country towns, but its influence in Boston
was limited, and it was hesitating and timid.1
The leading commercial journal of the city was the ‘Daily Advertiser.’
During the agitation of the slavery question it had shown indifference to the growth of the slave-power, and had even denied the existence of such a power.
It apologized for the mobs which assailed the Abolitionists, and sneered at the agitation against slavery as ‘clamor’ and a ‘quixotism in behalf of human rights.’
It approved the Compromise when offered by Clay
, and during 1850 and 1851 defended it in elaborate articles, urging pertinaciously the duty of good citizens to aid in executing the Fugitive Slave
law. It went so far in the Southern
direction as to object to the admission of California
independently, desiring to have her kept back in order to make one of the conditions of Clay
's scheme of pacification.
It objected to the retention of Taylor
's Cabinet by Fillmore
, because, Southern as it was, it was an anti-Compromise Cabinet.3
It threatened the withdrawal of Whig support from public men who persevered in opposing the Compromise, and in insisting on the repeal of the Fugitive Slave
law,—singling out Mann
, and Scudder
, then Whig members of Congress.
It viewed with composure and indifference every advance of slavery, and treated the barbarities of the slave system, and the seizure of alleged slaves at the North
, without the suggestion of any sympathy for the victim, and with a calmness and method which amaze the reader who now turns its pages.
The ‘Courier,’ anonymously edited since Buckingham
's retirement two years before, opposed the Compromise up to the day of Webster
It denied the existence of Southern grievances, and the expediency of yielding to Southern clamor;4
and its tone was manly and spirited.
But immediately after the speech it took a reverse direction, and without any explanation came to Webster
From that time it was bitter, even malignant, in its treatment of all who dissented from Webster
Its leaders were mostly written by George S. Hillard
and George Lunt
These two journals teemed with elaborate defences