The second conflict over slavery which seri ously menaced the Union had reference to ter ritory obtained by the Mexican War (q.v.), Anti-slavery men sought to exclude slavery from such territory by the Wilmot Proviso (q.v.), while pro-slavery men attempted to se cure their interests by an extension of the Mis souri Compromise line to the Pacific. Both of these efforts failed, but the discussions in and out of Congress deepened sectional feeling. Excitement was further increased by events in California. The discovery of gold on the Sacra mento (1848) drew a large, hardy, but reckless population from all quarters. The disorder which resulted made organized government an immediate necessity, but a bill to establish Ter ritorial government for that region failed. Cal ifornia did not wait long on Congress, but called a Constitutional Convention whose dele gates voted unanimously for a constitution pro hibiting slavery. The people of California rati fied the constitution by an overwhelming ma jority. Thus circumstances beyond the control of either party to the contest placed California beyond the reach of slavery. In the meantime the State of Texas seemed to be preparing to enforce her claims to a large portion of what is now New Mexico. Anti-slavery men op posed the demand of Texas because it was ex pected that New Mexico would follow the ex ample of California. President Taylor recom mended Congress to admit California immedi ately as a State and expressed the opinion that the people of New Mexico would soon follow the example of California (1849). The radical pro-slavery men were grievously disappointed over this attitude of President Taylor and strongly favored first putting California and New Mexico through the experience of Territo rial government. Such a plan would have given slaveholders time to move into those Territories. Slavery had not yet learned that in the race for population it could not compete with freedom. The irritation of the two sections was now so great that men again feared for the safety of the Union. Although Henry Clay had retired from public life to spend his few declining years, the legislature of Kentucky without a dis senting vote re-elected him to his old place in the Senate, hoping that the spell of his presence and the power of his eloquence might once more 'restore harmony between the sections. In Janu ary 1850 Clay produced his most famous corn promise bill. The following were its main fea tures: (1) That California be admitted as a free State; (2) that the Territories of New Mexico and Utah be organized and that the question of slavery be left for their people to settle; (3) that Texas be paid $10,000,000 to satisfy her claims against New Mexico; (4) that the slave trade be abolished in the District of Columbia; (5) that a more efficient Fugitive Slave Law be passed. The debates over these measures continued into September and brought out the most splendid array of oratorical talent ever seen in the Senate. Stimulated by his last great effort for the Union, Clay seemed to gather new vigor, was unremitting in his labors and frequently spoke with his old-time power. When he rose to make his great speech a vast concourse which filled even the avenues to the Senate greeted him with tremendous enthusi asm, and hung in breathless silence upon his words. When he had finished, women crowded to imprint on his wan cheek the kiss of admira tion and approval. His effort kindled afresh the fire of patriotism.
The hand of death was also upon the mighty Calhoun. He was only able to sit in his place and listen to another read his last speech. The burden of his address may be summed up in three propositions: (1) The restoration of the equilibrium between the North and the South by an equal division of the territory and by an amendment to the Constitution in order to guarantee the equilibrium; (2) a new law for the return of fugitive slaves, and the cessation of anti-slavery agitation; (3) the peaceful secession of the slave States from the Union, if the above propositions are rejected. Calhoun was asking for an impossible Union and an impossible secession. The other member of the great trio, Daniel Webster, had been silent thus far, and no man, probably, knew what he would say, least of all his New England supporters. On 7 March Webster addressed the Senate in a speech °For the Constitution and the Union.• He made an appeal for conciliation and con demned agitation whether by Northern or Southern men. But he seemed to lay the greater blame for state of public opinion upon-anti-slavery men. For this unex pected position they roundly denounced Web ster and his popularity in the North began to wane. Clay and Webster were of the past and
had spoken for the past. But the men of the future were in the Senate also: Seward, Chase, Douglas and Davis. There was less of com promise in these men. Seward, in particular, aroused criticism by declaring in favor of a *higher law* than the Constitution, in dealing with the slavery question. Davis demanded the extension of the compromise line of 1820 to the Pacific. In spite of the efforts of Clay and his supporters, Congress refused to accept the bill as a whole. But after Taylor's death, Presi dent Fillmore gave his influence in favor of the various parts of the bill, for, although no majority could be found for the measures as one bill, Congress gave majorities to the sepa rate parts.
The people of the country seemed ready to accept the main features of the agreement and special efforts were made to impress upon the people the necessity and fairness of the result. Union meetings were held at which Whigs and Democrats vied with each other in praising the compromise as a final and fair adjustment of the slavery question. Although these efforts seemed somewhat artificial, the result was a lull in agitation. The two old parties, in 1852, in national conventions pledged themselves to stand by the Compromise. Pierce was over whelmingly elected President and was known to be a warm supporter of the Compromise. With these happy omens, politicians began to speak of a °second era of good feeling." One feature of the Compromise, however, threat ened to disturb the promised peace. The pro visions of the law for the rendition of the fugitive slaves were exasperatingly severe. The fugitive was denied the right to testify in his own behalf and was refused the use of the writ of habeas corpus. Any citizen could be summoned to aid in capturing and returning the fugitive and could be fined and imprisoned for aiding him to escape. Slaveholders, who had lost many, slaves through the operation of the Underground Railroad (q.v.), put the new law into vigorous operation. One result was a uumber of °rescue mobs.* The most famous were the rescue of the slave Shadrach in Bos ton by a crowd of his own color, and the rescue of the slave Jerry in Syracuse, by citizens led by Gerrit Smith and Samuel J. May. If the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law failed to renew the controversy with its old time bitter ness the introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill (q.v.) (1854) by Stephen A. Douglas, senator from Illinois, more than accomplished this result. This measure was intended to settle the slavery question by turning it over to the people of the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska to determine for themselves whether they would have slavery or not. This bill in volved the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and was amended so as to specify that fact. The reason given was that the Compromise of 1820 was not in harmony with that part of the Compromise of 1850 which left the question of slavery to the people of New Mexico and Utah. A flame of resentment spread over the North. Since the South had not demanded the measure, it appeared that Douglas was gratuitously pre senting to slavery what had heretofore been re garded as free soil, and that, too, by the repeal of a compromise venerated on account of its age. In spite of intense opposition in Congress and the fierce denunciations heaped upon the measure by pulpit and press, it became a law and compromise was at an end. Douglas lost in popularity at the North. He was burned in effigy in many places, and was even howled down in his own city of Chicago while trying to justify his conduct. The race for Kansas be gan before the bill became a law, and soon free State settlers and slave State settlers were struggling for its control. (See KANsAs). Two Territorial governments, two delegates to Congress, two constitutions and armed col lisions followed in rapid succession. It was necessary to call in Federal troops to preserve order in Kansas. The doctrine of popular sovereignty had failed in application. The Whig party was dead and in its stead a power ful anti-slavery party, the Republican, had arisen. Even the Democrats who remained loyal to the party were divided on the question whether a fair test of popular sovereignty had been made or not. Douglas and his followers in the North declared that the pro-slavery con stitution of Kansas had not been fairly ratified by the people of Kansas. President Buchanan and. his supporters asserted that the test was fair and that Kansas should be admitted as a slave State.