Websters March 7th Speech/Secession | Page 9

Southern movement in 1850 (North Carolina and Louisiana).
This significant parallel between the action of the Southern states in
1850 and in 1860 suggests the permanent strength of the secession
movement of 1850. Moreover, the alignment of leaders was strikingly
the same in 1850 and 1860. Those who headed the secession movement
in 1850 in their respective states were among the leaders of secession in
1860 and 1861: Rhett in South Carolina; Yancey in Alabama; Jefferson
Davis and Brown in Mississippi Garnett, Goode, and Hunter in
Virginia; Johnston in Arkansas; Clingman in North Carolina. On the
other hand, nearly all the men who in 1850 favored the Compromise, in
1860 either remained Union men, like Crittenden, Houston of Texas,
Sharkey, Lieber, Petigru, and Provost Kennedy of Baltimore, or, like
Stephens, Morehead, and Foote, vainly tried to restrain secession.
[31] South Carolina, Acts, 1849, p, 240, and the following Laws or
Acts, all 1850: Georgia, pp. 418, 405-410, 122; Texas, pp. 93-94, 171;
Tennessee, p. 572 (Globe, XXI. I. 417. Cole, Whig Party in the South,
p. 161) ; Mississippi, pp. 526-528; Virginia, p. 233; Alabama, Weekly
Tribune, Feb. 23, Daily, Feb. 25.
In the states unrepresented at the Nashville Convention-Missouri,
Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, and Louisiana--there was much
sympathy with the Southern movement. In Louisiana, the governor's
proposal to send delegates was blocked by the Whigs.[32] "Missouri",
in case of the Wilmot Proviso, "will be found in hearty co-operation
with the slave-holding states for mutual protection against . . . Northern
fanaticism", her legislature resolved.[33] Missouri's instructions to her
senators were denounced as "disunion in their object" by her own
Senator Benton. The Maryland legislature resolved, February 26:
"Maryland will take her position with her Southern sister states in the
maintenance of the constitution with all its compromises." The Whig
senate, however, prevented sanctioning of the convention and sending

of delegates. Florida's governor wrote the governor of South Carolina
that Florida would co-operate with Virginia and South Carolina "in any
measure in defense of our common Constitution and sovereign dignity".
"Florida has resolved to resist to the extent of revolution", declared her
representative in Congress, March 5. Though the Whigs did not support
the movement, five delegates came from Florida to the Nashville
Convention. [34]
[32] White, Miss. Valley Hist. Assoc., III. 283.
[33] Senate Miscellaneous, 1849-1850, no. 24.
[34] Hamer, p. 40; cf. Cole, Whig Party in the South, p. 162; Cong.
Globe, Mar. 5.
In Kentucky, Crittenden's repeated messages against "disunion" and
"entangling engagements" reveal the danger seen by a Southern Union
governor.[35] Crittenden's changing attitude reveals the growing peril,
and the growing reliance on Webster's and Clay's plans. By April,
Crittenden recognized that "the Union is endangered", "the case . . .
rises above ordinary rules", "circumstances have rather changed". He
reluctantly swung from Taylor's plan of dealing with California alone,
to the Clay and Webster idea of settling the "whole controversy".[36]
Representative Morehead wrote Crittenden, "The extreme Southern
gentlemen would secretly deplore the settlement of this question. The
magnificence of a Southern Confederacy . . . is a dazzling allurement."
Clay like Webster, saw "the alternative, civil war".[37]
[35] Coleman, Crittenden, I. 333, 350.
[36] Clayton MSS., Apr. 6; cf. Coleman, Crittenden, I. 369.
[37] Smith, History of Slavery, 1. 121; Clay, Oct., 1851, letter, in
Curtis, Webster, II, 584-585.
In North Carolina, the majority appear to have been loyal to the Union;
but the extremists--typified by Clingman, the public meeting at
Wilmington, and the newspapers like the Wilmington Courier--reveal
the presence of a dangerously aggressive body "with a settled
determination to dissolve the Union" and frankly "calculating the
advantages of a Southern Confederacy." Southern observers in this
state reported that "the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law or the abolition
of slavery in the District will dissolve the Union". The North Carolina
legislature acquiesced in the Compromise but counselled retaliation in
case of anti-slavery aggressions.[38] Before the assembling of the

Southern convention in June, every one of the Southern states, save
Kentucky, had given some encouragement to the Southern movement,
and Kentucky had given warning and proposed a compromise through
Clay.[39]
[38] Clingman, and Wilmington Resolutions, Globe, XXI. I. 200-205,
311; National Intelligencer, Feb. 25; Cobb, Corr., pp. 217-218; Boyd,
"North Carolina on the Eve of Secession," in Amer. Hist. Assoc.,
Annual Report (1910), pp. 167-177.
[39] Hearndon, Nashville Convention, p. 283.
Nine Southern states-Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama,
Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas, Florida, and Tennessee sent about 176
delegates to the Nashville Convention. The comparatively harmless
outcome of this convention, in June, led earlier historians to
underestimate the danger of the resistance movement in February and
March when backed by legislatures, newspapers, and public opinion,
before the effect was felt of the death of Calhoun and Taylor, and of
Webster's support of conciliation. Stephens and the Southern