and joyfully hailed their success, defended the admission of California and the Texas boundary settlement, praised the northern men who voted for the fugitive slave law counter to their own prejudices and those of their constituents, and acquiesced in the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia. Esto perpetua was their earnest and unanimous prayer.

The southern Democratic ultras, having made the admission of California under the terms of her constitution a ground for further consideration of the rights of the South and the value of the Union, now found it incumbent upon them to make good their threats. The governors of Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina doubted whether the South could honorably continue in the Union after it had been thus insulted, despoiled, and defrauded by the adjustment. If they were sincere in their expressions they saw absolutely no good in the measures which their faction had been unable to prevent and which they thought yielded the very birthright of their section. It remained but for them to rally their forces under the slogan of resistance. The issue was variously stated, but usually as "submission or resistance" and "Union or disunion"; the Democratic fire-eaters did not hesitate to choose the latter of the alternatives. The way was prepared for agitation and troublous times in the South. The Whigs, cutting short their ecstatic rejoicings over the success of the adjustment, prepared to make real their professed championship of the Union, to defend the measures the paternity of which was fixed upon Henry Clay and the Whig party.

Georgia was the first southern state to act, not that South Carolina was unprepared to show her hand but because, while anxious for separation herself despite

the earnest efforts of the loyal Whig minority and their Union Democrat co-workers, she realized that any cooperative movement of the southern states might better start from a state which had not so long borne the odium of discredited radicalism. "What will Georgia do?"-this was the inevitable question when the California bill was passed, for the legislature had declared that that would be an act of aggression which would require the calling of a state convention. Governor Towns removed all doubt and, to the intense satisfaction of most of the Democrats there, immediately issued a spirited proclamation for a convention to meet on the tenth of December."

The Whigs, who had argued against this move, set themselves to work to preclude any possible action by the convention looking toward disunion. Praising the fairness of the adjustment in general, they defended the admission of California as a part of it and asserted that secession was no proper remedy for existing grievances. Georgia, the empire state of the South, they said, owed much of her prosperity to the Union and would enjoy inestimable advantages from her continuance in it." They called themselves Union men, members of the "Union and Southern Rights Party", for the regular party line was yielded to meet the exigencies of such a crisis; they welcomed the cooperation of those Democrats who shared in these sentiments.

The activity of Stephens and Toombs, who, despite their advanced southern ground, became with Howell Cobb the foremost supporters of the compromise meas

17 Savannah Republican, Sept. 25; National Intelligencer, Sept. 28, 1850.

18 Savannah Republican, Sept. 24, 1850.

ures and the opponents of resistance, did much toward determining the result. Stephens had prepared the way during a visit to his home while the various bills were pending in Congress; Toombs promptly on his return issued an address to his constituents showing what the South had gained and announcing his readiness to defend the integrity of the republic." Both immediately took the stump, explaining the measures and counseling moderation; " by November the result was seen when in the election a great majority of Union delegates to the convention were chosen.xx

The Union victory in Georgia must have had a dampening influence on the second session of the Nashville convention which met on the twelfth of November with ex-Governor McDonald of Georgia in the chair. With the southern Whigs unrepresented, moreover, little of an authoritative nature could be expected of it; the members contented themselves with passing strong resolutions condemnatory of the entire adjustment and assertive of the right of secession by the sovereign states. After six days of fire-eating speeches and discussion of radical resolutions the convention dispersed almost unnoticed."

The action of the Georgia convention was of quite a different sort. An editorial published in the Savannah Republican of October 22 explained the purposes of the Union men and suggested for a platform a series of resolutions which expressed acquiescence in the late action of Congress, but which declared that in certain contingencies Georgia would resist even to a dissolution of the Union. This was made the basis of

19 Washington Republic, Oct. 15; Stovall, Life of Toombs, 83-85. 20 Avary, Recollections of A. H. Stephens, 27.

Nashville Republican Banner, Nov. 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 1850.

an address issued by the Union candidates for the convention from Chatham county," and for the resolutions of a "Union and Southern Rights" meeting there. It was commended even outside of the state as a proper platform to stand upon" and was very evidently the foundation of the resolutions which were adopted by the convention when it met and which were generally known as the Georgia platform. These resolutions were drafted by the committee of thirty-three appointed for that purpose and reported by Charles J. Jenkins, one of the Whig members."

During the session of the convention, meetings of the Union members were held in which arrangements were made for the thorough organization in Georgia of the "Constitutional Union Party "." One delegate was even appointed from each county to attend a proposed National Union meeting at Washington on the following twenty-second of February." In these meetings, Toombs and Stephens, both of whom were members of the convention, were especially prominent. The movement was in response to the desire, especially of a large number of Whigs in the southern states, for a National Union party," such as Clay had hinted at in a speech before the Kentucky legislature." The local

22 Savannah was in Chatham county.

23 Washington Union, Oct. 27, Nov. 8; Milledgeville Southern Recorder, in id., Nov. 12; Richmond Republican, in Savannah Republi can, Nov. 9; Vicksburg Whig in id., Dec. 16; New Orleans Bulletin, Nov. 23, 1850.

24 Savannah Republican, Dec. 16, 17, 1850; Johnston and Browne, Life of A. H. Stephens, 259-260.

25 Milledgeville Southern Recorder, Dec. 24; Savannah Republican, Dec. 14, 16.

26 Savannah Republican, Dec. 30, 1850.

27 Savannah Republican, Oct. 22, Dec. 30; Jackson Southron, Nov. 15; Mobile Advertiser, Nov. 30, 1850; Milledgeville Southern Recorder, Jan. 21, 1851; Montgomery Alabama Journal, Jan. 28, 1851. 28 Washington Republic, Nov. 27, 1850.

need was evident in such states as Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama, where the influence of the state governments had been for years on the side of resistance and where local disunion sentiment was strong enough to constitute a real danger. But it was intended also as a blow at abolitionism which, southern men said, was becoming increasingly prosperous in the North because both parties found it necessary to court the abolition votes. For this reason many Whigs in the slave-holding states were willing to consign the old parties, as obsolete at best, to the tombs of the Capulets. In their support of the compromise they had noted the opposition of a large element of their party in Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania; they could but place such Whigs in the category of opponents along with the southern ultras." Looking forward to the presidential election two years hence, it was difficult for them to think of cooperation with the northern wing, and of entering a national convention where the Seward" higher law" element was sure to be loudly assertive in its demands. Accordingly, the proposed Union party was to be national in its scope in order to crush agitation in all sections.

This movement very naturally found little favor from those politicians who were concerned in the success of the old parties. The central organs at Washington all disapproved of the proposal, although the Whig editors viewed it more calmly than the chief of the Washington Union, who saw the havoc it would play in the southern strongholds of Democracy where the idea was most seriously advocated." But probably

29 See letter of ex-Governor Metcalfe of Kentucky to H. S. Foote, Washington Union, Jan. 7, 1851; also Toombs to A. H. Chappell, Feb. 15, Milledgeville Southern Recorder, March 18, 1851.

20 Washington Union, Jan. 3, 1851.