y"^<^. -V. , » • »* c- ,f5 Ci - .0 w- •> ^^.. "-^li^i ^ '*m^>° ...>^ o^ * NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. SPEECH OF HON. CHARLES W. UPHAM, OF MASS., IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 10, 1854. The House being in theConimitteeof the Whole on the state of the Union — JVIr. UPHAM said: Mr. CHAIRMA^f: In taking the floor at this time, after the body has been in session nine hours and a half, I can assure the committee that it is ex- ceedingly disagreeable to me to make a continued demand upon their already exhausted attention. Having understood, in the earlier stages of the discussion, from the friends of the bill, that an opportunity would be given to all to speak upon the question, I have not allowed myself to be in the way of gentlemen who were impatient to express their sentiments, and should not now. engage in the debate, were I not under an impression that some points, vital to the argument, have not as yet been adequately developed. The question ought not to be brought to a final vote without a full comprehension of its real merits, of all its ele- ments, of its origin, history, bearings, and effects. The preeminently distinguished member from Missouri [Mr. Benton] has touched briefly upon the line of argument which I propose, at some length, to spread out and enforce. The learned gentleman from Virginia, who first addressed the committee to-day, [Mr. Bayly,] also adduced some important facts in support of the views which I propose to exhibit. • 1 hold, sir, that this bill contemplates, and will, if it becomes a law, constitute a radical and vital change in the policy upon which the Union of these States was originally formed, and by which its affairs have been administered throughout its entire history. It will be an abandonment of the course that has been pursued from the first. The country will swing from her moorings, and we shall embark, with all the precious interests, all the glorious recollections, and all the magnificent prospects of this vast republican empire, upon an untraversed, unknown, and, it may v/ell be feared, stormy, if not fatal sea. In order to justify and illustrate this view of the proposed attempt to repeal the Missouri compro- mise,! shall compress into the narrowest possible compass, as the short hour allowed compels, an historical statement of the policy upon which the American Union was founded, to which it has adhered through every period of its existence, which the fathers believed, and found to be, abso- lutely necessary, and which their sons have faith- fully maintained and solemnly reiterated in each successive generation. The idea of a Federal Union, that is, of a con- federation of political communities, each still pre- serving its distinct existence, was first developed on a limited sphere, and in a very imperfect way, by the New England Colonies, at an early stage of their existence. It was recommended by William Penn in 1700, particularly delineated by Daniel Coxe, an eminent colonial politician of New Jersey, in 1722, in his very curious book, entitled "A description of Carolana, by the Spanish called Florida, by the French La Louisiane, with a map of Carolana, and the river Meschacerbe," and first reduced to practice, on a large scale, by Benjamin Franklin. He urged it in publications in the Philadelphia Gazette, enforced in his usual style of practical wisdom and sagacity, and illus- trated by a wood cut, representing a snake sep- arated into several parts, with this motto, "Join or die." He succeeded in getting a Congress con- vened at Albany, at which delegates from seven Colonies were present, that is, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. This first attempt of a general North American Union occurred in 1754^just one hundred years ago. Nothing of importance immediately resulted from the meeting, except the idea which it sug- gested to the general sense of the country, that such a union was practicable. As the revolutionary warcame on, the Colonies, rising to the great ^encounter, at once resorted to a Confederation. "While the war continued the external pressure kept them together; but the moment that pressure was removed, it became evident thatit would be difficult, if not impossible, to hold them together. The historical fact that the institution of slavery was, at that time, the great obstacle in the way of ^i union, is what I desire, as the first point in my Rrgument, to impress upon the committee. We sometimes hear the seniiment expressed, that the excitement and (iistui-baPiCe produced by the slavery qijestion is of recent or modern growth. This is an error, and it is an error vital to the question oefore us. As much agitation and ns much difficulty v/ere occasioned by it, at the time to which I am referring, to say tl;e least, as in our day. Resistance against foreign oppression naturally led to the consideration of oppression at home, and a movement resuking in its abolition, wherever it could easily be d.me, was quickly brought to a head, and a broad line of distinction was soon drawn between^he Sfates that retained, and those v..-hich had abolished, tlie institution. At the period of the formation of the Constitution this distinction threatened to present ^n insur- mountable obstacle to t,he establishment of a per- manent union. In his notes of the debates of 'the Federal Con- vention of 1787, Robert Yates, a delegate in that body from ihe Stars of ISTew York, quotes Mr.. Madison as having used this ]:mguage: "The grttat d.iiiiier to oar G^noral Govenitnent is tlic great snmherii aiid iioriiiern interests of xhc contir.eHt hv\ntern Stale.? m? hm;, therefore, to exclude them altogether, llie l)usiiie!-s was at an end.' ♦• GouVf-riiciir Mirris, a delegate from' Pennsylv.Tnia, paid, in reply, that ' Me eamc here to form a compact for the good of Aiiieriea. He was ready to do so with all the States. He limped and helieved that all would enter into sucli a conipaet. If iliey would not, he was ready to join with any States that would.' " Whoever exannines the Madison papers, and other memorials of that daj', will admit, at once, that the struggle between the two sections was as Etrenuous then as it has ever heen, and v/ill concede the next point I desire to make in my present ar- gument? nam*.! y, tliat the Constitution never could have been adopted by the States, or even framed by the convention; the present Government could not have been established, nor even the Confeder- ation long been maintained, had not certain com- pacts and rnutuil engagements been arranged and solemnly agreed to, to be forever binding between and upon thp two great sections. 1 now de.=iire, Mr. Chairman, in the spirit of calm and impar'ial history, to present to the com- mittee a lirief s'atement of those compacts and engagements — compacts and engagements, sir, upon which the Union and Constitution were then I founded — under which we havegrown to ourpreg- ' ent greatness as a first rate power — by virtue of I which a comprehensive patriotism, even now, \n li this moment of controversy, binding our hearts i together on this floor as the representatives of one I mighty people, has war.med into a generous, en- ! during, and noble passion, but all of which, as I shall finally show, you are about to eradicate and cast away forever by the passage of this bill. I At the close of the revolutionary war, after a sharp and persevering contest, and the failure of \ some other proposed methodsof valuation, it was 'agreed, in the old Congress, on the 1st of April, 1783, in apportioning the general burdens iiport ; the different States, to adopt population as the i basis, and count only three fifths of the slaves. j On the final question establishing this ratio of slave ' enumeration, Rhode island voted no. Mas&acliu- ! sens was divided. All the 'othei' Stales vo'ed t/i/e. I This was the firstcompromi«e ever made bet v/een {the .slaveholding a.nd the free States. I On the 1st of March, 1784, Virginia executed a [cession to the United States of her territory nonli I and west of the Ohio river, comprising an area greater than all that rernained to her, that is, greater than the present States of Virginia and Kentucky. The other States having proprietary interests there f tihiv.'sd tbs wise and liberal ex- ample of Virginia. The whole territory north- west of the Ohio river thus becairie the coiTimon property of the Uiiiied States in Congre.ss as- sembled. It w&i! all the territory they then pos- sessed in common, and silth&tatiy one imagined, at that time, they ever would possess. The possession of terrilory in common is con- trary to the geniuij of our Federal Union, and nece.saarily involves the twosections of the coun- try in conflict. The question Is — not whether slave labor shaii go with free labor on'tqual terms into I the con:Knon territory, but — it being well .under- stood then, and ns all subsequent experience has constantly demonstrated, that they cannot possi- 1 bly both go, as one or the other must necessarily be excluded — whether the territory shall be occu- pied by free labor or by slave labor. The issue v/as at once made. A struggle forthwith arose between the two sections v/hich form of labor should occujiy and possess the Northwest Terri- tory. The struggle continued for years with un- abated energy and determination, and never could have been arrested, had not a.compromise, in the nature of a solenm and perpetual compact, been agreed upon by the parties. [n order that this great compromise, which was t}ie basis on which the American Union was con- structed — the only ba.'^is upon which a Union could have been formed, but which the Nebraska bill not only violates, but utterly repudiates in express terms — may be understood, 1 must be allowed, at this point, to go somewhat into detail. Immediately at'ter the Northwest Territory had become the property of the United States, in Con- gress assembled, that body applied itself to pro- vide for its settlement and organization. Reports and bills were lirought in for the management and disposal of its lands, and for the institution cf civil and political society among those who might settle upon them. On the 1st of March, 1731, the very day of the cession from Virginia, a com- mittee, consist iog of Messrs. Jefferson, of that State, Chase of Maryland, and Howell of Rhode JUN ifUtt Island, reported a plan for the temporary govern- ment of the Western Territory The report svas written by Jefferson, and contained the following provision: , "After tl;e ycnr 1800 of the Ciirislian era, then? shall he neither slavery nor )iivnlu7itary servitude in any of Ihe said States, otherwise ihaii in punisliinent of crimes, whereof the party shall liave been duly ouiiviotcd to have been per- sonally {guilty." On the ID'.h of April, 1784, this proposition of Mr. Jefferson was voted down. On the 16ih of March, 1785, Rufu.s King, a Delegate from New Yorlc, renewed the proposition, but it met a sim- ilar fate. Any one who examines the Joiti nals, will see that the question tlius raisei,!, namely, whether slaveholders should be allowed logo into the common teiriloiial possessions of the United States carrying tliat species ofproperty with them, and holding it there, dtfied the solution of the old Congress, and that for ihrte long years, in unin- termitted session, that body made no approaches vihatever towards its setiiement; the two sections of the country stood arrayed in unwavering and imiButable opposition to each other. in the mean time tlie Confederation was grow- iiig more and more feeble and inadequate to its objects every day. Ih.e experiment of a Gov- ernnnent embracing all the States, usider an effi- cient Administration, wa^^ evidently beginning to fail. In this crisis a convention was called to devise a firmer uiiion, and organize a government that would hold the Stales together, and save the country from dismemberment and ruin. The convention assembled in Philadelphia on Uie 14ih of May, 1767. The Congress of the Con- federation was sitting at the same time in New York. The antagonism between the slaveholding and free States was found to be as irreconcilable and immitigable in the convention as in the Congress. It soon became evident that neither body could solve the problem. The question of the estimate to be made of slaves, atid which, in reference to taxation, had been ad- justed in the manner I have described several years oefore in the old Coni;ress, ciime up again in the convention in another bearing. It was necessary to arrange a basis for a House of Representa- tives. It was admitted that population was the oniy practicable measure that could be devised; and the question was, how shall slaves be counted in apportioning representation in the House? When taxes were to be apportioned upon popula- tion in the old Congress, the southern delegates had maintained that slaves were mere property, not persons, and therefore not to be counted at all. Tiie northern delegates had contended, on the other hand, that tiiey were not property, liul per- sons; and that, therefore, they all ought to be counted. But when, in the convention, political power was to be apportioned in a House of Rep- resentatives, both sectioiis at ones reversed posi- tions. Tlie South contended that slaves were persons, and ought all to be counted; and the North insisted that they were mere property, arid ought not to be counted at all! Both sides ad- hered to their ground with unyielding pertinacity. Months passed afier monthd, but no progress was made in the work of cor;ciliation — nothing was settled, and nothing toucliina; at all the points of difference appeared to be in the way of approach- ing a settlement. The two bodies continued their unavailing labors — the old Congress in New York, the convention in Philadelr.hin. The great obstacle loan adjust- ment was the very question now i>elbre us. The slave States claimed the right of icijin^ with their institution into the Northwest Territory. I do not think that any one tlien took tiie ground of " squatter sovereigntj'." That is a discovery of the political luminaries of our daj'. But the gen- eral right, upon the principles of f rpial ju.stice, cotitended for by my honorable friend from North Carolina, [Mr. Kerr,] of a slaveholderfo go with his slaves into the common unoccupied territory of the Union, was persisted in by the southern delegates; ant], ;!u:ely, with as good reason then as now. The largest part of that common terri- tory originally belongtd to Virginia. She had just ceded it, as a free gift, to the United States. It was hard to deny to Virginians the right of crossing their own Ohio to its opposite ban.k, into what but a few days before had been their own territory, v.Mth their pergonal and donjestic prop- erty. But the people of the free States were they resolved, as I believe they now are, and trust then ever will be, that this continent shall not be envel- oped in slavery, and that a limit shall be put to its extension. The coniroversy was irreconcilable. I maintain, looking at the subject not as a poli- tician, but as a historian, that the Con:;titution could not have been formed, the Confederation could not have been preserved, and the States coul& not have continued under one governrnent, had not a compromise in tlie nature of a compact been made. Such a compromise or compact was made. It is tlie basis upon wliich the Constitu- tion was confstructed, and on which it has stood from that day to this, but which the bill before U3 proposes to repudiate, repeal, annul, and over- throw. The secret history of the transaction is not yet revealed — perhaps never will be. The facts, so far as they are yet known, are these: On the 9th of July, 1787, in the old Congress, tlie subr ject of the establishment of a civil government in the Northwest Ter.itory was again taken ii|i, and referred to a committee of five, of which Mr. Nicholas, of Virginia, was chairman, and Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, a member. On the 11th of July, only two days afterwards, this committee reported the celebrated instrument since known as the "Ordinance of 1787." It contains the clause forbidding the extension of slavery into that Territory — the very clause, substantially, which Thomas Jefferson had endeavored in vain to persuade the same body to ado|)t; which Rufus King had also advocated in vain; and which, for more than three years, the slaveh"lding represent- atives had constantly resisted, with prompt and inflexible determination and unanimity. But now, the very next day after it had been reported, they unanimously and insiantly accepted and agreed to it — every Soutliern vote stands recorded in the nfiirmative; indeed, every vote, North and South, except that of a single delegate from New York, Roliert Yates. Why thi.s sudden, utter, ant' universal change? It was because there was attached to the restric- tion an obligation on the past of the States that might be formed ' ithin the Territory, to permit the reclamation of fugitive slaves — an idea not broached before in either the Congress or the con- vention, and not known to the law of nations or the comity of States. It was evidently the con- sideration olTered by the free States to the slav* States, and accepted by the latter, as an equiva- lent for tiieir relinquishment of their claim of ri^ht to curry their institution into any part of the co'iti- mon territorial possessions of the United States. This arrangement at once removed all obstacles out of the way of establishing a union under the Constitution; forthwith everything went on har- nioniously and rapidly towards a satisfactory ad- justment of every question in the Congress and in the convention. Without further delay, it was ad- mitted, all around, that the measure adopted, when burdens were to be imposed, was no more and no le.?s than just, when power was to be distributed, and the three fifths ratio was agreed to, in the enumeration ofsl.ivesin the population basis of this House. The grant of power to Conjress to pro- hibit the importation of slaves after 1808, and to levy a tax upon them in the mean time, was also i agreed to. The South relinquished all claim to ! carry slavery into new territory, thereby putting I limits to its spread, and consented to allow a limil ' to be put to it, in time, by authorizing the impor- j tation of slaves to be taxed, and, after a specified date, prohibited. The consideration paid by the | free States to the slave States for these conces- ' sions and restrictions, was agreeing to allow that species of property tlie special privilege of repre- sentation, and to suffer the reclamation of fiigitive slaves. But this latter obligation stands in particular and special relation to the non-extension of slavery. It IS the equivalent paid by the free States to the slave States, in consideration of the abandonment by (he slave States of all claim to extend their slavery beyond their own limits. _ The two ideas are inseparably linked to-^ether m the ordinance of 1787-. ° ^rficle ihe sixlk— There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in tlie said Territory, otherwise than , in punishment of criini^>5 whereof tlie party shall have been duly con vicled: ProvUed uhoays. That any person escap- ing into Ihe same, (nun whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any mw of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming nis or her labor or service as aforesaid. " " So far as States might rise within the limits of the Northwest Territory, the arrangement was made unalterable and perpetual by the express language of the ordinance. "It is herehy ordained and declared hy Ihc authority afore- said, That the tbilovving articles shalfbe considered as ar- ticles ot compact between Ihe original States and the peo- ple and Slates in the said Territory, and forever remain unaiteiable, unless by eoinmoii consent." The Cim.stitution of the United States impressed the seal of its s^mctity and inviolability upon this compact by ordaining (art vi, 1st paragraph) that "engagements entered into" before its adoption, "should be as valid against the United States,' under this Constitution, as under the Confedera- tion." I hold, Mr. Chairman, that no man can study carefully the proceedings of that day, without being compelled to the conclusion, that the real bar- gain, compromise, compact between the two great sections, was, that the South would not attempt to carry slavery into new territory, and the North would extend a certain degree of protection over that species of property v/here it 'then was, and I so long as it might last, particularly in allowino- I the recovery of fugitive slaves within the limit's of the free States. It is true that but one side of this bargain or contract was received into the written text" of the Constitution. The reason of this is obvious. The consideration paid by the South, that is, the re- linquishment of the common territorial posses- sions of the Union to freedom, was already fully executed and discharged. Slavery was restricted from ever entering the Northwest Territory, by solemn compact, underlying the Constitution, and made forever binding by its express provisions. The matter was forever settled and wholly dis- posed of, and there was no occasion to insert it in the Constitution. But the consideration agreed to by the free States, was to find its execution in the indefinite future, and v/as to bind them through all subsequent time— namely, the obliga- tion to suff'er the reclamation of fugitive slaves— and that, with propriety, was inserted into the text of the Constitution. No one then dreamed that there would or could be any other territory, owned in common, than the territory northwest of the Ohio, and the Constitution contains no provision and no authority for the acquisition or the possession of any other territory. The committee will perceive that the views I entertain of the subject, whose history I have an- alyzed and spread out to their contemplation, lead me to regard every attempt by the slave States to extend their institution into new territory, as vio- lating and destroying the moral force of the com- pact by which the fugitive slave provision of the Constitution was made binding upon the free States. ' The committee will suffer me to say that, per- haps, I should not have felt constrained to enter into this protracted debate, had I not conceived the district which I represent on this floor to be par- ticularly responsible for the great compromise, or interchangeof equivalent obligations, between the North and South, on which, as I have shown, the Union and the Constitution rest. Massachusetts was represented in the old Congress, in July, 1787, by but jwo delegates, both of whom resided almost in sight from my doors— Samuel Holten, of Danvers, afterv/ards a member of this House, under the Constitution, and Nathan Dane, of Beverly. The unsurpassed legal learning of the latter enabled him to draft the immortal ordinance of 1787, in its final shape, as one of the committee of five that reported it. He was responsible for the arrangement that terminated the conflict be- tween the two sections of the Union. Besides ' them there was another distinguished person, whose name sheds lustre upon the annals of the' county in v/hich 1 reside, and the district I have the honor to represent; in this House. Manas- SEH Cutler, of Hamilton, Mas.^achusetts, was in New York, at the time, in attendance upon the old Congress, and urging the settlement of the territorial question. He had before become deeply interested in the settlement of the Northwest Ter- ritory. It has been well said, that beneath the shelter of the covered wagon, in which he started from his village home in ^Massachusetts to found Marietta, the imperial State of Ohio was wrapped up. He was indeed a remarkable man— having adorned, in the course of his extVaordinajy life"^ each of the three learned professions. After the establishment of the Constitutiun, he became a member of this House, from the district I repre- eent. As a naturalist and a man of general science, he has had few superiors in our history. He was truly a philosopher and a patriarch. He was more than a statesman. He was the founder of a State. The sixth section of the ordinance of 1787 was, I have no doubt, the result, in part, of his exertions; and, as his successor on this \ floor, I have felt it my duty to explain it in this debate. ' i But I must hasten on to the subsequen t epochs in our constitutional history at which compromises free State, althou,'];h running below 36° 30', but made up for it by allowing slavery to get into Utah and New Mexico, if it could; andreimposed with, as many of us then thought, and still think, an unnecessary and uncalled for harshness, not to say inhumanity, the fugitive slave obligation upon the free States. I have now shown, Mr. Chairman, that the restriction of slavery in the Missouri compromise, instead of being, as some maintain, unconstitu- tional, is the very principle upon which the Con- stitution was established. The compact, which it renewed and extended, is the solid basement- or compacts were made between, the two great | story upon which the whole structure stands, sections. I shall not enter into the details of the [' The spiritand essence of thatcompactrun throu°-h A/I.««m,r. r.^m,.r«,nn;oo_fK.f u.o K..., o„^ ,.,;ii u„ 1^ ,^3 g^^jj-g constitutional history of the country Missouri compromise — that has been, and will be done, by others. Suffice it to say, in continuation of my argument, that, in my view of the trans- action, the Missouri compromise was a renewal, on another sphere, in reference to a territory that had become the common property of the Union by subsequent events, of the great compact of the ordinance of 1787. It was so not only in spirit, but to the very letter. As in the beginning, th You can trace the genius and the hand of the Constitution, in this feature of our political sys- tem, from turret to foundation-stone. The bill before us repudiates this fundamental principle. A Gentleman interrupting. Then why not extend it to the Pacific' Mr. UPHAM. I did not mean to say a word on that subject; but I must protest, with all pos- «.,v ^^ ...V, ....J, ,^,,Lv,.. xio III iiic ucgmiiiug, uic I UM uiai tiuujeci; uui 1 must protest, witn all pos- desperaie and well nigh fatal struggle between the |i sible deference to my excellent friend who haa two sections was brought to a favorable issue, in li introduced it, that ( am filled with amazement, and the only practicable way that is, by fixing a line; beyond which slavery could not go, and placing the free States again under the bonds of the fugi^ tive slave obligation. The bed of the Ohio river had been the boundary originally agreed upon in 1787, as the line, east of the Mississippi, beyond which slavery could not extend. As no such natural demarkation existed to the west of that river, a parallel of latitude was adopted; and as Missouri, where the right to hold elaves had accrued to actual proprietors under the have been during all the debates which have taken place upon this question, to hear gentlemen who advocate this bill upon the ground of congressional non-intervention, complain of us because we did not run the line of 36° 30' to the Pacific ocean, when it would have cut a sovereign Commonwealth in two, and have made an act of Congress ride rough-shod over a Slate constitution that had just been established. [Applause.] So far, sir, from the Missouri compromise line being unconstitutional, the principle it evolves is ...v.,^„ ..„.x >.v.^.ucu Lu «».<.uai [nupuciuiB uuuer lue i ucing unconsiuuiionai, tne principle it evolves is treaty of cession from France,was nearly all above!! absolutely demanded bv the very nature of the the parallel of the rnouth of ihe Ohio, in order to \\ Federal Union, under the Constitution. As I have make an equitable partition, the parallel of 36O30', \\ intimated before, there is not only no constitutional winch IS lower than the mouth of the Ohio, was [i provisionforTenitoriesin common, butthey bring adopted, from the western border of the Mis- ' our system at once into disarray and disorganiza- souri, over the territory ceded by France. The '""- ■'-'' ' " ' country above that was then a wilderness. No } slave property rights had accrued there, and the i adjustment was a proper one, and, in due time, I acquiesced in by the whole country. The restric- tion of slavery north of 3GO 30', and the fuffitive slave obligation, are coupled together in the^Mis- eouri compromise act, precisely as in the ordi- | nance of 1787. Indeed, the eighth section of the j act admitting Missouri, which is the compromise, ! IS, imitatis mutandis, a literal copy of the sixth j article of the ordinance of 1787. It is in these I words tion; this is a confederation of two conflicting in- terests, free labor and slave labor. Those interests cannot possibly be both adjusted to the same com- mon territory. That was demonstrated at the beginning. The Constitution could not have been formed until the territorial question had been first disposed of by the ordinance of 1787. If new territories come in, they, too, must be disposed of, severally, to one or the other of the two interests; the spirit that presided over the birth of the Con- stitution demands it. In other words, a line of division and demarkation, such as the Missouri compromise, is absolutely required by the jreniua ■""• I liompronuse, 13 aosoiuteiy requirea by the geniua .dnd he it. further enacted, That in all that territory | of the Constitution, and is, in fact, the only wise. jncluded within the limits of" the State contemplated by this li '" "^ way ot the preservation, in peace and har- act, shivf ry and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in t!ie pimishment of crimes whereof the parties .shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever pro- Jiiliited: Provided atwavs, Tliat any person escapini; into the same from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any State orTerritory of the United States, sucli fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor orservice as al'oresaid." Finally, the compromises of 1850 were based upon the same principle of a territorial arrange- ment and demarkation. They indorsed, in em- phatic language, the Missouri compromise, pro- jected the line of 36° 30' over territory to which it did not extend before, admitted California as a ,y ot the pr _ , mony, of the American Union. In another point of view, a line of demarkation, dividing the common territory between tliese two sections, is required by the nature of the Consti- tution. A territory in common is an anomaly in our system. That system knows only the States separately considered and the Statea united; a common territory is necessarily extra- neous to, and outside of, the system. It compels the Government to operate beyond its appropriate sphere. If new territory is acquired by conquest or annexation, the genius of our form of 'govern- ment requires, to prevent trouble and mischief, s that it lie at once divided and distiibuted, ac- cording to soinie^jus!, arrangement or metliod of app;>rtionmeni, to the several members of the Coiifederacy;, each Stata to take i!i! share under its own jurir.diction, and extend over it its own . laws 'di\& insulations. This, however, would be, Eraclicrdiy, very inconvenient; the Slates would e sejiarated, many of them by wide distances, from the districts allotted to them, and free States and slave States would be badly mixed up to- gether. The only practicable division, in accord- ' ance with the nature of our system — the only really constitutional arrangement, js to draw a line centrally across the map. as was done in the Missouri compromise act. In view of these considerations, ! hesitate not to say, that instead of the Missouri compromise being unconstitutional, the Nebraska and Kansas r.bill is itself in more complete and utter antagonism to both the Constitution and the Union than any ^ measure ever proposed to an American Congress. Mr. Chairman, there is more than poetic felicity, .there is a grand and siibliine signiPcance, in the Sequence of the grer^t ejwchs ■ hat mark cur Union ■ and constitutional history. As 1 observed at the , commencementof my argument, just one hundred years ago, in the Congress at Albany, in 1754, the first feeble attempt was made of a general American union. TliUiy-tliree years afterwards, I in the Congress and in the convention of 1787, the work was consummated en ;he~basi.'5 I have •described. Thirty three years after that, in 1820, the sarns great process was repeated by the enacl- . Rieatof the Missouri compromise line; and v-jhen, just thirty years more having passed over us, President Pierce took the oath of ofSce, on the eastern front of this Capitol, it was again pro- claimed to the world by the American people, speaking through his election, as that event v/as Tthen understood by those who had brought it about, that the conflicting interests of the two antagonist sections of the Union were adjusted finally and forever. The seyeral successive gen- ; eratibns, as they crossed the stage of life, thus ' solemnly reaffirmed tiie compact which you now 'propose to repudiate. Dissent has, in each 'in- stance, gradually, sunk to silence, and the whole country acquiesced. [Applause.] in that spirit we caaie together at the opening of the present session. The Representtjtives on ihisfloor of the whole American people — w.e met as a band of brothers — the mcst harmonious Con- gress ever assembled under the ConstituMon. As my eloquent friend fro. n Illinois [Mr. Yates] said, there was no North, no South, no West, no East, but one undivided America. V/e met to devise and carry through wise, comprehensive, and truly national measuces; to, promote the v/elfare cf the v.'hole Union; to develop with for,tenng care the vast and diversified, but to a great extent, still latent resources of the continent; to spread culti- vation and civilization over its central wastes; to bring together its opposite shores, linking them by the iron rail and magnetic v.'irein near and in- dissoluble union; and thus to grasp the com- merce of the world, waiting to fall into our hands, iC we will but stretch them forth to the Pacific coast. Our harmony is turiied into confusion, and a, fatal paralysis has crippled our legislation. Never did suoh a sudden, never so ruinous a change come over the aflfairs cf a nation, a.nd all in con- sequence of the encouragement v.'hich has been gjven to the renewal of the slavery agitation by tliose whose dui)'^ and whose interest it was to- have frowned down, at once, the authors of thia untimely movement. Mr. Chairman, I resist that movement, because [ am a i''riend of peace and tranquillity. I believe that the only power that can be relied upon to bear an individual or a people onward and up- ward is the po»ver of good feeling. The law of love that rule.s the spheres of the universe, and the councils of Heaven, is the law which every wise man and true patriot ought to bring to bear upon the legislation and administration of hia country. Folhiwing the guidance of this supreme sentiment, I have done my utmost, in the humble sphere in which I have moved, to prevent aliena- tion between the diifereni sections of this Confed- eracy, and to maintain the compromises upon which the Constitution was founded, and the Union has been preserved. 1 would have a kind, charitable, and generous feeling pervade the whole land — the points in v^hich we differ kept out of sight, and our thoughts and affections concentrated exclusively upon the common glories of the whole Republic, and the special distinctive excellencies of its various parts. Many of ray earliest arid dearest friends have their homes in the South. All of us have felt during the short months of our acquaintance here, a v,-arm and strong attachment growing within us, ahd binding members from the most distant lines of latitude and longitude by ties of personal affection. Let southern votes ex- tinguish this Nebraska firebrand — let southerrr Representatives tread it out beneath their feet on this floor — and then the amiable, genial, and noble process of fraternal good feeling v/ill again go on, binding us and the people we represent in the per- petual bonds of union, harmony, and happiness. Before such a spirit, radiating from this national metropolis, and pervading the country, every evil and every wrong will melt away. [Applause.] But if you pass the bill, or if it is defeated, in spite of the combined southern vote, there will be an end of all compromises. Some of them may remain in the letter of the Constitution, but it will be a dead letter; their moral force will be gone forever. The honorable member from South Carolina, [Mr. Brooks,] to whose frank and manly speech we listened with so much interest some weeks since, intimated that perhaps it v.'ould be well to abandon tlie policy i.f compromises, and for the two great conflicting ioterests to meet face to face, and end the matter at once. I have suggested tlie reasons why, heretofore, I have cofttemplaled such an issue with reluctance. But if the South say so, so let it be. Southern gentleman have expressed, in the course of this debate, reliance upon a conservative class of our northern people, who, they flatter themselves, will come to their aid in tliis contro- versy. Let me assure them that no such class of men can be found nov/. Those persons who have been most steadfast in standing by the rights of the South, under the compacts, are the most v.'ounded, the most justly incensed, at this attempt to repeal and repudiate a solemn compromise. Heretofore the South has profited by our divisions. Those divisions have arise;i/to a great degree, from the restraining and embarrassing influence of a sense of obligation on our part to adhere to the eng.igemenls, and stand up to the bar^jains jnade by the fathers, and renewed, as 1 liave shown, by each succeeding generation. But let those engagements be violated, let those bargains b^ broken by the South on the ground of uncon- stitutionality, or any other pretense; from that hour the North becomes a unit, and indivisible; from that hour " northern men with southern principles" will disappear from the scene, and the race of dough-faces be exlinct forever. I do not threaten. I pretend to no gift of proph- ecy. Any man can interpret the gathering signs of the times. All can read the harid writing on the wall. The very intimation thatil;e .Mi.^?Roi,ii-i com- 'roitiise is propo.sed to be repealed bj' sites in the other branch, so far as theyaieiegislator.s. The legislative department of ihe Government, is not to have any influence or control v/hatever over the infant Repuidics about to rise in our boundless territories. T.'iey are to be kept under the imperial hand of the Ex- ecutive. He is to afipoint, by the advice and consent of the Senate acting as his privy council, I their governors, judges, marshals, and other offi- cers. This idea, gentlemen, is suggested for your consideration, as the Representatives of the peo- ple of the United States, and the guardians of the rights of the legislative department of the Gov- ernment. I I have but one more duty to discharge. A few months since the gentleman from the State of Pennsylvania [Mr. Flotrence] obtained the per- mission of the House to introduce a memorial trom the Society of Friends, in a portion of the middle States, in wnic;h ihey protested against the passage of the Nebraska bill. The House granted tiiat jjermission, though they liad established a rule by which tlie memorial should have come in in arioiher way. I have been waiting until reso- lutions should le in order from the State of Massa- chusetts, and> intended then respectfully to ask the House to extend to me the same courtesy aa to the member from Pennsylvania, and to allow me to peiform the same office for the Friends of New England wnich t.hat gentleman was allowed to perform for the Friends of Pennsylvania. For this purpose it was my intention to have asked a suspension of the rules. But nov/, gentlemen, I will make that memorial a part of my speech, and print it as such. 1 feel honored in appearing for the Society of Friends, "good men and true," peaceable, virtuous, and conscientious, not poli- ticians, not identifled with parties, but stand- ing on a platform higher than parties have ever reached — -ind by presenting, in my place, the fol- lovving memorial, to h'lve .^ec ired to the Fiienda of New England as respectful and public a hearing as has been given by the House to any description of the citizens of the country. To the President, Si'.n4ite. and Hotcse of Representatives 0/ lite United Stales: Tile Memorial of liie Represenl.itivcs of the Yearly Meet- ing of ilie Society of Friends for New England, respsctfully siiowctli : TlKit, liting as^sernbled at tlie present time for the di9- cliiirgs ol'those duties wliii.'h,as wo l)eliev«,are coniii^ctcd Willi th« wcllare oC our religious body, and for the support oriliosi; principles and ln^tuiioiiie.^ wliicli aro inculciled by the teaclnnys of our adorible i^iiviour nnd liis aposlles, we have been dt^cply and t")rrowl'uIly arlected, in view of the lulls now nndirionsidcraiion in CongicsM,by which, iu the esiaiilishnii'iit of new territorial goveriimenis, it is propo.sed so lo li i:i-l;it(: ihat f\:i: nic a (.f our coiiniry into vviiictt ilavtry may lit iiilrodiici d .-jiiall bu extiMuUJ. It is", we trust, wt'll known to you Hint the Society of I'VitMKis tlirongh<;in llic world has long believed itself re- quired, as a rcli^idiis duty, to tesiify against .slavery — that no (iiiitfan hold liis iV-lliiw-iiinn in tliis bondage aiidieniain u niviiiln'r of oi;r isoeiciy ; and iliat we bear our testimony a;;aiiist it on rcligiiuis groii ds, il•rt•^pfictive of any pclilic^ pariy or organizaiion. VVf desire, very respectfully, lo address the rulers of our land, and to l>e (lerniiiled, as a religious duty, oarnesily tO plead wiUi lli.in not lo saiietinn by any aet of Ibeirvi the ex- tension oi ^lavery in our bcHovcd eouncry. VVe fervently crave that ilie iiijiinetion of our Saviour "to do unto otijer.i as .we would have lliuni do unto us," may in all their legislation be f> It lo bo of universaJ application lo all cla-ses oldur I'ellovv-inin, and that Ihey may ever feci hat it is righteousness lli-it I'xalieth a naiion. VVe would not weary yon with many words; but permit US to express our (Nirnesl desir>' and prayer, that you may seed in V our deliberalions fiir Ihat wisdom which is fioui Hiin who liaili made of one hlooil all Ihenalions of men todwcll (01 ihe i'aci: oi tln^ whole earlli, and Ihat, aetin;; in His fear, J on may, individually and collectively, witness his blessing to resi upon you. Si::ii (I l)y diieoiirm and on b; half of a meeting of the rep- reseniaiives aforesaid, held in Providence, Rhode FsUind, i by adjournment, the sei^ond d iv ol the second monl!', ISo-l. I ■ SAAIUKI. nOYCE, derk. ^rhi ^ . ' « • » . u if^-^iL«r-' ■^.\rr , oV^^V> ^°-^, . :^^ vv. .'?.■* ,^f.,^'^^^ "^^^ ..^ *^ V .. -/^ / s^ 'sy '•> ■ ^'• , S> r " " « ^^ ^^. 4 C 'k- '^'^J.r^ -^o. ^'i"" ■>* .0 T^, ^' .^ c- .;fe?^^ ^^ ^V »^' ^•^^ H^ ^^'n <.^^ * " -^"*^^^ V -or cA. • &^^ ^ * , 'd- ■<<» A° ^ "■• *V^ -Ao^ .^^ o_ ■* • o. '"•' °- y.-^i'-v co^c^.*°o /.^>.\ , A" ,\ O > j,0 '^ '..1 • .^^ .Vv^-. • .* .'^*^^^:i•i^/^. ."> >!i^^ ^^. .-^^'^ .•4-.-% ^^ -^^0^ "> .*Jm;;^*.