VOA慢速英語(yǔ):卡爾霍恩：南方要求的是純粹的公正

From VOA Learning English, welcome to The Making of a Nation, our weeklyprogram of American history for people learning American English. I’m SteveEmber.

During the first half of the 19th century, leaders of the United States could findno answer to the question of slavery. The dispute grew more threatening afterthe war with Mexico in 1849.

Northern states refused to permit slavery in the new territories of Californiaand New Mexico. Southern states declared that they had a constitutional rightto bring slaves into the new lands. The South was ready to secede – to leaveand break up the Union of states.

A portrait of John C. Calhoun painted by G.P.A. Healy around 1846

Then, in 1850, Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky offered a compromise to avoidsecession, and a likely war between the North and South.

He said the Union was permanent and created for all future Americans. Heattacked the South's claim that it had the right to leave. He warned the warthat would follow southern secession would be long and bloody.

One week after Senator Clay spoke, Senator Jefferson Davis of Mississippiexplained his position. He did not say much about Clay's proposedcompromise.

Davis was sure that no good would result from it, not even from stronger lawson the return of escaped slaves. He said these laws would not be enforced instates where people opposed slavery.

He said that what was needed was a change in the North's policy toward theSouth. He said the North must recognize the rights of southerners, especiallythe right to take slave property into U.S. territories.

Henry Clay proposed a compromise over the issue of slavery in the United States in 1850

Davis said Congress had no right to destroy or limit this right. He admittedthat the old Missouri Compromise of 1820 had limited the right to take slavesinto the territories. He said the 1820 compromise worked -- not becauseCongress passed it, but because the states agreed to it.

Senator Davis said the North was responsible for the growing split in thecountry, because the North was trying to get complete control of the South. He said if these efforts were not stopped, the North some day would bepowerful enough to change the Constitution and end slavery everywhere.Davis warned the South would never accept this change.

Three weeks later, the Senate heard another southern leader, Senator JohnC. Calhoun of South Carolina. For years, Calhoun was the voice of the South. He now was 68 years old and a sick man. He spent the last week inFebruary writing what he believed to be the true position of the South. ManySenators understood it would be his last speech.

On Monday, March 4th, the Senate was crowded when Calhoun entered. Oneby one, friends came to speak to him. The old man's long, gray hair fell to hisshoulders. His face was thin and white. But his eyes were bright and his jawfirm. Calhoun was too weak to read his speech. He asked another senator toread it for him.

Calhoun said that for a long time he had believed the dispute over slavery -- ifnot settled -- would end in disunion. Calhoun said it was clear now toeveryone that the Union was breaking apart, that the ties that had held theNorth and South together were breaking, one by one.

Three churches, once united across the nation, now were split between theNorth and South. The major political parties, he declared, were divided in thesame way. Calhoun said the North was responsible for all this disunitybecause it had destroyed the political balance between the two parts of thecountry.

As the population of the North had grown large, he noted, that part of thecountry seized political and economic control. The North passed tariff bills theSouth opposed. It had filled most of the offices in the federal government. Itclosed the new territories to southern slaveholders. And, said Calhoun, itviciously attacked the southern institution of slavery.

This is an undated portrait of American congressman & orator, Daniel Webster (1782-1852). Webster of Massachusetts was accused of ``scarlet infamy'' in 1851 when he backed a North-South compromise that forestalled the dissolution of the Union. (AP Photo)

The situation was so bad, he said, that the South could not -- with honor andsafety -- remain in the Union. "How can the Union be saved?" he asked. "Not by the compromise proposed by the senator from Kentucky. There is but oneway. A full and final settlement, with justice, of all the questions disputed by the two sections.

"The South asks for justice, simple justice, and less she ought not to take. She has no compromise to offer but the Constitution, and no concession orsurrender to make. She has already surrendered so much that she has littleleft to surrender."

At the end of Calhoun’s speech to the Senate, southern lawmakers crowdedaround the old man, congratulating him. But many of them could not agreewith his demands and the violence of his words. By now, most southernersbelieved that Senator Clay's proposals were a reasonable way to settle thedifference and protect the Union.

Yet Clay worried that northerners might reject his proposals. Many in theNorth felt slavery was wrong. They opposed Clay’s compromise because itmight permit slavery in New Mexico, and because it called for stronger lawson the return of slaves who had escaped to the North. So Clay asked animportant senator from the north to speak in support of his proposals.

Daniel Webster represented the northeastern state ofMassachusetts. Senator Webster believed that slaverywas evil. Yet he believed that national unity was moreimportant. He did not want the nation to divide. He didnot want to see the end of the United States of America.

Webster was 68 years old, as old as Calhoun. Threedays after Calhoun’s speech, Webster spoke to the Senate. His voice wasweaker now. But his words rang with the same strength as years earlier.

"I speak today," he said, "to save the Union. I speak today out of a concernedand troubled heart. I speak for the return of a spirit of unity. I speak for thereturn of that general feeling of agreement which makes the blessings of thisunion so special to us all."

Senator Webster spoke of how he hated slavery. He spoke of his fight againstthe spread of slavery. But he disagreed with those who wanted laws makingslavery illegal in new territories. It would not be wise to pass such laws, hesaid. They would only make the South angry. They would only push the Southaway from the Union.

Then Webster spoke about the things the North and South had done to makeeach other angry.

One, he said, was the failure of the North to return runaway slaves. He saidthe South had good reason to protest. It was a matter of law. The law wascontained in Article Four of the nation’s constitution.

"Every member of every northern legislature," Webster said, "has sworn tosupport the constitution of the United States. And the constitution says thatstates must return runaway slaves to their owners. This part of theconstitution has as much power as any other part. It must be obeyed."

Next, Webster spoke about Abolition societies. These were organizations thatdemanded an end to slavery everywhere in the country.

"I do not think that Abolition societies are useful," Webster said. "At the sametime, I believe that thousands of their members are honest and good citizenswho feel they must do something for liberty. However, their interference withthe South has produced trouble."

As an example, Webster spoke about the state of Virginia. Slavery was legalthere. Webster noted that public opinion in Virginia had been turning againstslavery until Abolitionists angered the people. After that, he said, no one wouldtalk openly against slavery. He said Abolitionists were not ending slavery, buthelping it continue.

Then Webster said the North also had a right to protest about some things theSouth had done. He said the South was wrong to try to take slaves into newAmerican territories. He said attempts to expand slavery violated earlieragreements to limit slavery to areas where it already existed.

Webster said the North also had a right to protest statements by southernleaders about working conditions in the North. Southerners often said thatslaves in the South lived better lives than free workers in the North.

Webster appealed to both sides to forgive each other. He urged them tocome to an agreement. He said the South could never leave the Unionwithout violence.

Webster said the two sides were joined together socially, economically,culturally, and in many other ways. There was no way to divide them. NoCongress, he said, could establish a border between the North and South thateither side would accept.

In general, Webster's speech to the Senate was moderate. He wanted toappeal to reason, not emotion. Yet it was difficult for him to be unemotional. His voice rose as he finished.

"Secession." he called out. "Peaceable secession! Your eyes and mine willnever see that happen. There can be no such thing as peaceable secession. We live under a great constitution. Is it to be melted away by secession, as the snows of a mountain are melted away under the sun?

"Let us not speak of the possibility of secession. Let us not debate an idea sofull of horror. Let us not live with the thought of such darkness. Instead, let uscome out into the light of day. Let us enjoy the fresh air of liberty and union."

Northern Abolitionists quickly criticized Daniel Webster's speech. They calledhim a traitor. But most people of the North accepted Webster's appeal forcompromise. His speech cooled the debate that threatened a complete breakbetween the North and South.

Yet the speech was not the end of the debate. The Senate’s final decision on the Compromise of 1850 will be our story next week.

I’m Steve Ember, inviting you to join us next time for The Making of a Nation —American history from VOA Learning English.