Fayetteville [N. C], June 15th, 1848.
My Dear Sir: Your
esteemed favour in reply to my first communication was duly received, and its
perusal gave me no little pleasure, awakening, as it did, pleasing
recollections of incidents during my brief political career in Washington.
I think, my dear sir, I am not deceived in inferring from
the spirit and tenor of your letter that an occasional correspondence will not
be unacceptable, and will serve but to keep alive that kindly attachment which
I trust neither time nor separation will extinguish. Still, plunged as I have
been for many months in the laborious practice of the law, I cannot but
occasionally abandon the courthouse and stroll into the avenue of politics.
They have rather forced me to consent to become a candidate for our
Legislature. I have no opposition, and of course will have a quiet time, and a
little dish of Legislative politics may not be disagreeable. Well, the agony is
over and Cass and Butler are nominated, and Taylor and Fillmore; and although
it has produced some sensation, the tickets seem to have been anticipated by
the popular mind. We have had a large Democratic meeting here and responded
very zealously to the nomination of Cass and Butler. Judge Strange and myself
addressed them. The meeting was large, enthusiastic, and everything passed off
well.
I struggled hard to prove Cass orthodox on the slavery
question, and I would not have done [so] had I suspected him. And his letter to
Nicholson is certainly liberal and magnanimous for a Northern man. I was
provoked at Yancey's conduct in the convention. The introduction of his
resolution1 was unnecessary. The resolution reported by the
committee was comprehensive. There was no evidence that Cass had wrong views,
and the adoption of Yancey's resolution squinted very much towards a suspicion
of Cass and looked too much like pressing nice, hair-spliting distinctions on
the subject upon our Northern democratic friends, whose liberality should be
appreciated but not abused. My own notion is that the Territorial
Legislature while legislating as such and for the Territory and for
territorial purposes has no right to pass a law to prohibit slavery.
Because if we adopt that doctrine we at once practically exclude the slaveholder
forever. The Territory acquired is filled at the time of acquisition with non-slaveholders.
The Legislature meets and a law excluding slavery is enacted. This will
exclude the slaveholder, for he can't get there to repeal the law. I regard the
Territory as the common property of the States. And the people
of each State have a right to enjoy it with or without their
peculiar property. But when the people are meeting to pass a fundamental law,
to adopt a Constitution and to ask admission into the Union as a State, then
the prohibition or establishment of slavery becomes a subject for
legitimate action. It will not do for us to admit that the first Legislature in
New Mexico can pass a law immediately and exclude every slaveholder from the
territory — if we do, are we not admitting that it is not the property of each
and all the States? But I do not think Cass has publicly — certainly not
in his Nicholson letter — expressed any opinion contravening my position. He
says “leave to the people affected by the question” its regulation. He does not
say that he thinks the Territorial Legislature can prohibit it. I hope he will
not say so. Because it may never in all probability become a practical question
on which he as President could act. Yet the expression of such an opinion would
prejudice him in the South with many, very many.
But enough of this. When you write me give me your views. I
can not express to you my feelings about the Whigs' nomination. If they
succeed, my confidence in popular virtue and intelligence will be a little
shaken. I know much virtue and much intelligence will vote the ticket. I regard
it as evidence that the Whigs are afraid of their principles. They know the
people are against them. They put up “Old Zac” and surround him with a blaze of
military glory, and just behind him is Fillmore lurking, holding ready to
fasten upon the country all the odious and rejected measures of the Whig Party.
Can they succeed? What do our friends think of it? I was pleased to see that
yourself and distingue were on the tour, lionizing. That is right. I
have given up South Carolina and am afraid of Georgia and Louisiana.
Massachusetts will bolt. Ohio will vote for Cass, so likewise Pennsylvania. But
for those miserable Barnburners, New York would be all right. The South will have
a hard fight. The slavery question and “Old Zac” being a slaveholder may for a
moment shake some of the faithful — but I have faith in our Principles and
in Providence.
I can't say much to please you about North Carolina. Reid is
doing his best. I don't think he will succeed, although he has sprung up a
suffrage question which is taking well. I do think we will carry the
legislature. There is a strong probability of it.
But enough of politics. Tell Stephens I heartily appreciate
his remembering me so kindly and assure him that the feeling is cordially
reciprocated. I like Stephens. With all his bad politics he is a generous
hearted fellow and of brilliant genius.
By the by, lest I forget it, in confidence, a friend
of mine wishes to go abroad. Do you know of a vacancy — Naples, Rome, Belgium,
etc., etc. Remember this when you write . . .
_______________
* Member of Congress from North Carolina, 1845-1847.
1 Proclaiming the doctrine of congressional
non-intervention with slavery in the Territories. See footnote 1, p. Ill, infra.
SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual
Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The
Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p.
107-9
