William O. Goode* to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, March 29, 1850

BOYDTON, [VA.], March 29, 1850.

DEAR HUNTER: I write to impose a little labour upon you, or rather I should say, trouble, but not more, than under a change of circumstances, I would cheerfully encounter for you. You know, I file and preserve in the form of a Book, Speeches, which well discuss, great political topics before Congress. I have procured a pamphlet copy of your very fine speech on the Austrian question. I thank you for delivering that speech. I wish you would send me, pamphlet copies of the speeches of Mr. Berrien and Mr. Webster, on the Slavery Question. And I should like to have a copy of Sewards Speech, if you think you can send it, without violating the Law against the circulation of incendiary publications; and even if you dread to encounter such a penalty, I promise not to inform against you, as I really want the speech, to enable me to contemplate the whole extent of this fearful subject.

If I were in Washington at this time, I would do what I never have done. I would call on Daniel Webster to pay him my respects. I know very well, he would regard it as a matter of the utmost insignificance even if he thought of it at all, but I would do so for my own gratification. I feel for him now, a higher respect than I ever did before, and more than I thought I could cherish for the greatest, the ablest, the most dangerous advocate, of the broadest construction of our Federative Compact—the Con[stitution] of U[nited] S[tates]—a Compact, which he calls Government, Government, invested with the highest attributes of Sovereignty, and for which, he challenges my highest allegiance. But it appears to me that this Slavery Speech, has established a claim to my gratitude. It could only have originated in a patriotic heart. It could only have been expressed by a generous mind. If we except, every thing which refers to California, and the allusion to the appropriation of Federal Money, to the deportation of Free Blacks (which he designed as a liberal concession) I should be happy to have carried out, the eloquent suggestions, of his eloquent discourse.

I sincerely hope, there may be speedily evinced at the North, a determined purpose of adopting and acting out these suggestions. Such a manifestation would be hailed with general joy at the South. So far as I have been able to observe and to form a conjecture of public sentiment, there is an obvious reluctance to take the initiative, but yet a firm, determined fixed purpose, to defend and maintain our social rights, and our political equality. It would be a fatal error on the part of the North, to mistake prudence and caution, for doubt and timidity. They may rely upon it, the subject has been painfully considered, and the decision unalterably made. If the North shall fail to exhibit a spirit of Moderation and pacification, before the Nashville Convention shall be holden, no human sagacity can foresee the consequences. That body will consist of men, for the most part anxious to preserve the Union, but firmly resolved to save the South. The safety of the South is the leading, the prevailing object, and the predominant idea. In the examination of their perils, and the consideration of their wrongs, the most temperate debate will glow with animation, and moderation itself, will kindle into rage. Who shall control their conclusions, or give law to their acts? Whatever their action may be, unless marked by tameness, it will be sustained by the Southern mind. In the beginning, there may be some diversity, but it will soon come to pass, that, contending Parties will vie with each other, and contest the supremacy of acrimony against the North. We will turn from the contemplation of this melancholy condition of things. With a heart all Southern, and a mind, painfully impressed, by the cruel wrong already suffered, and the flagilous outrage held in reserve; with a resolution immutably fixed, I yet pray the Genius of Webster may prevail, to save the Union, and give peace and harmony to the Land.

I must rely on your generosity to protect me against the charge of presumption, in venturing to allude to such a topic.

Present me affectionately to Mason. I thank him for the many public documents which he has sent me. Tell him, I claim as a matter of right, a copy of every speech, made by you or himself, in the Senate, and which shall reach the pamphlet edition.

I pray you to offer to Mr. Calhoun, assurances of my highest respect and kindest regard. I devoured his late Speech and thank him for the copy he sent me. I called a few days since on an old friend, a cankered Hunker, who, in dispite of the kindest relations between us, has perversely persecuted me through life, as a Nullifier Disunionist and Worshiper of John C. Calhoun. He met me with the exclamation "I acknowledge Mr. Calhoun is the greatest man now living. He has made it all as plain as day, why did we not see it before?"

This cankered Hunker is prepared to rush to any extreme. What is the madness of the North. I beg your pardon, Hunter. I know you rarely read more than one paragraph in a letter. You note that a bore if it contain three lines. You will read the last of this as it mentions our illustrious friend.

[P. S.] Can you spare time to write me, what you all wish us all to do. Snow 5 Inches on 28 March.

_______________

* A State rights Democrat and a Representative from Virginia in Congress, 1841-1843, 1853-1859.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 108-10

William O. Goode to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, April 20, 1850

[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.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 110-2

William O. Goode to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, May 11, 1850

[BOYDTON, VA.], May 11, 1850.

DEAR HUNTER: I have to thank you for the copies of the speeches which you have sent me. Seward's "Execrable" is at hand! Your own speech had been eagerly read before I received the Pamphlet, and read I assure you with pride and satisfaction. In this part of the State, it is esteemed, the best effort which you have made. My individual opinion might accord equal merit to previous labours but I was proud of the last speech. The position which it assumes and to which you particularly directed my attention, I regard as indisputable, and resting at the foundation of the Social Compact. The Property of the Citizen is subject to taxation, and as an equivalent for this right surrendered to Society and by the Citizen. Society guarantees protection to property. They are just as much recognized equivalents, as Military service and protection of persons. We feel that the Federal Government exercises the power of Taxation, and we know of no political arrangement or process of just reasoning by which it can claim exemption from the obligation to protect. Property subjects itself to taxation and claims protection as an equivalent. The right to tax and obligation to protect are reciprocal terms and will only be controverted by those who would dispute the first principles of the social system. When I had written thus far I was interrupted and did not resume until my return from the District Convention. I wrote you a short and hasty note from Lawrenceville. I was called out in Convention before the Election of Delegates. I expressed the opinion that the Compromise projected by the Senate Com[mittee] as shadowed forth in the Newspapers, would be distructive of the South, that the South surrendered all and secured nothing. I supported this opinion by examination of the Subjects of Compromise, but expressed my readiness to take a compromise approved and recommended by Southern Members of Congress, because I trusted them as honorable men who would not sacrifice the honor of the South and property of the South.

I said in substance, California would be admitted with her present boundaries, not designed to be permanent, but contemplating a division and future erection of two free States, whose character was to be determined by the Casual Agency and usurped sovereignty of the present Adventurers, designedly fixing boundaries to include all the Land suited to Slaves &c. And I deprecated subjecting any part of Texas to future jurisdiction and action of freesoilers. I spoke perhaps more than an hour and awakened opposition to me. My election was opposed on the ground of my Ultraism and alledged desire for dissolution, which allegation is gratuitous. I do not desire dissolution. I expressed the apprehension, that California and the Territories in one Bill might command [a] small majority of the Senate without the Wilmot [Proviso]. In the House, they would be separated. Cal[iforni]a sent back to Senate, would pass without the Territories. After which Territories would be subjected to Wilmot [Proviso] or neglected. I lost nearly all the Anti Ultra Vote. I received nearly all the Democrats present with some Whigs. I lost [the] greater part of Whigs with a few Democrats. Petersburg was not represented (Meade's residence). All the Counties were represented.

I want you and Mason and Seddon, Meade and others to inform me fully of the prospect before us and furnish me all necessary documents. I shall prepare to leave home by 20 Inst. if necessary. I shall be delighted if the necessity can be superceded. I am obliged to be a little troublesome. You must talk with our friends especially those mentioned above and write me fully and immediately, and tell them especially Seddon and Mason, to do so too. I write in great haste, shall be exceedingly occupied for ten days. Do let me hear from you forthwith.

[P.S.] I expect to be in Rich[mon]d 20th Ins[tan]t: to go Southern Route.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 112-3