a
constitutional right, thus preparing the way for its
adoption a decade later, when the process of the
sectionalization of the country had been completed.

s^Cluskey, PoUlical Text Book, (2 Ed.) 696-598.

ssArthur C. Cole, The South and the Right of Secession in the Early Fifties, Miss-
issippi Valley Historical Review, I, 376-399; Cole, The Whig Party in the South, ch.
VI; Cleo Hearon, Mississippi and Compromise, ch. VIII-XII; U. B. Phillips, Georgia
and Stale Rights, 161-170. Philip M. Hamer, The Session Movement in South Caro-
lina. 1848-1852. (Univ. of Penn. Ph. D. thesis, June, 1918.)

/ 1.6'^- ^--^ ''

^/^.

V'^^" h

^ y VC- '

^^-,^. . . ■