It does not make the least difference who originally phrased the Proviso. It was the elevation of the Jeffersonian formula to the position of a leading article in the national faith that gave Wilmot his place in history. His mission was to lift the restrictive declaration from limited and temporary application from special use as an instrument in fleeting party strategy, to be laid aside in exchange for some concession in another direction-and to make it part of the American creed. There were plenty of thin-soiled minds in which the seed of this gospel sprang up quickly, to die as quickly in the political heat of the following day. Even "great parties indorsed his views, put them in their platforms, stood by them for a time, and then faltered and fell. Great leaders adopted and advocated his views for a time, and sank into oblivion only when they forsook them." The difference in Wilmot's relations to the Proviso and theirs was that nothing in the way of political preferment could induce him to abandon its advocacy or compromise its proposals. 4 It would not be important even if, in spite of the overwhelming evidence pointing to Wilmot's initiative, it should be true that some one else suggested the offer of the Proviso as an amendment to the $2,000,000 bill. The crux of the matter was in what followed-in the vision and spirit with which the ideal was carried forward. The history of the free-soil movement focuses upon Wilmot as foremost in materializing the imagination of the North against slavery extension; not as the greatest, perhaps not even as a great, organizer of the party; but as the personification of the concept which fixed the scope and meaning of the Proviso for all time. It would have meant little as a feint, a gesture of expediency, or the mere phraseology of one unready to father it and fight for it to the end, come what might. As the essence of a national faith for which its sponsor was ready to live or to die, as Wilmot was, it was epoch-making. It is in this larger and 4 Wellsboro Agitator, Nov. 11, 1860. Editorial on Wilmot's candidacy for the Senate. permanent aspect that Schouler (History of the United States, Vol. V, p. 66) calls it "the one great plan which fitted the political situation, that which gave the whole humane North and all opposers of this war, common ground to unite upon, against the greed of slavery extension in which the war originated. . . . This Wilmot Proviso was the one glorious idea engendered of the Twenty-ninth Congress." There is no disposition in this biography to overdraw Wilmot's part in the free-soil movement. The record speaks for itself. The testimony of official documents, of contemporary history, of the utterances and writings of the men of his time, fix his place. He was by no means the greatest practical agent in the final victory; but he was the outstanding personification of the spirit that inspired the movement from its forlorn hope, in 1846, to the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in 1865. And so the sufficient epitaph on the simple headstone in Riverside cemetery in his home town of Towanda, is: DAVID WILMOT Born January 20, 1814 Neither slavery nor involuntary part of said territory except for APPENDIX I SPEECH ON THE TARIFF This speech was delivered July 1, 1846, the House being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, on the bill reducing the duty on imports and for other purposes, generally known as the Tariff Act of 1846. See Chapter VI, preceding. The speech is to be found in the Congressional Globe, for the first session of the Twenty-ninth Congress, Appendix, pp. 767771. Mr. Wilmot addressed the committee as follows: If I felt at liberty to consult my own inclinations, I should refrain from taking part in this discussion. It is always unpleasant for a man occupying a public position to find himself constrained to separate from those with whom he is more intimately and closely associated, especially upon a question of such deep and absorbing interest as the one now under consideration. For each and every one of my colleagues on this floor I entertain the kindest and most respectful feelings. My association with them has been of the most agreeable character, and it is with unfeigned regret that I find myself constrained, by a high sense of representative duty, to take a position on this subject differing totally from the one occupied by them. But, sir, I must abide by my own convictions-I must stand by my own judgment. While I intend to speak of the restrictive system and its advocates as I believe the truth demands, I trust that friends with whom I differ will not understand me to imply the slightest reproach upon the course they have felt it their duty to take. Others, doubtless, speak the sentiments of their constituents-I shall endeavor to speak the voice of mine; to their judgment, and theirs alone, we are alike responsible. ... Sir, believing as I do, I cannot give the influence of my voice, however humble it may be, in support of the tariff of 1842. I believe it unjust and oppressive; imposing heavy burdens upon the labor and industry of the country, for the purpose of building up a monopolizing and privileged class. I am opposed in principle to all partial legislation. I believe it at war with the spirit and genius of our institutions, and dangerous to the equal rights and liberties of the people. This Government was established for the equal benefit and protection of all its citizens. If confined within its proper and legitimate action, its duties are simple; regulating our intercourse with foreign nations, affording protection to person and property, leaving each to pursue that particular employment or branch of industry which he may deem most profitable, or best adapted to his tastes and habits. When it turns aside from these objects, and seeks to build up one interest (which can only be done by depressing others) it ceases to be a just Government-it becomes a tyranny, unworthy of the confidence or support of the people. It is urged by the protectionists, that the imposition of high restrictive and prohibitory duties benefits alike the whole country and every branch of domestic industry. This, sir, I deny. In my view, the falsity of this proposition is as clearly demonstrable as any mathematical problem. If what was taken from one man was returned to him by another, and so on throughout the whole community or State, it would benefit no one, but leave each standing exactly where he was when the process commenced. Again; all wealth is the product of labor. If, by any system of legislation, you enhance the profits of a particular department of labor beyond what they would otherwise be, you must of necessity draw these increased profits from the labor of some other. If this proposition be correct, the subject would seem to resolve itself into an answer of the single question: Do high protective tariffs increase the profits of the manufacturer? If so, it follows that those increased profits are drawn from some other department of industry. It would really seem unnecessary, to those having the slightest knowledge of this subject, to expend one moment in proof of an affirmative answer to this question. Who is it that year after year clamors so loudly for protection? Is it the farmer -the industrious and enterprising artisan-the day laborer? No, sir; these men are never seen about your halls, asking the special legislation of this Government in their behalf. They rely upon their industry and economy to obtain for themselves and their families a livelihood. It is the manufacturers who come here asking bounties and protection for the particular business in which they have chosen to embark their capital. Do they ask this in order to diminish their prices and lessen their profits? It is too absurd for serious argument. It is said by the protectionists that the "industry of the country" must be protected. This claptrap phrase, together with others such as "home markets," protection against pauper labor, etc., have lost their power over intelligent and reflecting men. Is that protection to the interests of the country which levies contributions upon nine-tenths of its labor to build up a favored and privileged class? The bold pioneer, who with his ax fearlessly encounters our heavy forests and subdues our rugged soil, makes a valuable and permanent conquest over nature for the benefit of man. He has added something to the world's stock, and made that which before was useless subservient to the happiness and support of his race. Has he in his noble undertaking asked the bounties of the Government in his behalf? Has he come with greedy and selfish grasp, demanding from the public treasury a premium upon the land cleared by him, or upon the wheat and corn raised as the product of his labor? Sir, this man asks only protection from the spirit of rapacity and wrong. But, argues the protectionist, we desire to give to the farmer a market for his surplus productions. Give to him, then, the markets of the world-not seek to restrict him in his choice, by a system of restrictive and prohibitory duties, which leads to countervailing restrictions, and by its narrow and selfish policy renders those who would otherwise become purchasers unable to buy. But it is a home market that is to be given to the farmer. That is, by shutting him out from the markets of the world, and confining him to one, you place him completely in the power of those who control that market, either to sell at their prices, or not to sell at all. Not only this, but he must be prohibited from seeking the best and cheapest market in which to purchase articles for the comfort of himself and family, but must buy of this same privileged class at the prices they may find it for their interest to demand. Thus upon both sides the farmer is fleeced. I am answered by the protectionist that this is not the case-that the |