[BOYDTON, VA.],
April 20, 1850.
MY DEAR HUNTER: I
live five miles from our Post Office. The other day I despatched a letter to
Mason and the servant returning brought me your letter. I reply promptly,
because I have an interest or an object in doing so. Before I heard from you,
in my letter to Mason, I expressed my apprehensions as to the effect of Webster's
Speech, and I also gave it as my opinion, that if Eastern Virginia be not
fully represented in the Nashville Convention, Foote will have contributed
efficiently to such a result. At the opening of the Session I was greatly
pleased with his bearing. There was something in his notice of Mr.
Calhoun's speech, for which I found myself at a loss to account. I hope it
susceptible of explanation consistent with his own honor and the highest interest
of the South.
From Webster's
speech we gain at least the weight of his authority against the Abolitionists,
Free soilers and Agitators at the North. And we have his acknowledgment that
the South has suffered great wrong at the hands of the North. We have his
authority and influence also on [the] Fugitive Slave question, and on the
future admission of Texas States. These appear to me, to be objects, not
unworthy of consideration. But they are no equivalent for present, positive
legislation. They afford not present nor permanent relief for which we must
rely on our own virtue and which can only be secured by unanimity and concert
in the South. The Nashville Convention is the present available agency through
which to secure concert and unanimity, and my chief object in writing now; as
it was in writing to Mason, is to induce you to urge the Virginia Delegation at
Washington to stimulate their friends in their several Districts. The time is
short, and I fear it is almost too late, but much can be done. So far as I am
informed Amelia, Nottoway and Dinwiddie in Mr. Meade's district have taken no
action. He might procure it in time, or the District Convention might be
postponed long enough to afford time. The same remark may be made in nearly all
the Districts. I myself should have taken an active part long ago, but for
considerations which I would not hesitate to explain to you in a personal
interview. The chief injury to the South, resulting from Webster's speech, is
the hesitation it has occasioned. This has given courage to all who wavered in
their resolution or who were secretly opposed to the measure. And it is
possible that an opposition may rally in the South on the California issue
supported by the plausible popular arguments connected with that subject.
I have another
motive for this letter. I expect to attend a District Convention 8 May, suppose
a thin meeting, and suppose Virginia meagerly represented at Nashville. What
will be best? Consult with our most reliable and judicious friends and write me
fully and frankly.
I say nothing of the
death of our lamented friend. I know not what to say. It were impossible to
express what I feel.
(P. S.) I offered a
suggestion to Mason which I will repeat to you though I presume it had occurred
to both of you. I said to him that in my own opinion, even the compromise 36°
30' was almost disgraceful to us, but public opinion must be consulted and
something given up, for peace and tranquility. Suppose 36° 30′ can not be had.
Would it do to take or offer Sierra Nevada from 42 as Eastern boundary of
California down to near the Southern termination of the range as indicated on
Fremont's Map, thence right line to St. Barbara about 34° on Pacific? This
would give us a line to the Pacific and may be useful in the future. "The
State" of Deseret has asserted this boundary for herself according to a
writer for the Enquirer. And that fact may possibly aid to support an argument
for such a proposition. The suggested line would give to California, perhaps
the most beautiful geographical conformation in the Union. It's present
delineation is a hideous deformity. But all is a mere suggestion without
opinion.
