( 
 
) 
 
E 423 
 .P36 
 Copy 1 
 
 LA VERY IN THE TERRITORpS . 
 
 iiP' 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OP 
 
 HON. LUCIUS B. PECK, OF VERMONT, 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 23, 1850, 
 
 In Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, on the President's Message trans- ^ 
 mitting the Constitution of California. ™ 
 
 Mr. PECK said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman: We have before us the sprcial 
 nesaage of the President, in which he recom- 
 mends the ad mission of California as a State, when 
 fhe shall present herself for admission. He also 
 advises Congress to establish no tctritorial govern- 
 rnentij over that portion of our acquisitions from 
 Mexico which is not included within the limits of 
 California. The fir.=<t recommendation has my ap- 
 proval, and from the other I dissent. 
 
 California now presents herself, with her con- 
 stitution, and claims admission as a State. This 
 claim is made under the Federal Constitution, 
 which provides that Congress may admit new^ 
 States, and is enforced by a reference to the pro- 
 visions of the treaty with Mexico, the ninth arti- 
 cle of which stipulates, that those Mexicans who 
 may choose to remain in the ceded territory, 
 " shall be incorporated into the Union of the Uni- 
 ' ted States, and be admitted, at the proper time, 
 ' (to be judged of by the Congress of the United 
 ' States,) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citi- 
 ' z'ens of the United States, according to the prin- 
 ' ciples of the Constitution , "&c. Ought her claim to 
 be rejected ? Certainly not; considering the rights 
 of her citizens under the Constitution and treaty, 
 unless for some good and weighty reasons. Her 
 constitution is republican, and no objection is taken 
 to its provisions, unless it be to that portioTi *f it 
 which defines her boundaries. Various objections 
 have been started, the most prominent of which 
 are, 1. That Congress have, by no act, authorized 
 the people to form a State government; 2. That the 
 people who have formed the constitution are ad- 
 venturers from all parts of the world, of every 
 hue and color, and located there for a mere tempo- 
 rary purpose; 3. That the boundaries, as described 
 in the constitution, are too extensive. 
 
 No legislation on the part of Congress is required 
 to confer upon the people of a territory the right to 
 form a State government. It is conceded on all 
 hands that Congresscannotcreate a State. Where, 
 then, resides the power of forming a State govern- 
 iTient? With the people, the source of all power 
 in a free government. If this power rests with the 
 people alone, what necessity of the previous assent 
 of Con«;ress to the formation of a State govern- 
 ment.' It cannot add to, or enlarge a power, which 
 exists independent of all legislation on the part of 
 Congress. From what souice is derived this doc- 
 trine of the necessity of a previous assent on the 
 Dart of Congress, now put forth .' Certainly not 
 from the Constitution, for that is silent on the sub- 
 
 ject. It has not even the authority of uniform 
 precedent to support it, for a majority of the Statea 
 have been admitted without any previous action of 
 Congress. Congress never authorized Vermont, 
 Kentucky, Tennessee, Maine, Arkansas, Michi- 
 gan, Florida, Texas, or Iowa, to form State gov- 
 ernments. The people of those States, in conven- 
 tion, formed their constitutions, and, on applica- 
 tion, were admitted into the Union. Why may 
 not California be admitted with equal propriety.' 
 Why single her out, and insist upon a rule which 
 was not applied to those other States .' If this pre- 
 vious assent is.not a constitutional requirement — 
 and it is not even claimed that it is — may it not be 
 waived .' May it not be dispensed with on the part 
 of Congress? The gentleman from Mississippi 
 [Mr. Featherston] stated, in committee, a few 
 days since, that there was no precedent justifying 
 the admission of California; that those States 
 which had been admitted without the previous ac- 
 tion of Congress, were not formed from territory 
 acquired from a foreign power. Florida wa« 
 ceded to this Government by Spain, but it is true 
 she was subjected to a territorial government for 
 some years before her admission. But how does 
 this alter the principle } 
 
 It is also insisted that California should be re- 
 fused admission on account of the character of her 
 population. What evidence have we that all who 
 took part in the formation of her constitution do 
 not intend to remain domiciled there? It is quite 
 possible that all do not. But what portion of them 
 intend to leave? What proportion of- the votes 
 should be excluded on this ground? There is the 
 difficulty and injustice of rejecting the application. 
 Similar objections were urged against the admis- 
 sion of Louisiana, but they were not permitted to 
 control the action of Congress. Neither have we 
 any evidence that foreigners were permitted to vote. 
 So far as we have any evidence, it appears that 
 the right of voting was confined to the citizens of 
 the United Slates, and to those who were entitled 
 to that privilege under the treaty with Mexico. 
 
 Similar objections might have been urged in the 
 application of Tennessee and Illinois as they were 
 in thecose of Louisiana. On the adoption of the Illi- 
 nois constitution, all persons of the age of twenty- 
 one years, who had resided six months in the terri- 
 tory, were permitted to vote. Under this regulation, 
 aliens voted. By the constitution of Michigan, 
 foreigners were permitted to vote. In Tennessee, 
 free negroes were admitted to the rights of freemen, 
 and continued to vote at elections until the consti- 
 
 /^> 
 
\ 
 
 tution was changed in 1835. Was this objection 
 ever reused before, except in the case of Louisiana, 
 on the application of a State for admission into the 
 Union? It is believed that no other instance can 
 be found in the history of Congress, where this 
 objection was started. Sir, who is to settle this 
 right of the elective franchise? What have Con- 
 gress to do with it ? It is a matter to be settled by 
 the people of the territory. It is under their sole 
 control. 
 
 It is further urged, that the boundaries of the 
 State, as described in the constitution, embrace too 
 much territory. It is believed that Texas contains 
 a greater number of square miles. If her western 
 boundary, as claimed by Texas, be the true one, 
 she is the largest State. 
 
 But why not permit the people of the territory 
 to settle this question as they nave done ? They 
 have the right to form their own organic law, and 
 Nvould it be just to deny them admission into the 
 Union because some of us may entertain the 
 opinion that her limits are too extensive? Michi- 
 gan, Tennessee, and Iowa fixed their own limits, 
 and Congress admitted them into the Union. Why 
 not yield to California the same right? When 
 you come to consider the topography of the 
 country, the character of the soil, and the nature 
 of the climate, this objection loses much of its 
 force. There is good reason for believing that 
 several of the States have more arable land, and 
 are capable of sustaining a larger population, than 
 California. The country is cut up by mountains 
 and high ridges, and much of that portion of it 
 that is capable of being tilled cannot be made pro- 
 ductive for the want of means of irrigation. Who 
 doubts that Pennsylvania can maintain and feed a 
 much larger population than California? The 
 main resources of the latter Slate will be found in 
 grazing, in commerce, and in her minerals, while 
 she will be dependent, to some extent, upon other 
 nations for her breadstuffs. 
 
 It has been said in the course of the debate, that 
 the influence of the Executive was interposed to 
 induce the formation of her constitution. Ad- 
 mitting this to be true, are the people to be refused 
 a State government, their rights forfeited, in con- 
 sequence of the action of the President, when that 
 action was neither sought nor desired by the people, 
 so far as we have any evidence ? But this charge 
 is denied by the friends of the Executive, and I 
 have seen no evidence to satisfy my mind that the 
 charge has any foundation in fact. 
 M 'iSir, I am apprehsive that there is a provision in 
 'this constitution which constitutes the real objec- 
 tion, in the minds of southern gentlemen, to the 
 admission of this State. I allude to that article 
 which excludes slavery. This has not been put 
 forward as an objection. By some it has been 
 expressly disclaimed as such; yet one is con- 
 strained to believe, that did the organic law admit 
 the existence of slavery, we should not have found 
 the opposition coming from the quarter it now 
 does. Does any southern gentleman question the 
 right of the people to decide for themselves whether 
 they will tolerate or exclude slavery ? When the 
 Missouri question was before Congress, Mr. 
 Pinkney, who denied the power of Congress to 
 control the constitution of a new Stale, held this 
 language: 
 
 ■ "No rban can contradict me when I say, tljat, if you 
 li*ve this power, you may squeen down" a nevi'-bcra sover- 
 
 eign State to the sixe of a pigmy, and then taking it be- 
 tween your linger and thumb, stick it into enme niche of 
 the Union, and still continue, by way of mockery, to call 
 it a State in the sense of the Constitution. You may waste 
 its shadow, and then introduce it into a society of flesh and 
 blood, an object of scorn and derision. You may sweat 
 and reduce it to a thing of skin and bone, and then place 
 the ominous skeleton beside the ruddy and healthful mem- 
 bers of the Union." 
 
 So long ago as 1820 this was the principle 
 southern statesmen adopted and urged upon Con- 
 gress. President Polk, in his message of Decem- 
 ber, 1848, reiterates the same doctrine. He says: 
 
 " Whether Congress shall legislate or not, the people of 
 the acquired territories, wlien assembled in convention to 
 form Btate constitutions, will possess the sole and exclusive 
 power to determine for themselves whether slavery shall or 
 shall not exist within their limits. Ef Congress shall abstain 
 from interfering with the question, the people of those ter- 
 ritories will be left free to adjust it as they may think proper 
 wheu they apply for admission as States into the Union." 
 
 Mr. Calhoun, in a speech delivered in the Sen- 
 ate in February, 1849, recognizes the same princi- 
 ple in the most explicit language: 
 
 " I hold it to be a fundamental principle of our political 
 system that the people have a right to establish what gov- 
 ernment they may think proper for themselves ; that every 
 State about to become a member of this Union has a right 
 to form its own government as it pleases ; and that, in order 
 to be admitted, there is but one qualification, and that is, 
 that the government shall be republican. There is no ex- 
 press provision to that effect, but it results from that im- 
 portant section which guaranties to every State lb thie 
 Union a republican form of government." 
 
 State Democratic conventions held in Georgia 
 in 1847 and 1848, passed resolutions embracmg 
 the same doctrine. In January last, the Legisla- 
 ture of Texas, among a series of resolutions, unan- 
 imously adopted the following: 
 
 '^Resolved, That it is a fundamental principle in o\ir po- 
 litical creed, that a people in forming a constimtion have 
 the unconditional right to form and adopt the government 
 which they may think best calculated to secure their iib- 
 eriy, prosperity, and happiness; and that in conformity 
 thereto no other condition is imposed by the Federal Con- 
 stitution on a State, in order to be admitted into this Union, 
 except that its constitution shall be strictly republican ; and 
 that the imposition of any other by Congress would not only 
 be in violation of the Constitution, but in direct conflict 
 with the principle on which our political system rests," 
 
 Sir, there is no political question upon which 
 southern statesmen, and the South generally, have 
 better agreed, and to which they are more com- 
 mitted, than upon the right now claimed by the 
 people of California to determine for themselves 
 their own organic law. Never was there a time 
 either, when so pressing a necessity existed for the 
 admission of a State as is now presented in the 
 case of California. We have extended our rev- 
 enue laws over the territory, thus compelling her 
 citizens to contribute to the support of the General 
 Government; but have neglected to provide any 
 government for their protection. She is almost 
 without the protection of law. The rapid increase 
 of her population and commerce has hardly a par- 
 allel in the history of this country. Foreigners 
 are pouring into her valleys in numbers so great 
 as to endanger the rights and safety of our citizens. 
 Her valuable minerals, the property of the people 
 of the Union, are dug from her soil and taken 
 from the country by the foreign adventurer. While 
 every principle of justice, and the best interests of 
 the whole country imperiously demand her imme- 
 diate admission into the Union, that admission is 
 opposed on the ostensible ground of alleged irregu- 
 larity and informality in the formation of her Con- 
 stitution. Sir, it seems to me — and I say it with 
 
V all due respect to the opinions of others — that this 
 is not the /orum nor this the occasion when such 
 
 ■ objections should be heard ; clear it is, in my judg- 
 -ment, that they should not be entertained Clues- 
 
 "-'tions of national importance, involving high po- 
 litical considerations, should not be controlled by 
 
 ,> matters of mere form. 
 
 Sir, the inhabitants of California, particularly 
 that portion of them who were formerly Mexican 
 citizens, have the strongest possible claim upon 
 this Government for admission into the Union. 
 The faith of the country is, to some extent, pledged 
 to the measure. In the instructions given to Gen- 
 eral Kearny by the Executive, under date of June 
 3d, 1846, we find this language: 
 
 " ShoBld you conquer and take possession or New Mexico 
 and California, you may assure the people of tliose provin- 
 ces, that it is the wish and design of the United States to 
 provide for them a free government, with the least possible 
 delay, similar to that which exists in our territories. They 
 will be then called to exercise the rights of freemen in 
 electitig their own representatives to the territorial legisla- 
 ture." 
 
 Acting under these instructions, General Kear- 
 ny, in March, 1847, issued his proclamation to 
 the inhabitants, in which he says: 
 
 " It is the wish and intention of the United States, to pro- 
 cure for California, as speedily as possible, a free govern- 
 ment, like that of our territories, and they will very soon 
 invite the inhabitants to exercise the rights of free citizens 
 in the choice of their own representatives, who may enact 
 such laws as they may deem best adapted to iheir own in- 
 terest and well-being." 
 
 In July, 1847, Commodore Sloat, when he 
 landed at Monterey, held the same language in a 
 proclamation which he issued. These assurances 
 were confirmed by Commodore Stockton's proc- 
 lamation as Governor of California, published in 
 August, 1847. These province?, were conquered, 
 and, by the treaty of peace, ced /i to this country. 
 What effect these proclamatifiis had upon the 
 conduct of the inhabitants, it is difiicultto deter- 
 mine; but the assurances made by those acting 
 under the authority of the Government have not 
 been carried out. ISo government has been estab- 
 lished. We ought not to lose sight of the obliga- 
 tions imposed upon us by the acts of the author- 
 ized agents of the Government, and by the terms 
 of the treaty. By the ninth article of the treaty. 
 Congress, it is true, is to determine the time when 
 they shall be admitted into the Union. The matter 
 is left to the discretion of Congress; but in order to 
 carry out in good faith this stipulation, the discre- 
 tion to be exercised should be a sound one, one 
 not influenced by caprice, or controlled by formal 
 objections. These Mexican citizens, in conjunction 
 with American citizens who have emigrated from 
 the difierent States of the Union, now claim to be 
 admitted. Considering all the circumstances of the 
 case — the population of the territory and its char- 
 acter, the extent of her commerce, and the ne- 
 cessity of some regularly organized government, 
 can any one seriously doubt that it is the duty of 
 Congress, in the proper exercise of its discretion, 
 to admit her as a State ? Sir, it will <be recollected 
 that the treaty with the French Republic, by which 
 we acquired Louisiana, contained a stipulation 
 very similar in its terms to the ninth article of the 
 Mexican treaty. It will also be remembered, that 
 when Louisiana applied for admission, the appli- 
 cation met with serious opposition from northern 
 statesmen, on constitutional grounds — they insist- 
 iflg that Congress had no power, under the Con- 
 
 stitution, to acquire foreign territory and admit it 
 as a State. The question was much discussed, 
 and Mr. Poindexter, the delegate from the then ter- 
 ritory of Mississippi, after replying at great length 
 to the various arguments urged against her admis- 
 sion, and referring to the third article of the treaty, 
 put an inquiry which is not inappropriate to the 
 present case: " And are we here sittmg to delib- 
 * erate whether we will perform the solemn en- 
 ' gagements which have been entered into by the 
 ' constituted authorities, and which are presented 
 ' to us in the imposing attitude of the supreme 
 ' law of the land.'" Sir, what satisfactory response 
 could we make, on the present occasion, to a simi- 
 lar inquiry.' None, in my judgment. France was 
 then all powerful, and could enforce the due ob- 
 servance of any treaty stipulation with a foreign 
 power. This Mexico cannot do; but this fact does 
 not lessen our obligations. 
 
 Some gentlemen on this floor have expressd a 
 determination to go for the admission of California, 
 provided they can be assured that proper legisla- 
 tion shall be adopted with regard to the residue of 
 the acquired territory. That is to say, if Con- 
 gress will establish territorial governments for 
 that territory and not exclude slavery, they will 
 yield their assent to her admission. Now, sir, 
 let me inquire what connection have these ques- 
 tions? Are they not entirely independent of each 
 other? Shall the people of California be deprived 
 of their rights — denied admission into the Union — 
 because Congress may not pass such laws for 
 another people as gentlemen think ought to be 
 passed ? Is this any more or less than saying to 
 an individual, sir, 1 will not deal justly with you 
 unless A deals justly by B ? This is a novel 
 principle to be applied to matters of legislation. 
 
 Sir, I have already said that I believe the real 
 objection to the admission of California is found 
 in that provision of her constitution which ex- 
 cludes slavery. This opinion is based, in part, 
 upon declarations made on this floor, and upon 
 the report made by a committee of the Legislature 
 of Georgia, during the past winter, in which the 
 admission of California, with her present constitu- 
 tion and limits, is regarded as objectionable as the 
 adoption of the Wilmot proviso; and either seems 
 to be treated as a sufiicient reason for secession 
 from the Union. When we consider that no con- 
 stitutional question is involved in the act of admis- 
 sion, and that the right of the people of a territory 
 to form their own constitution, has been hereto- 
 fore universally conceded by the South, the posi- 
 tion now assumed must strike every one with 
 surprise. On this point I desire to call the atten- 
 tion of the committee to the debate in 1811, on 
 the bill to permit Louisania to form a State govern- 
 ment, and particularly to the speech of Mr. Poin- 
 dexter, of Mississippi, in reply to Mr. 'iuincy, of 
 Massachusetts. The latter gentleman was most 
 violent in his opposition to the bill, and in the 
 course of his speech, said: 
 
 " it was his deliberate opinion that, if the bill passes, the 
 bonds of this Union are virtually dissolved ; that the States 
 which compose it are free from their moral obligations, and 
 that as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of 
 some, to prepare definitely for a separation— amicably if they 
 can, violently if they must." 
 
 Mr. Poindexter thus rebuked him: 
 
 " Mr. Speaiier, I enter with lively sensibility on that por- 
 tion of the remarks made by the honorable gpntleman from 
 Massachusetts, which menace iiisurreftion and dissnlntjon 
 
of the Union. Had these sentiments fallqin from the gentle- 
 man in tlie aidor of debate, while the imagination was in- 
 flamed with an unconquerable zeal lo prove the impolicy of 
 the measure under f.-oiisideration, or had they been offered 
 in the shape of possible results, I should have regarded them 
 only with pity and contempt. Influenced by a desire to 
 stamp on these expressions their merited disgrace, and to 
 preserve dignity and decorum in our deliberations, I felt it 
 my duty to call the gentleman lo order. * * * * lam 
 still impressed with a conviction that these sacred walls — 
 the sanctuary of the liberties of the American people— ought 
 not to be polluted by direct invitations to rebellion against the 
 I Government of which we are a constituent part. 
 I " The notorious conspiracy of Aaron Burr had for its basis 
 'the detestable project of dismembering the Union. * * * 
 And yet that man did not dare go the lengths which the gen- 
 tleman from Massachusetts has been permitted to go within 
 these walls. Did Aaron Burr, in all the ramirications ofhis 
 treasonable projects, ever declare to an assembly of citizens, 
 ' that the State:* were free from their moral obligations .' and 
 that as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of 
 some, to prepare definitely for a separation — peaceably if 
 they can, violently if they must." No, sir. Had such ex- 
 pressions been established by the evidence on his trial, I 
 hazard an opinion that it would have produced a very ditier- 
 ent result. Perhaps, sir, instead of exile, he would have 
 been consigned lo a gibbet; for it cannot be concealed that 
 the language of the gentleman from Massachusetts, if ac- 
 companied by an overt act, to carry the threat into execu- 
 tion, would amount lo treason, according to its literal and 
 technical definition in the Constitution and laws of the 
 United States. The fate of Aaron Burr ought lo be a salu- 
 tary warning against treasonable machinations — and if oth- 
 ers having the same views do not share a similar fate, it will 
 not be because they do not deserve it." 
 
 Such, sir, was the strong and emphatic language 
 of merited rebuke which fell from the patriotic 
 lips of Mississippi's representative in 1811. Then 
 a northern member menaced insurrection and dis- 
 solution, if a southern State, in which .slavery was 
 recognized, was admitted into the Union. Slavery, 
 how.^ver, was not the ground upon which the op- 
 position was based. The admission was resisted 
 on the alleged want of constitutional power in j 
 Congress to admit her. The legal right to admit 1 
 California is not now questioned, but the objection ' 
 to her admission is placed on other grounds fall- 
 ing far short of the important objection taken to 
 the admission of Louisiana. In the one case, the 
 opposition rested upon high constitutional grounds; 
 in the other, upon a question of mere expediency — 
 upon alleged informalities. And yet, sir, language 
 which in 1811 was regarded by the South as 
 *' pollution" in this Hall, and as an " invitation 
 to rebellion," is substantially the language of a 
 portion of the South in 1850. Sir, a distinguished 
 gentleman from the South, [iVIr. Brown, of Mis- 
 sissippi,] during the present session, said upon 
 this floor, " My own opinion is this, that we 
 
 * should resist the introduction of California as a 
 ' State, and resist it successfully ; resist it by our votes 
 ' first, and lastly by other means. We can, at least, 
 '■force an adjournment of Congress without her admis- 
 
 * sion." Sir, I do not stop to comment on this lan- 
 guage, or to inquire what is meant by "other 
 means." Every one must draw his own conclu- 
 sions. Among other things, it may be well to 
 remember that the recommendation for the admis- 
 sion of California, is not an aggression on the part 
 of the North. It is a measure proposed by a 
 southern President, the favorite candidate of the 
 South, acting under the advice of a Cabinet com- 
 posed of a majority of southern men. Sir, I do 
 not go for this measure because it has the recom- 
 mendation of the Executive; but I support it for 
 the reason that, in my judgment, our obligations 
 to the people of California, their interests and that 
 
 of the whole Union, imperiously demand its 
 adoption. 
 
 I now proceed to a consideration of the recon:- 
 mendation of the President, that no territorial gov- 
 ernments be formed. I cannot bring my mind to 
 adopt this recommendation. I must oppose it for 
 the same reason that I approve the recommenda- 
 tion for the admission of California. I have 
 already referred to the proclamations of the officers 
 of this Government to the people of California. 
 They were also addressed lo the people of New 
 Mexico. These proclamations contained the- 
 strongest assurances that territorial governments 
 should be established. The ninth article of the 
 treaty stipulates, that until States are formed out of 
 the territory and admitted into the Union, the 
 people " shall be maintained and protected in the 
 free enjoyment of their liberty and property." 
 How can this be effectually done without creating 
 territorial governments.'' The situation of these 
 citizens, and our obligations to them, demand at 
 our hands the establishment of some form of gov- 
 ernment for theit protection and security. It is not 
 sound policy to turn a deaf ear to their demands. 
 But my objection to this recommendation does noi 
 rest here. I do not believe that a postponemeni 
 of the action of Congress on this subject is either 
 wise or expedient in any point of view. Sir, I am 
 not of that number, if there are any such, who 
 have anything to gain by keeping open this slavery 
 question, which is intimately connected with the 
 territorial question. 1 desire to see it settled, and 
 settled, too, in accordance with what I believe to 
 be the wishes of three-fourths of the people of the 
 Union, by excluding slavery from the territories. 
 The best interests of the country, the quiet anil 
 peace of the people, demand its adjustment at the 
 earliest possible moment. The longer it remains- 
 an open tjuestion, the more excited will become 
 the public mind both North and South. Delay 
 will only augment sectional prejudice and embitter 
 public feeling. The sooner a controversy between 
 individuals or between communities is settled, the 
 better for all parties. All experience proves tliie 
 to be true. Permit this to remain an open, ques- 
 tion, and it becomes a controlling element in the 
 next presidential election. That election will then 
 assume a sectional character. The contest will be 
 one of the bitterest and most exciting character, 
 in which one part of the Union will be arrayed 
 against the other. Sir, who desires to witness 
 such a condition of things.' The last election, if 
 not controlled, v.'as much influenced by this very 
 element. At the South, the successful candidate 
 was supported upon the ground that he was a 
 southern man, and would support southern views 
 and southern institutions; and by observing a 
 studied silence upon the great question of the day, 
 the North was induced to yield him their support, 
 because they were told he was in favor of the or- 
 dinance of 1787. This was denied a few days 
 since by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. 
 Chandler,] who insisted that General Taylor's 
 support at the North, so far as related to the 
 j slavery question, was put upon the gound that he 
 I would not veto a bill prohibiting the extension of 
 j slavery to our territories. This view of the sub- 
 i ject has been since reiterated on tlie same side of 
 j this Chamber. Now, sir, those of us who reside 
 further north know very well that these gentlemen 
 i are mistaken. In the Boston Atlas of June 9, 
 
1848, the leading Whig paper of New England, 
 under the editorial head, we find this significant 
 language: 
 
 " Ijet them learn, [those Whigs who were opposed to 
 General Taylor's election,] as they will leani, if they will 
 not be deaf and b'ind to the truth — that General Taylor is a 
 Whig in principle — is in favor of peace — opposed to all 
 war — bclieiies slavery to be a curse to the country, and desires 
 its extermination ; aruiii opposed to the farther extension of 
 slave territory.''' 
 
 This was the language held, and these the 
 assurances given to the electors of New England. 
 Different language, we ail have reason to know, 
 was held in the South. Neglect to settle this 
 territorial question, and no candidate will be sup- 
 ported at the next election for President, whose 
 opinion.s upon the slavery question are not known 
 and understood. A public declaration of those 
 opinions will be demanded in every quarter of the 
 Union. The people will not submit to be placed 
 in a position where one portion of the community 
 must be deceived. But how shall this question be 
 settled .' There is the difficulty, (it is not one 
 with me,) — and for this reason, I suppose, we are 
 advised by the Executive to pass no territorial 
 bill. I will not charge the Administration with 
 entertaining a desire to keep this question open 
 for partisan purposes, as I do not know that the 
 charge would be true. I am unwilling to believe 
 that any public man, occupying an exalted station, 
 would permit so unworthy a motive to control his 
 action. Yet, sir, it is somewhat singular, that upon 
 a question which has greatly agitated the public 
 mind for the last two years, and which threatens, 
 in the opinion of many, to disturb the peace and 
 harmony of the Union, the President has not 
 thought proper to indicate his views — to say 
 whether he was for or against the extension of 
 slavery — whether for or against the ordinance of 
 1787. 
 
 But what is ihe doctrine recommended by this 
 Administration upon the subject of slavery as 
 applicable to our territories? A policy repudiated 
 by the last Congress — that of non-intervention, by 
 non-action — a " masterly inactivity." It is to give 
 the^ people of our territories no government — to 
 insist upon their remaining in their unorganized 
 condition, without any settled rules of law for their 
 government and protection, until they shall form 
 State governments — inhibiting or tolerating slavery 
 as they shall determine — and then admit them into 
 the Union as States. Sir, previous to the last 
 Presidential election. General Cass adopted and 
 put forth, in principle, the same platform. He 
 insisted that this matter should be left to the sole 
 determination of the people of the territories — that 
 Congress had no control of the question. For 
 this he was denounced by the Whig press of the 
 North and West as being an ally of the South — 
 th«t his doctrine, if adopted, would spread slavery 
 over all our territories — that it was, in fact, the 
 doctrine of the South. Now the same position is 
 assumed by the Administration — but whether on 
 the ground taken by General Cass, that Congress 
 has not the constitutional right to legislate on the 
 subject, or upon the ground that it is impolitic to 
 legislate, we are not informed. What is the 
 difference between the positions thus assumed, in 
 their results? None at all. General Cass says we 
 should not legislate upon the question of slavery, 
 as we have no power to do it, but that it should 
 be left to the people to regulate. The Administra- 
 
 I 
 
 tion say, esta,blish no territorial governments — 
 leave it to the people to form their own constitu- 
 tions, and then admit them as States, with or with- 
 out slavery, as they may elect. Is there any dis- 
 tinction to be made between nuu-interventlon and 
 non-action ? None whatever. How can the Ad- 
 ministration be approved for what was condemned 
 in General Cass ? But it is now said by one who 
 occupies a distinguished place in Whig councils, 
 [Mr. Webster,] that the ordinance of 1787 should 
 not be applied to our territories — that it is wholly, 
 unnecessary — that the " physical geography " oft 
 the country effectually excludes slavery. Sir, this': 
 was not the opinion of the last Congress — of the 
 northern wing of the Whig party in and out of Con- 
 gress. Mr. Clayton's compromise bill, as it was 
 termed was formed on the basis of non-intervention. 
 It proposed to establish territorial governments over 
 California and New Mexico, without affirming or 
 prohibiting the existence of slavery, and leaving 
 the right of taking slaves into those territories to 
 be determined by the judiciary. This was de- 
 nounced by the Whig press of the North, and 
 opposed by northern VVhigs in Congress, on the 
 ground of its non-intervention feature. Then we 
 had Mr. Walker's amendment to theappropriation 
 bill, which was opposed and defeated for the same 
 reason. Sir, did time permit, I should like to read 
 some extracts from Whig speeches, and from edi- 
 torial articles in the Whig papers of the North, in 
 which the non-intervention principle of those bills 
 was condemned in the strongest language. Why, 
 sir, the distinguished Senator from my own State, 
 [Mr. Phelps,] who supported Mr. Clayton's bill 
 in a speech of great power, and upon the very 
 ground no w taken by Mr. Webster, was censured 
 for his course by a very large majority of his own 
 party in that State. In speaking of this measure, 
 the Atlas, of July 26, 1848, says : 
 
 "The best place to put such bills is or. the table. Chlo- 
 roform them." 
 
 The correspondent of this paper writes to the 
 editors, under dale of July 29, 1848, in relation to 
 this bill and the vote to lay it on the table, saying: 
 
 "There is great exultation over the fact, that while every 
 southern Democrat voted against the motion, tw^'nly-one 
 northern Democrats voted wish them. Williams and Clark, 
 of Maine, Birdsall, of New V'ork,and nineteen other ' north- 
 ern men with southern principles,' thus virtually expressed 
 a desire to entail slavery in four great territories, in com- 
 mon with other friends of General Cass." 
 
 This, it will be remembered, was previous to 
 the presidential election. Now it is passed — our 
 Whig friends are in power — and now they go for 
 the very measure, in its results, which they con- 
 demned in 1848. So much for their policy and 
 consistency. 
 
 Sir, I desire to say that I go for establishing ter- 
 ritorial governments, with the ordinance of 1787 
 ingrafted thereon. In doing this, I believe I anti 
 carrying out the wishes of nine-tenths of those 
 whom I have the honor to represent on this floor. 
 
 I go for this measure, as I believe the interesi 
 of the whole country calls for its adoption, and 
 that Congress have the constitutional power to 
 pass it; that its adoption neither degrades the 
 South, nor compromits its honor. I go for it, as 
 I doubt whether the "physical geography "of the 
 country will exclude slavery. Slavery was tol- 
 erated in these territories while under the domin- 
 ion of Spain, and by the Mexican Government 
 until 1824, when it wa"? abolished. I'he cliaracter 
 
6 
 
 of New Mexico is not unlike that of California, 
 and if the climate and the character of the soil of 
 the latter will exclude slavery, ao it will in the 
 former. Yet the convention that formed the con- 
 stitution of California, by a unanimous vote, in- 
 serted a prohibition of slavery, not choosing to 
 rely upon " physical geography" to exclude it. 
 There is, unquestionably, great mineral wealth in 
 New Mexico, and who can doubt that slave labor 
 will be found profitable in mining operations ? 
 And wherever profitable, there it will go, if per- 
 
 •mitted. 
 
 ^ But the power of Congress to inhibit the ex- 
 tension of slavery to these territories, is denied; 
 and the passage of any law of this character is to be 
 regarded by the South as a sufficient cause for a 
 seces.'sion from the Union. I do not propose to 
 discuss the question of power. As much as is 
 profitable has, perhaps, already been said upon 
 this subject. But it would seem that the exercise 
 of this power by Congress, through a long series 
 of years, should remove all serious doubts. Not 
 that the exercise of a power which it is clear does 
 not exist, will legalize and justify a continued ex- 
 ercise of that power, but when the question is one 
 of doubt, the practice of the Government for a 
 great number of years, without objection, should 
 settle all controversy. Hardly a territorial gov- 
 ernment has been formed in which the action of 
 the National Legislature has not borne upon this 
 subject. The Constitution provides that Congress 
 shall not prohibit the importation of slaves into the 
 States prior to the year 1808. Yet, by an act 
 passed in 1798, Congress did prohibit the im- 
 portation of slaves into the territory of Missis- 
 sippi. In the act establishing a territorial gov- 
 ernment for Louisiana, passed in 1804, is found 
 this provision. • 
 
 "And no .sslave or slaves shall, directly or indirectly, be 
 introduced into said territory, except by a citizen of the 
 United Stales, removing into said territory for actual settle- 
 ment, and being at the time of such removal the bona fide 
 owner of such slave or slaves ; and every slave imported or 
 brought into the said territory, contrary to the provisions of 
 this act, shall thereupon be entitled to, and receive his or 
 iier freedom." 
 
 This ret was passed during the administration 
 of Mr. Jefferson, and received his assent. Both 
 of these acts, which were passed soon after the 
 formation of the Federal Constitution, and while 
 many of the members of the convention were in 
 CongreK.3, or connected with the Government, as- 
 sert the right to prohibit the importation of slaves 
 ( into the territories of the Union from abroad. The 
 * act of 1804 goes further, and prohibits their intro- 
 \ duction into Louisiana from any part of the United 
 I States, except in certain and specified cases. Itper- 
 1 mitted any citizen of the United States to take his 
 i slaves into that territory, if he removed there for 
 'ithe purpose of settlement, but in no other easel 
 Iwas it permitted. It denied to the citizens of a ! 
 slaveholding State the right to send or take their j 
 slaves into that territory for sale, while the citizens 
 )f the free States were permitted to send there for ; 
 sale, every species of property recognized as such 
 >y the laws of those States. This act thus dis- , 
 ^riminated in favor of the people of the free States, 
 id yet it does not appear to have been objection- 
 ble to the South. Now, the same discriminating 
 Mnciplc of the proviso is regarded as peculiarly 
 tensive to that portion of the Union. This act, 
 It. asserts the very principle rlaimed by those 
 
 who are in favor of the application of the ordi- 
 nance of 1787 — the right of Congress to exclude 
 slavery from our territories. If Congress in 1804 
 had the constitutional right to limit, or in any 
 way interfere with the introduction of slaves into 
 our then territories, Congress then had, and now 
 has, the right to prohibit their introduction in 
 toto. This power has been since frequently ex- 
 ercised. This is not denied; but it is now 
 claimed that all this legislation was a mere usurp- 
 ation of power. Suppose this to be true; can the 
 South be seriously affected by any subsequent 
 legislation of a similar character.' Most certainly 
 not. An act which Congress has no constitutional 
 power to pass has no validity; it is a dead letter, 
 binds no one, affects the rights of no one. 
 
 But suppose a law prohibiting slavery in the 
 territories should be passed? Would this justify a 
 secession from the Union.' — a breaking up of the 
 Government ? If the views of southern gentle- 
 men were rightly understood, some of them, at 
 least, claim this right of secession under the Con- 
 stitution — that they are not bound to await the 
 decision of the Supreme Courtofthe United States, 
 or if one is made adverse to their views, they may 
 disregard it. Can it be possible that this is the hon- 
 est opinion of sober, rightminded men — of States- 
 men ! If this be a fair and correct exposition of the 
 Constitution, it is indeed a " rope of sand." The 
 framers of that instrument foresaw that cases 
 might arise where individuals and States would 
 question the power of Congress, and they wisely 
 provided for this very difficulty by the creation of 
 a national judiciary. The second section of the 
 third article declares that " the judicial power 
 shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising 
 under this Conslitution, the laws of the United 
 States," &c. By this provision the constitution- 
 ality of a law of Congress is to be determined by 
 the Supreme Court. That is the tribunal to which 
 the validity of a legislative act is to be referred, 
 by the express terms of the Constitution; and the 
 decision must be obligatory upon all. If the judg- 
 ment is not to conclude all parties — States as well 
 as individuals — if any one is at liberty to disre- 
 gard it and treat it as a nullity, the insertion of 
 that article in the Constitution was a useless act. 
 The people of the several Stales, when they 
 adopted the Constitution, adopted each and all of 
 its provisions. They agreed to live under it, to 
 be bound by it, to adhere to it in peace and in 
 war. It is, then, part of the bond that they would 
 subniit to the judgment of the national judiciary 
 on all constitutional questions. If this provision 
 can be disregarded, each State is thus left to de- 
 termine for itself the validity of every act of 
 Congress; and whether she will submit to its au- 
 thority. In short, she may nullify or yield her as- 
 sent to the act according to her sovereign will and 
 pleasure. This doctrine destroys the harmony and 
 force of our Government. It treats the Constitu- 
 tion as mere waste paper. The right to nullify an 
 act of Congress, to disregard the judgment of 
 the judiciary in a given case, is not conferred 
 by the Constitution. It is a remedy wilhmU the 
 Constitution, not contemplated nor justified by it. 
 The principle is revolutionary in its character. 
 The great name of Madison has been invoked in 
 support of the doctrine. The Virginia resolutions 
 of 1798-9 have been referred to for the same pur- 
 pose. In August, 1830, Mr. Madison in a letter 
 
addressed to the editor of the North American iv., 
 view, repudiates the doctrine, and denies that it 
 is countenanced or justified by those resolutions. 
 He says: 
 
 " Beliw^i-ii tliese difterent constitutional governments — 
 the oat vj^iiiaiiii!; in all the States, the others operating 
 separately in euc.i, with tlie aggregate powers of govern- 
 ment divided between them — it could not escape atten- 
 tion that coniroverstes would arise concerning the Ijound- 
 aries of jurisdiction, and that some provision ought to be 
 made lor such occurrences. A political system that does 
 not provide for a peaceable and authoritative termination of 
 occurring controversies, would not be more than the shadow 
 of a government — the object and end of a real govern- 
 ment being the substitution of law and order for uncertain- 
 ty, confusion, and violence. That to have left a final de- 
 cision in such ca.ses to each of the States, then thirteen, 
 and already twenty-four, could not fail tu make the Consti- 
 tution and laws of the United States ditferent in difterent 
 States was obvious; and not less obvious thai this diversity 
 of independent decisions must altogether distract the Gov- 
 ernment of the Union, and speedily put an end to the Union 
 itself." 
 
 Throughout the whole article Mr. Madison 
 argues that the national judiciary was created for 
 the very purpose of settling those controversies 
 which might arise between the General Govern- 
 ment and any of the States as to the constitutional 
 rights and powers of either. If the existing pro- 
 visions of the Constitution should not be found suf- 
 ficient to protect the States against usurpations 
 on the part of the General Government, the only 
 remedy within the province of the Constitution, in 
 his judgment, was ui an amendment of the Consti- 
 tution. " And in the event of a failure of every 
 ' constitutional resort, and an accumulation of 
 * usurpations and abuses, rendering passive obe- 
 ' dience and non-resistance a greater evil than re- 
 ' sistance and revolution, there can remain but 
 ' one resort, the last of all" — an appeal to the law 
 of self-preservation. In such extremity, " but in 
 ' that only, would a single member of the Union 
 ' have a right, as an extra and ultra- constitutional 
 ' right, to make the appeal." 
 
 With regard to the resolutions of 1798-9, he 
 says: 
 
 " In favor of tlie nullifying claim for the States individu- 
 ally, it appears that the proceedings of the Lesislature of 
 Virginia, in 1798 aad 1799, against the alien and sedition 
 acts, are much dwelt upon." 
 
 " It may often happen, as experience proves, that errone- 
 ous constructions not anticipated, may not be sufficiently 
 guarded against in the language used ; and it is due to the 
 distinguished individuals, who have misconceived the in- 
 tention of those proceedings, to suppose that the meaning 
 of the Legislature, though well comprehended at the time, 
 may not now be obvious to those unacquainted with the 
 contemporary indications and impressions. 
 
 " That the Legislature could not have intended to sanc- 
 tion such a doctrine is to be inferred from the debates in the 
 House of Delegates, and from the address of the two Houses 
 to their constituents, on the subjectof the resolutions. The 
 tenor of the debates, which were ably conducted, and are 
 understood to have been revised for the press by most, if 
 not all, of the speakers, discloses no reference whatever to 
 .1 constitutional right in an individual Stale, to arrest by 
 force the operation of a law of the United States." * « * 
 " Nothing is said (in the address) that can be understood to 
 look to means of maintaining the rights of the States, be- 
 yond the regular ones, within the powers of the Constitu- 
 tion." 
 
 No man was more intimately connected with, 
 OT better understood, the import and scope of these 
 resolutions, than Mr. Madison. He denies that 
 they favor the doctrine of nullification, and treats 
 the secession of a State as revolutionary in its 
 character. Those, then, who contemplate forcible 
 opposition to an act of Congress excluding slavery 
 from the territories, or counsel secession, advise 
 measures unknown to the Constitution, and look to 
 
 4. measure of this kind will 
 piv, - jc . attempted to be carried out — 
 
 the position \n which it will place its friends with 
 the American people .ind in the judgment of the 
 world and of posterity, every one must determine 
 for himself. 
 
 Our southern friends insist that the people of the 
 free States have no interest in this slavery question 
 — that with them, it is a mere matter of feeling — 
 while with the South, it is a matter of interest. 
 The North does not regard the subject in this light. 
 The laboring man of the North will not emigrate 
 to slave territory. He believes that labor by the 
 side of the slave is degrading — that slavery weakens 
 the power of every Government which tolerates 
 it. Most all the emigrants from Europe locate in 
 free States. Why do they not go south .' They 
 are restrained by the same reasons that operate on 
 the citizens of the free States. Have we, then, no 
 interest in this question ? And are the people of 
 the Nort't mistaKen in their opinions as to the effect 
 of slavei y ? If so, the error of that opinion must be 
 charged Ui>.in some of the most eminent statesmen 
 of the South who, have frequently expressed the 
 same opinion. They spoke from their personal 
 knowledge as to the character and effect of slavery . 
 On the proposition made in the Federal Convention 
 to prohibit the iinportation of slaves. Colonel 
 Mason, of Virginia, said : 
 
 " The present question concerns not the importing Slates 
 alone, but the whole Union. The evil of holding slaves 
 was experienced during the late war. Had slaves been 
 treated as they might have been by the enemy, they 
 would have proved dangerous instruments in their hands." 
 * * * " Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The 
 poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They pre- 
 vent the emigration of whites, who really enrich and 
 strengthen a country." 
 
 Similar opinions of the effects of slavery have 
 been often expressed by southern statesmen — by 
 Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Clay. No 
 stronger language condemnatory of slavery can be 
 found, than in the debates of the Convention in 
 Virginia, in 1832. During the war of the Revolu- 
 tion, South Carolina, not having furnished her 
 quota of troops, assigned as a reason for the omis- 
 sion, that they were required to protect themselves 
 from their slaves. I refer to this subject in no 
 spirit of reproach or unkindness, but in justifica- 
 tion of the opinion of the North. In view of all 
 these opinions and fact.s, can it be matter of sur- 
 prise to southern gentlemen that the people of the 
 free States are opposed to the extension of slavery ? 
 Can they be justly censured for their opinions as 
 to its effect upon the prosperity of the country.' 
 Can it be said with truth that they have no interest 
 in this question .' They do, in fact, regard the ex- 
 tension of slavery as opposed to the best interests 
 and the welfare of the country, and hence their 
 great objection to its further extension. 
 
 Sir, the people of the free States have ever in- 
 sisted, and still claim, that these great questions 
 should be settled by a majority of the Representa- 
 tives of the whole people; and if they involve 
 any constitutional questions, that they should be 
 determined by the judicial tribunal created for that 
 express purpose. To the determination of ques- 
 tions thus made, they bow in obedience, whether 
 favorable or adverse to their views. The right of 
 the majority to rule is a civil, not a natural right.' 
 It is a right growing out of the organization of 
 society, and recognized as such by the federal 
 
righ\ 
 
 compact. This 
 .majority by the people I c'- 
 
 tion of the Constitution; it ly .. pr^ . v. .. which 
 
 the Constitution is based:/ and whirTthe action of 
 Congress is confined to '.Inatters over which Con- 
 gress has jurisdiction, the minority have no just ' 
 ground of complaint. If Congress exceeds its ] 
 constitutional powers, a corrective is found in the j 
 national Judiciary, or a repeal of the law may be ! 
 effected by the action of the people. 
 
 Let us so back now, and see what has been the j 
 legislation of this country, and how it has affected i 
 the interests of the North and the South, and how | 
 the ditferent sections of the Union have acted un-j 
 der it. In 1807 almost the entire capital of the j 
 eastern States was employed in foreign and do- 
 niestic commerce. At that period but little atten- 
 tion had been given to manufacturing. All classes 
 participated in the successful prosecution of the 
 business operations of the country. In the midst 
 of this prosperity, and hardly " with a note of 
 ■warning," there cnme a blight on all their hopes 
 in the form of the embargo. This act prostrated 
 lie whole business of the country, and beggared 
 iiou:^ands. Ships rotted before the eyes of their 
 owners, and men were forced to sit still and see 
 heir property malting away like snow under a 
 vernal sun. For this there was no remedy. It 
 was the effect of an act of Congress, passed for 
 wise purposes — for the benefit of the whole coun- 
 try — and passed, too, by an almost unanimous 
 vote of the southern delegation in Congress. Did 
 the eastern States threaten a dissolution of the 
 Union ? Some individuals did, which, subsequent- 
 ly, they had cause to regret; but a great majority 
 of the people thought of no such remedy, talked 
 of no such remedy, though the act was more op- 
 pressive in its operation than any other law ever 
 passed by Congre-ss. The Legislatures of Mas- 
 sachusetts and Connecticut declared by resolu- 
 ■jons that the act was unconstitutional. Petitions 
 were presented to Congress representing the suf- 
 fering which the act occasioned, and asking for 
 its repeal. What was the reply to those peti- 
 tions ? A supplemental act, passed in 1809, more 
 stringent and oppressive than the first. The onl}^ 
 remedy left, under the Constitution, was resorted 
 to. The power of Congre6.s to impose the re- 
 strictions was brought before the Judiciary, and 
 
 .ic decision of the Supreme Court of the Uni- 
 ted States, sustaining the acts, there was an end 
 of the matter. On the final repeal of the non-in- 
 tercourse laws, the capital of the East was again 
 ernbarked in commerce. In 1816 a tariff, pro- 
 tective in its character, and supported by the late 
 distinguished statesman of South Carolina, and 
 by the South generally, was passed. This law 
 operated to check, to some extent, importations, 
 and rendered capital employed in commerce less 
 productive. The North, entertaining the belief 
 that the Government would adhere to the policy 
 of the act of 1816, turned their attention to, 
 and embarked in the hazardous experiment of 
 manufacturing. This became a lucrative business, 
 when controlled by prudence and skill. It was 
 but a few years before southern gentlemen began 
 to denounce the protective policy, though it origin- 
 ated with them, and the opposition to it became 
 so ardent that at one time it threatened to lead to 
 I a civil war. Southern views and feelings, how- 
 ! ever, were at length yielded to. The tariff acts 
 I were modified, and the South relieved from a sys- 
 j tern which they regarded as oppressive. This is 
 I not a fitting occasion to enter into a consideration 
 I of the propriety and expediency of this change in 
 i our tariff system. I do not desire to exprefss any 
 opinion upon that subject at this time. Reference 
 ] has been made to the subject for the purpose of 
 showing that the legislation of Congress has been 
 I in accordance with, rather than adverse to, the 
 views of the South. Instead of there being any 
 just grounds of complaint on the part of our 
 southern friends, that the action of Congress and 
 of the Representatives from the free States, has 
 been in opposition to their rights and feelings, the 
 whole history of the Government shows that the 
 North have invariably yielded to the demands of 
 the South. These concessions have been made 
 from a spirit of conciliation, of forbearance — from 
 a desire to live in peace and harmony with our 
 southern brethren — thus furnishing the strongest 
 possible evidence of attachment to the Constitu- 
 tion, to the Union. Will our southern friends 
 insist that we must yield to their views on all 
 occasions, or they will separate from us .' They 
 can hardly expect we shall do so on every occa- 
 sion, and for one, I am not disposed to on the 
 present. 
 
 Primed at the Coni'ret-sional Glotic Office, 
 
 LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 898 103 • 
 
 / 
 
iiMiiiiiiiiinniiiiiiiiNiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 
 011898 103 i 
 
 >^>