g P K E H ION. EGBERT TOOMBS. OF GEORGIA, IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, py / FKBH^ARY iS, 1664. NEBRASKA AND KANSAS WASHIiXGTON: PRHfTED AT THE SENTINEL OFPIOE. 18 5 4 \\V .ten NKliRASKA ANI> KANSAS. SPEECH HON. ROBERT TOOMBS, OF GEORGIA Mr. TOOMBS said : Mr. PiiEsiDKNT and Sckatoks: Boinut, if itworo true, is this *e argument which they ofTer to us to change our institutions, and to bring ua to the adoption of theirs in their stead? But, sir, I have said that it is a libel upon the north; and recent events have furnished the most con- clusive proof that it is a libel upon them. What, sir, have we seen within the last twe-lve months? A large body of American freemen in the State of New York, belon<:ing to the dominant party, some of them holding oflice under the administration, refusing to unite with freesoilers and abolitionists as the enemies of the country, and surrendering office rather than surrendering their principles. This sublime act of national patriotism, of disinterested de- votion to truth for its own rake, we have all seen pass before onr eyes within the last twelve months, and we have' seen it backed by one hundred thousand freemen of New York. I say, then, that 1 am Jittified in saying that the .senator in this charge is a libeller of his own fellow-citizens of the north. Sir, neither the north nor the south can truthfully make the boast of Ireland, that she never produced ft reptile. Under the exuberance of our institu- tions even reptiles will spring np, and may be safely allowed to crawl on till smothered ia thp.ir own slime. Senators, you may disguisa this question a« you will; you may cover it up with sophisti-y; you may give plausible excuses for your oppo- sition to it, but it is precisely the old naked question, of whether it is right and expedient ■or not for Congress to restrict slavery in tbe Territories and the States applying for admis- sion into the Union. That is the question. It is the sole question. Gentlemen have talked about compacts, sacred compacts, inviolable compacts, binding upon the national honor. I shall advert to and comment upon this point in its order; but I will now stop to inquire who are those who would now teach us lessons of personal or of national honor? Sir, they are men whom no oatliS can bind, no covenants ■can restrain — ^men who despise and trample under foot the Constitution when it comes into conflict with their personal objects — men who have stood in moral complicity with treason, arson, and murder, fi'om the day that the fugi- tive slave law became the law of the land oven to this hour. These are our teachers of honor. One of them, the honorable senator from New Yprk, [Mr. Seward,] who, as governor of that State, sworn to support the solemn compact, the Con- stitution of the United States, failed to perform that duty, npon the ground, or rather pretense, that a slave could not be the subject-matter of felonious "exportation." Compacts, constitu- tional compacts, cannot bind them. These are our teachers of honor and of the inviolability of sacred compacts. What do they understand of compacts? I think in some of the northern States of this Union, against the popular will, against the Amei'ican sentiment which begins to widen and spread and deepen throughout all our borders, ignominious compacts have been made — "coalitions,"! think theycall them — by which the officers of a great Commonwealth were bartered and sold for the sake of sending a man to this floor who does not represent Mas- sachusetts sentiment — a compact so odious and flagitious as to be justly amenable to the low morality of the common law. These are the gentlemen who talk about sacred compacts. But again : the honorable senators from New York, [Mr. Se-vvap.!),] from Massachusetts, [Mr. Sumner,] and from Ohio, [Mr. Chase,] in their S]^)eeche3 on this floor, declare that they cannot and will not cany out even this compact which they commend to our honor. Yes, sir, with a total destitution of all shame, they declare the eighth section of the act of 1820 a solemn com- pact between the north and the south ; that it extends to all the territory acquired from France as the Louisiana purchase ; and then declare they will prohibit slavery in all the territory of the United States, not excepting that portion of the Louisiana Territory lying south of 36° 30'. They call it a compact, and avow their readiness to violate it. In this let them read their own, but not another's degradation. In the discussion upon which I am about to enter, it is my purpose to show — Lst. That the bill upon your table is cousti- tational, and consistent with the true theory of our government. 2d. That it makes a wise, just, and prop«r disposition of the question of slavery. .3d. That the eighth section of the act ©f 1820 is unconstitutional, unequal, and unjust; that it is in no sense a compact, or obligatory on anybody, and therefore ought to be repealed. And 4th. I shall endeavor to show that the ques- tion assumed by the senator from Massachu- setts, [Mr. Sumner,] that wo propose to violate the established policy of the fathers of the re- public, is wholly without foundation, and not sustained by either principle or authority. That the provision affecting slavery contained in the bill does not violate the Constitution ot" the United States, I believe is admitted on al hands. We have differed and diflei-ed greatly, as to the power of Congress to legislate either upon the one side or the other of this question. Gentlemen from the north, in favor of restric- tion, whether in the form of the ordinance of 1787, as it is sometimes called, sometimes the Missouri restriction, sometimes the Wilmot [jroviso, while they claim the power to restrict, do not contend that its assertion is imperative. While the greater number, both at the south and the north, who wholly deny the power to restrain slavery in the common territories of the republic, insist that the omission to legis- late against it, which the bill does, is, in obe- dience to the imperative commands of the Con- stitution itself. Mr. President, the main difiiiculty and differ- ence between senators on this and similar questions a,rises at the starting-point — the very basis of the constitutional construction, and from the school of politics to which we respect- ively belong. Those of the republican party hold that this government is one of limited powers, and is entitled to do nothing which is not expressly authorized by the Constitution or plainly necessary to carry out a granted power. When I look into the Constitution, and find that the power claimed is not there under this plain rule of construction, there the question with me ends. I have nowhere else to look for it. That is the true theory of the government; and I believe it is daily gaining more universal acceptance, at least in theory. The only difficulty on this point has arisen from some decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is true they have talked vaguely about the doctrine of the general sov- ereignty of the federal government. I attach but little importance to the political views of that tribunal. It is a safe depository of per- sonal rights; but I believe there has been no assumption of political power by this govern- ment which it has not vindicated and found somewliere. I do not belong to this school. I view tbe Constitution in a difierent light. I stand upoa the great principles which lie at the founda- tion of the American revolution — that sorer- eignty is with the people of the several States, and with no j^ovcrninont whatever. When you desire to look at the powers which are confer- red, go to your iState constitutions; yon find a portion of them there: go to your national Constitution ; a portion arc given tlicie. lUil what is not found in one or ihe other, the Con- stitution of the United States tells you is re- served to the Slates respectively, or to the peo- ple. 1 believe those gentlemen who have ar- gued against this bill have not alluded to that sacred instrument, the Constitution. They have no use for it; and it was wise for them not to allude to it. It gives no color to the usurpations of power which they would assert and maintain in this clianiber. 1 concur in the generally received o])inion that the right to govern tlie Territories results from the j)Ower of aciiuisilion, and must be used for the protection, and not the destruction, of the rights of those who are entitled to the enjoyment of the acquisition. In all govei-n- menta the acquisitions of the State belong rightfully to the people — much more strongly does this princij)le apply to a purely popular government. Therelbre any exercise of power to injure or destroy those who have equal riglits of enjoyment is arbitrary, unauthorised by the ooiilract, and despotic. Kvery citizen of each State carries with him into the Territories this eiiual right of enjoy- ment of the common domain. Whether there be one, ten, one hundred, one thousand or one mil- lion who may emigrate thither, they have all the same indestructible right. If but one, he is one of the sovereign owners, and has the same right to look to his government for jus- tice there as though there were a hundred thou- sund. Each and all of them are equally \)vo- tected by the Constitution of the country, and are equally clothed with the indestructible and inalienable rights of American freemen. You have no power to s'trike from the meanest In- dian trapper, the basest trader or camp follower, as the senator from New York |Mr. Si-waud] styled the people in these Territories, their equal privileges — this sovereignty of ri^it which is the birthright of every American CTlI/.en. This sovereignty may, nay, it must remain in abey- ance until the society becomes sufhciently strong aud stable to be entitled to its lull exercise as a .sovereign Stale. But yet, even in abeyance, this sovereignty docs not belong to the general government, aud its exercise is a naked usur- pation aud unmixed despotism. The puv/er and duty, then, of this govern- ment, or the inchoate society in the Territories, is simply to protect this equality of right of persons aud ]>ruperty of all the members of the society, until the period shall arrive when this dormant sovereignty .shall spring into active ex- istence and exercise all the powers of a free, sovereign, and indef>cudent State. Then it can mould, according to it^ own sovcivigu will and pleasure, its own institutions, with the sole re- striction that they shall be republican. These great principles are fortilied l)y the republican ideas of the right and capacity of the peo]jlo for seli-government. You leave to the people themselves the ex(-rcise of all ju.-^t powers of government, and you repudiate the baleful and despotic princi|ile of ilaiii >horesorthe Paeilicoeeaa, having met. by their representative!*, to form a cou>titulion forlhein.-^elves. iiuve adjudged it be.•(■■< I'nnd iiymi iht ■•'ume grtot )>iiivij'lr — thf. right uf a fne jiwph, in oiteriiig the family of Ainerican SMte^, to adopt xuch a form ofreptibfico.n gove.riinieitt «.? i»- their judgmrtit vrillbest \nc.ie,rvf their Hbenies, promote their hajipifirss, aiidptrpet note their prosperity. W we are vvi.-ie we will df- Iciu! rather ihan re-ist this hinhriphl of Americtiii IVecnien, s;o inv.iluable lo us, so forniidable to tli<» enemies of ouriiFOperty.niir|)eace. and our saf< ty.'' While on this brunch of the subject, and in reply to the broad- declaration of the senatoi-ft- from New York, Massachusetts, and Ohio, [Messrs. Seward, Sumker, and Citask.] thai no person, either at the time the measures of 1S50 .were before Congress, nor in the discus- sions afterwards before the country, did any one pretend that these measures were in op- position to or inconsistent with the principles j of the Missouri act. I will take- occasion to say that their statements are wholly gratuitous and unsupported? by the tacts of the case. I was an humble actor in those great events. My ovvn.co!i,dnct, especially at home, was sub- jected to much animadversion on account of my connexion with them, and I vindicated them, in the address to ^^hieh I have referred, upwn the precise ground that they recovered and firmly planted in our political system the j great principle bartered away ii^ 182U. j I give the following extracts from the same address, for the purpose .of showing ray inter- pretation of the comprom.ise of 1850. '• Congress passed four bills in relation to ter- ritory aequired from JVlexico: a bill to admit Cal- afiiniiii into the Union : a bill (■b settle the boundary j between Texas* nnd Kew Mexico: and bills es- j tablishing lerrilorial governinenls both for Kew j Mexico and Utah. By them, in my opinion, the j govern iiienl lias not perfbrmod its w hole duly to ! usj by them the south may not have secured_ all ! of her just rights; but she has Jirr/ihj established t great and important privciples, and she lias com- \ yro'ini.sed itn right, surrendered 110 privciph, lost not an ivch of groinid in this great contest. She stands as free and uiitramniolled to assert any just right in relation to the rommon lerritories as she did beibre the l>ills for the e.-tablishment of gov- |j ments over them were i«s.eaking of the Missouri compromise, I ;| said : "The struggle was violent and protracted : the republic, was shaken to its {bundati^m ; and wise, and good, and patriotic, men believed its hour of dissolution had come. In an evil hour the south bought this clear, plain, and palpable constitution- al riglit for Missouri, only at a great price — a price that o\i\:l\ uiijii>iiy to im pose upon them, the soulli ran^oln(•d iiei' by allow- ing slavery to be prohil)itod in all that [lait of the I..ouisiaua territory lying north of the parallel of 36° 'Ay north laiiiude, and west of Missouri. This great principle, thus co-mptvnt.istd away in 1620, has Utn ro-iciied, ree.-.tabiislud, and again firndy planted in our political -ryUinn by the rv.c-tmt action, of Con- gre^s.'^ The principle of this bill is in confonnitj with another important principle of the Con- stitution, which it.s oj^ponents disregard and violate. I mean the equality of the States. It is impossible, under the structure of this gov- piniment, that you cau have unequal States. By the Con.stitution, each State grants pre- cisely the same powers to the general govern- ment. The grant is from each separately, eaek State respectively, or the people thereof, retain- ing all powers rlghtfuilY belonging to a sover- eign State, except those thus granted. The [lowers of the general government are incapa- ble of eulargement by special grants from either old or new States, or, indeed, in any other manner than that especially pointed out in the iiistrnment; therefore equality amoKg the Statea is a fundamental necessity of the system. This principle of the equality of the Statea was lliliy maintained by Jefferson, and Madi- son, and Monroe, and all of their contempora- ries, whose opinions are entitled to any con- sideration tip n questions of constitutional eoi>- struction. It is necessarily destroyed by the construction of the Missouri restrictionists. The argument of the senator from New Yorlc, on this point, scarcely rises to the merit of as- tuteness. He says Congress may admit new States; therefore Congress may reject new States; and therefore Congress may place con- ditions upon the admission of new States. Ad- mit the premises, and the conclusion by no means follows. The right to admit and reject does not include the right to jntt an unconsti- tutional condition upon admission. This is tk© ' very question at i;sue which the senator is com- pelled to take for granted to make his proposi- tion logically correct. There is no express power to proliibit slavery in the Territories; it has not been attempted to be shown that suck a power is necessray to carry out any express grant in that instrument. If these two simple propositions be true, the arguments in favor of the unconstitutionality of the restriction is com- plete. But I am willing to place it on the most advantageous position which can be claimed by its friends. If the power to leg'-is- late lor the 'Btafritories was expressly granted by the Constirution, it must, if possible, be so exercised as*not to conflict with any other power granted to the government, or right re- served to the " States respectively, or to the people." That such an exercise of the power is possi- ble, is not denied. It is just what the territo- rial acts of 1790, 1798, and many others, in- cluding these of 1850, have done, and precisely what this bill proposes to do. To hold that an undefined power, expressly granted, would ne- cessarily, in a limited Constitution, absorb afi other powers, would of itself be a monstrosifj in construction ; but the senator from New York attempts to clothe with this attribute an implied disputed power. The republican party, I' through all (lie exponents of its opinion, have ; not only liekl ihiit this povcrninenl possosscd no power but that which was r.\]irissly ^nanted, or whiuh was necessary and proper to carry out a granted ]>ower, but that express frrants of; jiower must Ijc ciintrolled in thcirexerei.se by' other ^'rauts in the Constitution. They utterly denied the whole doctrine that undefined powers, whether exi)ress or implied, were ne- j eessarily unlimited ]iowcrs. Thi* great principle was ably and elaborate-' ly discussed by the lather.s of t4ic republic in! 17'.>G, on Jay's treaty. Then the princijilc was asserted by deneral Washington, whose great name and just consideration with his country- men gave great strength to any position he might assume, that the treaty-making power, being undefined, was unlimited. A debate sprung up on that question in the House of Representatives which lasted two months. Mr. Madison closed that debate uu the side of priv- ilege against "iirerogative ; and wlien the KJte was taken, it was found that there were fifty- four in the alfirmalive and thirty-seven in the negative upon the question that, although the treaty-making power was undefined, it was not unlimited. There was a plain grant of power to the President to make treaties, by ana with the consent of the Senate. It was an undefined graat. There were no express words of limi- tation upon it. Still, the rc]iublicr.ns of that day, with Mr. Madison at their head, (even equals ; leave our fellow-citizens who seek homes in the distant 'I'erriiories all lire rights of freemen, and they will discliarge to yoy and themselves all tin; duties of freemen. Senators, I have endeavored thus fartocora- ineiid this bill to your consideration, on tlio ground that it is in strict eonfyrniily vilh our Constitution. 1 have said, also, thai it is wise, expedient, and just. Justice is the highest ex- pediency, the Kupremest wisdom. Ap[Jying that test to the principles of ihTs n-.eai«iiie, 1 say that no fair man in any portion of this cou»- iry can come to any other enncln>ion ihitn that it establishes between the people of ihis Uniu«, who are bound together under a eominon Co»- stitulion, a linn, a permanent, and la.simg bond of harmony. What is it that we of the south ask? Do we make any unjust or unequal de- mand on the north ? Nohc. Do we ask what we are not willing on our side to grant lothem? Not at all. We say to them: "(Jenilemen, hwc is our common territory. Whether it was ceded by the old States, w hether it was acquired by tho common treasure, or was the fruit of success- ful war, to which we all rallied and in which we all fought, wo ask you to recognise lhii» great princijile of our revolution ; let such as desire go thtre, enjoy their property, take with them their flocks an"d their herd??, their men- servants and maid-servants, if they desire to take them there ; and, when tho appropriate time comes for the exercise of the dormant a very import nt principle, and one which I ^hall have occasion to discuss before the dose of the session, in regard to a treaty which is said, by the public prints, to have been nego- tiated, and to bo before the Senate. I hold to this construction of the Constitu- tion ; and if yon depart from it, where are you to stop? If, by a territorial bill, you can regu- vvhen the power was assumed bv the f\it.her of i sovereignty of the people, let them fix the'' his eountrv,) declared that, though it was an || character of their institutions for themselves. ' undefined grant, it was a limited one, and that' This demand on the government is nothing rou could not, by treaty, exercise any power j more than to perform the duty ot all govern- which was granted by the Constitution to the | ments. It is wise and just in all governmenta other departments of tho government. This is I to defend every citizen in the peaceful etijoy- " ■ " " ... - I ment of his life, his liberty, and property. It is the life blood of a republic; it can do no in- i justice that will not recoil upon it. Resting j upon the people, upheld and defended and ad- ministered by thcin, a republic is impc>tent in la career of injustice; therefore such a polJ«y ia I as foolish as wicked. I I feel that I need spend no more time in de- -ate one domes'tic institution of the people, you l' fending the principles of the bill on your table, can regulate another, unless liiptation is found [i Neither their constitutionality nor expediencj in the Constitution. If you can gobe-ond the ;' have been succcBsfully assailed; but their op- ploiii expres<^ grant of power, may yoii not say ! portents have relied upon other eon.sidenittoiw, :hat new\States shall have but one senator, and j to sway the judgment of the Senate. 1 hey are but half the number of representatives that the !|. sanctioned by the all-ptrvading principles of other States have ? If you adopt such a prin- j the Constitution, which is a bond of equality of ciplc, yoa would have a great confederacy com- j rights and equality of burdens, binding together posed nominally of equal, sovereign, and indc- |i these States and all others that may here^ifter bo pendent States, "but whimsically dove-tailed, 1} added to them. Strike from it the features i>f and crosslv indented," so that the States them- .j equality aud Stale sovereignty, and instautly selves could not understand their respective Ij it perishes; some States will be dependent and rights; and they would have to refer to laws' some will be independent, and masters of the passed bv Congress to find their coi-stitutional j! rest. I appeal to you, then, to preserve that rights. Then, sir, I appeal to gentlemen to |! equality which the Constitution wfw intended atand by the landmarks of the fathers of thejjto perpetuate. Under it, little Delawurc, wiih ropublic; leave the States where the Constilu- a small population, asserted the righta of aa tion leaves them— sovereign and independent |i equal, and is tnuted as an equal hcra. Ma stands here to-day, with her one hundred thou- sand population, to confront in debate and arc'ument, on a footing of equality, the sena- tors from New York, with three millions at their back. . .• t, . , Instead of arguing this question like stat(?s- men the freesoilers'and abolitionists who op- T>ose'the bill seem to rely on intimidation to cflbct their objects. We are invited to listen to the rauLterings of the distant thunder of popular indignation (not yet audible) which is about to burst ujion our ears, and we are warned of tlie earthqnakes which are about to burst from under our feet. Even if all this was as true as it is baseless, it should in no wise control the action of American senators in determining upon the constitutional rights of Ameriofin freemen. But this is not real, but melo-dramatic thunder— nothing but phospho- rus and sheet-iron. The people of the north as well as the south have deliberately affirmed the principles of this bill; they have risen in the might of their nationality, and crushed and overwhelmed these enemies of public peace, order, and liberty. They will find but few friendfi among American freemen anywhere who would gladly now, but for constitutional impediments, dismiss them from their service with contempt. This clamor has not even the merit of novelty. Why^ eir, I heard the gentleman frorn New York here, two or three years ago, talk just as he does now. He and his coadjutors think that all the world is moved because they are excited. He delared, on the occasion to which I have referred, in the discussion upon the bills of iSGO, that he would arouse the north, and that the cry of "repeal, repeal, repeal!" would ring throughout all this broad land. What, how- ever, was the result of the threatened rousing of ihe people ? What was the result of all this vaunting? He went home, and there were two or three riots trot up •, but the good sense, the patriotism, and the nationality of the peo- ple of the north came to the rescue ; and he was one of the first to sneak into a political PPganJ7.ation which declared that the measures of" 1850 were a final settlement, in principle and substance, of the various questions to which tiicy related. Wherever the storm is to come from, it will riot be from that quar- ter. Benators may compose themselves; these are not the men either to get up or guide revo- lutions. There was another Senator here, [Mr. Hale.] whose desk I have the honor now to occupy, who again and again taunted Senators from the north who sustain those measures, that thev would be driven from their seats ; that the mighty north, the free north, would rise and drive them from these benches, and send men hero who would represent the northern senti- ment. Anaong others, the distinguished Sena- te- from Michigan [Mr." G-Ji?s] was the es- pecial object of his assaults. But the result is, that the gentleman who made those declara- tions is not here. We see, therefore, that these prophesies do not necessarily become history, iind we need not be alarmed at them. But, judging from the past three years, we may leok hopefully for the next three years to finish the work so happily begun, and to relieve the Senate of these common disturbers of the peace and quiet of the R-epublic. The senator from Massachusetts, not content with perverting the history of his own country, misapplies even the ancient and familiar story of Theniistocles and Aristides. Themistocles wished to take an unjust advantage of the ene- mies of Athens, or those who were expected shortly to become so. Forgetful of justice and right, he'desired the Athenians, under prospect of advantage, to destroy the fleets of their friends^and allies. The scheme was referred by the Athenians to Aristides. He said : ""Tn%, you can do it; you have go't the power; but, Athenians, it is unjust."' We stand in the same relation to the north. They have a ma- jority in the Senate and in the House ; there- fore the power is in their hands, and not ours. What argument have we to offer them ? We say to them : " We have no power ; we stand in a minority ; but we appeal to the true and honest men of the north, as Aristides did to the Athenians ; gentlemen, you can do this, for you have the physical power, but it is unjust." We said that in 1850 ; and, in spite of the sen- ator from Massachusetts and all his coadjutors here, the free north, the honest north, took the same course which the honest Athenians did under the advice of Aristides. They said : " It is unjust, and we will not do it." The senator from Massachusetts has also talked about this measure disturbing the peace of the country. Sir, there is another story of ancient history, by which the gentleman might h?lve profited. A minister once came to the Roman Senate to sue for peace. They asked him: " What security do you offer us that, if we grant you this peace, it will last and be ob- served ?" He said: "Grant us a just peace, on fair terms, and it will be durable and per- manent ; but give us an unjust one, and it will not last long."' All your patchings up will not last. You should stand upon a broad national principle, that gives the man of the south equal privileges with the man of the north. Make ihera all leel that, in peace or war, at home Or abroad, they stand everywhere upon an equal footing, as brothers and citizens of a common country'. Then you will have peace. The great pacification of 1850 adopted this basis; and if that be carried out, M-e shall have a permanent peace. These measures received the popular appro- bation ; that now proposed to be disphiced (the Missouri restriction) never did. It was odious to tlie north, and not less so to the south. 1 think T once hoard Mr. Clay say oi» this floor Ij al emincils for the last nine years; and, from the that none of the northern representatives, ex-l! day that I entered Congress up to the passage cept three or four, who sustained tlie Missouri "of the adjustment measures of 1S50, I never act, were ever returned Ic Congress. And three knew tluit gentleman to vote on any slavery years ago Mn-. Hale, then a senator from New ', question diiVerent from the most extreme abo- Ilampshire. tauntetl northern senators with that ' litionist that during all that time sat iu either fact, and said the same result would follow thu branch of Congress; anil \\^ find him to-day, adoption of the adjustment nioasvires of l!S')0. in his vote, with the same company. But the It does not occur tome now, however, that a : gentleman has, in his speech, hajipily illustrated single man lost his place in this Senate, or in i his own moderation. He tells us repeatedly in the other House, for sujiporting those measures. ' his speech that Mr. Webster did liiin the honor 1 know that the democralie parly met at Balti- , to say that he demonstrated that the Wilmot more in a national convention, and allirmcd 'i proviso was a humbug; yet, after his own satis- those measures; and 1 know that they carried jfacfory demonstration, he still clung to hia every State in the Union, except four, mainly humbug, and voted for it to the end. If this on that issue. 1 know also that tlie delegates ' is moderation, what would tlie senator call ul- of tlie whig party also wont there and allirmed j traism? the measures, with sixty-sixdissentinjP^otes, and ;; But the Wilmot proviso is not a humbug; it the fact that those sixty-six dissented, aroused | is a principle in deadly hostility to the Consti- the indignation cf the country everywhere ; and I tutiou of the country, the union of the States, many would not support the candidate put for- i and the happiness ot^ the jieople. It subverts ward by that convention mainly on this ground. ; justice, perpetrates wrong, and overturns the I would take no other security but that those j cornerstone of republican institutions — the who had so atrociously run the race of section- : right of the people to govern themselves. His alism so long should not bo allowed to injure second objection is an attempt to weaken a my country if they would. 10 very .soutliern l' principle, by suggesting the possibility of abuse, whig, I believe, but one, voted for these meas-l He suggests, that if you yield the right of the ures in 1850, and but few whigs from the north' people to govern themselves they n)ay do it did. I believe now that the opposition of our' very badly. This argument, in its last analysis, political friends in tlie northern States to these ' is eijually good against all popular govern- measures has struck down tlu; whig jiarty in i mcuts, and has always been the desj^ot's plea nearly every State in the I'nion. I believe ! for enslaving the people. But 1 admit the fact, there are but two Slates now jjhich have a wliig : tliat, if you yield to the people the right to governor, and tliey are Elaine and Massachusetts; mould their institutions, it necessarily includes and they were not chosen by a majority of the , the.right to deline the relation of husband ajid people. That is the effect of that action. 'wife, and that the establishment of polygamy The senator from New York and others .«ay ,' may legitimately result therefrom. But it is they have a commission to represent the noi'th just what they have a right to do. here. It is true. But I have a right to go hi- When the ])Cople of I'tah make their organic- hind thoir credentials, and inquire whether j law fur admission into t^o Union, they have a they speak the true voice of their constituents?! right to approximate as nearly as they please 1 admit their full right, by virtue of their com- . to the domestic manners of the patriarchs, missions, to be heard on this floor; but I #m j Connecticut may establish polygamy to-morrow; not obliged to receive their opinions as those of' the people of Massachusetts may do the same, laeir eoustiluents ; but when the senator from! How did they become possessed of" greater rights NVw York assumes to speak for Now York, 1 1 in this, or any other respect, than the ]>eople of «>pp.xsc him with the voice of New York her- 1| Utah? The right in both eases has the same «elf,\peaking through her own records and her j foundation — the sovereignty of the people. The own Dallot-box. 1 believe her people, by a ma- ' senator from Massachusetts adverts to the same jority a/" near thirty thousand in IH.VJ, spoke! fact which so greatly disturbs the senator from against Vhe senator, and for the Constitution Connecticut, and has made the profound dis- and the adjustment of 1850. I covery, that if Brigham Young carried his The objootions of the senator from Conuec- 1 many wives to Pennsylvania he would not be ticat were yiscursive and unique. The ad- ! permitted to practice polygamy there. That is ditional objei^ions v/hich he urged to those al- 1 very true, but why? Siftiply because the sov- ready taken v)yre, chielly, that the bill was of- ereign ])ower of Pennsylvania forbids it: and tensive to his iV\oderation, and may lead to the i for no other reason whatever. Kvery citizen of lamentable cona^quencea of bri?iging Brigham ; each State must conform-to the laws of the Young and his jfbrty v. ives into the national! State in which he resides, and this position councils. I do not think we should give our- ; strengthens rather than weaker.s the jiosition selves much concern about the first objection, assumed by us, that each separate community His moderation upon the slavery question ex- has, and of right ought to have, the power to ists nowhere except in his own declarations. I . regulate its own insiilutious, subject only to the have serred with tliat gentleman iu the nation- i ConiititRtiou of the United States. You may i:& imagine as many cases of wbat you may choose to call abuse of power as you pleiise, but ycu cannot crush out popular sovereignty to gd rid of its abuses. It will outlive you and your follies and prejudices. It is strong in the Etrengtb, and rich in the vitality of truth. It is immortal. It will survive your puny assaults, and will pass on anfi mingle itself " with the thought and speech of freemen in all lands and all centuries." • Mr. President, one of the most curious things I have T^itnessed in this discussion is the effort upon the part of the abolitionists and freesoilers on this floor to press into their service the great names and authority of Mr. Webster and Mr. Clay. The serjator from -New Yorl;, [Mr. Sewakd,] in spile of the declaration of Mr. Clay \ that he did not originate the eighth section of the Missouri act, that it did not even originate in the House, of which he was a member, and palpable%violatinn of the Constitution and of the common rights of the citizen, and ought to be immediately abrogated and repealed. What is a contract or compact? Its essential requi- site is, that there should be parlies able to contract, willing to contract, and who do actually contract. This Missouri act lacks every one of these essential ingredients of a contract. There were no parties competent to make a compact. Congress can pass laws within their constitutional sphere, and within that it can eommand the people of the whole United States, but it can make no bargain with them. By the act of 1820, Congress did not attempt to do any such foolish thing ; it passed a law, and a very bad law, that w-as all. But if they were able t^ontract, thoy did not contract. If the North Tound herself, she certainly must have been bound by her own representatives ; that he did not even know that he voted for it, 1} but a veny large majority of her representatives yet still calls it Mr. Clay's work, '' his greater ! voted against accepting the eighth section of work " than that of 1850. What protcciion has the act of 1820 in lieu of the restriction on the any public man against such pertinacious mis- I State of Missouri, which she claimed until representations as this? He has even dared || beaten off from it by the members from the to call the spirit of that gallant old patriot from jl southern States, with the addition of some the spirit world; but whoever recollects the jj twenty northern representatives. Then^ifany events of 1850 will bear nie out in the state- jj bargain was made, it was by these twenty mcnt, that the senator from New York is the j members. Q'hereibre, the North iieither made last man in this Senate who would have evoked I; the contract nor ratified it after it was made, that spirit if he Ind supposed it would have jj but, on the contrary, her representatives came some to his bidding. [ up to Congress the very next session, and, in The same senator, with intrepid coolness, the face of' the pretended bargain, voted against quotes from Mr. Webster's Buffalo speech to j the admission of Mtssouri into the Union, un- vindicate his present position; and the very jj der an entirely different and distinct pretext, quotation which he makes denounces with the 1 Missouri had a clausein her constitution against bitterest invective the very men with whom that senator was then and is now acting. To whom did he apply the epithets quoted by that senator? The national eye involuntarily turn- ed to those men who were aiding and abetting in Jerry rescues: national men involuntarily turned to those who, at Syracuse, were the li- bellers and defamers of the expounder of the the admission of free negroes into her bounda- ries : just such a clause as Mussachusets then had, and many of the free States now have. Seizing upon this pretext, in spit« of the •Siolerfln compact," a large majority of the northern representatives voted against her ad- mis^on into the Union; but we are now told, by tl?e freesoilers and abolitionists, that the ad- gam— that we have that, and , ought therefore to abide by the restriction. Even this pretext is fallacious. Missouri is not to-day in the Union through the votes of a majority of north- ern members. She is here in spite of their vote's. It does seem to me, Mr. PresideRt, that the senators from Massacliusetts (Mr. Si-MNEii) and Ohio, (Mr. Chase.) and his col- Conslitution. The senator, however, does not [l mission of Missouri was our part of the bai- believe in spirit-rapping. He did not think the spirits would come, and therefore he could call on them with safety. But, &4r, those great men yet live ; they speak by their votes; they are heard through their immortal speeches; and by them they v.ill be vindicated through all time. DiFmissins the Cesser objections to this bill, as rather pretexts than reasons, I will proceed I league. (Mr. Wade.) have had sufficient expe- to the consideration of 4he third point in the j rience in political bargains and compacts to discussion^ We are told that this bill ought have clearer ideas of what constitutes a bar- not to pass because it i.s in violation of the gain. cio-hth section of the Missouri act of 1820, [j While there can be no such thing as a legiS- wiuch the freesoilers and abolitionists insist is Illative compact in this Union, people frequent- a compact—a sacred and inviolable compact, to j ly called this Misssouri act a compromise, bo- which the honor of the nation, and especiallv cause fair-minded and moderate men yielded that of the south, is pledged. I hold this act | much of their personal opinions to prevent of 1820 to be- no compact, binding upon no | dangers to the country. In this sense aloJie, roan's honor; but, on the contrary, a plain and!! to get rid of the greater outra.ge of tiws exclu- 11 eion of Missouri on acconnt of slavery, the Houtli sui>porteo>in;i; a State. Tliij-ccrlHinly is tl;c exclusive ligtn oft-very State, -which nothing ui the Coiistiiuti.in hHsliiLen from Ihem and given to the genend govi-riiinent. Could Conirress, for example, fuy th«t the non- freemen of ConBe'clieiit >houl(l l)t; fieenu-n, mid thai they shall not emigrate into any other Stated He then goes on to denounce the re.stnetion- ists of his day siS political duicides, and traitors ''a"-ainst the hope.s of the world." Such were thc'^opinions of the author of the ordinance of 1737, of the Missouri restriction of 1820. Again, Mr. Jefferson, in a letter to Mr. Mad- 12 "lam indebted to you for your4m) letters ol February 7 and 19. This Missouri question, by a geographical lire of division, is the most portenl- mi3"one I hiwe ever eonteniplaled." * * * * •' Is ready to rick the Union (or any chance of re- storing his party to iwwer, and wriggling himself to the head of it; nor is" * * * * '-v/ithout his hopes, nor scrupulous as to the means oi lul- fiJling them T' Mr. Madison, in a letter to Mr. Monroe in ]820, says: " On one side it naturally occurs, that the right being given from the necessity of the case, and in i suspension of the great 'j)''"i'iple of self-govern- ment, ought not to be extended further, nor con- tmued longer than the o<;oafiioii might lairiy re- quire." Mr. Madison says further : '■■ The que^tions to be decided seem to be — "1. Whether a Usrriierktl restriction bean as- snmption of illegitimate power ; or, "2. A misuse of legitimate power; and, if the latter only, whether the injury threatened td the nation from an acquiescence in the misuse, or from a frustration of it. be the greater. "On the first point, there is certainly room for difference of opinion ; though, for myself, I must own that I have always leaned to the belief that the r»xi.rUiio7i was not within the true scope of the Constitution." , Thi6 was the opinion of Mr. Madison, the fether of the Conatitution, who participated in the deliberation.s of the convention which formed it^ and who, the senator from Massa- chusetts says, wa.s iuibuftd with the early policy ©f the government, which he contends was against slavery. 'Mr. Monroe Gscpressod the same opinions in a letter to Judge Roane. General Jackson, who was also an actor in those exciting scenes, in a letter to Mr. Monroe, spoke in very strong language in regard to the Missouri restriction. He was a man of strong ■words, and strong will to back them. He eaid : "I hope the majority will see the evil o( thii rash, despotic iut, and admit the State and prevent the evil." In the same letter, he says that the feelings of the south and west are aroused, and that Missouri should not retrograde or humlde her- self. All these eminent men, whom the gen- tleman from Massachusetts called up as au- thority for his position, are direetJy against him. Upon these facts, principles, and authorities, I submit my third proposition to the Senate as proven, to wit: that the Missouri act of 1820 was not a compromise, in any sen.se of that term,butan unconstitutional usurpation of pow- er, repudiated l)y both the north and the south, and should be repealed as violative of the fun- damental law of the land, and of the unques- tionable righta of American citizens. I now proceed to invite the attention of sen- ators to the kist point which 1 propose submit- ting to them. It is one . much "relied upon," especially by the senator from Massachusetts. That S'mator upon a former occasion, as well as in his speech yesterday, said that the early policy of the government was to restrain and localize slavery, and that this bill is therefore in opposition to that policy. I shall proceed to show thai that senator has totally misappre- hended, or wholly misrepresents, the early policy of the country, and has failed to malce out even a prima facie case in support of his theory. The great error of that seiiator in the threshold of his argument is in assuming the in- dividual anti-slavery opinions of many of the leading men of the last quarter of the eigh- teenth century to be the policy of the govern- ment, it is undoubtedly true, that opposition to slavery w^, during that period, the almost universal idea of the northern States, and by no means limited in the southern States. But it is equally true that that idea was not impressed on the national policy. And it is a fact well wjrtliy of the consideration of that senator, that this anti-slavery idea has not advanced an inch, but, on the contrary, has receded dur- ing the iirst half of the nineteenth century. Now, anti-slavery opinions are unknown at the south, and are certainly greatly modified in the north since the formation oi our Con- stitution. The lessons of British and French emancipation in America have not been lost upon the American people. Men have now greater experience of the workings of emanci- ])ation, and' a clearer cjnception of the whole subject, which has not redounded to the ad- vancamont of abolition ideas. The nineteenth century has cast off many of the follies of the eighteenth, and this among others. I have sought for the policy of our fathers, not in the individual opinions of some of them, but in the collective will of the whole society. We must look to the Constitution and laws far this col- lective will. They, and they alone, ntter the early policy, public policy of the republic. When we look to the Constitution, we find no anti-slavery policy planted in that instrument. Gn the contrary, we iind that it amply provides for the perpetuity, and not the extinction of slavery. It provides for the recapture and re- turn of fugitives from labor from every })ortion of the republic. It provides for additional securities in the form of increased representa- tion for slave property. It provides for the suppression of insurrection among slaves, and pledges the whole power of the republic for that purpose. It provides for the increase of their numbers, by the prevention of the sup- pression of the African slave-trade for twenty years, and permitting it forever. The history of this last provision is worthy of special note. Virginiii and Maryland had forbidden the Afri- can slave-trade at the time the Constitution was formed, and North Carolina had greatly j tramelled it; yet the Constitution swept away 13 these restrictions, and compelled theses States to permit the shive-trade apjaiiipt their declared policy ; and this was done by the voles of New England aj,'ainst Vir<3;inia and Maryland. 1 repeat, the^c clauses of the ConstitntJon provided for the perpetuity, and not tlio ex- tinction of slavery. Uoro the policy of our fathers was unmistakably written down, and the writing cannot be perverted. There is not a single clause in that instrument which pro- vides for, or looks to the aboliti»n or restric- tion of slavery anywhere. It is undoubtedly true that many of the franiers of the Constitu- tion, both trom the uorih and the south, were anti-slavery men. They freely proclaimed their opinions ; but they planted none of them in the organic law, but left the whole subject to be managed by those interested in it. There- fore, so far from its being true that the Consti- tution localized slavery, it nationalized it; and i-t is the only property which it does na- tionalize except the works of genius and art. In the face of these provisions of the Consti- tution, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner] continues to assert that the uniform policy of our fathers was opposition to shivery. The policy of the government after the forma- tion of the government, up to 1820, was equally decisive against the statements of that Senator. He asserted, in a speech on this floor, tv,-o years ago, and reiterated it as an important fact, I think as many as three times, in his late speech, that when President Washington took the oath of oftice, in 1789, the national flag did not float over one inch of slave territo- ry belonging to the national Union. I cannot appreciate the importance of the statement to the argument, even if it were true ; but as un- importa,nt as it is, even that statement is un- founded in fact. Before the Constitution was formed, the Northwest Territory was ceded to the United States, with a prohibition of slavery ; but at that very moment the United States claimed and held a large extent of territory in the southwestern portion of the Union, which was settled and occupied by slaveholders, i under the protection of the flag of the Union I will explain its history in its order. That I senator, to make out bis case, supp-esses a ma- 1 tcrial portion of the action of the first Congress; under tlie Constitution. That Congress accepted the cession of the Northwest Territory with a provision against slavery, and provided for its government: and the same Congress accepted the cession of Tennessee from North Carolina,, with a provision protecting slavery, and pro- j vided for its government; extended the ordi- j nance of 1787 over that cei;sion audits terri- 1 tory in the southwest, excluding the sixth and ; last Item, which was the anti-slavery clause of | that ordinance. Therefore, if it had been true i that when Washington took the oath of office the American flag did not float over an inch of slave territorv belonging to the Union, he and hiri first Congress soon altered this state of things, and hoisted the American flag over slave territory larger than all of tho then free States of the Union. Tlie ordinance of 1787 was declared by Ma^l- ison to be without a shadow of Conatitutioual authority; but the first Congresd accepted a compact already made, with all of its provis- ions ; andanolher compact with North Carolina, witii a difl'ercnt provision in regard to slavery ; and protected both with the army and power of the republic. Therefore it is not true that the first Congress took pains to exclude sla- verv, or did in fact exclude it from a single inch of the public domain. The next territorial act in tho southwest was that of 1798, over the country to which 1 havo referred. This territory was peculiarly situated. After the peace of 1763, when Florida waji severed from Spain, and pa.ssed into the hands of England, tho boundary of Georgia west of Chattahoochee river was along the .'{Ist parallel of north latitude; but, upoi-i the petition of the Board of Trade of London, representing that the southwestern portion of the territory «f Georgia wa.s too remote from the local govern- ment, the British government altered tho boundary of Georgia by annexing all tiiat por- tion of the State beginning at the mouth of tho Yazoo river, running due east to the Chatta- hoochee, thence down that stream to the Slst parallel of north latitude, thence "west to the iVIississippi, and thence up the Mississippi to the mouth of the Yazoo, to the territory of West Florida. The boundary of Georgia stood thus at the time of the revolution ; and, upon the peace of 1783, Britain retroceded Florida to Spain, leaving the territory before described within the limits of the United States, but not within the boundary of any Slate. The gpneral government therefore claimed, and, in 1798, erected a territorial government over it, extended the ordinance of 1787 over it, .(expressly excluding the sixth, or anti-slavery clause of that ordinance.) This whs the clear- est indication of national policy on this subject which we had up to that time. This territory was claimed by the government, without any restriction whatever from any quarter. It was the first exercise of original, primary, unfettered jurisdiction orer the public domain; and, in giving it a government, the Congress of 1798, with John Adams President, expressly exclud- ed the prohibition of slavery from it — as the senator would say, dedicated it to savery. Therefore, during the whole of the administra- tion of General Washington, and during every administration from that day to this, the flag of the Union has floated over slave territories be- lono-ing to the Union, and protected under its broad folds every interest of every American citizen. Such has been the domestic policy of this government. What has been its foreign policy in relation 14 to this qnestion? Here it h efpally opposed to the sUUement and the policy oi'ihe eenator from Massachusetts. Since the Constitution was framed, we bought Ixmisiana from France, and a<^reed by treaty to protect shivery in iL Wc piwohase'd Florida from Spain, with a like treaty-protection to slavery. We have annexed Texas, with express Etipi?.lations in favor of slavery ; and by these acquisitions made lander additions to the slaveholdiiig territory than the •whole area of the thirteen original States. I do not say that these acquisitions were made because of slavery; I know they were not. But they show that it was no part of the policy of our fathers to limit or restrain iL These are the facts upon which tJie senator has attempted to weave his ridiculous theory that the early policy of this government was to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery. Sir, I have shown that the eenator from Massachusetts has wholly mistaken or misrep- resented the early policy of the goverrmeul,. This policy was uniform until 1820, when the '''new lights," as Mr. Jefferson teriDcd them, began a sectional warfare to restore tiiemsclves to power. They were anti-republicans, who had broken themselves dowu all over the country by their alien and sedition laws, by their disloyalty to their country iin time of war, by their general hostility to popular riglits everywhere, and they sought to elevate them- selves again to power on the wave of sectional prejudices. They failed, as their successors have i'ailed and will fail. The republican peo- ple of this country uaderatood the fundamental principled of their own government. They knew that the libertie.i of Ainerica wore won by white men for white men, by out race for our race, and that boih iu this country and in England the sympathizers with the negro rac*; are generally enemies and oppressors of v/hito men everywhere. Senatoi-s, I have endeavored fairly to present the argument on this bill. I have endeavored to show that it is conBtitutional, wise, and just; that it violates no compacts, but sustains tke solemn compact of the Constitution ; that it is not opposed by the policy of our fathers, but in consonance herewith; that it h but the aflirmance of the principles of the measui'es of 1850, which gave such universal satisfaction to all parts of the republic, and for^hese reasons it calls loudly upon every truly national man to stand by and sustain it. By doing so, we sus- tain the Constitution — we sustain the just righta of every portion of the republic, and the great right of the people to self-governments We should want no other reasons to commend it to our support. The senator from New York asks where and v/hen the app'rcation of these principles will stop? He wishes not to be de- ceived in future, and asks us whether, when we bring the Chinese and other distant nations under our flag, we are to apply these principles to them? For one, I answer, yes; thait, wherever the flag of the Union shall float, this great republican principle will follow it, and will continue to follow it, even if it should gather under its ample folds the freemen of every portion of the universe. A A .«; \ yy