rms for the return of fugitive slaves who escaped from Slave
States into the Free. But for reasons and in a fashion which it will be
more convenient to examine in the next chapter, this provision of the
Constitution had been virtually nullified by the domestic legislation of
many Northern States. To put an end to this, Clay proposed a Fugitive
Slave Law which imposed on the Federal Government the duty of recovering
escaped slaves, and authorized the agents of that Government to do so
without reference to the Courts or Legislature of the State in which the
slave might be seized.

The character of the settlement showed that its author's hand had in no
way forgotten its cunning in such matters. As in the Missouri
Compromise, every clause shows how well he had weighed and judged the
conditions under which he was working, how acutely he guessed the points
upon which either side could be persuaded to give way, and the
concessions for which either would think worth paying a high price. And
in fact his settlement was at the time accepted by the great mass of
Union-loving men, North and South. Some Northern States, and especially
Massachusetts, showed a disposition to break away under what seemed to
them the unbearable strain of the Fugitive Slave Law. But in dealing
with Massachusetts Clay found a powerful ally in Webster. That orator
was her own son, and a son of whom she was immensely proud. He had,
moreover, throughout his public life, avowed himself a convinced
opponent of Slavery. When, therefore, he lent the weight of his support
to Clay's scheme he carried with him masses of Northern men whom no one
else could have persuaded. He proclaimed his adhesion of the Compromise
in his famous speech of the 10th of May--one of the greatest that he
ever delivered. It was inevitable that his attitude should be assailed,
and the clamour raised against him by the extreme Anti-Slavery men at
the time has found an echo in many subsequent histories of the period.
He is accused of having sold his principles in order that he might make
an unscrupulous bid for the Presidency. That he desired to be President
is true, but it is not clear that the 10th of May speech improved his
chances of it; indeed, the reverse seems to have been the case. A candid
examination of the man and his acts will rather lead to the conclusion
that throughout his life he was, in spite of his really noble gift of
rhetoric, a good deal more of the professional lawyer-po