In Alabama, the Whigs were divided in their attitude. The Mobile Advertiser early expressed the sentiments of the Whigs of that district against the necessity of a southern convention at this time." But those in the vicinity of Montgomery, the hot-bed of radicalism under the leadership of the fire-eating William L. Yancey, were either becoming infected by the contagion or did not dare as yet to disclose their real sentiments." Accordingly, a proposition to send a representation to Nashville, moderate in tone and intended as a comproImise to suit all, unanimously passed the legislature, with only slight objections from certain Whigs who were opposed to the election of the delegates by the legislature."1

When the Mississippi legislature was considering the recommendation of Governor Quitman's message of February 11, for a remonstrance against the admission of California with the restriction of slavery there, the Whig members, seeing in it an attack on President Taylor's position, called for a meeting of all persons

friendly to the administration of General Taylor and to the Union". In this meeting resolutions were adopted stating that the admission of California was not an attempt to adopt the Wilmot proviso in another form and praising the president's plan of non-intervention." A party struggle was going on in the legislature concerning the Nashville convention. There the Whigs successfully fought to cancel the selections made by

7 Feb. 2, 6, 1850.

The Montgomery Alabama Journal of April 24 protested against the opposition of the Whigs of Mobile as "calculated to place the Whigs of the State in a position in which their opponents had long labored to place them and which they do not and will not occupy 81 Mobile Advertiser, Feb. 10, 12, 1850. 2 Jackson Southron, Feb. 15, 22, 1850.

the October convention, they themselves favoring the election of delegates by the people. Emboldened for a time, a group of them attempted to kill the proposition for representation there entirely. But in the end they were forced to witness the adoption of the plan of having the delegates chosen by the legislature in joint session, which was even more obnoxious. They assailed the plan as illegal and unconstitutional and many of them refused to participate in the balloting for delegates. A protest bearing twenty-seven names, all but three being Whigs, was submitted and entered upon the journal. The passage of a set of resolutions condemning the admission of California and referring the subject to the Nashville convention to be considered with the other causes of complaint, brought out additional protests.

In the Virginia legislature also the Whigs posed as the champions of moderation and of the Union. But few could see what good a southern convention could effect in advance of some adverse action by Congress." Many, indeed, opposed it, stating that whatever its avowed object it would certainly result in a dissolution of the Union. The Whig members succeeded in substituting for the original proposition, which provided. for the appointment of delegates-at-large by the legislature and the payment of their expenses, resolutions

85

83 Jackson Southron, Feb. 22, March 1, 8, 15, 1850. The Whigs also objected to the proposed appropriation for the expenses of the meeting. 84 Richmond Whig, Jan. 3, 4, 15, 1850.

See speech of Sheffey (Whig), id., Jan. 15. The Lynchburg Virginian was convinced that disguise it as you will, the object of this convention is to familiarize the public mind with the idea of dissolu

tion". Id., Jan. 24, 1850.

which were said to have been draughted by a Whig.“ These looked to the defense of southern rights within the Union rather than out of it, although taking a bold stand for the united action of the slave states in the event of the adoption of certain measures by Congress. For the present they recommended the people to take up the matter of representation at Nashville in primary meetings, which should appoint delegates to district conventions authorized to take final action. The Whigs of eastern Virginia thought this much necessary to repel the charges that they were unsound upon the slavery question."

In Tennessee, the Whig senate passed resolutions refusing, on the ground that it was "no part of their delegated trusts", to have any connection with the proposed convention." The Democrats in the lower house, however, having silenced the Whig minority, forced through that body a report on federal relations and a resolution for the appointment by the governor of two delegates from each congressional district. Both branches of the Whig legislature of Kentucky frustrated all attempts to endorse the Nashville convention." The Maryland house of delegates, on the recommendation of the Democratic governor, early declared in favor of the southern movement, but when the resolutions were given their final form by the Whig senate, they gave no countenance to the proposed con

Id., Feb. 14; National Intelligencer, Feb. 16. Cf. Acts of Virginia Assembly, 1849-1850, 233-234; Senate Journal, 83-85; House Jour nal, 222-224.

87 Richmond Whig, April 12, 1850.

68 Senate Journal, 1849-1850, 764; Nashville Republican Banner, Feb. 8, 9, 11, 19.

Louisville Journal, Feb. 28, March 1, 2, 4.

00

vention. In Louisiana and Florida, where the Whigs also controlled the state legislatures, the project failed for want of support from the majority party. In the latter state the Whig executive refused to take any step in the matter and discouraged the movement." Most of the southern states had taken their official stand or the steps which determined it, by the middle of February. As far as the Whigs were concerned they acted in accordance with their characteristic conservatism, reenforced by a partisan desire not to embarrass the administration, rather than in anticipation of any immediate congressional scheme of compromise. Thus far, indeed, they had seen nothing which gave promise of more satisfactory results than the plan which Taylor had offered in his messages, even though it began with the admission of California as a free state. All this would seem to show that the feeling for disunion, however much it had infected intemperate politicians, had not reached the mass of the party in the South. On the other hand, not a few sober students of sectional relations-fewer doubtless in the Whig than in the Democratic party-were seriously, yet quietly and without gasconade, calculating the value of the Union."

The southern Whig insurgents in Congress, meanwhile, were bending their energies to work out the intricacies of their peculiar position. Though they had

90 National Intelligencer, Jan. 25, Feb. 2, March 4; Baltimore Clipper, Feb. 26, 28, March 5, 15, 1850.

91 Washington Republic, March 7; National Intelligencer, March 7, 1850.

92 National Intelligencer, Feb. 2, 11; Johnston and Browne, Life of A. H. Stephens, 244, 245, 247; Stephens to J. Thomas, Feb. 13, 1850, Toombs, Stephens, and Cobb Correspondence.

much in common with the Democrats from their section, such obstacles as differences of opinion regarding the admission of California and regarding the value of the Union stood in the way of a union of forces. This was, moreover, the very point, but in a different connection, which separated them from the administration. They recognized the right of California to be admitted despite the fact that she had decided to exclude slavery from her borders, but they insisted upon making this a condition upon which other questions involving the rights of the South should be settled. They considered it unjust to the South to admit California on any other basis. Their very position suggested compromise, but, not even after some of them were convinced that Taylor was ready to stop with his veto the application of the proviso to the territories, could they unite with him on his policy.

Their position, as finally declared, demanded a complete and speedy adjustment of the slavery question. There was nothing about this which could properly be termed radical, although this was not always true of the methods to which they resorted. They urged it forcefully and vigorously, sometimes approaching gasconade in their efforts to impress the North with the danger of disunion. In a speech on the twenty-second of January, Clingman, after showing how little the South had to lose by dissolution and what beneficial results it would enjoy from that event, proposed to obstruct hostile legislation by filibustering. This policy was properly considered the platform of the ultras." Within a little more than a fortnight, the

National Intelligencer, Feb. 1; Speeches and Writings of T. L. Clingman, 235-254.