820 
 
Class__Ji_lM__ 
 BQQk_ TD t(o 
 
SPEECH 
 
 JEFFERSON DAYIS, OF MISSISSIPPI, 
 
 THE OREGON BILL. 7^^ 
 
 Deiivered m the Senate of the United States, July 12, 1848. 
 
 The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the bill to establish 
 the Territorial Government of Oregon. 
 
 The question being on the amendment of the Senator from Mississippi, (Mr. DAVIS,) he said : 
 
 Mr. Piiksihext : Shall jealousy, discord, and diss'^nsion, shall political strife, for sectional 
 supremacy, lie permitted to undermine the foundation of our republican fabric ? Shall an in- 
 terference with ihc domestic alfulrs of the people in one portion of our Union, wounding to their 
 pride and sensibility, and unwarranted by the compact of ccnfederation, be pressed, to the de- 
 struction of that fraternal feeling and nmtual confidence, on which alone can our institutions 
 securely repose "' Shall a discrimination against one section of the confederacy, the palpable 
 object of which is totally to destroy political equality, be sanctioned by the common agent of the 
 States, and receive here an impulse to hasten its progress, to the inevitable goal of such a princi- 
 ple — the disunion of the States ? 
 
 These, and such as these, are the grave, the melancholy questions -which arise from the con- 
 sideration of this bill and the character of the discussion we have heard upon it. Happy, thrice 
 happy, will it be if the answers to these questions shall be given by. a lofty patriotism and en- 
 lightened statesmanship, which, disregarding the passions of the liom", look to the general wel- 
 fare and the permanent good. But, if personal considerations govern our actions, if each 
 Senator reflects the prejudice and extren)e opinion which may exist in the section he represents, 
 then it may lie our lot to witness the fulfillment of the foreboding fear of Mr. Jefferson, when 
 such agitation as that which surrounds us caused liim to express the apprehension, that the sa- 
 crifices of the generation of 177C had been made in vain. 
 
 Deeply impressed with the gravity and importance of the subject, I shall offer my opuiions 
 dispassionately and candidly, briefly and decidedly, as the occasion requires and my deep rooted 
 love of th*' Union demands. 
 
 I consider the 12th section of this bill, to establish a Territorial Government in Oregon, to be 
 practically the abolition of slavery in said territory by the government of the United Stctos ; and 
 seeing no adequate disposition to strike that section nut of the bill, I introduced the amendment 
 now under consideration. To this I was prompted by a sense of duty to myself, of duty to 
 tliose whom I have the honor to represent, of obligation to the principiL's avowed as the basis of 
 my political creed; and which are the cardinal points by which my political course must be di- 
 rected, 'i'his amendment has received an interpretation which its language in no degree justifies. 
 To this misconstruction I will first call attention, as upon it rests a position, assumed in several 
 quaneii., »rUioK it ir. iiiiiiortaiii to comlial. Senators have treated this amendment as a proposi- 
 tion to force slavery into the Territory of Oregon. Sir, I had no such purj-ose, no such desire • 
 and, surely, the most ingenious must fail to extract any such intent from its letter. It is but a 
 distinct avowal of the ground uniformly maintained by all statesmen of the strict construction 
 school, and adhered to by Southern men generally throughout the entire period of our confederate 
 existence. Its direct aim is to restrain the Federal Government from the exercise of a power not 
 delegated, its ultimate efi'ect to protect those rights which have been guarantied by the Federal 
 Constitution. The amendment is in these words : 
 
 " That nothing contained in this act shall be so construed as to authorize the prohibition of 
 domestic slavery in said Territory whilst it remains ia the condition of a Territory of the United 
 Sjates." 
 
 There is nothing directory, or enactive, or proposed for enactment. It is restrictive, and di- 
 rected agiiinst a prohibition which is covertly contained in tlie bill. Though it is not expressly 
 declared that slavery shall be prohibited in Oregon, this would be virtually enacted by the 1 2th 
 section of the bill which gives validity and operation to the laws enacted by the "provisional 
 government estabUshed by the people" who inhabit that Territory. It is known that one of the 
 laws pa.ssed by the people of Oregon prohibits slavery. To give validity to those laws is therefore 
 rwtvr«, printer^ Wa^hmgiinu 
 
mc^ 
 
 u o u 
 
 ■D^z^ 
 
 equivalent to the passage of a la^ by Congress to prohibit slavery in that Tenitory. Does Con- 
 gress possess such power ? 
 
 If the right to migrate with their property to territory belonging to the United States attaches 
 equally to all their citizens ; and if, as I have been credibly informed, citizens have migrated with 
 their slaves into Oregon ; to pass the bill before us without amendment would be aliolition of 
 slavery by the Federal Government. Entertaining this opinion I submitted an amendment to 
 meet the case distijictly and singly. Now, for the first time in nur history, has Congress, with- 
 out the color of compact or compromise, claimed to discriminate in the settlement of Teiritorics 
 against the citizens of one portion of the Union and in favor of another. This, taken in con- 
 nection with all which is passing around us, must excite the attentton of Senators to the fact, 
 and forces on my mind the conclusion that her-^in is sought to be established a precedent for 
 future use. Here upon the threshhold we must resist, or forever abandon, the claim to equality 
 of right, and consent to be a marked caste, doomed, in the progress of national growth, to be 
 dwarfed into helplessness and political dependence. As equals the States came into the Union, 
 and, by the articles of confederation, equal rights, privileges, and immunities were secured to 
 the citizens of each ; yet, for asserting in this case that the Federal Government shall not authorize 
 the destruction of such equality, we have been accused of wishing to claim for the citizens of 
 the Southern States unusual ri.hts under the Constitution. This accusation comes badly from 
 those who insist on provisions for exclusion ; and cannot find its application to a demand that 
 nothing shall be done to affect the constitutional relations of citizens or the constitutional 
 rights of property. We do not ask of the Fcdt-ral Government tu yi^nt npw privileges, but to 
 forbear from interfering with existing rights; rights which existed anterior to the formation of 
 the Constitution, -which were recognized in that instrument, and which it is made the duty of the 
 Federal Government, as the agent of our Uniim, to protect and defend. 
 
 Such obligations as belong to other species of property, nor more nor less, we claim as due 
 to our property in slaves. Nor can this claim be denied without denying the property-right tO' 
 which it attaches. This, it has been contended, is the creation of local law, and does not ex- 
 tend beyond the limits for wliich such laws were made, and, with an air of concession, we are 
 told that it is not proposed to interfere with slavery as it exists in the States, because the Consti- 
 tution secures it there. Sir, slavery is sustained but was not created by the local law of the 
 States in which it exists ; nor did those States ask of the Federal Government to secure or main- 
 tain it within their borders ; beyond their own jurisdiction, and there only, could the protecti>..n 
 of federal laws be required. Before the formation of our confederacy slavery existed in the 
 colonies, now the States of the Union ; and but for the Union of the States, would have no 
 legal recognit'on beyond the limits of the territory of each. But when the fathers of the Repub- 
 lic had achieved its independence, they sought to draw closer the bonds of union, and to remove 
 all cause for discord and contention. For this holy purpose, they met in council, and formed 
 the Constitution under which we live. This compact of union changed the relation of the States 
 to each other in many important particulars, and gave to property and intercourse a national 
 character. Property in persons held to service was recognized ; in various and distinct forms it 
 became property under the Constitution of the United States, was made co extensive with the 
 supremacy of the ieicral laws, its existence subject only to the legislation of sovereign States 
 possessing powers not diawn from, hut above, tht Constitution. Thus provision was made for 
 the recovery of fugitive slaves, and theques-tiun of right to such property as absolutely precluded, 
 as the guilt or innocence of one charged with " treason, felony, or other crime." In both cases 
 it is made the duty of the State authorities to deliver up the fugitive; on demand of the State from 
 which the felon fled in the one case, and of the person to whom the service is due in the other. 
 
 By the 2d section of the fourth article of the Constitution, it is pTro^^iJci tli^t — 
 
 " A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime, who siiall flee from ju«- 
 tice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of tlie executive rr.rhority of the State 
 from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jr.ri.iaici ion of the crime." 
 
 « No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws the ;- ^f, escaping into -ino- 
 ther, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged trom such service or 
 labor, but shall be delivered up en claim of I lie party to wb(>ni suel .=pivice orljbormay be due." 
 
 Thus was the property recognized, and the duty to surrender it to the claimant made as im- 
 perative as in the case of fugitives from State authority and la.v. 
 
 This property was further recognized by including it in provisions which are only to be drawn 
 from the power to regulate commerce. By the 9ta section of the 1st article of the Constitu- 
 tion, it is provided that — 
 
 " The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think, 
 proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress pior to the year one thousand eight 
 hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dol- 
 lars for each person." 
 
 Could there be a more dist-nct recognition of the property right in slaves? Here is not only a 
 permission to import, but a duty to be laid upon them as a subject of commerce. The fact that 
 
 IN EXCrt,^'"'^- 
 
an exception was made against the entire control of such importotion by Congress, is conclusive 
 that but for such exceptions, it would have been embraced in tiie general grant of power to the 
 Federal Government to regulate commerce. If the framers of the Constitution had intended to 
 recognize no other than the right to reca,ptare fugitives — if they had denied the existence of pro- 
 perty in persons, they surely would not have used the word importation, as found in the clause 
 of the Constitution just cited. In further supjiort of this opinion, I would refer to the fact that 
 exception was so sti-ictly construed, that laws prohibiting such importation into territories not in- 
 cluded in the exception were enacted. I was, therefore, surprised that the Senator from New 
 York should have cited as a proof of power of the Federal Government to legislate on the subject 
 of slavery in the Territories, the law to prohibit the importation of Africans into the Mississippi 
 Territory before tlie year 1808. That Territory was not included in the exception which restrain- 
 ed the Federal Government from prohibiting the importaliou of slaves before 1808; therefore it 
 was exercised under the general power over the suhjei't, as a matter of commerce. Upon this 
 power over commerce, and of the property nature of the persons .so considered, must rest all our 
 laws for the abolition of the foreign slave trade To deny this general basis, would draw after 
 it the sequence that all our laws upon that subject were enacted without any grant of authority, 
 and were therefore unconstitutional. Nor is it thus alone that this property in persons has been 
 recognized. During the Revolution, and by the men who framed our Declaration of Indepen- 
 dence, throughout all the States of the Confederacy, the propriety of refusing liberty to a certain 
 caste of persons was admitted, and in the earliest legislation under the Constitution, those to whom 
 the services of such persons were due were denominated their "owners.' 
 
 In the treat)' of peace which closed the war of our revolution, the phrase "negroes, or other 
 properly," shows the position assumed upon our side, as well as the admission made by Great 
 Britain that the persons so referred to were recognized in their character as property. Again, in 
 1815, after the adoption of the (Constitution, the same construction was explicitly admit;;ed in the 
 treaty of (ihent, in the first article of which we find the expression, " any slaves or other pri- 
 vate property." With what propriety — with what fiairness can it now be assumed that that which 
 we have called property, and negotiated upon as such in our diplomatic relations and international 
 acts, from the birth of the Kepublic down to 1815, has no existence among the States of the 
 Union — no claim to recognition or protection bej-ond the limits of the States where it is ordained 
 and sustained by local law. The Constitution recognized slavery — by it the Federal Gorern- 
 ment was constituted the agent of the States — entrusted with tire power of regulating commerce 
 with the States, and with the conduct of all foreign relations. In the discharge of its appropri- 
 ate functions, the Federal Government, as shown above, has maintauied this property right against 
 a foreign power, and it is equally bound to defend it, within the limits of federal jurisdiction, 
 agamst the encroachment upon its security and use, as guarantied by the Constitution. 
 
 To those who argue against this extension of the property in slaves beyond the Umits of the 
 States which they udiabit, as an unequal obligation or unusual right, I will render the admission, 
 that but for the Constitution, the right to property in slaves could not have extended beyond the 
 State which possessed them. But gentlemen .should recollect that all the territory northwest 
 of the river Ohio, from which five non-slaveholding States have been carved, was originally the 
 property of Virginia, and but for the compact of our Union, the institutions of that State would 
 have been extended over it. This territory, thus interposed between the Northern Atlantic States 
 and the vast region which has been acquired west of the Missis.sippi, must have prevented those 
 States from all su«h acquisition. How, under this contingency, would have been the relative size 
 of the slave and non-slaveholding territory ' The answer to this inquiry should silence complaint 
 of advantages accruing to the South from the guarantees of the Constitution. 
 
 To avoid the possibility of misconstruction, I repeat that we do not seek to establish slavery 
 upon a new basis; we claim no such power for the Federal Government. We equal'y deny the 
 right to establish as to abolish slavery. We only ask that those rights of property which existed 
 before the Constitution, and which were guarantied by it, shall be protected. If it can be shown 
 that the Southern States would, as independent sovereignties, have possessed no right of exten- 
 sioir, or that the right of territorial acquisition was transfierred to the Federal Government, sub- 
 ject to the condition that it should be used for the benefit of the northern Slates exclusively, then 
 we will have what has not yet been presented, a foundation for the assumption that from all terr 
 tory thus acquired, slavery or involuntary servitude should be forever excluded. Sectional rival- 
 rj-, stimulated by the desire for political aojgrandizement, party zeal, local jealousies, and fanati- 
 cism, maddened by recent success, have each brought their contribution to the mass of asser- 
 tion, which has been heaped upon the claim of the South, to an equal particpation with the 
 North in the enjoyment of the territorj' belonging in common to the States. But assertion is not 
 proof, abuse is not demonstration; and that claim sustained by justice, and supported by the staff 
 of truth, stands yet unbent beneath the mountain of error which has been accumulated up.m it. 
 
 The various modes which have baen proposed to exclude slaveholders from entering territory 
 of the United States with their property, may be referred to three sources of power; the Federal 
 Government, the territorial inhabitants, and the law of the land anterior to its acquisition by the 
 United States. 
 
The Federal Governniciit Ciin have no other powers than those derived from the Constitution. 
 It is the agent of the States, has no other authority than that which has been delegated, cannot 
 by the character of its creation and the nature of its being have any inherent, independent pow- 
 er. To the Constitution, as the letter of authority for this federal agent, we must leok for every 
 $;rant of power. All \vhich is not given is withheld, all which is prohibited is doiibly barred. 
 Jt is not to be supposed that the .sovereign States when forming a compact of Union would con- 
 fer upon the agent of such compact a power to control the destiny of the States, nor is it in keep - 
 ingwith the avowed objects, "to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, 
 and promote the general welfare," that it should be used to disturb the balance of power among 
 the States. Were one portion of the Union to increase whilst the other remamed stationary, the 
 result would be reached in the course of years which led to the war of our Revolution, and the 
 separation of the colonies from the mother country. What wpujd it j)rofit a minority to have 
 Representatives in Congress, if opposed to a majority of mastering strength, and of will, as well 
 as power to sweep away all the protecting barriers of the Constitution. It was not for represen- 
 tation in Parliament, that the fatiiers of our Ecpul)lic dissolved the political bands which connect- 
 ■od them with the parent governnient; but to maintain the freedom and equality which could not be 
 secured by a hopeless minority in common legislation; todefendtheir inalienable rightsfrom aggres- 
 sion by those who were irresponsible totlieni, that they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their 
 sacred honor. To such men it was of paramount importance informing a General Government to 
 ^uard against interference with domestic institutions, and to preserve such equality among 
 the different sections and interests, as would secure each from aggression by tlie others. This 
 purpose is deeply graven on the Con.stitution, pervades it as a general spirit, and appears both in 
 its grants and prohibitions. Tlience arose the lAifferont basis of representation in the two Houses 
 of Congress, thence the Executive veto, the limitations on the power to regulate commerce 
 ?mong the States, the prohibition against interference with private property, against discrimina- 
 tion in favor of one port over another, tlie partial representation of persons held to service, and 
 the many other provisions which will occur to Senators, illustrative'of the design to preserve such 
 ';quality as is necessary to prosperity, to harmony, to union among sovereigns. 
 
 The right of the Federal Government to legislate for the territories has been claimed from two 
 ?ources of power, the grant to Congress "to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regula- 
 tions re.specting the territory or other property belonging to the United States," and as a power 
 necessarily incident to tlie right to acquire territory. The power drawn from the first mentioned 
 source is plainly a power over the territory as public land; the expression "territory or other pro- 
 perty" shows the idea too ilistinctly to require elucidation. Tlie territory belonging to the Unit- 
 ed Stetes at the formation of the Constitution was such as had been ceded by particular States as 
 a common fund of the Union. The Federal Government, as agent of the States, was charged 
 with the disposal of public domain, under the needful rules and regulations which Congress were 
 authorized to make. The soiuT-e ti-om which this addition to the common stock was derived, the 
 object for which it was given, the conditions of the cession, all unite with the general provisions 
 of the Constitution to forbid the idea of a transfer of absolute powers of legislation, as the exis- 
 tence of a power in the Federal Government to make laws for the territory which would affect the 
 political rights or interests of the States. The laws of Congress in relation to territory belonging 
 -o the United States must be "needful" to execute the trust conveyed by the States; and none 
 of the grants of the Constitution are to be so "construed as to prejudice the rights of the United 
 States or of any particular J^tate." To promote the sale oi_^the public land where no settled gov- 
 ernment exists, it may be claimed as an incident to the power to dispo.se of such property, that 
 Congress should provide for courts and such government generally, as will give security to settlers, 
 and certaintv to titles in the region to which we invite emigration. 
 
 Thus far the powers of a trustee )nay properly extend; thus far the agent may go in good faith 
 to those to whom he acts; the sovereignty still remaining, where alone it can reside, in the State.= 
 te whom the territory belongs. It will probably not be contended that to exclude a portion of 
 TXJT citizens, or to prohibit a certain kind of property, is a "needful regulation" for the disposal 
 of public lands; certainly such a position could not be maintained, and those who contend for 
 the power of Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories, have usually relied upon the second 
 source of power, the right of acqui-sition. 
 
 Before considering how much may be derived from that right, it might have been well to ex- 
 amine into its existence, and inquire to whom its benefits attach. The power to admit new States 
 into the Union was conferred by the Constitution; but not to acquire territory as such. The 
 former was a power properly conferred upon a confederation which looked to the addition of new 
 members; the latter belongs to sovereignty, and can be possessed by nothing less. The right to 
 acquire belonged to the States as an inherent right of independent existence, one which attaches 
 to ail bodies animate and inanimate. Stones gather accretions, vegetables collect uicrements, ani- 
 mals assimilate food and incorporate it with their bodies; by like operation of this general law, 
 the States, as independent sovereigns, had a right to acquire. But the means of acquisition, the 
 war and treaty making powers, were entrusted to the Federal Government. The right to acquire 
 was not delegated, save as the means were to be used by the Federal Govcrnmenf, and therefore 
 
the acquisition must enure to the benefit of the States in whose right alone it could be made. 
 The power to govern as an absolute, ultimate authority remains in the States, and their agent can 
 only exercise so much of lh;U power as has been granted. Our legislation for the Territoay must, 
 if this view be correct, be drawn from the specific grants, and be subject to ail the limitations 
 and prohibitions imposed on them by the Constitution. 'J'he rule that tli^' right to acquire car- 
 ries with it the right to govern, receives a modification in its application to the Federal Govern- 
 ment, in this, that it acquires as agent for the States, by the blood orcommon treasure of the States, 
 or as in past cases by a cession for the common benefit of the States, and can, theref jre , only govern 
 as authorized by the sovereign owners of the territory. 
 
 'J'he question, then, is reduced to this : has the Federal Government, under the grants of the 
 Constitution, power to prohibit "slavery" in the Territories of the United States' The 
 right to property in slaves being recognized by the Constitution, this question is convertible 
 into another : has the General Government the right to exclude particular species of property 
 from the teiritory of the United States, and thus confine the enjoyment of its advantages to a 
 portion of their citizens '' A proposition so repugnant to justice, so violative of the equal rights 
 which every citizen of the United States has in the common property, so destructive of the equal- 
 ity in privileges and imnumities .secured by the Constitution, v^'ould seem to be an.swered by its 
 statement. Yet palpable as the outrage appears, it has been perpetrated in legislative resolu- 
 tions by eleven States of the Union, bound by the federal compact to recognize the eo-equality 
 of the States ; and repeated Ij' asserted by Senators in this chamber, plcflged to maintain the 
 Constitution. This Federal Government, designed to render more perfect the union of the 
 States, and to promote their common defence, is thus to become the most formidable enemy of 
 some, the great seedsman of discord among all. 
 
 The union of the States into one Confederacy gave no power to destroy local rights of pro- 
 perty, or to change the condition of persons ; but much to protect and preserve the existing 
 rights of property and relative condition of persons, by extending the limits of their recognition, 
 and enlarging the provisions for their security. Thus the Federal Government cannot take 
 "private property" except for "public use," ajid by making "just compensation" thei-efor 5 
 the States cannot pass laws to impair the obligation of contracts ; duties cannot be imposed on 
 articles of commerce passing from the limits of one State to another ; nor apprentices, indented 
 servants, or slaves, by escaping into another State, be discharged from their obligations under 
 the laws of that from which they fied. In these, and similar instances, the Federal Govern- 
 ment can do and has dour -ich which is beyond the power of a State, to protect and enlarge 
 the value of property. To actennine what shall be property, what the condition of persons^ 
 are functions of sovereignty bej'ond its delegated authoritj-, which can only be exercised by a 
 sovereign State within its limits, and beyond that, by the niajoritj- of States required to amend 
 the Constitution. I deny, then, that the Federal Government may say to any class of citizen.Sj 
 j'ou shall not emigrate to territory which belongs in common to the people of the United States ; 
 equally deny, that it can say what property shall be taken into such territory, or legislate so as 
 to impair, after his arrival in the territory, any of the pre-existing rights of the emigrant to 
 the I roperty he may carry with him. Many of the reasons and principles presented to estab- 
 lish the ab.sence of power in the Feileral Government to exclude slavery from territory belong- 
 ing to the United States, bear with like force against the second class of opinion — that the power 
 rests in tlie territorial inhabitants. In the unwearied seach of those who, from the fonndatiorj 
 of our Government, have sought in every quarter tor the fountains of power by which the sove- 
 reignty of the States might be submerged, this, until recently, remained undiscovered. When 
 territorial governments were first established in the Territories, now the States of the north we.st, 
 a very different doctrine obtained, and quite opposite was the practice under it. There, though 
 the foreign iidiabitants were mainly those who had taken part with us in the wars against Great 
 Britain, they were not considered so capable of self-government as to be entrusted with the 
 powers of local legislation, and the restricted governments established in Indiana and Michigan 
 were rciphred to adopt the laws of some State of the Union for their rule and government. 
 Thus, in relation to French settlers at Vinccnnes, and Canadian refugees in Michigan, it was 
 decided. Now, sir, for whom is it proposed to reverse the decision, not only so far as to recog- 
 nize local legislation, but to admit the power to pass timdamcntal laws controlling tiie action of 
 Congress, and determining the future policy and institutions of Oregon ? 
 
 For a small settlement, composed, to a large extent, of the late clependents of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company, subjects of the British crown, the verv men who were arrayed against us to dis- 
 pute our right to the .soil, the same who, by fraud and violence, wrested from our citizens their 
 property and possessions on the Columbia river ; the same who, in violation of the faith of our 
 treaty vvfilli Great Britain for the joint occupancy of Oregon, made rejulations, the effect of 
 which was to destroy the valuable furs in that portion of the country which they expected to 
 become exclusively the property of the United States, whilst they were preserved in that which 
 was expected to pass at a subsequent day to the sovereignty of Great Britain. So much for 
 those who formed a large, if not controlling part of this population of Oregon when this policy 
 of excluding slavery was adopted there. Shall they be permitted to sit in judgment on the con- 
 
more than this it cannot claim. In referring to the early legislation of Congress in relation to 
 territories, I have not been able to perceive the general application of more than one principle, 
 ■wliich is that a territory, politically considere>cl, should be trcatinl as an embr3'0 State, therefore the 
 guards thrown around it have been mainly those which would prepare it for a republican form of 
 government. This being the only restriction which ('ongress is authorized to impose on the 
 constitution of a riew i^tate at the period of its admission into the Union. In the organization 
 of territorial governments in the earlier days of our Kepublic, wc find no attempts by Congress 
 to legislate for them. Where powers of legislation were not conferred upon the territorial in- 
 habitants, their law.s were to be adopted from the statutes of some State in the Union ;^ and to 
 show that no claim was set up by the Federal Government to regulate pro!)crty or change the con- 
 dition of persons, I would refer to the Statts formed out of the I^orthwcst Territory, over which 
 the often cited ordinance of 1787 was extended. There we find, notwithstanding the provis- 
 ions of that ordinance, that slavery continued to exist ; as to some extent it still exists, in the 
 State of Illinois. In the act of 1793 passed to carry out the ordinance of 1787, the follovv'ing 
 language occurs : " Where a person held to labor in any of the United States, or in either of the 
 territories on the northwest or south of the Ohio, under the law thereof," &c., which is a dis- 
 tinct recognition by Congress of the existence of slavery in the territory covered by the ordinance 
 of 1787 ; and is conclusive against the pretension here set up, that by t'- e ordinance of 1787, 
 the power to jirohibit slav.^ry in the territories was claimed, exercised, and admitted. The whole 
 extent and force of precedents upon this subject, have been so full}" and ably investigated by 
 others who ha' e spoken on the same side of the subject with myself, that I will not pursue this 
 branch of the investigation further. I therefore dismiss it with the remark, that whatever of 
 validity they pcsscss, is to be drawn from the idea that each was a compact ratified tiy the ac- 
 quiescence of the States, and can have no other application than to the particular case for which 
 each was formed. There is, however, a marked difference between territory acquired by joint 
 efforts or common treasure cf the States, and that which was derived by the cession of a prrtl- 
 cular State. In tlie former case the sovereignty attaches to the States of the Union by the fact 
 of acquisitiftn, and no other functions could be vested in the Congress than those derived from 
 the Constitution. In the latter, sovereignty and jurisdiction could be transferred in any form 
 which it might please the giver and the receiver to adopt it. If, then, Virginia or Georgia has 
 conferred upon the Federal Government higher powers than woul I necessarily belong to its 
 character of trustee for the public domain, it could not thence be inferred that equal powers 
 would be possessed over territory acquired in common by the States. Thus the legislation in 
 one case would form no precedent for the other, because of the different sources of authoiity. 
 In this connexion, I will notice a po.sition taken by the^enator from Massachusetts in relation to 
 the cession made by Virginia of the territory northwest of the Ohio river. He as.sumes that it 
 was made to preserve the cxistii4g ratio between the .'•lave and non-slaveholding States. If, sir, 
 I have the history of that transaction aright, it was founded on far more noble considerations, 
 upon motives alike honorable and patriotic in the St.ite which ceded, and in those which de- 
 manded the cession ; it was to preserve that just relation between the confederates, of which 
 was deemed essential to preserve the equality of the States, the prosperity, the perpetuity, and 
 the harmony of the Union. 
 
 The States of Maryland and Delaware objected to the articles of confederation because of the 
 immense territory held by Virginia, maintaining that it gave her a controlling power which 
 might be destructive of the prosperity of the smaller States, as it would be subversive of the equal- 
 ity essential to the confederacy of sovereigns. In the act of New .Jersey for ratifying the arti- 
 cles of confederation, this objection was noticed, and their delegates instructed to sign the articles, 
 "in the firm reliance that the candor and justice of the several Stales will, in due time, remove 
 as far as possible the inequality which now subsists." The Legislature of Delaware passed re- 
 solutions, one of which contained the following : 
 
 " That this State thinks it necessary for the peace and safety of the Stales, to be included ia 
 the Union, that a moderate extent of limits should be assigned for suoli of those States as claira 
 to the Mississippi, or South Sea,'" &c. 
 
 In 1779 the delegates from Maryland laid before Congress the instructions of their General 
 Assembly. That paper was an able argument against the propriety and justice of the extensive 
 claims of some of the States to the western territory — strongly exhibited the political and finan- 
 cial evil which would proliably result fi-om the admission of them, and after asserting the right of 
 all the thirteen States to the unpeopled territory as a common property, declared : 
 
 "We have coolly and dispassionately considered the subject ; we have weighed probable in- 
 conveniences and hardships, against the sacrifice of just essential rights ; and do instruct you not 
 to agree to the confederation, unless an article or articles be added thereto in conformity with 
 our declaration. " 
 
 It docs not appear that any question of domestic institutions influenced the action of the States 
 upon this subject ; indeed, an opposite conclusion is forced upon us by the character of the par- 
 ties by whom the ces.sion of this territory was insisted on. Slave States cannot be supposed to 
 
have insisted on a cession of tcrritorj', that the power of the ndn-slave States should be increased. 
 Who, then, looked to the igngble war of sections, which it has been our shamo and misfortune 
 to witness ' Who, then, would have consented to any measure which looked to the reproduc- 
 tion of that inequality, the revival of that interference with the domestic adliirs of the States, 
 which had caused the revolution ' 
 
 The reason most strongly urged was the injury likely to result to some from tlie disproportion- 
 ate power of others, the olijcct most sought was the security which would result from equality. 
 In keeping with these, the Congress of the Confederation, in 1780, took into consideration the 
 addresses of the different t'tates on the subject of the western territory, and recommended to 
 
 " Those Slates which can remove the embarrassments respecting the western country, a libe- 
 ral surrender of a portion of their territorial claims, since they cannot be preserved entire with- 
 out endangering the stability of the general confederacy." 
 
 And resolved, 
 
 " That it be earnestly reconimonded to tlio?e States wiio have claims to .the western country to 
 pass such laws, and give their delegates in Congress such powers, as may effectually remove the 
 only obstacle to a final ratification of the articles of confederation." 
 
 ■=By force of such appeals, urged by the conviction that it was necessary to place the Federal 
 Union on a permanent basis, and to make it acceptable to all its members, Virginia, with that 
 devotion to the common good which became the land of Washington and Jefferson, ceded her 
 rich birth-right, the vast territory from which has arisen the five -Northwestern States of our 
 Union. This surrender of individual interest to the general welfare— this concession to secure 
 the tranquility of the States, marked by a dignity and patriotism in the contemplation of which 
 paltry struggles for political advantage should be forgotten, is now cited as a measure for the 
 apportionment of strength to the slave and fi-ee States, as contending parties. With what pro- 
 babiliK can it be argued that Maryland would demand or Virginia give, for such a purpose!' 
 
 No,' sir, it was fraternity, not strife— it was the general good, not scrLional advantage— it was 
 the sovereignty, the equality, and the prosperity of all the States, for which the men of the Re- 
 volution made" their sacrifices, both of war and' of peace. It was to perVct the confederation, to 
 remove the distrust and di.'satisfoction of sJaveholding States, that ^'irginia cecded the north- 
 western territory to the common stock of the Ujiion. And this act of magnanimity, of gene- 
 rous confidence, is now cited as authority against those who were weakened by it- Nor is it in 
 this cas ■ alone that the South may complain of such injuries and unfiiir construction. In every 
 instance concession has been made the basis of aggression, and the language of conciliation has 
 !>een answered !iy objurgation and abuse. The right to representation in proportion to popula- 
 tion was waived so fir in relation to slaves, as to exclude two-fifths of their number, yet those 
 who have the advantage of this concession, tho.se who deny that there can be property in persons, 
 are those who attack this compromise of the Constitution, and denounce it as an unequal privilege 
 bestowed on the property of the South. The partial representation of slaves is in accordajice 
 with their mixed character, being botii persons and property ; but with much more reason might 
 it be contended that they were entitled to full representation in the Federal Government than to 
 no representation at all.' Indeed, if the South had yielded no claim to full rcpre.sentation in pro- 
 portion to the number of slaves, how could those who deny thnt there can be property in persons 
 resist such claim. Population is the basis and the measure of federal representation. Kepresen- 
 tativcs are assigned to numbers, not to white men, nor to citizens, nor to voters. Each State 
 fixes its own standard of citizenship, and no State has a right to inquire what amount of politi- 
 cal privileges an; enjoyed, or what may be the condition of the inhabitants of another. 
 
 The pa'tial representation of slaves is a compromise of the Constitution, a concession made to 
 northern delegates who opposed their represention on the ground that they were chatties. The 
 argument is changed but the opposition continues. There is another conce.ssion which has been 
 often referred to in this debate, the Mis.souri compromise. 
 
 With the right to extend slavery into ixny portion of the temfory of Louisiana, secured by 
 the treaty of acquisition, there was, nevertheless, a fierce resistiuice against the admission of 
 Missouri into the I'nion as a slavehidding State. During its territorial condition the right had 
 been unquestioned — the controversy only arising in view of the political power which would at- 
 tach to a sovereign Stat -. I will not dwell upon the nugatory character of any law which shou'd 
 attempt to control the domi stic institutions of a State, but pass to the result of this controversy 
 about the adnvssion of Missouri. Again, the South, in the spirit of concession which had mark- 
 ed the conduct of her sons at a former period, surrendered their unfiuesfioned and unquesnonable 
 right to ex'cnd slavery over the whole of that terri ory which had been acquired under the name 
 of Louisiana, and agreed, except within the limits of Mi.ssouri, to confine it to the south side of 
 the parallel of latitude 36° .30' north. Again was sectional intercut abandoned to the hope of 
 permanently establishing tranquility in the Union. If that hope is now to be disfroycd, it will 
 be by those who derived all the benefit from the compromise — not by those who wai^^^ed by it a 
 portion of their rights, and who are now willing to extend its provisions, if fairly applied, to all 
 other territory, though the division which would thence follow would give to the South less than a 
 
10 
 
 fourth of the territory which would fall to the North. In the compromises of the Constitution, 
 and the concessions which have followed its adoption, the advantages have mainly accrued 
 to the North ; yet the South ha< steadily and faithlully observed them. Can as much be said 
 of the North ' The Constitution recognizes the institution of slavery, which thence acquired 
 a general, instead of its previous merely local character. It was made the duty of the State au- 
 thorities to deliver up fugitive slaves to their owners, and ihe free commerce among the Slates 
 secured lo each citizen, was a prohibition agains' State legislation to disturb the right of the mas- 
 ter to pass from one State to another with his slave property. The duty has been neglected, the 
 right has been obstructed, slaves have been torn from, their masters when exercising the right of eve- 
 ry American citizen to pass from one part o- the Union to anotheri the magistracy have stood silent 
 when these outrages were perpetrated, and the legislation of three States, instead of looking to 
 prevention and punishment of said cases in future, have enacted laws best calculated to magnify 
 the eril. Even here in the course of debate it has been asserted th ^t, to carry a slave out of the 
 limits of the jurisdiction of a State in which slavery is recognized, emancipates him. If that 
 were true, the recognition of slavery by the Cou-ti«tio)i would be a nullity. The master who, 
 in discharge of a duty to the Government, should enter an arsenal or dock yard under the exclu- 
 sive jurisdiction of the United States would thereby lose the right to property in his slave. Or, 
 if he should sail from Norfolk to New Orleans by going to sea, he would pa.ss beyond the juMs- 
 diction of a State, and thus incur the forfe turc. Beyond the limits of a State, whether in terri- 
 tory or on the deck of an American vessel, the Constitution and laws of the United States follow 
 our citizens and protect their property. The recognition of slavery by th# Constitution, there- 
 fore, presents a case arising here, in a very diflcrent view trom oJie in Great Britain. The dif- 
 ference destroys the value of the argument based on British practice and analogy. 
 
 Eleven States of the Union have spoken through their Legislatures against the further exten- 
 sion of slavery, with the clearly indicated, sometimes even expresseil intention thus to prepare 
 the way for a more direct and fatal attack upon the institutions of the South. When we are 
 told that slavery is an " immense moral and political evil, which ought to be abolished as soon 
 as that e.id can be properly and constitutionally attained ;" when we are admonished of the de- 
 sign "to resist the admission of any new State into the Union while tolerating s-lavcry," he must 
 be blind, indeed, who does not see the purpose, by thus forbidding the growth of the slaveholding 
 States, and devoting all our vast territorial domain, to the formation of those in which slavery is 
 forbidden; to obtain in the future such preponderance of free States as will enable them consti- 
 tutionally to amend the compact of our Union, and strip the South of the guaranties it gives. 
 
 If factious opposition and sectional disregard of the common good have been able thus to ob- 
 literate the great landmarks, equahty among the States and non-interference with domestic af- 
 fairs, in so brief and such partial enjoj'ment of power, how can we expect moderation and for- 
 bearance when swelled to a three-fourths majority ? Those who seek to appropriate our territo- 
 ries to the exclusive formation of non-slaveholding States, must not hope by catch words, and 
 abusive epithets against slavery, to conceal their real pu.ipose, the political aggrandizement of the 
 North. 
 
 Was their object the benefit of the slaves ; did they seek, as a paramount object, their eman- 
 cipation, the policy would certainly be the reverse ; instead of confining, to disperse them. 
 Nothing can be more plain than that if confined to a small space, they must accumulate in the 
 hands of a few, and, if dispersed, that they must have many masters. Whatever there is of 
 harshness, arises from their accumulatien, so that the master and slave are necessarily separated, 
 and the latter placed under the authority of a hired agent. Whilst the number owned by one 
 person is small, he has imnrediate charge of them ; from their daily intercourse, permanent con- 
 nection, and real identity of interest, arise those kindly relations usual in such condition. The 
 power to oppress dependents exists in all countries, and bad men every where abuse the power. 
 In no relation which labor bears to capital, is such oppression better guarded against than in that 
 of master and slave. There is in it all which naturally excites the forbearance and kindness of 
 the generous and the good ; and this failing, there are considerations of interest, of pecuniary 
 advantage, to restrain the sordid and the vicious, which do not exist in cases of hired laborers. 
 To confine slavery to a small district, would go further than any other means to strip it of its 
 kind paternal character ; when the master would no longer know his slave ; when the overseer 
 would have the proprietor's power, then would disappear many of the features which commend 
 it to those wlio have been reared amidst it. Then would cease the moral and intellectual pro- 
 gress of the slave ; then would steadily diminish the feelings promotive of emancipation, and 
 the power to effect it. It has been from the association with a more elevated race, that the Afri- 
 can has advaTiced ; it has been from their mutually kind offices that the master has, in many 
 instances, liberated his slave as a mark of aftection ; for this association and for this feeling, it 
 is required that there should not be a great disproportion in the number of the races where they 
 reside together. The power to emancipate must depend upon property considerations and upon 
 public policy conjointly. A large community of free men would have the pecuniary ability to 
 emancipate a small number of slaves, the reverse would be beyond their power. Upon a large 
 territory, a few blacks might be turned loose without injury to the progress of society, but on a 
 
11 
 
 small territory a large number of blacks coulJ only be released by surrendering the country to 
 them. If then, as proposed, slavery as it exists among us should be confined to the States in 
 which it now exists, the consequtMicc will be, not its extinguishment, but its perpetuation. 
 Each State, when it linds within its borders as many Atiilians as safety and policy will permit, 
 will enact laws to prevent their further introduction ; the tide which has flowed regularly ou 
 from New England to Texas, will be checked, and they will thenceforward continue to accu- 
 m\datc, and when they reach the density which renders involuntary labor no longer profitable, 
 they must still be held, from the impolicy of liberating them in the country, and the inability to 
 .send the>n awav, the latter increasing in a compound ratio, because the augmentation of num- 
 ber will bring with it a diminution of profit from their labor. Gentlemen have s[)oken of the 
 spirit of the age as opposed to slavery. >'ir, I think there is no foundation for the presumption 
 •of moral change, but that all the changed action which has occurred is referable to density of 
 population. It may be taken as a general rule that involuntary service is less profitable than 
 voluntary labor, and there is a singular uniformity in the degree of density at which, in differ- 
 ent countries, it has been abandoned. The villeinage of England and the serfdom of Russia, 
 both becoming a burden to proprietors at (he same point — that is, when the population reached 
 the point of forty persons to the si}uarc mile. But our slaves are a distinct race, physically 
 ditiering so much from ourselves that no one can look to their emancipation without connecting 
 with it the idea of removal, separation of the races. When they cease to be profitable, we can- 
 not, like the ancient Britons in the case of their villeins, say, be free, and see with the announce- 
 ment all cause for distinction cease. Therefore, it is to be observed that those States of our 
 Union who have passed acts o' emancipation, have first found themselves nearly rid of the caste, 
 or made their laws prospective, and so remote, that this result would be reached before the act 
 w^cnt into operation. 
 
 With what justice or propriety do those who have availed themselves of the demand for their 
 slaves in the more southern and sparsely settled States, now insist upon closing the door against 
 their egress to newer countries, as the white population, gathering behind them, would press 
 them still further on ? They have sold their slaves when they ceased to be profitable, and sla- 
 very became to them a sin of horrid enormity when the pro]:)erty was transferred from them- 
 selves to their brother. Therefore they will confine it to the country in which it now exists, and 
 deprive others of thf means used by themselves, a; 1 which forms the only practicable mode of 
 getting rid of it. To those who are sincere in their professions of a wish to banish slavery from 
 the United States, and feci it is only to be cfli>cted by the voluntary action of those among 
 whom it exists, I say, leave your territories open, and let the wiiite race, as it flows in from 
 the noith, gradually, by its greater energy and intelligence, bear the African race before it to 
 jegions ansuited to the labor of the white man, as the tide bears the foam to the shore, and gives 
 back to the beach die thing.s which are its own. 
 
 The Senator from Vermont objec s to the introduction of slave-property into territories, and 
 says it should not be forced upon an infant community, but left to be adopted, if they desire it, 
 when they have power to organize an independent Government. I have expressed my opinion 
 of the constitutional rights of the holders of that property, and distinctly stated that I desire 
 no congressional legislation beyond that which is necessary to secure those rights. Non-inter- 
 ference with the subject of slavery is our main position ; and is equally opposed to force for or 
 against it. 
 
 So far from perceiving the propriety of excluding slaves from infant communities, as urged 
 in this debate, the experience of our pioneers, the condition of those who first grapple w.th 
 the difficulty of taming the wilderness, furnishes a forcible illustration of the truth of the rela- 
 tion I have attempted to show exists between involuntary servitude and density of population. 
 The hard necessity which maintais the power of capital over labor in old settled, countries, is 
 not known among the forest adventurers. The bond between the employer and the servant is 
 therefore so weak that in the first settlement of a country, more than at any subsequent period, 
 would involuntary servitude be advantageous and desirable. I can readily conceive that slaves 
 would he taken into countries where they would cease to be profitable as soon as other labor 
 flowed in. Such instances have occurred in our northern territories, and early emancipation 
 was the result. Why is it assumed that slavery degrades labor, and its presence excludes the 
 white laborer ' It may be true as regards the whites and free blacks of the No tb, that they 
 will not toil together. There is rivalry between them. But if thence a conclusion is 
 d'awn that the same condition exists in the slave States, it is false in reasoning and in fact. 
 Slaves are opital, and in the mind of the master there can be no contest between capital and 
 labor — the contest from which so much of human suffering and oppression has arisen. In 
 slave States there is an eijuality among white men which cannot exist where the same race fill 
 the places of master and menial. 
 
 The white laborer is elevated by having a caste below him. That he would not be exc'udcd 
 from territory by the presence of .slaves, the constant emigration to the South from the non- 
 slave States, conclusively establishes. No, sir : it is for no such reason that the present position 
 is taken. 
 
12 
 
 This opposition to slavery is political, and rapid are the strides it is making in aggression. J'he 
 mighty State of New York is now convulsed to its centre — men who were justly entitled to the 
 appellation of statesmen, in its most dignified sense — who have tilled the highest stations of hon- 
 or and trust, arc now identified with a movement at war with justice — at war with the Constitu- 
 tion, and which, disturbing the tranquihty of to day, will, if not checked in its onward progress, 
 rench disunion to-morrow. The time is not remote when an abolition meeting could not have 
 been held in New York, but it has become political, and therefore this new form of the monster, 
 duty, fraternity, faith, give way, and masses worship the idol withoutthe fanaticism which alone 
 could excuse the apostacy. With political abohtionists, what argument can avaiP The secu- 
 rity, the prosperity, the growth of a section only is considered; and all which would benelit those 
 to whom they believe their interest opposed, must find therefrom resistence. Theirs is the poli- 
 cy so deeply and s;)dly deprecated by Mr. Jefferson, when he spoke of a geographical line coin- 
 ciding with a marked principle, moral and political, wliich every new irritation would mark 
 deeper and deeper. Theirs the policy which Mr. Monroe described in his letter to Mr. Jefferson 
 as "an effort to give such a shape to our Union as would secure the dominion over it to its east- 
 ern section." That patriot statesman, in the same letter, as a justification for the treaty by which 
 Texas was surrendered, describes the sectional struggle wliich existed at the time as so fierce and 
 uncompromising, that it was necessary for the internal peace to make the sacrifices of the treaty; 
 and draws from the contest the conclusion, "that the further acquisition of territory to the West 
 and South involves diilicuities of an internal nature, wliich menace the Union itself." This let- 
 ter of Mr. Monroe, taken in connexion with that of Mr. Jefferson, to which it was a reply, shows 
 how deep seated and extreme was the opposition at that day to the growth and prosperity of the 
 Southern and Western sections of the Union. From the hazaids which (hen impended over us, 
 we were saved by the patriotic devotion of those Nortliern men, who sacrificed themselves for the 
 peace and general weltare of the confederacy. Now, when like hazard and difficulty surrounds 
 us, it is my pride and comfort to believe that like sacrifices, if necessary, will be made. To 
 those who consider the Union worth preserving, it must be v. primary object to give peace and 
 security to its members. The puie and wise men who formed our Republic, foresaw what events 
 liave so clearly demonstrated, that these objects were only to be certainly attained by approximat- 
 ing equality among the sections, and leaving all domestic aflairs entirely to the control of the 
 States. This policy has lieen generally adhered to, by admitting alternately slave and non slave- 
 holding States into the Union, and by affirming in solemn manner, at different periods in our 
 history, the restricted character and general purposes of our Federal Government. Thus, on the 
 6th of January, 1638, the if'enate of the United States, by a vote of thirty-one to eleven — 
 
 * * * « Jiftjoi^pd Thai it is the solemn duty of the Government to resist to the extent 
 ot its constitutional power, ali attempts by one portion of the Union to use it as an instrument of 
 attack upon the domestic institutions of another, or to weaken or destroy such institutions." 
 
 But ten years have pas?ed since this declaration was made, yet mark how great has been the 
 advance of aggression on the constitutional guaranties and principles of our compact, as at tliat 
 day admitted. It is openly asserted, as a principle of action, that slaves shall be confined to the 
 territory upon which they are now located, not for their benefit, but for the political advantage 
 of the non-slaveholding States; or, in other words, to weaken, who can doubt, finally to destroy 
 slave instiutions. No longer is the claim to humanity set up, but the thirst for power goes step 
 by step in this aggression with hostility to the African race. The Senator from New York, (Mr. 
 Dix,) -my friend who sits near me — and I do not use the phrase in a merely complimentary 
 sense; in oppo.^ing the extension of slavery to NN-ider limits, uses the following language: 
 
 " The tendency of the human race is to increase in a compound ratio of the extent and produc- 
 tiveness of the surface on which it is sustained. * * The multiplication of the human species 
 is governed by la<vs as inflexible and certain as those which govern the reproduction of vegetable 
 life. * « I believe it maybe satisfactorily shown that the free black population in the Northern 
 States does not increase by its own inherent force. * * Under the most favorable circumstan- 
 ces it is, and must continue to be, an inferior caste in the North. * * A class thus degraded 
 will not multiply. This is the first stage of letrogradation. The second almost certainly follows. 
 It will not be reproduced ; and in a few generations the process of extinction is performed," 
 
 And this is the moral teaching of those who assume to be our pastors, and offer their vicarious 
 repentence for the sins of slavery. With surprise and horror, I heard this announcement of a 
 policy which seeks through poverty and degradation the extinction of a race of human beings 
 domesticated among us. We, sir, stand in such relation to that people as creates a feeling of 
 kindness and protection. We have attachments which have grown with us from childhood — to 
 the old servant who nursed us in infancy — to the man who was the companion of our childhood, 
 and the not less tender regard for those who have been reared under our protection. To hear 
 their extinction treated as a matter of public policy, or of speculative philosophy', arouses our 
 sympathy and our indignation. If I believed slavery to be the moral, ssocial, and political evil, 
 which it is described — if I believsd the advantage of rendering our population homogeneous to be 
 
13 
 
 as great iis it is asuerled, not then — no, nor iflioth were ten times greater — would I be reconciled 
 to such a policy tor such a pur{)Ose. 
 
 It has been usual for Southern men to decline any discussion about the institution of domestic 
 slaverj', in the midst of which they have grown up, and of which tliej' may be supposed to 
 know something, liowcvcr vituperative and nnfoutided the accusations made ;iii;ain.st it. Agree- 
 ing in the general propriety of this course, I nevertheless propose, on this occa :ion, to depart 
 from the ordinary practice. The question is f(J^fed upon us by our Northern brethren to such 
 extent tliat silence, if persevered in, might be construed into admission of (he truth of their 
 accusations. In debates of Congress, by the press, by legislatures of the Slates, in the pulpit, 
 and in primary assemblies it has become customary to denounce slavery as a political evil, as a 
 burden on the Government, as the sin and opprobium of the nation — as destructive of good order 
 and human advancement, as a blighting curse on the section where it exists, and a gangrene, 
 extending its baleful influence to every portion of the Union. Now, sir, upon what do these 
 assumptions rest "' Have we been less faithful as citizens — have riots, conflagrations, or destruc- 
 tion of private property been more fiequent in the slave than in the non slave Suites ' Have 
 their churches been less harmonious, their divines less pious, their statesmen less eminent, their 
 soldiers less efficient than yours ■ If not, then why this unwarrantable denunciation — why this 
 unfounded assumption ? If it be a sin, you are not otherwise involved than by your connection 
 with its introduction — with its existence you have nothing to do. As owners of the commer- 
 cial marine, you were the importers of Africans — you sold them in the South — 3'ou are parties 
 to a compact which recognizes them as a property throughout the United States, and secures to 
 their owners rights which, but for the confederation, would have been local. Show, then, your 
 repentance, if you feel any, for having contributed to the increase of this property, by observ- 
 ing the obligations imposed by tiie circumstances of the case upon you ; and the rights recog- 
 nized in the fundamental, paramount law of our Union. The Constitution did not create the 
 institution of domestic slaver)- — it was no part of the object for which it was formed, to deter- 
 mine what should be property, but an important portion of its duty to generalize and prote t the 
 rights of citizens beyond the limits of State jurisdiction. From this duty has arisen all the in- 
 termediate acts in relation to slave property, yet, at this late period of the practice under our 
 Constitution, Senators assert that slavery is so purely local, that if a master pa.ss with his slave 
 into the limits of a State or territory where such property is not recognized by local law, the 
 slave by that act becomes free. This is in keeping with the legislation of those States in which 
 the legal and constitutional obligations to surrender fugitive slaves have been nullified. It is in 
 keeping with the repeated declaration here, made with the condescending air of a sovereign 
 granting a favor — tliat there is no intention to interfere witli slavery as it exists in the States, 
 but that its further extension cannot be permitted. Do Senators forget that this Government is 
 but the agent, the creature of the States^ — that it derives its powers from them — not they their 
 righis or institutions from it. Slavery existed in the States before the formation of the Consti- 
 tution — it needed no guarantee within their limits — its recognition beyond this was part of the 
 more perfect Union, as its protection against all enemies whomsoever is part of the common de- 
 fence for which that Constitution was adopted. There is not a more prominent feature in the 
 federal con)pact than the prohibition to the States to interfere with conmierce. But if a citizen 
 of Maryland cannot pass through Pennsylvania or Ohio, on his way to Kentucky or Missouri 
 without submitting his property to the tests of those States through which lie is inciy travel- 
 ling, the right to free commerce among the States has no practical value. The n ;ht to unin- 
 teiTupted transit is not varied by the character of the property — the power is the same, whether 
 the question arise upon a slave or a bale of goods. There is no discretionary power; and a total 
 prohibition would be less otiensive than an invidious distinction, claiming to spring from a moral 
 superiority. Each State is responsible for its own institutions — the sovereignty and co-equality 
 of all the States forbid the idea of moral responsibility on the part of one for the acts of another. 
 If slavery be a sin, it is not yours. It does not rest upon your action for its origin, or your 
 consent for its existence. It is a common-law right to [)roperty in the service of man — it traces 
 back to the earliest Government of which we have any knowledge, either among Jews or Gen- 
 tiles. Its origin was Divine decree — the curse upon the graceless son of Noah- Slavery was 
 regulated by the laws given through Moses to the Jews. Slaves were to be of the heathen, and 
 with their offspring to descend by inheritance : thus, in the main particulars, being identical 
 with the institution as it exists among us. It was foretold of the sons of Noah that Japhet 
 should he gn atly extended, that he should dwell in tlic tents of Shem, and Canaan should be 
 his servant. Wonderfully has the jjrophecy been fultilled — and here in our own country is the 
 most striking example. When the Spaniards discovered America they found it in the possession 
 of the " Indians" — many tribes were enslaved, but the sons of Shem were not doomed to bond- 
 age — they were restles.s, discon'enti'd, and lil>era'ed because they were unprofitable. Their 
 places were supplieil by the sons of Ham, brought across the broad Atlantic for this purpose — 
 they came to their destiny, and were useful and contented. Over the greater part of the conti- 
 nent Japhet now sits in the tents of Shem, and in extensive regions Canaan is his servant. Let 
 those who possess the liest opjwrtunity to judge, the men who have grown up in the pr»:*(>nce 
 
^4 
 
 of slave institutions as they exist in the United States, say if their happiness and usefulness do- 
 not prove their present condition to be the accomplishment of an all wise decree. It may have 
 for its end the preparation of that race for civil liberty and social enjoyment. Compare the 
 slaves in the Southern States with recently imported Africans, as seen in the West Indies, and 
 who can fail to be struck with the immense improvement of the race, whether physically, mo- 
 rally, or intellectually considered. Compare ouWslaves with the free blacks of the Northern 
 States, and you find the one contented, well provided for in all their physical wants, and .steadily 
 improving in their moral condition ; the other miserable, impoverished, loathsome from the de- 
 formity and disease which follows after penury and vice : covering the records of the criminal 
 courts, and filling the penitentiaries. Mark the hostility to caste, the social degradation, which 
 excludes the able from employment of profit or tiust, and leaves the helpless to want and neglect. 
 Then turn to the condition of this race in the States of the South, and view them in the relation 
 of slaves. There no hostility exists against them — the master is the natural protector of his 
 slave, and public opinion, common feeling, mere interest would not allow liim to neglect his 
 wants. Those who urge that exclusion of slavery from the territories does not exclude the 
 slaveholder, because he may dispose of his property before emigration, .show such inability to 
 comprehend the attachment which generally subsists between a master and his slaves, that I will 
 only offer to them interest as a motive for the care which is extended to those persons — securing 
 comfort to the aged and to the infant, attention to the sick, and adequate provision to all. Such 
 is the difference between the condition of the free and slave blacks under circumstances most 
 favorable to emancipation. Does it warrant the desire on the part of any friend of that depend- 
 ent race to hasten upon them rcspon-sibilities for which they have shown themselves so unequal ? 
 If any shall believe that the sorrow, the suffering, the crime which they witness among the free 
 blacks of the North have resulted from their degradation by comparison with the white race 
 around them, to such I answer, does the condition of St. Domingo, of Jamaica, give higher 
 evidence ' or do the recent atrocities in St. Martinique encourage better hopes ? Sir, this problem 
 is one which must bring its own solution, leave natural causes to their full effect, and when the 
 lime shall arrive at which emancipation is proper, those most interested will be most anxious to 
 effect it. IJut as the obligation is mutual, so must the action be joint ; and it is quite within 
 the range of possibility that the masters may desire it when their slaves will object, as 'as the 
 case when the serfs of Russia refused to be liberated by their landlords. Leave the country to 
 the South and West open, and speculation may see in the distant future slavery pressed by a 
 cheaper labor to tropical regions, where less exertion being required to secure a support, their 
 previous preparation will enable them to live in independent communities. They must first be 
 separated from the white man, be relieved from the condition of degradation which will always 
 attach to them whilst in contact with a superior race, and they must be elevated by association 
 and instruction — or, instead of a blessing, liberty would be their greatest curse. Under these 
 considerations I cannot view the policy proposed to confine them to the present limits of the 
 slave States, as having one point either of humanity or sound policy to recommend it, or that it 
 can do otherwise than perpetuate slavery even beyond its natural term in the States where it 
 now exists. 
 
 When the colonies made common cause against the parent counry and conquered their inde- 
 pendence, no one State claimed the right to interfere with the domestic affairs of another ; each 
 was recognized sovereign within its limits, and all were disposed to respect the rights and feelings 
 of each ; had it been otherwise our confederation would never have been formed. This is chang- 
 ed, and strange as it may appear, the change follows the action of the very Government whose 
 interference with the domestic affairs of the colonies led to the Revolution, stranger still the first 
 State to follow, is the same which was most oppressed in the colonial condition, and to her honor 
 be it remembered, first raised the standard of revolutionary resistance. 
 
 When it was discovered that colored foreigners (from St. Dominjo) had instigated the blacks 
 of Charleston to murder the whites and burn the city, as a meas'.'rf- of policy warranted by hu- 
 manity and necessay precauti n, a law was passed to exclude fo.vign colored persons from the 
 city. For fourteen years this law was enforced without objection ; then came British emanci- 
 pation in the West Indies, British agitation, British puMicat.cns against slavery, and then for the 
 first time Massachusetts discovered that a duty was imj.'osed on her to resist a law necessary to 
 protect the lives and pioperty of those for whom it "was jiassed ; a police regulation not directed 
 against her inhabitants, but general in its effect and unnustakeable in its purpose. In the day 
 of her colonial tribulation, Massachusetts sent an ambassador to South Carolina, she now sent 
 another, but how diltcrent the missions Then domestic interference was the grievance, now it 
 was the purpose. And the end of the mission to maintain a right of colored inhabitants to vio- 
 late a p lice regulation, which those best informed believed t j be necessary to guard against the 
 highest crimes and greatest mislbrtunes. A like mis>ion was deputed to New Orleans where 
 security to property had rendered similar regulations necessary. . All this for the maintenance of 
 a speculative philosophy which sees no guilt in crimes flowing from it. and asks for no practical 
 lesult. Of all who engage in this agitation on the question of slavery, this indecent intrusion on 
 the domestic affairs of others, I ask what remedy do you propose ' We have heard you denpunce 
 
15 
 
 it in coarsest abuse. NVe have felt your interference by legishuive enactment to render oui pro- 
 perty less secure, by imlividual organization to seduce our slaves from comfort and contentment, 
 to turn tliem pcnnyless upon a community where they are despised and oppressed, and in a cli- 
 mate to which, bv constitution, they are unsuitcd. We have seen you unite wiih our foreign 
 enemies to defame us, and join those whi>, for commercial purposes, have warred against slavery 
 as the cause of our supremacy in the cotton market of the world. But we have not seen the 
 good you have done, or any other effect you have wrought than to generate distrust among th» 
 whites, and to produce a necessity for increased rigor over the slaves. What then do you pro- 
 pose? You speak of emancipation, but you know that innnediate emancipation is inii)racticable; 
 that if the States would consent, the Treasury of tlie Federal Government would not aj^proximate 
 the purpose. More than this, yo« know that without slaves cotton could not he jjroduccd to 
 supply your factories, and that ruin and want would stalk over your own villages, where now 
 wealth and plenty reign. What ])rompts to your agitations. Not an instinctive opposition to 
 involuntary servitude, as is shown by your readiness to give validity to the Mexican laws over 
 California and New Mexico, and thus continue the Peon system, far more harsh and repulsive 
 to my mind than our domestic slavery. Xiable to the same abuses, but without the controlling 
 restr.iint which interest and the relation of permanent dependence creates in the case of the 
 slave. Is it love for the Afi-ican ^ No ! his civil disability, his social exclusion, the laws passed 
 by some of the non-slave States to prevent him if free, from settling within their limits, show 
 beyond the possibility of'doubl that it springs from no aftection for the slave. Is it the moral con- 
 viction that there cannot be property in persons? No! you imported Africans and sold them as 
 chatties in the slave markets, and you a'e constantly objecting to their representation as persons in 
 the councils of the Federal Government. Is it because, as has been said in this debate, slavery is a 
 burden on the Government, diminishing its power in peace and in war ^ If so, let the exports 
 of the country answer, what section of the Union c> ntributes most to supply oar Treasury; let 
 the history of our wars reply, as to the number and conduct of the troops which the slaveholding 
 States have given to the service of the country. Those nnswcrs must show that this position is 
 wholly untenable. The only conclusioo is that you are prompted by tlie lust of power, and an 
 irrational hostility to your brethren of the South. I say irrational, because an injury inflicted 
 upon UT would surely recoil upon you, and because the sons of the South may proudly challenge 
 the citation of an instance when they have opposed the interest of the >porth, because it was 
 such ; or been recusant to any of the compromises of, or under our Constitution. 
 
 V\ hilst Northern men contend that the slave States shall not be extended, by participation in 
 any ac(juired territories, they should remember, and blu.sh to remember, that Oregon was ac- 
 quired by a treaty which ceded a large Southern territory, and that Southern men have been, 
 Ihrougliout, those who have led in the eflbrts to secure exclusive possession of Oregon. Floyd, 
 Benton, and Linn stopjjcd not to balance political power, nor paused from their labors to secure 
 Oregon to the setllericnt and use of our own people, because its climate and productions indi- 
 cated the future erection of non-slave Slates. I have claimed for Southern men that they have- 
 faithfully adhered to all compromises. Is there one which has been fully kept by the opposite 
 party '' 'J'he ordinance of 17l!J7, which may be considered a compact by subsequent acquies- 
 cence of the States, contained a provision for the restoration of fugitive slaves, that being the 
 only consideration given to the South. It has been flagrantly violated. In e^tablishing the ra- 
 tio of representation the South compromised by deducting two fifths of the persons held to ser- 
 vice, and the North has been, from that time to this, endeavoring to get rid of the compromise. 
 Without a shadow of propriety, the admission of Mis.^ouri as a 8tate of the Union was opposed be- 
 cause of her domc^tlr institulinns ; the slave SlatoB, to «c>ourc harmony, conceded that slavery should 
 be excluded from all the remaining part of the territory which was north of 30° 30'; but now, 
 when other territory is acquired, the North assert it all" to be free territory, and refuse to declare 
 the territory south of 3fi° ao' to be open to the uitroduction of slaves, as good faith would re- 
 quire, if their assertion were tenable, and the territory in flict not equally open to the property of 
 all the people of the United States. But inflamed by success in former contests, you march 
 boldly to the conflict, and demand the whole. The niask is ofl', the purjiose is avowed, that 
 there shall be no further extension of " the .slave power." The question is before us, it is a 
 struggle for political power, and we must meet it at the threshold. Concession has been but the 
 precursor of lurther aggression, and the spirit of compromise has diminished as your relative 
 power increased. The sacrifices which the South has in other times made to the fraternity and 
 tranquility of the Union, are now cited as precedents against her rights. To compromise is to 
 waive the application, not to surrender the principles, on which a right rests, and surely gives nO' 
 claim to further concession. It has been said that we are contending for an abstraction, a thing 
 of no practical importance. If so, then why is it so obstinately resisted ? Do vouwish to gain 
 another and a brooder precedent for future use ? The course "of this deliate justifies the suppo- 
 sition, and demands caution on our part. If to contend for principle the practical effect of 
 which may be remote, is an abstraction, then, sir, the war of the revolution and the war of 1812, 
 60 far as the South was concerned, were both fought for abstractions. In the colonial condition 
 the southern States were especially fostered by Great Britain, and their prosperity was rapidly 
 
16 
 
 increasing at the commenceiaent of hostilities against tiic mother country. The acts of unjust 
 and oppressive legislation were applied to the northern colonies. Sympathy, fraternal feelms 
 and devotion to principle, brought the South to your .side in your first step to resistance. A^ain* 
 in the war of 1812, it was your seamen, not ours, who were impressed, and again from devo- 
 tion to principle and the obligations of our alliance, the South stood foremost in that conflict. 
 The blood of her sons stained the battle-fields from Niagara to IS'ew Orleans ; her exports, main 
 dependence for her support, were cut ofl", and distress came to every hamlet and cottage ^ yet she 
 murmured not, railed not, raised not the standard of opposition against the Government whilst 
 engaged in a foreign war. 
 
 I have said that the South has, on all occasions, been prompted by a sincere desire for domes- 
 tic tranquiliityand an ardent love for the Union. The conduct of her sons on this occasion 
 has, I think, sustained her past character. To prevent further agitation, to secure peace, to 
 perpetuate our Union, I am willing to go as far as my principles will allow. To compromise it 
 is necessary that both parties should, to some extent, yield. To prevent continuance of the agita- 
 tion, it is necessary that the conditions of the compromise should be express ; that nothino- should 
 be left to doubtful construction. Finally, the value of any compromise we may make must de- 
 pend on the feelings of those for whom it is made, anJ to whom it is entrusted. If the spirit 
 of compromise has departed from our people, it is idle to propose its forms. If the principles 
 of the Constitution arc to be disregarded by a .self sustaining majority, the days of the confede- 
 ration are numbered. The men who have encountered past wars for the maintenance of prin- 
 ciple, will never consent to be branded with inferiority ; pronounced, because of the domestic in- 
 stitutions, unworthy of further political growth. If .such be your determination, it were better 
 that we should part peaceably, and avoid staining the battle fields of the revolution with the blood 
 of civil war. Abraham said to liis nephew, Lot, when strife arose among their people, "Go 
 thou to the righWhand, and I will go to the left, and let there be peace between us." 
 
 If the folly, and fanaticism, and pride, and hate, and corruption of the day, are to destroy the 
 peace and prosperity of the Union, let the sections part like the Patriarchs of old, and let peace 
 and goodwill subsist among their descendants. I^et no wounds be inflicted which time may not 
 heal. Let the flag of our Union be folded up entire, the thirteen stripes recording the original 
 size of our family, untorn by the unholy struggles of civil war; its constellation to remain un- 
 dimmed, and speaking to those who come after us, of the growth and prosperity of the family 
 whilst it remained united. Unmutilated let it lie among the archives of the Republic, on some 
 future day when wiser counsels shall prevail; when men have been sobered in the school of ad- 
 versity, again to be unfurled over the continent-wide Kepublic. 
 
 Sir, can it be possible that we have those among us who are'willing to hazard such fearful results 
 for the paltry consideration of political supremacy over those who do not possess the power, and 
 have never shown the desire to intrude on the domestic ali'airs, to impede the growth, or to mar 
 the prosperity of their Novthern brethren ? Can such consideration palliate this crusade against 
 the South? Shall the fabric of human hberty and republican government, which was founded 
 and built by the wisest and purest of our laud, and left as a heritance for their children forever, be 
 torn down by the first generation which succeeded to it, and left in ruin; an object for the rcpub- 
 Ucan's pity, the monarchist's scorn. 
 
 I hear and see the agitation of politician.'', but from those I turn to the people; in their patri- 
 otism and good sense is my hope and confidence. The)' have no interest beyond the public good. 
 To them, in this critical emergency, this imminent hazard, I look for safety, trusting that they 
 will reject ever)' interpolation on our compact which may endanger the perpetuity of our Union, 
 and consign to the obscurity they morif. p.vcry demagogue who caters to popular excitement, and 
 seeks to elevate himself by an agitation wliich draws in its train the destruction ol tlie compro- 
 mises, the subversion of the principles on which the durability of our confederacy depends. 
 
 Mr. President: I have intentionally extended my remarks to many points not involved in the 
 amendment I proposed to the Senate. That amendment was confined to the case presented by 
 the bill under consideration, which, though not in terms, does in fact, as I have shown, auther- 
 ize the prohibition of slavery in Oregon. It asks no additional guarantee, no privilege, no con- 
 cession, but is to prevent a con.struction which would recognize in the Federal Government, as 
 in those who derive their authority from it, power to control the subject of slavery without the 
 concurrence of the Slates. If this amendment be rejected, I shall view it as ominous of the fa^ 
 turc, and stand prepared for whatever consc(iuences may follow. , 
 
If 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 LETTER OF JEFFERSON DAVIS, TO C. J. SEARLES, ESQ. 
 
 Published in th: newspnpers of Mississippi, and generally approved by the peo) h, thereby 
 showing, not merely ihe opinions of the writer, but the feciing of ihosj whom be now repre- 
 sents, in favor of conciliation and fraternity. 
 
 Brierfiei.t), September, 19, 1847. 
 My Dear Sib : Your highly valued letter of the 3d instant.' came duly to h;ind, but found me 
 quite sick, and I have not been able at any eailier date to reply to it. Accept my thanks for 
 your kind solicitude fjr my welfare. 
 
 Your past conduct enabled me to anticipate this from you and I am therefore doubly grateful. 
 The political information you communicate was entirely new to me, and it is oiiiy under the 
 belief that the crisis ren.:e s nnportant the views of every Southern man, that I can account for 
 <nny speculations having arisen about my opininions as to the next Presidency. I have never 
 anticipated a separation upon this question from the Democracy of Mississippi, and if such in- 
 tention or e.\peci:ition has been ativibuled to mc, it is not only unauthorized, but erroneous. 
 
 That itm.gbt beco.ne necessary to un te as Sjudrern m;n, and to dissolve the ties w.iicb have 
 XJonnectcd us to the Northern Democracy ; the position recently assumed in a majority of the 
 non-slaveliolding States has led me to fear. Yet, I am not of those \vbo decry a national con- 
 vention, but boliovo thai piesent circumstances with more than usual force indicate the propriety 
 of such meeting. On the question of Southern in-titutions and Southern rights, it is true that 
 je.Ktensive v>!tfeciions have occurred among Northern Democrats, but enough of good ftchng is 
 still exhibited to sustain the hope, that as a party they will show themselves w^-uthy of their 
 ancient appellation, the natural allies of the Sauth, and will meet us upon just constitutional 
 ground. At least I consider it due to former association that we should give them the faiiest 
 opportui i y to do so, and furnish no cause fbi; failure by seeming dist.^ust or aversion. 
 
 I would say then, let our delegates meet those from the North, not as a paramount object to 
 nominate caiulidates for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency, but before entering upon such se- 
 lection, to demand of their political brethren of the North, a disavowal o.'" the principles of the 
 Wilmot Proviso : an admission of the equal right of the South with the North t;) the Territory 
 held as the common property of thcUnited States ; and a declaration in favor of extending the 
 Missouri compromise to all States to be hereafter admitted into our confjderacy. 
 
 If these principles are recognized, we will happily avoid the worst of ail political divisions,. one 
 made by geographical lines merely. The convention representing every section of the cnion, 
 and elevated above local jealousy and factious stiife, may proceed to silect candidates, wdiose 
 principles, patriotism, judgement, and decision, indicate men tit for the time and the occasion. 
 
 It', on the other hand, that spirit of hostility to the South, that thirst for political dominion 
 over us, which within two years past has displayed such increased power and systematic purpose, 
 should prevail ; it will cn!y remain for our delegates to withdraw from the convention, and in- 
 form their fldlow-citizens of the failure of their mission. We shall then have reached a point at 
 which all party measures sink into insignificance, under the necessity for self-preservation ; and 
 party divisions should be buried in union tor defence. 
 
 But until then, let us do all which becomes us to avoid sectional division, that united we may 
 go on to the perfection of Demociatic measures, the practical exemplification of those great 
 principles for which we have struggled, as promotive of the peace, the prosperity, and the per- 
 petuity of our contL'dera.iion. . 
 
 Tliough thcrVigiis of the times are portentous of evil, and the cloud wliich now hangs on our 
 Northern horizon threatens a storm, it mny yet blow over with only the tear drops of contrition 
 and regret. In this connection it is consolatory to remember, that whenever the tempest has 
 convulsively tossed our Republic and threatened it vrith wreck, brotherly love has always poured 
 oil on the waters, and the waves have subsided to rest. Thus may it be now and forever. If 
 we should be disappointed in such hopes, I forbear from any remark upon the contingency which 
 will be presented. Enough for the day will be the evil thereof, and enough for the evil, will be 
 the union and energy and power of the South. 
 
 I hope it will soon be in my power to visit you and other friends at Vicksburg, from whom I 
 Lave been so long separated, I am, as ever, truly your friend. 
 
 C. J. Seakli:s, Esq. JEFFERSON DAVIS, 
 
 LETTER FROM MR. MONROE, IN ANSWER TO A LETTER FROM MR. 
 
 JEFFERSON. 
 
 WAsnrxGTox, Mat/, 1820. 
 
 " Dear Sir : I have received your letter of the 14th, containing a very interefting vie-v of the 
 
 late treaty with Sp lin, and of tke proceedings respecting it. here. If the occurrence involved ia 
 
 it nothing more than a qustion^between the United States and Spain, or between them and the 
 
 colonies, I should entirely concur in your views of the subject. * * * * It is altogether 
 
18 
 
 -4 
 
 internsi, rnd of the most di?tres»ing nature and dangerous tendency. You were apprised by- 
 me, on your return from Europe, of the true character of the negotiation, which took place in 
 1765-6, with the minister of fc^pain, for shutting up the ijiouth oi the Mississippi, a knowledge 
 of which might have been derived in part from the journal of L'ongre^s, which then came into 
 your bands. That was not a question with Spain in reality, but one among ourselves, in which 
 her pretfns'ons were brought forward in aid ot the parly at the head of that project. ]t was an 
 eflbrt to give such a shape to our Union as would secure the dominion over it to iis eastern sec- 
 tion. Jt was expected that dismemberment by the Alleghary mountains would follow the ex- 
 clusion of the river, if it was not desired, though the latier was then, and siill is, my opinion. 
 The Union then co; -^i^ted cf eight navigating and commercial States, wiih five productive, hold- 
 ing slaves ; and, had the river been shut up, and dismemberment ensued, the division would 
 have always been the same. 
 
 "At that time, Boston luled the four New England '^♦ates; and a popular orator in Faneuil 
 Hall ruled Boston. Jay's object was to make New York a New England Slate, which he 
 avowed on his return from Europe, to the dissatisfaction of many in that State, whose prejudices 
 had been excited in the levolutionary war by the contest between New York and those States,, 
 respecting interfering grants in Vermont. It was foreseen by those persons that, if the Missis- 
 fippi_|shoulJ be opened, and new States be established on its waters, the population would be drawn 
 tliither, the number of productive States be proportionably increased, and their hope of dominion 
 on that contracted seciionni scale be destroyed. It was to prevent this that that project w.n? 
 formed. Happily it failed ; and since then our cm cci, in an opposUc direction, has been rapid 
 and wondeiful. 
 
 ' The river has been opened, and all the territory dependent on it if acquired ; eight Statea 
 have already been admitted into ih". Union in that quarter ; a ninth is on the point of entering,, 
 and a tenth provided for exclusive of Florida. This march to greatness has been seen with pro- 
 found regret by those in the policy suggested ; but it has been impelled by causes, over which 
 they have had no control. Several attempts have been made to impede it ; among which the 
 Hartford Convention, in the late war ; and the proposition for restricting Missouri, are the most 
 distinguished. The latter measure contemplated an arrangement, on the distii. 'ion solely be-i 
 tween slaveholding and non-slaveholding States, presuming that, on that basis only, such a di- 
 vision might be founded as w&ttld destroy, by perpetual excitement, the usual efi'ects proceeding 
 from difference in climate, the produce of the soil, the pursuits and circumstances of the people, 
 and maishal the States, differing in that circumstauce, in unceasing opposiiio:. and hostility to 
 each other. 
 
 "To what account this pro'ect, had it succeeded tio the extent contemplated, might have been 
 turned, I cannot say. Certain, however, it is, that, since 1786, I have not seen so violent and 
 perservering a struggle, and, on the part of some of the leaders in the project, foi a purpose so 
 unmasked and dansrerous. They did not hesitate to avow that it v. ..s a contest for power only, 
 disclaiming the pretext of Lb-rty, humanity, &c. It wa€ always manifest that they were willing 
 to risk the Union on the measure, if, indeed, as in that relating to the Missis-sippi, dismember-, 
 ment was not the princ'pil object. * * * « By putting a stop to the proceealng, time 
 has been given for the passions to subside, and for calm discussicn and reflection, which have 
 never failed to produce their proper effect in our country. »*»*** 
 
 " From this view, it is evident that the further acquisition of territory to the West and South 
 involves difficulties cf an internal nature, which menace the Union itself * * * * When, 
 we meet in Albemarle we will communicate further on th " subject. 
 
 " With respect and sincere regard, yours, 
 
 •• JAMES MONROE."^ 
 
 RESOLUTIONS FROM THE DIFFERENT STATE LEGISLATURES IN RELA- 
 
 TION TO SLAVhiRY IN THE TERRITORIES, AND THE ADMISSION OF SLAVE. 
 
 SlATES INTO THE UNION. 
 
 Resoi.ution of Vermont. — Janvary 28tJi, 1847. 
 
 The Legislature of Vermont adopted a Resolution to the effect, that it will not give ns coun- 
 tenance aFd, or ass?ntto the admission into the Federal Union, of any new State whose const.tu- 
 tion to'erates slavery, and appeals to each of the other States. to concur in that declaration, accom- 
 panied by another, instructing its Senators and Representatives m Congress to use tlieir best et- 
 forts to carry the resolution into effect. 
 
 Resoi.l'tions of New Ydkk. — Fehrvary C)ih, 1847. 
 
 Eesolved, That if any territory is hiieafter acquired by the United States, or annexed thereto, 
 the act by which suJr territory is acquired or annexed, what- u-v such act may be, should con- 
 tain an unalterable luvlamental article or provision, whereby slavery or involuntary servitude, 
 except as a punishment for crime, shall be forever excluded from the territory acquired or annexed. 
 Resolution of PEnNSVLVAMA. — February 8th, 1847. 
 
 The Lesislnture of the State of Pennsylvania adopted a r solution, requesting their Senatoijg 
 and Kepresentative in Congress, to vote against any measure whatever by winch territory wiU 
 
I 
 
 19 
 
 accrue to the Union, unless as a part of the fundamental law upon which any contract or treaty for 
 
 this purpose is based, slavery or involuntary servitude, except for crime, shall be forever prohibited. 
 
 Kesolctions of O'tiro. — February \5t?i, 1847. 
 
 That the Sen.ators and Kcpreseatatives from ihis State in the Congress of the United States 
 be and are hereby respectfuiiy requested , to procure the passage of measures in that body, pro- 
 vidini' fur ili» exclusion oi slavery iVom the Territory of Oregon, and also from any other terri- 
 tory t1wt now is, or hereafter may be ainexed to the United States. 
 
 Hesolced bij tii-: General Asseinbhi oj the State of Ohio, May 3d, 1848, That the provisions 
 of the ordinaii'e of Congress of one" thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, so far as the 
 same relates to slavery, should be extendcJ to wy territory that may be acq^^red from Mexico 
 by treaty or otherwise. 
 
 Resolctiox of New Jersey. — February 19<7(, 1847. 
 
 The Resolution adopted by the Legislature of New Jersey, instructs their Senators and Rep- 
 resentatives in Cons^ress to u'so their best cffojts to secure, as a fundamental condition to any act 
 of annexation of any territory h-reafter to be acquired by the United States as an ijidemnity for 
 claims, that slavery oi- involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime, shall be iorever 
 excluded from the territory to be annexed. 
 
 REsor.uTioN OF Nevv Hampshire, Fehruary \9th, 1847. 
 
 That the Senators and Representatives in Congress from this State, be respectfully requested 
 to urge the ptiKsage of nip.nsiivi-= fcr tht- rstinfti.-m ot cLnveiy in the District of Columbia, lor its 
 exclusion from Oregon, and Other territories, that now, or at any time hereafter may belong to the 
 United States, for all constitutional measures for the suppression of the domestic slave trade, 
 and to resist the admission of any new State into the Union while tolerating slavery. 
 Resolution of Michigax. — March \st, 1847. 
 
 That in the acquisition of new territory, whether by purchase, conquest, or otherwise, we 
 deein it the duty of the General Government to extend over the same the Ordinance of 1787, 
 (being the one prohibiting. slavery northwest of the Ohio with all its rights and privileges, con- 
 ditions and immunities. 
 
 Resol.utio.vs of Massachusetts. — March \st, 1847. 
 
 Besolved, unanimously. That the Legislriure of Massachusetts views the existence of human 
 slavery within the limits of the United State, r.7 n great calamity, and immense moral and politi- 
 cal evil, which ought to be abolished as soon as thit end can be properly and constitutionally at- 
 tained, and that its extension should be luuformly and earnestly opposed by all good and patriotic 
 men throughi, a* the Union. 
 
 Resolved, tmanim^.ushj, That the people of Massachusetts will strenously resist the annexa- 
 tion of any new territory to this Union, in which the institution of slavery is to be tolerated or 
 established ; and the Legislature in behalf of the people of this Commonwealth, do hereby 
 solemnly protest against the acquisition of any additional territory Without an express provision 
 by Congress, that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in such territory, other- 
 wise than for the punishment of crime. 
 
 Resolutions of Maine. — August 3d, 1847. 
 
 Resolved, That the sentiment of this State is prof, und, sincere, and almost universal, that the 
 influence of slavery upon jiroductive energy is like the blight of mildew ; that it is a moral and 
 social evil ; that it dees violence to the rights of man, as a thinking, reasonable, and responsible 
 being. Influcncrd by ■^ich considerations, this State will oppose the introduction of slavery into 
 any territory which inny be acquired as an indemnity for olaimo upon Mexico. 
 
 ResoLvcd , That in the ficquisition of any free territory, whether by purchase or otherwise, we 
 deem it the duty of the General Government to extend over the same the Ordinance of seven-f 
 teen hundred and eighty-seven, with all its rights and privileges, conditions and immunities. 
 Resolltiox of the Legislature of Connecticut. T—Z)fce/)'ifr 20/A, 1847. 
 
 Resolved, That if any territory shall hereafter be acquired by the United States, or annexed 
 thereto, the oct by which such territory is acquired or annexed, whatever such act may be, should 
 contain an unalterable fundamental article or provision whereby slavery or involuntary servitude, 
 except as a punishment for crime, shall be forever excluded from the territory acquired or annexed. 
 
 Rksolutioxs of the Legislatuiie of Wisconsin. — Date of cet-tijicate of the Secretary of 
 
 Slate, June 21s/, 1848. 
 
 Resolved, That the existence of slavery in this country is to be deeply deplored, that its ex- 
 tension ought to be prohibited by every constitutional barrier within the power of Congress ; that 
 in the admission of new territory into the Union, there ought to be an inhibitory provision agaiirst 
 its i'ltroduction. 
 
 Resolved, 'J'hat our Senators in Congress be, and they are hereby instructed, and our Repre- 
 sentatives are requested to use their influence to insert into the organic act for the government of 
 any new territory already acquired, 01 hereafter to be acquired, that is now free ; an ordinance for- 
 ever prohibiiing the introduction of slavery, or involuntary servitude into said territory, except oa 
 a punishment lor crime, of which the parties fcliall have been duly convicted according to law. 
 
20 
 
 *fe. 
 
 O J- 
 
 
 V.' 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 q5 
 
 ^ CO 
 
 % ?^ 
 
 l^ o 
 
 •is CO 
 
 6 *^ 
 
 ••S'ts 
 
 *~ o 
 
 S 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 ;.320 
 
 .720 
 .040 
 
 
 o 
 CO 
 
 O o 
 
 C! !0 
 
 
 <5 
 
 
 
 •* 
 
 g 
 
 t-; 1 - 
 
 LO C) 
 
 ci — ' 
 
 1 O) 
 
 5 
 
 2 S ^ 
 
 03 CO 
 lO CO 
 l-< CO 
 
 C3 
 
 ^1 
 
 
 
 
 -* 
 
 
 - 
 
 to 
 
 CO 00 o 
 ^ ff^ CO 
 
 -H CO 
 
 LO |> 
 
 oq o 
 
 CO 
 C5 
 
 CO ■ cr: 
 CO o 
 
 
 u 
 
 1 
 
 s 1 si 
 
 en CO 
 
 -t" C( 
 CJ 1.0 
 
 CO 
 GO 
 
 -1 
 c 
 
 
 
 cr 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J73_ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o o 
 
 O 
 
 c 
 
 _ 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -1" C( 
 
 O 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 "3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Tji ^ 
 
 lO 
 
 - 
 
 :::; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 "— ' LO 
 
 CO 
 
 cr 
 
 ~, 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO 00 
 
 
 c 
 
 C'l 
 
 O . 
 
 
 
 t- d 
 
 00 
 
 c 
 
 •^ 
 
 
 
 
 CO CO 
 
 CO 
 
 u- 
 
 C! 
 
 
 
 
 '— ' 
 
 ■-^ 
 
 
 7J 
 
 i^ 
 
 jj 
 
 
 
 
 
 CO CO 
 
 o 
 
 co 
 
 lO 
 
 J"^ 
 
 s 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■^ s, 
 
 f< 
 
 o 
 
 C! 
 
 
 
 -i CO 
 
 r^ 
 
 
 c3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 00 ■•* 
 
 oi 
 
 r- 
 
 -r 
 
 3 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 LO O 
 
 CO 
 
 cc 
 
 -t 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 
 CO 
 
 j^. 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 PO I- o 
 
 o o 
 
 o 
 ao 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 
 
 ci 00 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 
 a 
 
 0) 
 
 4J 
 
 «5 CD lO 
 f3 i- 05 
 
 CO ~i 
 
 lO 
 
 CO 
 
 X 
 
 u. 
 
 O! 00 
 
 
 CO 
 
 i^ 
 
 O 
 
 "O 00 C! 
 
 C3 CO 
 
 LO 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 
 <: 
 
 CO ci -f 
 
 —< ir; 
 
 CO 
 
 i^ 
 
 _^ 
 
 
 1-1 O i-l 
 
 O! o 
 
 c-j 
 
 C! 
 
 i2 
 
 
 C^ Tj* 
 
 ■-I C! 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ^ CQ 
 
 
 
 
 _J 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 5o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o o 
 
 
 CO OD O 
 
 LO LO 
 
 r^ 
 
 r^ 
 
 -t 
 
 
 s 
 
 '^ (7J CO 
 
 O C5 
 
 LO CO 
 
 <Tl 
 
 CO 
 LO 
 
 1-; 
 
 3 
 
 
 ■-1 CO ci 
 
 CO i- 
 
 d ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 s 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 
 CB 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 03 
 
 
 : 
 
 r— 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 o i», 
 
 cn .12 
 
 — • -3 
 
 ill 
 
 O a, $■ 
 
 |l 
 
 C3 
 
 o 
 
 
 "o 
 
 O 
 
 ca 
 ■■< 
 
 
 
 
 S c 
 
 2-H 
 
 
 -3 : o o ^ 
 •"1 : 1 S:! X 
 
 iH • 1 -■ CJ 
 
 a- : c ^ 5! 
 
 .2 : £ --^ 
 
 ra 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 2 2 
 
 ca ■- s 
 ■5'£0 
 
 m 
 
 ►-1 _Q '-i 
 
 C3 ,_ 
 
 o 
 
 CQ 
 
 
 is 
 
 1 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 .. - ,^ r " 
 
 CJ 
 
 " ■■ X o -S 
 
 ca 
 
 
 
 
 
 >> O CJ f-, ■" ii 
 
 
 
 rt • -J c -^ 
 
 ;- 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ -i tC a. t£ *; 
 
 -i-S 
 
 <s 
 
 ■^ :s;^ ^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ■SO ^ tn "^s; • 
 
 O -^ ^ m o a; 
 
 fa' 
 
 
 1 i^.il-^ 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 '"o 
 
 CJ 
 3 
 
 
 o 
 
 ca 
 tq 
 E- 
 
 
 S 1^ -' ^ - « 
 ° S £ &-S ^ 
 
 -3 2 -3 CO ->*:; 
 
 2^ 
 
 o 
 
 S §^ 1 2| 
 
 a = < oS 
 o 5 o ca . 
 
 ^ S ^ P „ 
 
 « 1. •-' o -^ 
 ■? --S ci " o 
 
 " o 
 
 c.- 
 
 C -3 
 
 m ca _ 
 
 - 
 
 
 ■j: 3 2 < ^ o 2 
 
 5 £ g s >.-S P 
 
 K bD 
 
 P M 
 
 1. 
 
 >• 
 
 o ~ " 
 
 5 
 
 2 « 
 
 . : 
 ta.S 
 
 
 
 
 !s j=Si H-a iTCrf z; u ^ ^ 
 
 « .5 2^ " 
 
 2° 
 2- ° 
 
 
 
 
 - ^ S r? -^ 
 
 
 5. ^ 
 
 
 
 
 5.2 ^^^ 
 
 o 
 
 — c 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■-3 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 I? 
 
 z; 
 
 H 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 .^z 
 
 SI ■■ g 
 
 fe .r; CB ., 
 
 • -H CO "3 
 
 .£ — :: a 
 
 S^ 
 
 CJ j-' CO "3 
 
 ^ 2 
 
 o r; 
 
 ^ 3; _^ fc: "2 
 
 c o c *" S -5 
 . •— >*^ o . .s s 
 
 e ^ ■£ = r, ^ == 
 
 O = cj (- •:s m' 
 
 c 2-2 
 
 o ra 
 
 C 0.= -3 
 CO • ' c.. 
 
 o «j .a 
 
 .-" ■" ci 
 
 C5 >^ , .5.^'^ 
 
 *" £ "^ " 5 ~ "^ 
 
 i„ - o m o -c^ 
 C -_, r; ca tfl » o 
 !- . 5 „: >. ca CO 
 
 S O I fa 5 ^.^ 
 
 •s 5^E^ E '''^ 
 •22 c - ^ .ti J! 
 E E £ "3 . . ^j: - 
 
 '-^ -n ~ — o — >. 
 
 o ca ^ = o .2 ■" 
 
 ■"* -^ to ^ ^ c"^. „>^ 
 
 •^ ^^ ^.^ 'n 01 >» 
 
 o c o -- JH S j? 
 
 E ■? r^ f ^ - 2 
 
 o o >,| o « £ 
 
 C -^ -= I rS 5 S 
 " 5j 0; m o CO aj 
 
 
 fe !r S 3 
 
 ■= h ^ -2 
 
 0) i- o ^ r^ ca ca 
 •5 S " -c E^ 2- M 
 ^ o '^ ^ £ 2i 
 
 CO c r; ~ 
 
 C 
 *^ ca 
 
 « — cj -r 
 
 -C r- K ii j:: "O D 
 
 r2 c a 
 
^