HOLUNGER 
 pH8.5 
 
 MILL RUN F3-1543 
 
NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OP 
 
 v^ 
 
 HON. JOHN BELT. OF TENNESSEE, 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 3, 1Sj4, 
 
 On the bill to establish the J^ebraska and Kansas Territories, and to repeal the Missouri 
 
 Compromise. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration the bill 
 
 to organize the Terrilorits of Nebraska and 
 
 Kansas — j 
 
 Mr. BELL said: i 
 
 Mr. Fuesident: I feel g;reatly embarrassed in 
 
 undertaking to address the Senate at this lime, 
 
 Carticulariy since the sentiment of the body has 
 een bo decidedly expressed, not only in regard 
 to the feature which is considered the most im- 
 portant in the bill, but in regard to every other 
 to which I propose to address my remarks. I 
 regret, sir, that 1 feel under any necessity to 
 trespass at all upon the attention of the Senate • 
 upon this subject; and particularly when I ob- ' 
 serve the solicitude of the friends of the bill for , 
 its immediate passage. But the relations in which i 
 I stand to this measure, I think, forbid me to for- 
 bear. My own self-respect would forbid that I 
 should forbear, however painful it may be to me 
 to express any views in opposition to a measure 
 which seems to commend itself to the almost i 
 unanimous approval and support of my southern 
 friends. 
 
 Mr. President, no one in this body knows better ' 
 than yourself the fact that I took decided grounds ; 
 in opposition to the Nebraska bill at the last session ) 
 of Congress. I opposed it with the greatest earn- '. 
 estness. That bill contained no provision for the ; 
 repeal of the Missouri compromise in any form 
 or shape whatever. I wish to state now tlint I 
 did not advise the introduction of that feature into 
 the bill of this session. It so happened that I , 
 was absent from the city when this bill was first : 
 reported from the Committee on Territories, of 
 which I was a member; but I was present when 
 the amendment to the original bill, containing a , 
 provision for the virtual repeal of the Missouri i 
 compromise, was under consideration in the com- ! 
 iiiiltee. It was the first time that the bill of this .. 
 session in any shape fell under my notice. | 
 
 The first notice I had that the repeal of the Mis- 
 souri compromise was in contemplation by any 
 one, was the introduction of the bill for that pur- 
 pose by my friend from Kentucky, [Mr. Dixo.v;] j 
 
 I not, as I was informed, that my friend meant to as- 
 sume the responaibiliiy of originating such a prop- 
 
 ; osition, but to make the object e.xplicit and une- 
 
 I quivocal, which seemed to "be implied in one pro- 
 
 ' vision of the bill as first reported. The honorable 
 chairman of the Committee on Territories [Mr. 
 Douglas] knows that I had barely time, when 
 this bill was first brought to my notice in commit- 
 
 ' tee, to glance over its provisions. I saw that the 
 objections I had urged to the Nebraska bill of the 
 last session of Congress would apply to the 
 measure then before the committee; and my im- 
 
 I pressions against the expediency of introducing 
 any clause affecting the Missouri Compromise 
 
 I were strong; but as I had not considered the prop- 
 osition in all its aspects,! agreed that theamend- 
 
 j ment might be reported; but as the honorable 
 chairman of the committee will do me the justice 
 
 ! to admit, I did so. with the express reservation 
 
 I of the privilege of opposing the passage of the bill, 
 if, upon a careful examination of the subject, I 
 
 ; should feel it my duty to do so. [Mr. Douglas 
 
 : bowed his assent to the correctness of the suite- 
 
 I ment] 
 
 The question of the repeal of the Missouri com- 
 
 ' promise being thus fairly presented for considera- 
 tion to the Senate; finding, upon inquiry, that the 
 general sentiment of southern Senators was favor- 
 al)leto the measure, brought forward, as it seemed 
 to be, with the concurrence of a large number of 
 northern gentlemen; approving, as I did, the prin- 
 ciple of the compromise acts of 1850, and not 
 wishing to separate myself from my friends, I 
 resolved to take no step in opposition until I should 
 have full time to consider the subject in all itj 
 bearings, and be able to supply the deficiencies of 
 my own judgment and experience from the lighu 
 which might be shed by others on the suiiject, in 
 the discussion. I have accordingly voted uni- 
 formly with my southern friends, on all ques- 
 tions of amendment, without any particular ex- 
 amination on my part as to their wisdom or pro- 
 priety, and leaving it to them to perfect the bill 
 m any way they thought expedient and proper. 
 
I have listened with profound interest and atten- 
 tion to all that has been said in debate on both 
 sides of the question. I have sought to be en- 
 lightened, in the private conferences of the friends 
 of the bill, and have given the subject the most 
 serious reflection, to see if I could discover any- 
 sufficient grounds or reasons to overrule the ob- 
 jections which had presented themselves to my 
 mind, in favor of the course of my friends from 
 the South. I make this statement, not that I 
 suppose any views which I may now be able to 
 present upon this subject will have any greater 
 weight with the Senate, but to explain my silence i 
 during the preceding discussions. I 
 
 I now proceed to consider the provisions of this 
 bill which appear to me to present the most serious 
 and important objections. i 
 
 My hrst objection to the Nebraslca bill of the < 
 last session of Congress was, that there was no | 
 necessity for the measure; that it was a novelty 
 in the legislation of this country; that as far back j 
 as I remembered it was an anomally in the practice 
 of the Government to propose to organize territo- ! 
 rial governments over a large extent of territory 
 in which there were no white inhabitants. I mean 
 no white inhabitants except those who were the 
 officials of the Government, soldiers, missionaries, 
 or licensed traders; no white population to demand 
 the protection and security of a territorial govern- 
 ment. On looking over the report of the Commis- 
 sioner of Indian Affairs, I find the statement, 
 that as late as October last, there were but three 
 white men in the whole of that vast territory, ex- 
 cept the class already alluded to. There may be 
 four or five hundred, or more, now, for anything 
 that 1 know; but I still think and maintain that 
 this measure is uncalled for at this time. 
 
 The answer given to that ol>jection at the last 
 session — and I mean to deal fairly with the whole 
 argument, so far as I have time to do it — by the 
 honorable chairman of the Committee on Ter- 
 ritories, was, that it -was important to invite 
 settlements upon the great line of emigration 
 from tlie western boundary of the States to Califor- 
 nia and Oregon. I admit there was some force in 
 this; but still I did not see that it was so import- 
 ant as to amount to a necessity, or the case so 
 urgent as to justify a departure from the long 
 established policy of the Government, by organiz- 
 ing territorial governments in advance of settle- 
 ments, and particularly before the numerous wild 
 Indian tribes inhabiting the country were recon- 
 ciled to the measure by treaties, and a proper 
 disposition was made of those emigrant tribes 
 which held a portion of the country under the most 
 solemn assurances on the part of the Government 
 that they should never be exposed to the pressure 
 of a white population. 
 
 My second objection to the Nebraska bill of the 
 last session was, that it proposed to organize a 
 territorial government, and to throw open for 
 settlement the whole extent of the country lying 
 vrest of Missouri and Iowa, which is now Indian 
 territory, guarded and- protected against the in- 
 trusion of a white population by a statute of thirty 
 sections, besides the faith of treaties applicable 
 to numerous emigrant tribes; thus bringing an 
 unnecessary pressure upon the wild Indian tribes, 
 and tending to drive them to desperation, by the 
 destruction of the principal source of their subsist- 
 ence, the buffalo, which, you know, sir, will disap- 
 
 pear upon the first clear crack of the frontier rifle, 
 and the ominous appearance of the settler in the 
 neighborhood of their haunts. 
 
 I objected furtlier, sir, that in addition to the 
 Indian hostilities likely to be provoked by encour- 
 aging settlements, at irregular and distant inter- 
 vals, over such an extent of territory now inhab- 
 ited by wild Indians, the measure evidently con- 
 templated the exhaustion of all the most desirable 
 portions of the public domain in a few years, 
 leaving no residuum to invite the enterprise or to 
 furnish cheap homes to the young men and young 
 families of the next generation. I held such a 
 policy unwise, unstatesmanlike, and essentially 
 selfish in the present generation. I was of the 
 opinion that there was no necessity arising from 
 a crowdecj_ population in the frontier States, or 
 from any deficiency of good unappropriated lands 
 in those States, to justify a measure which pro- 
 poses to throw open so large an extent of new 
 country for settlement. 
 
 I contended that the population in the border 
 States was yet small and sparse, and that there 
 was within their limits an abundant supply of good 
 lands, inviting settlement and cultivation — both 
 by native citizens and foreign emigrants. Two 
 years ago, I objected to the treaty for the pur- 
 chase of the territory which belonged to the Sioux 
 Indians, in the Territory of Minnesota, upon the 
 ground that it would open a vast wilderness for 
 detached and irregular settlement, when there 
 was no adequate necessity for the measure; and 
 I showed, if I remember aright, that there were 
 then about one hundred and twenty millions of 
 acres of good land surveyed and open to entry 
 and settlement in the adjoining States, after de- 
 ducting from ten to twenty per cent, for lands unfit 
 for cultivation. Nevertheless that treaty, costing 
 the Government some five millions of dollars, was 
 ratified by the Senate; and an additional supply 
 of between twenty-five and thirty millions of acres 
 of land was thus provided for new settlements; and 
 notwithstanding the late increase in the sale arul 
 settlement of the public lands in the northwest, 
 we may safely conclude that, at this moment these 
 are not less than one hundred millions of acres, not 
 of indifferent lands, but of good cultivable lands, 
 still remaining to be taken up and occupied by 
 emigrants, in the same section of the country. 
 
 Now, under such circumstances as these, it does 
 seem to me, Mr. President, that before a final vote 
 is taken upon this bill, it is incumbent upon the 
 honorable Chairman of the Committtee on Terri- 
 tories, to show that there is a deficiency in the sup- 
 ply of good and rich lands bordering upon the two 
 Territories proposed to be established by this bill; 
 and to furnish us with some evidence that there is 
 a necessity for this measure arising from the pres- 
 sure of the population in the border Stales. Where 
 is the population that demands such a policy? Is 
 it in Iowa, in Missouri, Wisconsin, or Minnesota.' 
 Where are those accumulated masses of people 
 rolled up by that tide of emigration, native aad 
 foreign, of which we hear so much? I desire the 
 Senator, if he pleases, to point to them. I have no 
 doubt there is an eager and laudable desire, among 
 all the settlers in the frontier States, to better their 
 condition by the acquisition of more land in local- 
 ities offering greater advantages than any within 
 their reach in the States they now reside in. Some 
 hundreds of indigent families in the border States, 
 
doubtless, would be greatly benefited by acquiring 
 cheap Innds by right of preemption, or ns a donation 
 under the provisions of ilie honieHteiul i)iil, if itHhiill 
 become a law; and tiiey are now no doubt highly 
 excited l)y the pros|iect held out to tliem by the 
 pendency of the measure before the Senjite. Sir, 
 this passion for the acnuisition of land belonp to 
 the Anjjlo-Snxon stock, as we know; and I feel 
 no disposition to censure or attach discredit to it, 
 as it now exists on the fioniier. I'ut, ufler all, 
 what proportion do these frontier citizens bear to 
 the thousands of landless heads of families in the 
 Atlantic States, aiul those on the western slope of 
 the Alle^hanies, who have no chance or means of 
 enterinij into an equal competition for the acquisi- 
 tion of these lands. ', 
 Again, I think the honorable Chairman of the 
 Committee on Territories ou<;ht to present to the 
 Senate some rational and practicable scheme for the 
 {government and control of those numerous and 
 wild tribes of Indians in the interior of the conti- 
 nent; for the Territories contemplated by this bill 
 extend into regions unknown and unexplored by . 
 the frontier settlers. What will he do with the 
 Great Blackfeet and other wild trilies behind the 
 Black Hills? Then, in addition to these, there are 
 the twenty or thirty thousand belongins; to the 
 roving bands south of the Missouri. What will 
 he do" with them ? What additional military force 
 will be needed? What new military po.sts will be 
 required ? and at what cost to theGovernment, are 
 these wild and savage Indians to be ruled in pei^e, 
 or overcome in war? for their resentment and hos- 
 tility, it is hardly to be supposed, will be foreborne 
 from the moment it is understood among them that 
 the white man proposes to take up his abode upon 
 their ancient hunting grounds. 
 
 JVIr. President, it is most unfortunate for the 
 public interest that, in a measure of this descrip- 
 tion, embracing many provisions of great import- 
 ance to the country, there .should be one of such 
 paramount interest as to absorb the attention of 
 the Senate, to the neglect of every other, however 
 iiTiportant. I have been myself so much under the 
 influence of this cause, so unfriendly to wise legis- 
 lation, that it was only within the last ten days 
 that my attention was arrested by the fact that the 
 boundaries of the Territory of Nebraska, proposed 
 to be organized by this bill, had been extended to 
 the extreme northern boundary of the United 
 States, whereas the Nebraska bill of the last ses- 
 sion was limited to the forty third degree of north 
 latitude. 
 
 Here, sir, we have a proposition to organize two 
 new territorial governments, extending through 
 twelve desrees of latitude, and over eight or nine 
 degrees of longitude — containing near five hundred 
 thousand square miles, and three hundred millions 
 of acres of land— territory in the aggregate suffi- 
 cient for the formation of twelve new States, aver- 
 agino- over forty thousand square miles to the 
 State; and but for the desert and sterile tract, 
 averaging some three hundred miles in extent, and 
 running from the south boundary of these Terri- 
 tories, nearly or quite to the British possessions, 
 that number of States would, in tirae, be founded 
 within the area embraced in this bill; but we may 
 reasonably estimate, that eight or ten new States 
 will ultimately be formed out of this vast territory. 
 Will the honorable chairman of the committee 
 explain to us the necessity for incorporating into 
 
 this bill this large extent of territory, in addition 
 to what was in the Nebraska bill of the last ses- 
 sion ? It will not do to say that no more in meant 
 than to embrace in the two territorial governments 
 proposed by (his bill all the territory of the United 
 Slates not included in the boundH of other territo- 
 rial governmeniH heretofore provided. It must be 
 borne in mind that this bill, as originally reported, 
 proposed to u|>r)ropriate j^.lUU.OOO nimply to defray 
 the expenses of negotiating with the Indian tribes; 
 thus indicating what we are to expect after the 
 passage of this bill; and also clearly enough the 
 design of extending setttcmenta Kj)eedily into every 
 part of the country embraced within the limita of 
 these new Territories. 1 doubt not that the hon- 
 orable Senator will be able to find some plausible 
 answer to all tlie objections I have suggested to this 
 i)rovision of the bill. I know his resources. I 
 Know that he does not act without motives or a pur- 
 pose, and as he has given us no expositions ot his 
 views upon this point, I trust he will indulge me 
 in conjecturing what they may be. That I mean 
 nothing ofTensive or unkind to the honorable Sen- 
 ator he will understand, when I say that, upon a 
 full consideration of his policy as sliadowed forth 
 in this bill, taking it altogether, I am at a lo.s3 
 which most to admire, the genius or the boldness 
 of his conception. And I can tell honorable Sen- 
 ators around me, that when that Senator shall be 
 arraigned before the tribunal of the public in the 
 Northwest, for his advocacy of any feature of this 
 bill which may be obnoxious to them, and he 
 shall come to unfold the grandeur of his plans, 
 and the skill with which he managed to combine 
 in their support both the North and the South, 
 they will speak trumpet-tongued in his defense. 
 I trust the honorable Senator understands me; 
 but I will nevertheless say to him, that although 
 by the offer of a principle, an abstraction — a dan- 
 gerous temptation to southern Senators — which I 
 fear will prove utterly barren — bearing neither 
 fruit nor flower, he has drawu into the support 
 of his plans the whole South and Southwest, yet, 
 if he will give me but a reasonable answer to the 
 objections I have taken to this provision of the 
 bill, I will go with him in its support. I admit 
 his plans to be statesmanlike, if they can be 
 accomplished without the sacrifice of other great 
 public interests. If he will answer as I propose, 
 I will go with him, in as hot haste, as he can de- 
 sire, not only in extending the settlements on 
 the margin of the Platte and the Kansas, but to the 
 crest of the Rocky Mountains, thus indicating 
 the route of a railroad to San Francisco, having a 
 ■ terminus at some point on the western boundary 
 of Iowa or Missouri; and then I will go with him 
 for the ifhmediate extension of settlements on the 
 great line, passing through Minnesota Territory, 
 crossing the waters of the Red River of the North ; 
 passing thence across the Missouri, and up some 
 of its tributaries to the summit of the Rocky 
 Mountains; thence down its richly wooded west- 
 ern slope, and onward to Pugel Sound — thus 
 securing the early construction of another great 
 railroad. 
 
 I Mr. DOUGLAS. As the Senator seems to 
 shadow forth some grand scheme which is to be 
 developed here, and then points significantly to 
 my appearing before the people, I feel it to be due 
 to myself to say that I have no scheme that has 
 ., not already been avowed in my speech. 1 hare 
 
no defense to make at home that has not been 
 avowed in my opening speech, and will be avowed 
 again. No other ground will be taken; no other 
 defense will be made. I think that it is due to 
 myself to make that remark. 
 
 iVIr. BELL. I do not make any charge against 
 the honorable Senator that can be regarded as of- 
 fensive. He may never be put upon his defense 
 for his support of any feature in this bill; I trust 
 he never will. 1 was pledging myself to the hon- 
 orable Senator, that if he would give me any suffi- 
 cient explanation or exposition of the points of 
 objection I have taken as to the vast extent of! 
 this country which he proposes to embrace in the I 
 new Territories — the departure he purposes from I 
 the long-established and guarded policy of the | 
 Government in the interposition of some barrier 
 to the intrusion of the white man, and the forma- ! 
 tion of detached settlements in a country occupied 
 by wild and savage Indian tribes, far beyond the ! 
 regularly advanced line of frontier settlements; I 
 and the throwing open at once unnecessarily the 
 the whole public domain — .1 will go with him in i 
 the accomplishment of his great schemes. 1 
 
 I am aware that the Senator may inquire of 
 me, if he should fail to answer all my objections ' 
 satisfactorily: Whether I would let any consid-; 
 >.:-ation due to sixty or seventy thousand wild In- j 
 dians, who range over this vast territory, and sub- j 
 sist upon the buffalo, keep it closed against the' 
 settlement of the white man — native or foreigner.' 
 I am aware that when 1 suggest the enlarged mili- ! 
 tary force that may have to be sent into that 
 country to suppress Indian hostilities, he may say 
 to me: That as his is a grand project, and as no 
 great plans are accomplished without great sacri- 
 fices, would I impede the development and 
 growth of the great Northwest by objecting to j 
 whatever expenditure, either of money or of! 
 blood, may be called for to subdue, or to extermi- 
 nate, if need be, the Indian tribes that may obstruct 
 the onward progress of the country ? He may in- 
 quire, especially: Whether I would interpose any 
 narrow land policy, and forejo present expansion, 
 glory, and dominion, for the sake of posterity.' 
 To all such inquiries, I would answer at once, by 
 saying to him — Wait a season; be not so impa- 
 tient to build up a great northwestern empire. In 
 due time all your great plans of development will 
 be accomplished, without any great sacrifices of any 
 kind, and without conflicting with any other great 
 public interest. In a few years, by the regular 
 law of progress and settlement, which swept first 
 all the Atlantic States, and then the eastern slope 
 of thegreat valley of the Mississippi, of the Indian 
 tribes which once held possession of them, by 
 a greatly accelerated process, they will disappear 
 from the plains, and the whole of the vast region 
 beyond the Mississippi; and then, without any 
 abrupt departure from the old and established 
 policy of our Government in relation to the In- 
 dians or the public domain, all obstructions will 
 be removed. In a very few years the advancing 
 lines of settlement on both sides of the Rocky 
 Mountains, but moving in adverse directions, 
 ■will meet, overtake, and destroy both the buffalo 
 and the Indians in their last retreats. 
 
 If the honorable Senator will indulge me, and 
 rot think it offensive, I must say here, because it 
 occurs to me, that I think for a long time he has 
 had a passion, amounting to a sort of mania, for 
 
 the organizationof new Territories, and the found- 
 ing of new States. Sir, to my certain knowledge, 
 the honorable Senator drew up the Utah and New 
 Mexico bills, and almost in the very terms in which 
 they finally passed into laws. I believe he is also 
 entitled to the credit of having originated the bills 
 for the establishment of the Territories of Oregon, 
 Minnesota, and Washington. It seems, from pres- 
 ent indications, that it will not be long before he 
 will have succeeded in organizing three or four 
 more. Not content with the fame which may 
 attach to him as condilor imperii, to borrow the 
 language of Bacon, quoted by the learned and 
 eloquent Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Ev- 
 erett,] he is emulous of the title of clarissimiis 
 condilor imperiorum. It seems to me that whatever 
 other rewards he may receive from his country- 
 men, if they should imitate the policy of the an- 
 cient Greeks and Romans in bestowing honorary 
 crowns on citizens who distinguished themselves 
 in the service of their country, the honorable 
 Senator will be entitled, not to one, but to ten 
 civic crowns! I hope the honorable Senator will 
 not be offended at anything I have said on this 
 point. 
 Mr. DOUGLAS. Certainly not. [Laughter.] 
 Mr. BELL. I come now to a further objection 
 urged by me against the bill of the last session, 
 that is, the provisions affecting the emigrant Indian 
 tribes. I do not allude to it merely as an objection, 
 but of one presenting an insuperable obstacle to the 
 passage of this bill, unless it shall be found to 
 contain some different provision. Mr. President, 
 has it come to this, that we are at liberty to disre- 
 gard our treaty stipulations with the Indian tribes, 
 because they are a weak and feeble people — unable 
 to resist our power — any more than we would our 
 treaty obligations with the more powerful nations 
 of the earth.' Can we, as a Government or a 
 people, act on such a principle — set aside, at our 
 discretion, and trample under foot the most ex- 
 plicit and solemn guarantees? 
 
 I know that is not the sentiment of any honor- 
 able Senator here; but, sir, as to the Nebraska 
 bill of last session, although the Indian tribes and 
 their lands, included within the boundaries of 
 the proposed Terrritory, were expressly excepted 
 from the operation of that bill, the honorable 
 chairman of the Committee on Territories v/ill 
 remember that I denounced that bill, if it should 
 pass, as a disgrace to the national character, and 
 a wanton and deliberate violation of the public 
 faith. In order to demonstrate the justice of that 
 ' denunciation, 1 must go into a brief review of the 
 1 policy of Indian removal. 
 
 This policy was suggested in 1808, by Mr, 
 [Jefferson. His plan was to remove those mem- 
 j bers of the several tribes, then residing east of 
 ! the Mississippi, who preferred to seek their sub- 
 j sistence by the chase, to some suitable country 
 1 within the limits of the United States west of the 
 I Mississippi, and to protect those who were die- 
 posed to cultivate the arts of civilized life in their 
 ' possessions east of the Mississippi, and also to en- 
 ! courage them in their efforts to improve their con- 
 !dition. That policy was frustrated by the con- 
 I flicting obligations contracted between Georgia 
 i and the United States in the compact, by which 
 i Georgia ceded her western territory. The plan 
 suggested by Mr. Jefferson was consequently en- 
 ! larged, and the Government adopted the policy of 
 
removing entire tribes to the West. The treaty 
 of 1817 \vn3 based, in part, upon this new policy. 
 In 18"J5 Mr. Callioun, then Secretary of War, in 
 a rejiort made upon ihut suliject, fust eu^j^ested 
 llie unjiortance of ii syateniatic policy of Indian 
 removal, eiulirrtcitigall the tribes in the States east 
 of the Mis.'^issip]ii. The country west of the Mis- 
 souri and Arkansa.s was by liini pointed out as 
 projier to be selected, and set apart to the tribes 
 which might be induced to emigrate; and he recom- 
 mended that "tliere ought to be the strongest and 
 most solemn assurance liiat the country given to 
 them should be theirs as a permanent liome for 
 themselves and their posterity, without being dis- 
 turbed by the encroaclunents of our citizens." 
 
 But the policy wasnotthen settled uponapernia- 
 nenti)asi3. Tlie dillicuities and embarrassments in 
 which the Government was involved with Georgia, 
 and by the obstructions interposed in the execu- 
 tion of tlie [H)licy of removal by two of the south- 1 
 ern tribes — the Cherokees and the Creeks — caused 
 the wliole subject to be examined and discussed in 
 every part of the country. It gave rise to great agi- 
 tation and excitement. Perhaps but few Senators 
 here now liave any conception of llie intensity of 
 theinterestand feeling which was awakened, partic- : 
 ularly at the North, by the discussion of the ques- 
 tions connected with this policy. The tables of the 
 tsvo Houses of Congress groaned under memorials 
 and remonstrances, presented from day to day du- 
 ring the session of 1829- '30, against the policy of 
 removal adopted and insisted upon by the Adminis- 
 tration. And so itcontinued for months. Thefierce- 
 ness of the struggle, and the obstacles to be over- i 
 come in the settlement of the question, no man 
 knows better than theSenatorfroniMichignn,[Mr. 
 Cass.] Cut in March, 1S3U, the policy of Indian , 
 removal received the sanction of both Houses of i 
 Congress, and became the law of the land. By 
 the act of 1830, the President was expressly au- 
 thorized, in treating with the Indians for the ex- 
 change of their lands east for lands west of the 
 Mississippi, " solemnly to assure tlie tribe or na- ; 
 tion witli which the exchange is (might be) made, 
 that the United States will (would) forever secure 
 and guaranty to them and their heirs and succes- 
 sors the country so exchanged with them." ; 
 
 The arguments by which the policy of Indian 
 removal was sustained will be found in numerous 
 official documents, in the speeches of members of , 
 Congress, and in the public journals of the day. 
 
 The grounds upon which the argument was 
 maintained for the removal of the Indian tribes 
 were taken from the early, as well as the more re- 
 cent, liistory of the country. It was contended 
 that all experience had demonstrated that as long 
 as the Indians remained in contact with, and sur- 
 sounded by, a white population, they were sure ' 
 to contract all the vices, without adopting any of 
 the virtues of civilized communities; and that as 
 long as they remained in tliat condition, their early 
 extinction was inevitable; that their only escape ; 
 from this destiny depended upon their removal to 
 a country where they would be protected by the 
 Government from all the evils and annoyances to 
 which they were thus exposed, in all future time. 
 The country to wliich they were invileJ to remove 
 was to be Indian country forever, or as long as 
 they e-Kisted as tribes; the white man was never 
 to intrude upon their lands, or form settlements 
 arouiid them; no territorial or State governments . 
 
 were ever to include them within their boundaries. 
 In their new homes tliey were to be free to be gov- 
 erned by their own law.s and customs, unle.s.s iliey 
 tiiought profier to change them; never to be in- 
 terfered witli by the Government, but for their pro- 
 tection in the enjoyment of ilieir privileges. 
 
 This further argument was urged in 8U|)|)ort of 
 the policy of removal, that the Indian tribes 
 which might emigrate to the West, on the condi- 
 tions held out to them, would never again be mo- 
 lested and liarassed by any ntw applications for 
 cessions of their lands, or to remove to a new 
 country; for the more fcagacious chiefs always 
 knew that their people could seldom withstand 
 the influences which their Great Father could 
 bring to bear upon them when he wished to treat 
 with them on any fc-uliject. 
 
 These were the arguments by which the policy 
 of Indian removal was sustained by Congress, 
 and which, in time, reconciled the whole country 
 to its adoption. These were also the arguments 
 and encouragements held out to the various Indian 
 tribes residing in the States east of the Mississippi, 
 to induce them to emigrate to the West, as will 
 appear from the talks held with them, from the in- 
 structions to commissioners appointed to treat 
 with them, and, in part, from the stipulations con- 
 tained in the treaties made with them. In some 
 of those treaties the Indians rerjuired that a guar- 
 antee iigainst the establishment of any territorial 
 or State government, to include their lands, should 
 be specifically stipulated in the treaties made with 
 them. One treaty containing such a guarantee, 
 ratified by the Senate, is sufficient to show the 
 policy of the Government, and its obligations to 
 all the emigrant tribes. Well, sir, under the per- 
 suasion and encouragement lield out to the Indians 
 by the promises, as.surances, and guarantees I 
 have enumerated, some twelve or fifteen different 
 tribes entered into treaties, and removed to the 
 territory assigned and dedicated to them west of 
 Missouri and Arkansas. Some eight or ten of 
 those tribes, numbering, at this time, eight or ten 
 thousand souls, received allotments of land west 
 of Missouri, most of them occupying the territory 
 embraced in the Nebraska bill of the last session, 
 and the Territory of Kansas proposed to be or- 
 ganized by the bill now under consideration. 
 
 And how did the provisions of the bill of the 
 last session stand in relation to the obligations and 
 guarantees of the Government, assumed and given 
 in the execution of the policy of Indian removal? 
 That bill proposed to organize and establish a ter- 
 ritorial government, including within its bounda- 
 ries all the emigrant tribes west of the State of 
 Missouri, and forthwith to authorize the settle- 
 ment of the unoccupied lands, and thus to sur- 
 round the several Indian tribes with a white popu- 
 lation, and consequently to bring upon them all 
 the evils which they had to encounter in the States 
 whence they emigrated. It was for these reasons 
 that I objected to and denounced the measure. 
 
 There was another objection which I might have 
 taken to the Nebraska bill of the last session, but 
 which I did not because I would not be the first 
 to throw down a gage, inviting a renewal of that 
 sectional conflict which shook tlie confidence of 
 thousands of good citizens in the stability of the 
 Union in 1850; and which I trusted never to see 
 renewed in this Ciiamber, or in the country. 
 There is no longer any reason — and unfortunately, 
 
6 
 
 Certainly. 
 It was so by the established 
 
 as I think — that I should forbear to sug:gest it. It 
 was this: From the date of Mr. Calhoun's re- 
 port, in 1825, and more especially since the act of 
 1830, sanctioning the policy of Indian removal, 
 and the ratification of numerous Indian treaties, 
 inade in pursuance of that policy, the country west 
 of Arkansas and Missouri has been regarded as an 
 Indian territory, dedicated and guarantied as a 
 permanent residence for all the tribes which might 
 think proper to emigrate to it on the terms held 
 out to them by the Government. And here I 
 would be pleased that the Senator from Ohio [Mr. 
 Chase] would answer a question which I want to 
 ask him, if he deems it worthy of a reply. I 
 would like to know why and upon what authority, 
 in his late appeal to the people on the subject of 
 this bill, he designated the territory south of the 
 line of 36° 30' as Indian territory, as distinguished 
 from the territory north of that line? 
 
 Mr. CHASE. I will simply ask the Senator 
 if it is not Indian territory ? 
 
 Mr. BELL. But the other is Indian territory 
 also. 
 Mr. CHASE 
 Mr. BELL, 
 policy. 
 
 Mr. CHASE. The territory south of 36° 30' 
 was Indian territory, and proposed to be left as 
 such by the bill. The bill, if it is passed, would 
 convert the territory north of 36° 30' into organ- 
 ized territory, excluding from it, of course, those 
 portions which are inhabited by Indian tribes not 
 ceded by treaty. 
 
 Mr. BELL. No man, from thereadingof that 
 address, would have supposed that the territory 
 north of 36° 30' was admitted to be Indian terri- 
 tory. 
 
 "To resume my argument. It so happened that 
 this territory was divided into equal parts by the 
 line of- the Missouri compromise, 360 3G'; thus 
 taking from the South a territorial area sufficient 
 to form one more slave State, and from the North 
 a territory large enough to form one more free 
 State, according to the terms of the Missouri com- 
 promise. 
 
 The great object of securing a country for the 
 exclusive and perpetual inheritance of the Indian 
 tribes, when driven from their original posses- 
 sions, was thus accomplished without any jealousy 
 between the North and the South, growing out of 
 the slave question. The South, in surrendering 
 the territory west of Arkansas, saw that the North 
 made an equivalent concession on its part. I 
 think I may say, from what I know upon the sub- 
 ject, that but for the perfect equality of the ar- 
 rangement, as between the North and the South, 
 the policy of Indian removal with the principles 
 and guarantees upon which it was founded, would 
 probably never have been sanctioned by Congress. 
 Unfortunately for the permanent success of this 
 arrangement, it so happened that while the pop- 
 ulous tribes wliich emigrated from the southern 
 States to the country west of Arkansas, occupied 
 the whole of that portion of the Indian territory 
 lying south of the line of 30° 30', from various 
 causes it turned out that a much smaller number 
 emigrated to that part of the Indian territory lying 
 north of that line; and hefice the present embar- 
 rassment of the country upon this subject. The 
 eight or ten thousand of the emigrant Indians, 
 together with about an equal number of indigen- 
 
 ous Indians, inhabiting the country west of Mis- 
 souri, do not seem to justify the exclusion of 
 the white race from the large residuum of unset- 
 tied country around them; and sooner or later, 
 whatever be the fate of this bill, they will be com- 
 pelled to yield to the inexorable law of progress, 
 and seek yet another and a new home, if they 
 can find one, or perish where they are, under the 
 operation of those causes which have heretofore 
 proved so destructive to their race. 
 
 What conclusion do I draw from all this? Why, 
 that the territory west of Missouri, having been 
 set apart and dedicated as a permanent habitation 
 for the Indian tribes, and so regarded for the last 
 twenty or thirty years — having the sanction of 
 law and numerous Indian treaties to sustain it — 
 acquiesced in during all that period by both the 
 North and the South, without alteration or dis- 
 turbance; and this being free territory by the 
 terms of the Missouri compromise, and the equiv- 
 alent conceded by the North for the humane 
 purpose of providing a permanent possession for 
 the Indian tribes, for a like concession made by the 
 South of slave territory on the other side of the 
 line of 3GO 30', it amounts to a compact or un- 
 derstanding, part expressed and in part implied, 
 between the North and the South, carrying with 
 it obligations and a binding force, if, of any less 
 validity than any other compact, I think it 
 it would plague the ingenuity of the most sophis- 
 tical mind to prove it. Therefore, if this territory 
 is not to remain Indian territory, equal justice to 
 the South would seem to require that such guaran- 
 tees should be voluntarily conceded by the North 
 as would secure to the South the formation of a 
 slave State, should the country turn out to be 
 adapted to slave labor, as an equivalent for the 
 loss of one south of the line of the Missouri com- 
 promise. And if the experiment should show 
 that the country presented no adequate induce- 
 I ment to the introduction of slave labor, and it 
 I should become a free State, then the South could 
 , not complain if the North should profit by those 
 ! circum.stances which now seem to demand that 
 i this territory should change its destination, and be- 
 come the possession and abode of the white instead 
 I of the red man. 
 
 I have yet to consider whether the provisions of 
 I the present bill relieve it from the objections which 
 ; I had to the Nebraska bill of the last session of 
 i Congress. Does the bill under consideration vio- 
 late theu obligations which the Government has 
 entered into with the emigrant Indian tribes? The 
 ': original bill reported by the Committee on Terri- 
 ! tories contained a provision excepting the lands 
 1 held by the Indian tribes from its operation, in the 
 precise terms, I believe, of the Nebraska bill of 
 i the last session; yet it includes all the emigrant 
 [ tribes west of Missouri within its boundaries, ex- 
 I cept two or three small tribes on the west line o. 
 ' Missouri and near the Cherokee boundary, and, 
 like the bill of the last session, authorizes the 
 [ formation of white settlements around the lands 
 i occupied by the Indians. So far the same objec- 
 i tions exist to this bill that I urged against the bill 
 of last session. But it is contended that all objec- 
 j tions are removed by the amendment suggested by 
 j the Committee on Indian Affairs, and engrafted 
 upon the bill. It is in these wordsr 
 
 "Jlndbeit further enacted, That all treaties, laws, and 
 I Other eugagements made by the Government of the United 
 
Ktates with the Indian tribes iiihnbiliiiR the territory cm- 
 
 braced wiihiii this bill, isluill be tiiilhrully and rii,'idiy ob- 
 served, nolwitlistundiiig unytliin;; cuiitniiied in tlii.-i net." 
 
 The nniendiiient provides tlmt " till treaties, 
 law, ami other engaireinenls mnde hy the Gov- 
 ernmeiil of the Uiiiteil Stales witli liie Indian Irihes 
 ifiliabitiii;; the territory etiihrared within ihiH 
 bill, shall l>e faitlifully and ri;;iil!y observed." 
 Tlie stiiHilations and eiijragenieiits enteied into 
 by tlie Government with tiie einij^rant tribes in- 
 liabiling the territory embraced in this bill were, 
 among otliers, that those tribes should never be 
 exposed to the evils of a wliite population around 
 them, and that no '}'errUorial or Slale ^oveniinent 
 should ever be onjanized or estiiblished including 
 theirhiiulswitliin its boundaries. The bill proposes 
 to establish a territorial government including these 
 Indian tribes within its boundaries, and, at the 
 same time, opens the whole of the country not al- 
 lotted to, or occupied by the Indians, to settlement 
 by the whites. Yet the amendment provides that all 
 treaty stipulations and en2:jifi;enients, and obliga- 
 tions of every kind entered into by the Government 
 with those Indian tribes, shall be faithfully and 
 rigidly observed ! 1 would ask, without meaning 
 the slightest oflense to any gentleman, could any- 
 thing be more preposterous tlian the argument that 
 this amendment reinoves all objections to the bill, 
 when by the very terms of the bill those obligations 
 are violated and set at nought. It is a mockery 
 to say that the engagements of the Government 
 with the Indians shall be faithfully and rigidly ob- 
 served, when the whole scope and object of the bill 
 is indirect and open violation of those engagements. 
 To show what were the leading principles and 
 guarantees under which all the emigrant tribes in 
 the country west of Missouri and Arkansas were 
 induced to exchange their lands east of the Missis- 
 sippi for others west, I will read a clause from the 
 treaty made with the Cherokees in 1835. The third 
 article of that treaty contains this clause : 
 
 " The I'nited States hereby covenniit and agree that tlic 
 lands ceded to the Clierokee nation in the I'orejtoinirarliele, 
 sliall, in no future time, without their consent, be included 
 within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of any State or 
 Territory."' 
 
 This exhibits the true character of the policy 
 and principles adopted by the Government in set- 
 ling apart the country west of Missouri and Ar- 
 kansas as a permanent and exclusive Indian liab- 
 italion. To show that there was no distinction in 
 the principles or policy of the Government in 
 allotting portions of the country west of Mis- 
 souri, and west of Arkansas, to tribes emigrating 
 from the States east of the Mississippi, 1 propose 
 to read from a treaty made with the Senecas and 
 Shawnees of Ohio, made at Lewiston, in 1831, 
 and now resident in the territory west of Missouri, 
 a clause similar to the one I have just read from 
 the treaty with the Cherokees. Tlie tenth article 
 of this treaty contains the following stipulation: 
 
 " And the United States pufffantee tliat said lands sliall 
 never be included witliin the limits of any State or Terri- 
 tory, nor subject to the laws thereof." 
 
 A similar guarantee is to be found in the treaty 
 made with the Shawnees of Wapaghkonetta in 
 Ohio, in the same year; and in two or three other 
 treaties made at different dates with tribes which 
 emigrated to the territory west of Missouri. 
 
 Mr. SEBASTIAN. 1 beg to interrupt the 
 Senator a moment. 1 understand him to be speak- 
 ing of the treaties which contain, in terms, the 
 
 stipulation that the tribe shall never be included 
 within the boundaries of any State or Territory. 
 That class is a small one. The Cherokees to whom 
 he alluded are not embraced in the bill. The 
 Shawnees of Wapaghkonetta have lost the bin- 
 efit of a similar stipulation by incorporation witii 
 the Missouri batid, by which they surrendered 
 all their nationality and their treaty stipulation 
 by the same act. Congress, a year ago, allowed 
 them a compcnsatifm of ^(JU.UUt) or JlTO.UOO for 
 the lands they were to have had under the treaty 
 with them. The other Shnv/nees are not v/ilhin 
 the limits of the proposed Territory. I admit that 
 a small trilie of Ottowas, numbering two hundred 
 souls, and owning thirty-four thousand acres of 
 land, still remain, and are protected by the stipu- 
 lation in their treaty, similar to that of the Chero- 
 kees. This obstacle, such as it is, still stands. 
 
 Mr. BELL. The honorable Senator says iha t 
 the guarantee in the last treaty I referred to, made 
 with the Shawnees of WapagliK'onetta, was ab- 
 rogated. IIow.' They were induced to give up 
 their lands east, and sell them upon certain terms, 
 and with the same assurance upon which other 
 Indians gave up their lands east, namely: that 
 they should have a jiermanent home in the coun- 
 try to which they agreed to remove, and that their 
 new home should never be included within the 
 boundaries of any State or Territory. They were 
 to have an allotment of land out of the lands ceded 
 to the Shawnees of Missouri in 1825, or, if they 
 were not satisfied with that arrangement, they 
 were to have other lands, in the same country, 
 west of Missouri. Cut they agreed with their 
 kinsmen to live in common with them on their 
 lands, and set up a claim upon the Government for 
 the value of the lands they were promised in the 
 treaty, and their claim was allowed. How does 
 that deprive them of the protection of the guaran- 
 tee that they should never be surrounded with a 
 white population, relyitig upon which, they ceded 
 their lands in Ohio. By no technical, by no in- 
 genious interpretations, can theGovernment avoid 
 the obligation entered into with them. 
 
 But my friend reminds me that the Cherokees 
 do not reside in the territory embraced in this bill. 
 I did not pretend that they do. 1 read a clause 
 from the treaty with them to show the principles 
 upon which the policy of the Indian removal was 
 adopted by the Government in 1830; and I read 
 clauses from the treaties made with the Shawnees 
 of Wapaghkonetta, in Ohio, and one made in the 
 same year with the Senecas and Shawnees of the 
 same State; and I referred to others, to show that 
 there was no difference recognized by the Gov- 
 ernment as to the terms and conditions upon which 
 the Indians were removed between the country 
 west of Arkansas and that west of Missouri. Any 
 treaty made with a tribe which took an allotment 
 of land west of Missouri, with a similar guarantee 
 against the establishment of a State or Territory 
 including their lands, and that treaty, ratified by 
 the Senate, f.xed the destination of that country. 
 It was to be Indian territory, and no other, as long 
 as a single tribe existed which emigrated to it under 
 that guarantee. That was its destination, as un- 
 derstood by the Senate and by the Executive, 
 when the treaty was made with the Shawnees of 
 Wapaghkonetta, with the Senecas and Shawnees 
 of Lewiston, and with the Ottowas and the two 
 other tribes which emigrated to the territory west of 
 
8 
 
 Missouri; and whether one of those treaties has 
 been abrogated or not, or whether one or more of 
 the tribes treated with upon the same terms hap- 
 pens to be included within the boundaries specified 
 in this bill or not, is not material; tliey emigrated 
 to the territory west of Missouri, and now reside 
 there. My argument is, that all the emigrant 
 tribes which removed after 1830 were induced to 
 remove under the same assurances and guarantees, 
 whether specifically stated in the treaties made 
 with them or not; and that it would be a fraud upon 
 the Indians to give a different interpretation to the 
 obligations of the Government. The nature and 
 extent of the obligations contracted with the In- 
 dian tribes which emigrated to the country west 
 of Missouri and Arkansas, in conformity with the 
 policy of Indian removal, adopted in ]830, and 
 the proper interpretation and construction of those 
 obligations, will be. best explained by referring to 
 what was said upon the subject by a man who 
 was the chief and most responsible actor in all 
 that relates both to the adoption and execution of 
 that policy. In the message of the President of 
 the United States [General Jackson] to Congress 
 in 1835, we find the follov/ing passages connected 
 with this subject: 
 
 "The plan of removing the aboriginal people who yet 
 remain wiiliin the settled portion of the United States to 
 the country west of the Mississippi river approaches its 
 consummation. 
 
 "All preceding experiments for the improvement of the 
 fndians have failed. It seems now to be an established 
 fact that they cannot live in contact vvitli a civilized com- 
 mnnity and pro-sper. 
 
 " The necessary measures for their political advancement, 
 and for their separation from our citizens, have not been 
 neglected. The pledge of the United Stales has been given 
 by Congress that the country destined for the residence of 
 this people shall be forever ' secured and guarantied to 
 thein.'^ 
 
 "A country west of Missouri and Arkansas has been as- 
 signed to them, into which the white settlements are not to 
 be pushed. No political communities can be formed in that 
 extensive region, except those which are established by the 
 Indians themselves, or by the United States for them and 
 with their concurrence. A barrier has been raised for their 
 protection against the encroachments of our citizens, and 
 guarding them, as far as possible, from those evils which 
 iiave brought them to their present condition." 
 
 Mr. President, I must be allowed to feel more 
 than a common sensibility to any violation of the 
 obligations of the Government contracted with the 
 Indian tribes. When this whole subject of Indian 
 rights and Indian wrongs was brought to the notice 
 of the country and thoroughly discussed — our rela- 
 tions with them claiming to be theguardianofthese 
 children of the forest, and they looking up to the 
 President as their Great Father — I was chairman 
 of the Committee on Indian Affairs in the Flouse 
 of Representatives, and had to bear my full share 
 of responsibility in sustaining the policy of Indian 
 removal against the attacks of its opponents. 
 
 I have always differed from my friend from 
 Texas, [Mr. Houston,] and others, who have 
 maintained that the Indian race is susceptible of 
 as high a development of their mental faculties as 
 the white race, and that all their misfortunes are 
 to be attributed to the encroachments of the white 
 man upon tli eir lands. 1 have never been so hope- 
 ful of the results of the experiments which are 
 making to civilize and elevate their condition. I 
 have always held the opinion, that all the Govern- 
 ment can do for them, under any plan which may 
 be adopted to wean them from their ancient habits, 
 and to induce them to cultivate the arts of civilized 
 
 life, will have no other result than to postpone the 
 period of their final extinction; and that, in the 
 meantime, imbecility, despondency, and indo- 
 lence, will be their characteristic traits. I believe 
 I' that the highest development of Indian character 
 is only to be found in their normal or primitive 
 condition, and before their proud spirit has been 
 bowed by conquest. 
 
 But, sir, the question is not now, whether we 
 can elevate and improve the condition of the In- 
 dian tribes by encouraging them to adopt the arta 
 and habits <of civilized life. It is, shall we keep 
 our faith with them? We can, at least, do that. 
 We can, if we are disposed, maintain them in the 
 possession of a country to which they were in- 
 duced to emigrate by the most solemn assurances 
 of the Government of the United States that it 
 should be to them and their children an inherit- 
 ance forever. 
 
 Well do I remember, Mr. President, the discus- 
 sion upon this subject more than twenty years ago, 
 alluded to by the learned and eloquent Senator 
 from Massachusetts, [Mr. Everett;] and well do 
 I remember, also, the doubts expressed by the 
 more temperate of the opponents of the policy of 
 Indian removal as to its results; and the taunts 
 and jeers of the more violent, who denounced it 
 as an expedient invented to extricate the Admin- 
 istration from the difficulties and embarrassments 
 brought upon it by the insatiate craving of the 
 white man; and who. insisted that the Indian would 
 never realize the hope of that new land of promise 
 held out to him as an inducement to emigrat* — 
 that the Indians would find no home, no resting 
 place — never. I thought they were mistaken. 
 
 Before Heave this point of the subject, Mr. Pres- 
 ident, I must express the surprise with which I 
 have been struck by one circumstance attending the 
 pendency of this measure before Congress. It is 
 known here, and it must be known throughout the 
 country, that the passage of this bill will affect 
 very seriously the welfare of the Indian tribes 
 within the bounds of the new Territories proposed 
 to be organized; and every diligent inquirer must 
 see that there is a question of public faith involved 
 in the provisions of this bill in relation to the 
 , emigrant tribes west of Missouri. Several hon- 
 orable Senators have spoken strongly and elo- 
 quently of the duty of observing sacredly and 
 inviolably all the obligations attaching to a certain 
 compact, or understanding, entered into many 
 years ago between the two great sections of the 
 Union; and some of them, in their appeals to the 
 people upon the subject, denounce any violation 
 of that understanding as dishonorable. Yet when 
 it is proposed to violate the public faith plighted to 
 the feeble Indian tribes on the frontier, not a word 
 is interposed to save the honor of the country. 
 We hear of no appeal to the sympathy or the 
 justice of the country in their behali^. While the 
 Senate Chamber rings with stirring appeals upon 
 the subject of the wrongs of the African, the 
 wrongs of the Indian are passed by in silence! 
 No memorials are presented in his behalf. Yet, 
 are not these Indians, men.' Are they not our 
 brethren, of the human race, like the African.' Are 
 they not born with the same equality of rights — 
 inalienable as those of the African or the white 
 man.' 
 
 Here, sir, I must be allowed a further digression. 
 We have heard, in the course of this debate, allu- 
 
le 
 
 sion made to Wilberforce; the obloquy he in- 
 curred in hi;;h ]ilace9, his triunipli, at lust, in tlie 
 abolilioii of the slave trade and of shivery in the ! 
 British Colonies. The allusion, of course, su<;;geHt8 | 
 to us his fine accomplishments as a scliolar, the 1 
 excellence of his character as a man, and the bril- 
 liant fame conceded to hiiu iiy liie wlmle class of 
 rhilanlliro|iists and sentimentalisls, as their j;reat 
 eader. Well, sir, we doubtless have aspirants 
 in this country to the fame achieved by Wilber- 
 force; but 1 doubt, sir, whether they will ever attain 
 the elevnted rank in the scale of distinction to 
 which Wilberforce and many of his supporters 
 rose by their ellorts for the suppression of the . 
 slave trade, as well as the abolition of slavtry in 
 tlie Jiritish Colonies. When the act for the aboli- 
 tion of slavery in the colonies was carried in the 
 British Parliament in 183.3, and thej question of 
 indemnity to the slaveholder came up, there was 
 scarcely a dissenting; voice raised agamst the pro- 
 priety and justice of the proposition; and twenty 
 millions of pounds sterliii<ij — one hundred millions 
 of dollars — were promptly voted for that purpose. 
 Whatever moral guilt, said the great leaders of the 
 abolition movement, might attach to the slave- 
 holder, the e;reatest share of the guilt and resjionsi- 
 bility rested with the Government wliich encour- , 
 aged and established slavery in the colonies. 
 
 But when, sir, have we ever heard from any 
 one of our American Wilberforces, our profes- 
 sional jdiilanthropists and slavery agitators, an 
 avowal so liberal and just? When have any of 
 them, in their fierce denunciations of slavery as a 
 curse to the country, and a stain upon the national 
 cdiaracter, ever conceded the ])rinciple of indem- 
 nity, as a just and necessary attendant of aboli- 
 tion ? When has any one of them had the liberality 
 and the manliness to declare that the guilt of 
 slavery in the United States, whatever it might be, 
 was justly chargeable to the mother country, 
 and to the colonies of the North as much as to 
 thoee of the South ? How strikingly greater the 
 elevation of tone and sentiment, conspicuous in 
 the leaders of abolition in Great Britain, than in 
 this country — ^how immeasurably elevated the one 
 over the other in all that constitutes true great- 
 ness and nobility of purpose. 
 
 While upon this subject, I be^ to refer to a re- 
 m«rk made by the Senator from Massachusetts, 
 [Mr. SiMKER,] which now occurs to me as proper 
 to be noticed. That gentleman told us that sla- 
 very in the^South was destined to early extinction, 
 because the conscience of the civilized world was 
 against it. Sir, we have heard, before now, a 
 similar announcement by another gentleman, made 
 again and again. We were then told that slavery 
 in the South was a doomed institution, and the 
 South was solemnly warned to prepare for the 
 fate which awaited it. We were then told that 
 slavery must speedily disappear, because the seu- 
 timent of tlie civilized world was against it. Now 
 we are told that a more powerful agent than a 
 mere sentiment is enlisted against slavery, and 
 that it is under the irresistible power of the con- 
 Bcicnce of the civilized world that slavery in the 
 South must yield. I wish to say a word or two 
 as to the particular qualities and power of that con- 
 science of the civilized world, with which the slave 
 institution of the Souih is threatened. 
 
 At this moment England and France, and per- 
 haps other States of western Europe, the very 
 
 center or civilization, are leagued together, and 
 are buckling on their armur to uphold the Ottoman 
 dominion, the most corrujit, o|)pres8ive, and de- 
 basing Government of the earth; and one which 
 ui)holds slavery and the slave Irude in its most 
 odious and revolting forms — one founded on a 
 social organization, in whir.h slavery is so deeply 
 engrafted, that it may be well doubled whether it 
 could exist wilhoulii. TlieBubitclHof slavery in 
 Turkey are not Africans only. It is a well estab- 
 lished fact that there is a regular trade between 
 Constantinople and the eastern coast of the Black 
 Sea in white .siaves. Russia, when she conquered 
 
 i Georgia, abolTshed that infamous traftic within its 
 limits; but those invincible champions of freedom, 
 the Circassians, still tolerate the Irnde. Yet the 
 conscience of western Europe is so little affected by 
 
 : this and other enormities in the practice of the 
 
 ! Turkish Government, that they are not only ready 
 to arm in its defense, iiul the proposition is gravely 
 
 ' considered whether what they now call the Otto- 
 man Empire should not be received as a coetiiud 
 into the family of European and Christian States. 
 
 i The honorable Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. 
 Sumn'kr] took occasion to stale, in his speech, that 
 slavery was rapidly disa)ipearing in every other 
 
 ! part of the world except ihe United States. Th« 
 Sultan of Turkey, he says, has signified his di-s- 
 pleasure at it; and, under the auspices of Great 
 Britain, the Emperor of Morocco, and the Beys 
 of Tunis and Tripoli, have agreed to abolish th« 
 slavetradein theirdominions. Well, sir, iheSuItan 
 has prohibited ihe slave market in Constantinople; 
 but you have only to go a few miles out of th* 
 city to find a market, both for white and black 
 slaves, limited only by the means of purchasers. 
 
 < It is no doubt true, also, that the other Mohamme- 
 dan Slates and dependencies of the Sublime Port* 
 have promised to discourage or abolish the slave 
 trade; but there does not exist iheslightest evidence 
 that the trade in their dominions is less active than 
 formerly. 
 
 ! The truth is, that the Turkish Government for 
 many years past has been at nurse to England and 
 France, and great pains have been taken, espe- 
 cially by England, to dress her up for European 
 exhibition and sympathy. The Grand Sultan has 
 
 i been prevailed upon to promulgate an organic law, 
 
 declaring perfect equality before the law between 
 
 all his subjects, Musselman, Christian, and Jew; 
 
 but in practice it is a dead letter. 
 
 Various other reforms have been announced 
 
 ! with the same result ; and , except that in Constan- 
 
 ^tinople, always under the eyes of ihe British and 
 French Embassadors, there is more security 
 against insult and oppression to the Christian, 
 less of the ferocious and sanguinary passions prev- 
 alent than formerly — a less frequent use of the bow 
 siring, the scimeiar, and the sack — there has been 
 no substantial improvement. All the vital ele- 
 ments of government and society^all the practices 
 of the Pashas, and other subordinate functionaries 
 throughout the provinces, exhibit the same rotten- 
 ness at bottom — the same corrupt, oppressive, and 
 
 i debasing inllivences. 
 
 Now, sir, no intelligent man in Europe supposes 
 that the independence of the western States of that 
 
 ' continent will be in any danger from the conquest 
 of Constantinople by Russia; and as to any mate- 
 rial derangement of an existing balance of power, 
 
 ij founded upon any principle of equality, as between 
 
1€ 
 
 the different States of Europe, which the success 
 of Russia may occasion, we know that there ex- 
 ists no such balance of power. Yet, these are 
 the pretexts for the interference of Great Britain 
 and France in behalf of Turkey. But, sir, Louis 
 Napoleon needs a war that is popular with France. 
 He has also his ambitious projects, which might 
 be thwarted if Russia should enlarge her resources 
 by the acquisition of any part of Turkey; and the 
 colossal empire of England in India may be in 
 some dangei-,at a future period, if the Czar should 
 succeed in his present projects. Hence it is that 
 we find a war with Russia has become popular in 
 Great Britain; and not a single remonstrance is 
 lieard from the philanthropists and abolitionists 
 against the policy of maintaining the power and in- 
 dependence of the Ottoman Empire, on the ground 
 that it upholds slavery and the slave trade. 
 
 Sir, I do not mean to make myself the partisan 
 of Russia by anything I have said upon this sub- 
 ject; nor do I mean to disparage the proper con- 
 science of western Europe. But what I do mean, 
 is to showthat this co7if:cicnce of the civilized v/orld, 
 spoken of by the honorable Senator from Mas- [ 
 eachusetts, and especially the conscience of the 
 philanthropists and abolitionists of England, is an ; 
 essentially practical and conservative guide ofj 
 conduct whenever any great question is pending i 
 which concerns the preservation of British power ;. 
 and supremacy. 1 do not find fault with them i 
 or their conscience. 1 rather respect them more. ! 
 Yes, sir, the British Wilberforces of the present; 
 day, without renouncing their anti-slavery prin- 1 
 ciples, or discarding their conscience, hold both 
 subordinate to the great interests of the British 
 Empire. While they continue to extend their 
 patronizing hand to the leaders of slavery agita- 
 tion in the United Slates, their patriotism forbids 
 them to distract the councils of their own country 
 by their agitations and remonstances. I could 
 wish, sir, that their example could be imitated in 
 this country. 
 
 A word to my friend [Mr. Wade] who sits by 
 my side. He was very severe the other day 
 upon the slaveholders of the South — characterizing 
 them as aristocrats. Let me say to him that, 
 having made that speech, if he will visit England, 
 he will find himself quite a lion with the proudest 
 aristocracy of the world. I will venture to say 
 that he will be taken by the hand by my lord the 
 Earl of Carlisle, who would doubtless insist upon 
 having the honor of presenting him at Court. 
 
 Mr. WADE. I want no such honor myself. 
 
 Mr. BELL. I only mean to say, that I think 
 my friend would see that aristocrats, after all, are 
 not so bad a class as he supposed. 
 
 _ Mr. President, I now approach the considera- 
 tion of another provision in this bill, which, in 
 the opinion of many, possesses an importance 
 paramount to all others; one that is held to be so H 
 important to the welfare of the country, and espe- jj 
 dally to the South, that some of my southern!! 
 friends have expressed the opinion, in our private i 
 and friendly conferences, that a southern man j 
 who should fail to support it would be considered {: 
 a traitor to the interests of the South; and that, ': 
 under such circumstances, I should waive all scru- !' 
 I les about the violation of treaties or compacts of i 
 pr.y kind — all my objections to the bill, however ,i 
 important I may deem them. I take no exception [\ 
 
 to the morality of this view of duty; for if it can 
 be shown that the principle of non-intervention 
 incorporated in this bill will produce the happy 
 consequences which its more ardent supporters 
 contend it will, though it may be a nice question 
 in casuistry, a Senator might well consider it one 
 ot those cases of overpowering necessity and in- 
 terest to the country to which all constitutional 
 and other scruples or objections should yield. 
 ITpon such principles some of the most eminent 
 Tiien of the country have heretofore ftit tiiemselves 
 justified in acting. 1 therefore take no exception to 
 the course of any of my southern friends upon this 
 subject, believing, as they no doubt do, that it is a 
 measure of all the importance which they ascribe 
 to it. It was in view of the overruling necessity 
 and importance of the acquisition, that Mr. Jef- 
 ferson treated for the cession and annexation of 
 Louisiana; and I have heard it suggested, that it 
 was upon similar principles that some of the mem- 
 bers of Mr. Monroe's Cabinet proceeded when 
 they gave their opinions in favor of the constitu- 
 tionahty of the iVlissouri Compromise act; but I 
 wish to hold some converse with my southern 
 friends upon this subject in my place in the Sen- 
 ate before I yield my objections to this bill. I 
 propose, sir, to discuss this question with candor 
 and fairness; to give to all the arguments in its 
 favor their due weight and importance, and then 
 to consider whether they make out a case of over- 
 ruling necessity; a case of such vital importance 
 to the country generally, or to the South particu- 
 larly, that I ought to surrender my objections to 
 the measure. 
 
 Sir, much time has been consumed, and theye 
 has been a great deal of ingenuity displayed, in the 
 discussion of points and questions of subordinate 
 importance. The friends of the bill dilTer widely 
 among themselves as to some of the doctrines and 
 principles involved in the general subject. These 
 differences have led to inquiries as to the source of 
 the power heretofore exercised by Congress in 
 legislating ifor the Territories — some deriving it 
 from the express grant of the power to make all 
 needful rules and regulations for the disposition of, 
 or respecting, the public domain; and others main- 
 tain that it results necessarily from the political 
 sovereignty of the United States over all territory 
 as soon as acquired or annexed. While some admit 
 the power of the United States to legislate for ihe 
 inhabitan ts of the Territories on all su I ijects of legit- 
 imate and ordinary legislative control, yet deny 
 its power to legislate upon the particular subject 
 of slavery, as being inconsistent with the equal 
 rights of the citizens of all the States secured by 
 the Constitution. A greater number of the friends 
 of the bill adopt a broader principle as the foun- 
 dation of the policy of non-intervention by Con- 
 gress upon the slave question in the Territories. 
 Going back to the principle of the Revolution, they 
 deny that Congress has any right to legislate for, 
 or in any manner to interfere with, tiie internal 
 affairs or institutions of the inhabitants of a Ter- 
 ritory. They contend that it belongs to them as 
 an inherent right. This is the principle of popu- 
 lar sovereignty, or the right of self-govern meat, 
 extended to the people of the Territories, and it is 
 the principle upon which the bill under considera- 
 tion is based. If well-founded, it seems to pre- 
 clude Congress from organizing a government for 
 them in any form, or of imposing any restrictions 
 
11 
 
 or qualifications upon the absolute right of the M principle adopted in the Compromise acts of 1850, 
 
 inhabitants, natives or foreij^ners, to govern them- and hail my full coticurrence*nd Hupport. I'ut in 
 selves under such ori,'anic laws as they shall think the apjilicution of this princi|)le to the Territories 
 best. The suicircstion of tliis principle, of llie proposed to he ors^anized by this hill, in order to 
 ri^htoflhepeo|ileof the Territories, has given rise , i?ive it a free and unembarrassed operation, it is 
 to^'a variety of incidental ([uestions. proposed to repeal the Missouri Compromise; and 
 
 It seems to be admitted, by some of the advo- thus a f^reat practical «iueHtion is directly presented; 
 cates of this principle, that Consjress may les^islate and one which, above all others, claims the dis- 
 for the proteciion of the inhabitants of a Territory passionate reflection and consideration of every 
 by or-janizin^ a ^'iverninent for them, and that Senator and every statesman of tiie country, north 
 then tlie pow'er of Com^'iess ceases. Others con- or south: Is it wise, is it expedient to disturb the 
 tend that Congress shoiiW retain a general super- Missouri Compromise.' Does the repeal of the 
 visory control over territorial legislation, but are slavery restriction clause of the act of 1H:20 promise 
 willing to concede the exclusive right to establish i such important and beneficent results to thecoun- 
 Buch domestic institutions as they think jiroper. ' try th.U all objections should be yielded .> 
 The honor:i!)le Senator from Michigan [Mr. Cass] It iy contended, with great earnestness, by the 
 himself admits the ditliculty of determining the friends of this measure, tiiat it does give such 
 precise point at which all legislation by Congress promise; and the highest talents and ability of 
 relating to the Territories shall cease; and the in- the Senate have been arrayed to prove that there 
 quiry as to whether any number of inhabitants, ; was nothing in the circumstances under which the 
 however small, may be safely allowed to settle all Missouri compromise was adopted, or in the sub- 
 questions of internal policy, is evidently one of', sequent history of the country connected with it, 
 great embarrassment. The distinguished Senator ^ which can be objected to Us repeal. I propose to 
 f*-omMichiganregardsthese,andoiherlikepoint8, |i notice brielly and fairly all the points suggested 
 as questions for practical solution by Congress, in j or assumed in the arguments of the friends of this 
 tlie exercise of common sense and a sound discre- Ij measure; and I think, sir, that before a dispaa- 
 tion. Asto the questions which have been mooted i] sionate and uncommitted Senate, I could throw 
 in relation to the source, or grant in the Consti- : out some suggestions which might lead honorable 
 tution, from which is derived any power in Con- 
 gress to legislate for the Territories at all, the 
 
 Senators to doubt the correctness of some of the 
 conclusions to which they have come; but, after 
 
 best answer, undoubtedly, is, that Congress has !| the vote of last night, I can have but little hope of 
 exercised the power in various forms, from the such a result from anything 1 can now say. 
 foundation ofthe Government, and that the power Sir, it is contended that by applying the princi- 
 has been found both safe and convenient, it would 'pie of non-intervention to the Territories, that 
 not be safe, at this day, to look too closely into ; we shall harmonize the action of the Government 
 tlie question ofthe power of Congress over the.: by conforming it to the principle of the corn- 
 Territories, for we cannot go very far back 1 1 promise acts of 1850. Admitted. It is said that 
 antil we find ourselves embarrassed by the ac- ij the slavery restriction clause of the act of 1«20 
 knowledged unconstitutionality of the purchase Ij was a violation ofthe obligations ofthe treaty by 
 and ann'exation of the whole territory ceded to '| which France ceded to the United Slates 'heTer- 
 the United States by France. Greatinconvenience rilory of Louisiana. I admit it. It is contended 
 mayarisefrom theconcession of theprincipleofthe that the restriction upon slavery imposed by the 
 inherent right of self-government in the people of a 1 IVlissouri compromise was unjust to the South. 
 Territory.'^Havingtheuncontrolledpoweroflegis- That is also true. 
 
 lating, they may grant charters of incorporation i The attempt of the North in 1820 to interdict 
 with e-vtraordinary privileges, create a public debt, slavery in Missouri, as a condition of her admis- 
 aiid do many other things which may be greatly sion into the Union, and the continued resistance 
 injurious to the welfare of the future State to which i offered to the application of that State for ad- 
 Uie territoral government may give place; but we !i mission, until the South agreed to accept the 
 must take the risk of unwise legislation in the ' proposition to interdict slavery in all the remain - 
 Territories, if, from any cause, it becomes highly ing territory ceded by France lyms north of the 
 expedient and necessary to the general welfare of line of 36^ 30', was just such a proceeding, that 
 the country to do so. Those who hold to'the doc- i the great names invoked by the honorable Senator 
 trine of the inherent right of self-government in ,i from Massachusetts, [Mr. Sumker,] to sustain 
 the inhabitants, will find no difficulty, of course, ! him in his course as an Abolitionist— Washing- 
 in applyin"- the principle of non-intervention to the !■ ton, Franklin, Jetterson, and Hamilton, had they 
 Territories! I leave it to the friends of the bill to ! been living at the time, anti-slavery m sentiment 
 inquirewhetheritsprovisions,asitnowstands,are though they were, would have raised their united 
 not, in some respects, inconsistent with the prin- , voices against it, as conceived in a spirit the very 
 ciple upon which it is based. : reverse of that which controlled their own course 
 
 If this measure shall appear to be as important j; when they gave their sanction to the Constitution; 
 totheinterestsofthecountryasitsfriendsassume, I when they contributed the full weight of ttieir 
 I shall feel no embarrassment arising from any ' great names and characters in conciliating and 
 of the questions to which I have just alluded, in |. reconciling the strongest antagonisms of senti- 
 eivin^r my support to the principle of non-inter- ! ment and interests between the North and the 
 vention, embraced in the provisions ofthe bill I South; and' in blending ah in one great organic 
 before the Senate. I think it is a wise and expe- instrument of Union, unparalle ed in the wisdom 
 dient principle, for general application; and upon of its provisions and the grandeur of its results, 
 this point it will be perceived that there is no dif- Jefferson did raise his voice against it, but untiap- 
 ference between myself and any of my southern pily his glorious compatriots of the Revolution 
 friends. It is not a new principie. It was the .; had passed away, and he, in his retirement, was 
 
12 
 
 no longer able to control the activepassions of the 
 day. 
 
 It suits the purposes of the professional philan- 
 thropists and agitators of the North to represent 
 tiie celebrated anti-slavery extension movement in 
 1820 as founded exclusively on principles of hu- 
 manity and opposition to the institution of slavery 
 in the South. Noihing could be more deceptive 
 or untrue. The great leaders in that movement 
 were influenced by no such sympathy for the 
 slave; they had no such horror of the nistitution 
 itself as to induce them to adopt a policy so likely 
 to lay the foujidation of a lasting feud between the 
 North and the South. There were other consider- 
 ations which impelled them, of a very dilTerent 
 nature, and quite as repugnant to their feelings as 
 slavery. These were the long continued, and, 
 apparently, never-ending sway of the Virginia 
 dynasty; and the perpetual exclusion from power 
 with which the preponderating influence of the 
 South at that period seemed to threaten them. 
 Urged by these strong passions, they had no diffi- 
 culty, through the press and the pulpit, to rouse 
 into activity the whole latent yet powerful anti- 
 slavery feeling in the North. It was a great party 
 and political movement; and the anti-slavery sen- 
 timent, so universal at the North, was the chief 
 element of its success. 
 
 It is further urged by the friends of this bill, 
 that Congress had no constitutional power to 
 enact the Alissouri compromise, and therefore 
 they contend it ought to be repealed. The power 
 of Congress to impose a perpetual restriction upon 
 slavery over any portion of the territory of the 
 United States, was strongly questioned at the time 
 of the adoption of the measure; and looking at the 
 question as one of constitutional construction, I 
 agree with my southern friends that no such power 
 can be fairly deduced from any grant in the Con- 
 stitution. Yet it was accepted by the South, and 
 acquiesced in as a measure of compromise between 
 the North and the South, and its constitutionality 
 was sanctioned 'by President Monroe and his 
 Cabinet. 
 
 Again, it has been alleged that the Missouri 
 compromise, which is now claimed to have be- 
 come a compact of so sacred a character that to 
 repeal it would be a breach of good faith on the 
 
 ?art of the South, has been repudiated by the 
 forth itself; and that the North has never ac- ; 
 quiesced in it as a settlement or concession of the ; 
 right of the South to introduce slavery into the 
 territory south of 30° 3U'. That the North, in 
 1830, opposed the extension of the Missouri com- 
 promise line, as established in 1820, to the Pacific, 
 over any part of the territory acquired from Mex- ; 
 ico, is true. It has also been urged, in the course ! 
 of the debate, that the North opposed the admis- 
 sion of Arkansas, lying south of the line of 3(JO 
 30', into the Union, on the ground that slavery ' 
 was recognized in its constitution; but I believe 
 it has been successfully shown that no such oppo- i 
 sition was made. But, sir, it is true that the Mis- i 
 souri compromise has been repudiated, and has 
 never been acquiesced in as a valid compact by a 
 class of citizens at the North, made up of Abo- 
 litionists proper, and the more mischievous type 
 of anti-slavery agitators, which is found repre- ■ 
 sented on this floor. They repudiate all compro- i 
 mises — the compromise of 1820 and 1850 alike, j 
 Their hostility to the institution of slavery in the , 
 
 I South is uncompromising. The Senator from 
 Ohio, [Mr. Chase,] and the Senator from Massa- 
 chusetts, [Mr. Sumner,] have boldly proclaimed 
 the principles which will control their course upon 
 this subject. The Senator from Ohio avows the 
 purpose to agitate the question until slavery shall 
 be abolished in theDistrictof Columbia, and every- 
 where else, within the control of Congress. They 
 admit that slavery where it exists in the Slates they 
 cannot reach through Congress; but they give no 
 pledge that when it is abolished in this District, 
 they will cease their agitation — nor will they. 
 Though they profess to make no war upon the 
 Constitution, yet such is their concern for freedom 
 and free labor, and their hostility to slavery and 
 slave labor, that if in their efforts to vindicate the 
 rights of the one and abolish the other the Union 
 should perish, they would be sufficiently consoled 
 for the ruin they had brought upon the country 
 by the reflection that they had been true to the 
 principles they professed. 
 
 Do what you may, or forbear to do what you 
 may now, these gentlemen are the inexorable foes 
 of the institutions of the South. They not only 
 repudiate the compromises of 1820 and 1850, but 
 the compromises of that greater compact tor the 
 settlement of all conflicting sentiments and inter- 
 ests between the North and the South — the Con- 
 stitution. I admit, then, that the North has op- 
 posed the extension of the line of 30° 30' to the 
 Pacific; and that the class of agitators in the North 
 to whom I have alluded never acquiesced in it. 
 
 Some of the friends of this bill have denied that 
 the slavery restriction clause of the act of 1820 
 was any part of the Missouri compromise. They 
 assert that this clause of the act of 1820 was not 
 acquiesced in by the North as a settlement of the 
 question; that the admission of Missouri into 
 the Union was still opposed by the North in 1821, 
 on the ground that the constitution formed and 
 presented by the people of Missouri, undertheact 
 of 1820, prohibited the Legislature from passing 
 any law authorizing mulatloes, or other free per- 
 sons of color, to emigrate to the State; and it is 
 contended that the admission of Missouri into the 
 Union was the result of a compromise of that ques- 
 tion; and that, is now contended by gentlemen to 
 have been the real Missouri compromise. 
 
 That ofiposition was made by the North to the 
 final admission of Missouri in 1821, on the ground 
 stated, is true; but the inference drawn from that 
 fact by the very ingenious and distinguished gen- 
 tleman who brought it to our notice, that is to say, 
 that the slavery restriction clause of the act of 
 1S20 had nothing to do with the question of the 
 admission of Missouri into the Union, or, in other 
 words, that it formed no part of the compact or 
 understanding between the North and the South 
 which led to that result, I think can scarcely find 
 any support in the judgment of the country. 
 
 Having thus gone over all the grounds of objec- 
 tion suggested against the validity of the Missouri 
 compromise, I trust it will be seen that I am not 
 disposed to controvert them either as to fact or 
 doctrine, with such exceptions only as upon more 
 deliberate consideration, by those who asserted 
 them, will be allowed to be well taken. 
 
 But, sir, admitting them, with the exceptions I 
 have stated, to be incontrovertibly true, still the 
 main question remains to be considered and de- 
 cided; Do these facts and doctrines demonstrate 
 
13 
 
 the expediency of tlisturbintj the Miesouri com- 
 promise under existing; circ.umstnnces? nnd in 
 comin;^ to lui aflirmtUive conclusion upon this 
 question I hesiiiUe, I pause. 
 
 1 have listened with attention to nil the luminous 
 expositions of theories of constitutional construc- 
 tion, and of popular sovereignty; to the infjenions 
 application of doctrinal points to (pieslions of com- 
 pacts and compromises by tiie friends of this meas- 
 ure. The ([uestioii has been fruitful of themes f(ir 
 dialectii', display; for the exhibition of ijreat powers 
 of analysis and loj^ical acumen; but the whole ar- 
 gument has been siiif^uliiriy defective and unsaiis- 
 J'actory upon the main (|uestion, What practical 
 advantage or benefii to tlie country, generally, or 
 to the South in particidar, will the repeal of the 
 Missouri compromise secure.' j 
 
 It is asserted with |:reat confidence that the np- 
 plica'ion of the principle of non-intervention to i 
 these Territories, and the repeal of the Mie.-jouri • 
 compromise, will have the ellect to transfer to the 
 local lejriijlatures, the Territories and States, and 
 to relieve Congress for the future from, the most ; 
 dangerous and distracting subject of controversy i 
 which ever has, or ever can disturb its delibera- j 
 tion; that the source of those sectional conllicts 
 rtnd agitations upon the subject of slavery, which i 
 have moi'e than once threatened the peiice of the; 
 co^jntry, will be removed; that justice will be done 
 to the South; that the Constitution will be restored 
 end vindicated; and a new guarantee be provided ! 
 for the stability of the Union. I need not say that ' 
 if one half of the many beneficent results predicated ' 
 of this measure oyi be shown to follow iis a prob- 
 able" consequence of its adoption, I would no ( 
 longer hesitate to give it my support; but, unfor- 
 tunately, the argument has proceeded no further 
 ttian the a;Hrmation, without showing how these 
 results must or will follow. Some getitlemen, 
 delighted at the prospect of seeing a favorite theory 
 of the right of the inhabitants of a Territory to 
 govern themselves recognized by a vote of Con- ' 
 grass — others in ecstasies with the prospect of a 
 similar recognition of some favorite notion or doc-| 
 trine of constitutional interpretation, after expend-: 
 ing the whole force of their great ability in eluci- 
 dating their respective creeds, forthwith jump to ' 
 the conclusion that the happie.sl results will neces- 
 eariiy and inevitably follow the adoption of this , 
 nieosure. i 
 
 Upon what rational calculation do gentlemen 
 assume that they can establish, upon a firm foun-. 
 dation, any one of the favorite principles or doc- 
 trines incorporated in this bill, and especially when 
 they consider, as they ought, the inherent element 
 of disturbance which exists in the nature of the 
 subject.' How estaltlish beyond future contro- 
 versy the principle of non-intervention by a vote, 
 of this Congress which the next, or any subse- 
 quent Congress, may annul .'' How restore a vio- 
 lated Constitution, settle a question of constitu- 
 tional power, or a rule of constitutional construc- 
 tion, when so many of the interests and passions 
 connected with these questions are necessarily po- 1 
 litical, and liable to change and vibrate with the 
 changing interests and composition of parties.' 
 Congress, by its votes, has often reversed the de- 
 cisions of the judicial department of the Govern- ! 
 nient on questions of constitutional power and 
 construction, and still oftener its own decisions, i 
 In the very nature of things, no such atability as ., 
 
 in argued can be given to any principle which this 
 ' Congress may siuiction by ii8 vote on this bill. 
 
 If this be so, how ran thitrmeauure furni.sh any 
 new guarantee for the [>reHerviition of the Union.' 
 Cr how transfer to ihe Territories and lake away 
 from CongreHM those diatractiiig and HectionnI ques- 
 tions which BO often intrude ihrmselveH here? 
 And, above all, how will tlie paHHa;;c of this bill 
 remove the source of those plaver\' lo^itationa at 
 the North, which have heretof ue, upon two mem- 
 orable occusiutiR, filled the country with alarm for 
 the safety of the Union .' Is there no danger tliiU, 
 inatead of staunching, you will open ufreah " Ihia 
 bleeding wound of the country .' ' 
 
 Air. President, take the i>rovi8ion.'j of the bill 
 as it stand.s ainended; atid 8up[)ose the inhubil- 
 ants, less or more in number, of one of thrae 
 Territories, as soon as their government is organ- 
 ized, should establi.sh slavery by law, would that 
 ' (|uiet agitation in the Ps'orth ? Or would it not be 
 more rational to conclude that it would be a sound- 
 ing of the tocsin for a general rally of all the 
 worst elements of the Abolition faction at the 
 North, stimulated and supported by great num- 
 bers of northern citizens who have heretofore 
 given no countenance to their exce.sses .' Would 
 not a more widelydill'used and a more iiiten.''e anti- 
 slavery seniiment be awakened than has ever ex- 
 i isted at any former period; prepared and determ- 
 ined, when the proper time should come, to resist 
 the application of the new slave Stale to be ad- 
 mitted into the Union .' 
 
 But let us now suppose that slavery shall not 
 be introduced into either of the.se Territories un- 
 der the sanction of a territorial law — and it is the 
 general opinion of those who have spoken in this 
 debate that it will not — will agitation then cease ? 
 Is there no ground to apprehend that the impres- 
 sion produced by the repeal of the Missouri com- 
 promise upon the people of the North will settle 
 down into a more decided and deep-rooted hostility 
 to slavery and the whole South than could, under 
 any other circumstances likely to occur in future, 
 be provoked.' I speak not of that chiss of north- 
 ern citizens to which the Senator from Massachu- 
 setts, [Mr. Sn.MXER,] and the Senator from Ohio, 
 [.Mr. CiiASF,,] and their followers, belong — pro- 
 fessional agitators, who avow their purpose of 
 continued agitation; and whether this bill passes 
 or not, they will do their utmost to fan the nres of 
 fanaticism, and inflame every anti-soutl.ern feeling 
 and prejudice in the North. And let me say that 
 nothing we could do would more {gainfully disturb 
 thepresentcomposureofthosegenilemen — no more 
 fatal blow to their present prospects could begiven, 
 than to reject this bill. But I was speaking of the 
 probable ellect of the pa<'sage of this bill upon a 
 far different class of northern citizens. 1 allude 
 to that body of sober-minded and reflecting cit- 
 izens who, though anti-slavery in their sentiments, 
 have never approved the fanatical ravings and mis- 
 chievous machinations of the various Abolition 
 societies and sects — who have had no disposition 
 to disturb or evade any of the compromises or 
 guarantees of the Constitution for the protection 
 of the rights of the slaveholder; but who may 
 yet entertain feelings of decided hostility to the 
 introduction of slavery into any territories here- 
 tofore considered free territory. Is there no just 
 ground to apprehend that the repeal of the Mis- 
 souri compromise, which, whether constitutional 
 
14 
 
 or not, for more than thirty years has been re- 
 garded in the North as a valid settlement of a line 
 north of which slavery could never go — 1 repeat, 
 is there no danger to be apprehended that the re- 
 peal of that settlement will impart a stronger and 
 deeper complexion to the anti-slavery sentiment 
 of this class of northern citizens? 
 
 I know it has been said that all such apprehen- 
 sions are but the suggestions of timidity; that a 
 better feeling and more liberal sentiments toward 
 the South and southern institutions begin to prevail 
 at the North than formerly. Mr. President, let 
 us inquire a moment whether this prevalence of a 
 more liberal feeling towards southern institutions 
 can be relied upon as furnishing any assurance 
 that no future manifestation of their anti-slavery 
 Bcntiments will menace the peace and harmony of 
 the country? The people of the North imbibed 
 their anti-slavery sentiments in early life — in the 
 period of their inf;\ncy,at the domestic fireside, in 
 the nursery, in the primary and high schools — 
 they have had them confirmed in the lecture- 
 room, in the church, and by the popular literature 
 of the day. A sentiment thus deeply implanted 
 in the hearts of a whole population, though it 
 may be ordinarily quiet, and seldom break forth 
 into fierce a2:itation, yet we have seen, in the his- 
 tory of the Missouri compromise, how promptly, 
 £md with what effect it may be brought to ex- 
 ercise its influence on occasion. Louisiana had 
 been admitted as a slave State in 1812, Missis- 
 sippi in 1817, and Alabama in 1819, without op- 
 position; and all the while scarcely a conscious- 
 ness seemed to pervade the country that there 
 was any diversity of institution or sentiment in the 
 North and in the South which could give rise to 
 any serious controversy; but in 1820, when Mis- 
 souri applied for admission into the Union, sud- 
 denly the whole North rose at the summons of 
 their political leaders, and protested against it. 
 
 Sir, I believe there is a better feeling prevailing 
 at the North towards the South than formerly; 
 but would it not be wise on the part of the South 
 to do nothing to reverse the current of that better 
 feeling, unless urged by some great necessity in 
 vindication of its rights? 
 
 But it is said that these anti-slavery feelings at 
 the North are nothing more than the prejudices of 
 education and a false philanthropy. Admit them 
 to be nothing more than prejudices; are they, 
 therefore, to be disregarded by statesmen, who 
 have the control of the affairs of a great country 
 in their hands? An eminent British statesman, 
 I do not now remember who, once said of a co- 
 temporary, that but for one defect, he would be 
 the greatest statesman of the times; that was, 
 that he had no regard for public prejudices of any 
 kind; and whatever measure appeared to him to 
 he right and proper in itself he would insist upon, 
 though it might excite the opposition and inflame 
 the passions of the whole country. 
 
 Mr. PETTIT. He was right, and he ought to 
 have done so. 
 
 Mr. BELL. 1 cannot agree with the Senator; 
 but I say to him frankly that occasions may arise 
 ■when I would be as little disposed to yield to 
 prejudices as any man in or out of this Chamber, 
 especially when these prejudices are sectional, and 
 when any great wrong or injustice shall be done 
 by one section of the Union to another. In such 
 a case, should time and chance offer an opportu- 
 
 nity of redress, then I would take the risk of 
 deepening and defying those prejudices. I know 
 it may be said that this is precisely such a case aa 
 I have here presented. A great wrong, it is 
 alleged, has been done to the South by the Mis- 
 souri compromise, and chance has presented the 
 opportunity for redress; and this brings up fairly 
 the inquiry, whether the passage of this bill is of 
 such importance to the interests of the South that 
 every southern Senator should support it, what- 
 ever scruples he may have in relation to some of 
 its provisions? What has the South to gain by 
 the adoption of this measure ? Will the passage 
 of this bill redress any wrong or injustice here- 
 tofore done by the North to the South ? I have 
 already admitted that injustice was done to the 
 South bv the Missouri compromise; but, after 
 all, what was the extent of that injustice? I 
 take it for granted that there is not a man who 
 has ever considered those laws which in this 
 country control the geographical extension or 
 dift'usion of slavery, who will pretend that if the 
 Missouri compromise act had never been passed 
 slavery would have gone north of the northern 
 boundary of Missouri. Then the whole extent 
 of the wrong done the South by that measure 
 was to prohibit slavery between that boundary 
 and the line of 36° 30'; and not even to that ex- 
 tent, unless it shall turn out that this interme- 
 diate territory is adapted to slave labor. In this 
 intermediate territory all will agree that such is 
 the character of the country generally — so larsfe 
 a portion of it consisting of sterile desert — that 
 but one slave State could, under any circum- 
 stances, be formed within its limits. Now, this 
 being the extent of the wrong done the South by 
 the Missouri compromise, will this bill, if it shall 
 pass, redress it? Will slavery be established in 
 the Kansas Territory proposed to be organized 
 under its provisions? Does any one, who has 
 fully considered the subject, believe that this Ter- 
 ritory will become a slave State? 
 
 I have inquired with some diligence into the 
 grounds upon which any expectation which may 
 exist in the South, that slavery will be established 
 in this Territory, is founded. A few gentlemen 
 with v/hom I have conversed think that it may, 
 but the greater number, with more reason, concur 
 in the opinion that it never will. A few house- 
 hold and other slaves may be taken into the Ter- 
 ritory of Kansas, if this bill shall pass, for the 
 convenience of their labor in opening and prepar- 
 ing for cultivation new farms, and with a vae:ue 
 expectation that slavery may be authorized. Bat 
 as the Territory does not revert to the condition 
 of slave territory by the provisions of this bill 
 but few will take that risk. The great uncertainty 
 as to what the sentiment of the majority of tlM 
 settlers on the question of slavery or no slavery 
 will be, or rather the probabilit}' that slavery will 
 be prohibited, will deter every prudent slaveholder 
 from emigrating to the Territory with liis slaves; 
 especially as they will see that the strongest tide 
 of immigration will flow in from the North, and 
 from abroad, bringing with them all their anti- 
 slavery prejudices. 
 
 Asrain, the slaveholder will know, that, should 
 theTerritorial Legislaturesanction slavery, yet that 
 the ordeal of admission into the Union as a State 
 will still have to be passed before he will feel secure 
 in his property. The example of Missouri would 
 
15 
 
 be before him. Besides, there will be no great 
 inducement in the location or chariicter of the soil 
 to take slaves there. The princi|ial settlements 
 will be upon the best lands, and those will be 
 found upon or near the great lines of immigration 
 to California and Oregon; and the most profitable 
 and marketaljle products will be jnst such as can 
 be grown more cheaply by free labor — breadstuds 
 and live stock. I am informed that many of the 
 slaveholders of Missouri are now seeking a more 
 genial clime, and a soil better adapted to slave 
 labor in the broad and rich domain of Texas; and 
 it will not be long after Kan.sas shall become 
 a free Kiate, that Missouri, bounded on three 
 sides by free States, will cease to be a slave State. 
 And this, sir, will most probably be the measure 
 of the redress which the South will derive from 
 this bill for any wrong or injustice done it by the 
 Missouri compromise. 
 
 But it is earnestly insisted that the principle of 
 non-intervention, proposed to be established by 
 this bill, will be of the greatest value and import- 
 ance to the South, whether slavery shall be author- 
 ized in these Territories or not. it will secure the 
 just rights of the South in ail timN to come. I 
 have already shown that you can establish per- 
 manently no principle by this bill. But I will 
 assume that the vote which may be given on the 
 passage of this bill, giving the sanction of Con- 
 gress to the principle of non-intervention, shall 
 stand unrepealed, and become the established doc- 
 trine of the country; still the question recurs, of 
 what practical value will it be to the South.' Does 
 any southern man suppose that slavery will ever 
 go into any of the Territories which , at any future 
 time, may be carved out of the large extent of 
 country included within the bounds of tiie Ne- 
 braska Territory, as proposed to be organized by 
 this bill.' I take it for granted that no such idea 
 is entertained by any one. Where is the other 
 and remaining territory of the United States to 
 which this principle of non-intervention can be 
 made available, or of any value to the South! 
 The territory we.=!t of Arkansas will be more irrev- 
 ocably dedicated to the exclusive possession of the 
 Indians, and more efiectually barred a;;ainst the 
 formation of a new slave State, under the opera- 
 tion of this bill, than heretofore; for it will be the 
 last and only retreat of the emigrant and other 
 tribes now in the territory west of Missouri. Utah 
 and New Mexico are already organized Territo- 
 ries, according to the principle of non-interven- 
 tion. The right to form new slave States out of 
 the ample territory of Texas is guarantied liy a 
 compact far safer and stronger than any which 
 Congress can furnish by giving its sanction to 
 this measure. 
 
 There is a little spot of hopeles.sly barren coun- 
 try, of some few thousand square miles in extent, 
 ceded to the United States by Texas, under a pro- 
 vision of the compromise acts of 1850, to which ; 
 this principle of non-intervention, if established, 
 may be applied, if it can be safely done without 
 violating the compact under which Texas came 
 into the Union, and that is all ! And is it for this 
 poor boon — if my friends will allow the expres- 
 sion — this phantom ! that we are called upon to 
 sanction a measure which will impart new life and - 
 vigor — arm with new heads and fan£:s, the now 
 half-conquered Hydra of the North? Is it for this! 
 that we are called upon to give promise of a better 
 
 day to those political agitators at the North, 
 who have staked their whole fortunes and hopes 
 of [lower upon the siicce.ssful furniaiioii of a great 
 northern and sectional party — the last and most 
 fatal evil that can befall the country; for its con- 
 summation will be the destruction of the Consti- 
 tution and the extinction of public liberty.' Is it 
 for this! that we are called upon to supply new 
 wea|)ons of warfare to all the enemies i>f th« 
 South; and to invite a combination of Whig 
 Free-Soilers, Soft Shell and Independent Demo- 
 crats, Liberty Men, Abolitionists, Socialists, and 
 Atheists, founded ufion no common principle but 
 hostility to the South — no common object out ihs 
 acquisition of power and the spoils? 
 
 But, Mr. President, it is said that we may malte 
 acquisitions of territory hereafter — perhaps from 
 Mexico — and that then the South will have the 
 benefit of the [irinciple of non-intervention recog- 
 nized in this bill. 1 fear, sir, that this, too, will 
 prove a phantom; but if ever any such acquisition 
 of new territory shall be made — and I hope th« 
 date of such acquisitions will be far in the future — 
 1 trust it will be under the influence of some great 
 national and patriotic impulse — prompted by con- 
 siderations of a common interest, and a policy 
 which knows no North, no South; and these will 
 furnish far stronger guarantees of the rights of tb« 
 South in any such acquisitions, than any vote of 
 Congress in favor of this measure. But if it be 
 deemed of any — the slightest — importance to any 
 future interest of the South that the sentiment of 
 this Congress shall be expressed in favor of the 
 principle of non-intervention, why not bring for- 
 ward a joint resolution declaratory of the principle? 
 
 1 have already said that there is no dilTerence 
 between myself and my southern friends in rela- 
 tion to this principle. I will vote for such a reso- 
 ution most cheerfully. I have said already, and 
 1 repeat, that if I could take the view of the im- 
 portance of this measure to the country which 
 my southern friends do — cutting olT the source of 
 ail future controversy between the North and the 
 South — putting an end to agitiuion in both sec- 
 tions upon the subject of slavery — I would feel 
 justified in waiving tdl my objections to this bill, 
 and in uniting heartily with them in its support. 
 We difler only as to the results of the measure. 
 
 Sir, a reason has been urged why every south- 
 ern Senator should support this bill which I have 
 not yet noticed. A great, truly national, and pat- 
 riotic party, it is suggested, is now in the ascend- 
 ency at the North, which makes a voluntary 
 tender of the principle of non-intervention to ih« 
 acceptance of the South, to be a rule by which 
 all questions relating to slavery in the Territories 
 may hereafter be settled; and it is insisted that a 
 sense of gratitude, if nothing else, should rally 
 the whole South in its support. I ackowledgetKe 
 obligation for their generous intentions; butunlees 
 some more certain and .substantial benefit can be 
 derived from the provi-sions of this bill than I can 
 detect, I think our gratitude to those gentlemen 
 of the North who have stood so generously and 
 boldly by the South in sustaining the compromise 
 acts of 1850, as well as those who are now pre- 
 pared to sustain the provisions of this bill, will be 
 best shown by accepting nothing, insisting upon 
 nothing, that can imperil their present ascendency. 
 As a southern man, 1 would desire to husband all 
 heir strength. The time may come, the occasion 
 
16 
 
 may not be far distant, when their unbroken en- 
 ergies may be required in sustaining measures and 
 interests of the greatest practical advantage to the 
 whole country. 
 
 1 have heard it suggested by southern gentle- 
 men that we may want Cuba. Ah! sir, Cuba. 
 Had this troubling of the bitter waters of sectional 
 strife been a movement, not for the acquisition of 
 Cuba by conquest, but for the preservation of 
 Cuba as she is — had it been a movement to main- 
 tain the principle of non-intervention against the 
 intermeddling policy of Great Britain and France 
 in the affairs of that beautiful island, and to pre- 
 serve it agamst the fate to which it seems to be 
 verging — thatofbecominga semi-barbarous power 
 — a second Hayti, just upon oursouthern borders; 
 I repeat, had this been a movement to prevent 
 such a catastrophe as that, 1 would have been pre- 
 pared to give it my cordial support. 
 
 Mr. President, unless all the signs of the times 
 are deceptive, we are, at this moment, on the eve 
 of great events. A war between the great Powers 
 of Europe seems to be inevitable; and a general 
 convulsion of the Old World seems not improb- 
 able. In either event, none but the Omniscient 
 Ruler of all things can know how we are to escape 
 the general calamity; or how soon we may be 
 forced, in vindication of our national rights, to | it; but, sir, 1 have not, and must take my seat. 
 
 become p LIBRARY OF CONGRESS the 
 
 this greai 011 897 779 8 ^ited, 
 will not be luriner ueveiupeu uy jjiuLccuingS on 
 their part which can no longer be patiently sub- 
 mitted to. 
 
 It is for this reason, among others, that 1 so 
 deeply regret the recurrence of any cause for the 
 renewal of those fierce sectional cor.lroversiea 
 which tend so much to distract the national coun- 
 cils and impair the national energies. The North 
 and the South united, and cordial in tlie vindica- 
 tion of a national quarrel, this country has nothing 
 to fear from any conflict with foreign Powers, 
 come when it may. 
 
 . Mr. President, i had proposed, if I had strength, 
 to say something more on the suliject of this dan- 
 gerous element of national discord — slavery agita- 
 tion. I should like, if I had strength, to speak of 
 the true method of chaining down this dragon 
 which besets our path, and interposes a barrier to 
 the development of a civilization v.'hich might 
 finally bring all the world to admire and imitate 
 
 Printed at ttie Congressional Globe Office. 
 
/^** 
 
 UBRARYOFCOMGRESS 
 
 011897 779 8