STEECH OF HON. I. WASHBURN, JR., OF MAINE, ON THE BILL TO ORGANIZE TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS IN NEBRASKA AND KANSAS, AND AGATNST THE ABROGATION OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. HOUSE OF REPRESENT ATI VElS, APRIL 7, 1854. WASHINGTON: PEINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICB. 1854. vY NEBllASKA AND KANSAS. The HonsebeinjET in the Committee of the Whole on the slate of the Union — Mr. WASHBURN, of Miiine, said: Mr. Ciiairmam: In the last half of the nine- teenth century we find a proposition in the Con- gress of the Republic to extend the area of slavery. This is the object and purpose of certain provisions in the bill for the organization of the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas. These provisions re- move the restrictions imposed by the Missouri compromise. The Badt^er amendment, and the opinions which it has elicited; I pass by as of no practical importance or interest. It is enough to secure any opposition tliat the bill, with or with- out thai amendment, exposes all our unorganized territory to the occupation of slavery, although that territory, by a compact intended to be as last- ing as the existence of the Stale of Missouri, has been set apart for freemen. This in the last half of the nineteenth century. In the last half of the eighteenth century opinions and sentiments prevailed in the Colonies and the States of a very dillcrent character from what are implied in the bill to which I have referred. I have thought that it might not be ill-timed or unprofit- able to present some of them to the notice of Con- gress and the country- At a convention held in Williamsburg, Virginia, August 1, 1774, it was "Resolve.}, We will neither otir'spIveB import, nor pur- chase aiiv slave or slaves iinp'trted l>y any oUicr person, alter ihelirsl day ol" Nnveyiibor iirxt, either I'roin Africa, the W'c.-t indies, or any other place." Mr. Jelferson addressed a letter to this conven- tion, in which he wrote as follows: " For the most iriflins roasons, and sometimes for no con- ceivahle reasuii at all, his Majesty has rejected laws of the most salutary teiideiici'- The abolition of domestic slavery is llio greatest object of desire in those {;;olonies, where it was Hnhappilv introduced in llieir infiint slate. Uiit previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves, it is necessary to exclude ail further iniporialions from .Mrica. Yet our repeated alleinpts to elfccl this by prohibition, and by imposing duties which iiii'.;ht amount to prohibition, have been hitherto de- feated bv his Majesty's nepalive. Thus preferring the im- mediate advantages of a few Afriean corsairs to the lasting interest of ihe American Slates, and to the right-s of human nature dec|)ly wounded by this infamous master." At a provincial convention held in North Car- olina the same year, the following resolution was passed: " Resolved, That we will not import any slave or slaves, or purchase any slave or slaves imported or brought into the province by others, from any part of the world, afl^r tlic first day of Xoveinbcr next." The Representatives of the district of Darien, in Georgia, passed a resolution, in 1775, from which i read/ I ''To show the world that we are not influenced by any conlractele commerce between master and , slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous pus- •>ions, the most unremitting despotism on the one p.irt, and degrading submissiim on the other. Onr childrr/n see this and learn to imitate it, for man is an imitative animal. ; This qnalily is the germ of all education in him. Trom his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive, either in his philanthropy or his self-love, for restraining the intemper- ance of bis passion towards his slave, it should always be n siitlicient reason that his child is present. But /•enerally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wraih, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller sl.ives, gives a loose rein to his worst I passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in ; tyranny, cannot but bo stamped by it with orf(on« jteiuliari- ties. The man must be a prodigy who can retain liisinan- I ners and morals iindepraved by such circumstances. And Willi what execralioii should Ihe statesman be loariiis those into despots, and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one fart, and Ihe I amor jnitria of the o"thetr For if a slave can have a coun- try in this world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is born to live and labor for another ; in which be must lock up the faculties of his naiiire, contribute as far as ho depends on his iiidividu.\l efforts to the evanish- mertt of the human race, or entail his own miserable con- dition on the endless generations proceeding fri>m him. With the morali of the people, their induilry aho is de- stroyed. For in a warm diiniite ii'i man will labor for him- self who can make another labor for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion, in- deed, are ever seen to labor. And can the liberties oi a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God .' That they arle, at this time, to cure the evil, he was very willing to join in any measures that would prevent its extending further." Sir, the views of our fathers, in reference to this vexed and exerting question, found utterance in such expressions as I have quoted. Shall our views be expressed by the slavery provisions of this bill ? If so, whence this change in public sentiment.' Slavery an evil, to be restrained and removed. Slavery a blessing, to be extended and perpetuated. Which side shall v/e take.' What record shall we make up.' The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Clingman] admits this change, and attribute.^, it to causes not particularly flattering, I think, to southern character. True, he says Washington and Jefferson were of opinion that slavery was an evil, and that it would die out in no very long time. But they lived in the dawn of American republicanism, and had not learned all that was taught in the philosophy of human bondage. True, they were respectable men, and did pretty well for their time; but now, in the accumulated experience and enlarged wisdom of this age, their opinions and authority are hardly worthy of the respect of the gentleman's notice. Experience, says the gentleman, has shown that slavery is profitable, and that the section of coun- try where it exists is prosperous and flourishing. Hence the opinions of men, in the light of expe- rience, have iindergone a change; and slavery is now considered an institution that ought to be protected, extended, and perpetuated. Thus, sir, according to the gentleman's showing, this change of opinion in the South, concerning sla- very, has its foundation in the cupidity and avarice of the southern slaveholders. In short, humanity does not pay. Mr. Chairman, among the reasons assigned by the friends of this bill for the abrogation of the Missouri compromise, the following are the most prominent: First. It is unconstitutional; in violation of the principles of self-government recognized in our political system. Second. It is unconstitutional and unjust; for it denies equality of right in the States. Third. Whatis called the Missouri compromise was not a compact binding the slaveholding sec- tion of the country, for it had not the proper and competent parties to it, to create such obligation. Fourth. But if this were otherwise, the compact has been so often violated by the non-slavehold- ing party, by reason of their refusing to extend it, and in other respects, that it is no longer binding upon the slaveholdhig party. Fifth. It is inconsistent with the principles of the compromise of 1850, and should therefore be declared inoperative and void. If these reasons are not entirely consistent with each ot Iter, it may be thought sufficient by those who use them, if any one is sound and valid. You will, however, permit me to say, that as I have heard them advanced from time to time, I have been ' reminded of a defense made, a few years ago, in ! one of our courts, to a suit on a promissory note. The counsel for the defendant, in opening his case, said: " We have, may it please the court, four defenses to this action: First. My client was a minor when he gave ! the note. Second. It is barred by the statute of limitations, i Third. He never signed it ; and, fourti), he has paid it." [ But, sir, I deny all these propositions of the ' friends of repeal. I deny them in the gross and i in the detail. I affirm the authority of Congress I to make the restriction, and its duty to preserve ' it; and this affirmation I will endeavor to sustain, both upon principle and authority. And first, on principle. The country which we propose to or- ganize is of the possessions and within the limits of the United States. No other Government has, or can have, any power or jurisdiction over it. There must exist now, there has existed since its purchase from France, the power somewhere to legislate concerning it. It could not be in France; it could not be in the territory; for there have not, till recently, been any people there, and none are legally there now. Where, then, could it exist, ifnot in the Government of the United States? This power of legislation in Congress results from the necessity of the case; it is also derived from the Constitution. Mr. Clay, in his great speech in February, 1850, to which I shall haveocca;-ion to refer hereafter, deduced it from the clause which ■ gives Congress authority to make " needful rules and regulations for the territory and property of the United States," and from the treaty-making power. How are such "rules and regulations" to be made? Of course, liy lee;isluiive enactments; and such enactments niiiy, iind should be, such as Congress, in its wisdom, sluill judj^e for the advantage of the Territory and the wliole country. It niny, if it ciiooses,and believes iIkU the comnmn welfare will be promoted, refuse to sell an acre of the huuls, or to permit a settler to go there. It is not bound to open the country to seiilement to- day, or to-morrow. But it may do so, and when it does, it may establish such regulations, and im- pose such conditiot)8, as the owners (who can only act by majorities) shall see fit. It may [no- vide for an organization of the Territory; and, in doing eo, if it perceives that without some funda- mental restriction, practices may grow up, and , institutions be established, which will reduce the value of tlie lands, and render them unsalable, lead to disorders and difficulties, it mr.y make such restrictions. Why, sir, the narrowest con- struction of the constitutional provision in refer- j ence to needful rules and regulations, cannot exclude the grant of this power. If Congress sliould consider that it would be an evil to the Territory, and the country at large, to have sla- very established there, or if it should have just reason to apprehend that gambling, in any of its forms, would become the chief occupation of the people, it would be more than strange to say that it may not make such rules and regulations as ishould render li improbable that slavery would be introduced, or gambling engross the time and waste the substance of the |ieople — rules which should tend to exclude institutions or practices which, by universal consent,, would be of evil example, and scandalous to the country, (as polygamy or cannibalism,) and would secure to the Natiotial Treasury receipts commensurate • with the just value of the lands. This doctrine of congressional intervention passed unquestioned and unchallenged till 1848, when a new light rose above the horizon — a light which has " led to bewilder," if it has not " daz- zled to blind." Then we were told, for the first time, that the people of the Territories should be left to govern themselves — be free from the control, direc- tion, or supervision of the General Government. What people; and who are they to govern? Shall a tent full of hunters or outlaws, or the first half dozen men who go into the Territory, make rules and laws which shall give direction taall succeed- ing legislation, and fix the character of the insti- tutions to be established there ? Because we believe in the doctrine of self-government, shall we say that there are no extreme cases which are ex- ceptions to the rule? Do we say so practically? Minors, married women, and black men are, in most cases, excluded from the exercise of this right, if it be such ; and it is not a little remarkable that this doctrine of universal sovereignty should be first mooted for the special purpose of depriving adult men, guilty of a skin not colored like our own, of ihe right to govern themselves ! But, if self-government is really meant by the friends of this" bill, why have they not provided for it? Why have they carefully excluded it, save in a single particular, if at all ? If the first settlers of Nebraska and Kansas are competent to decide upon the great question of slavery, are they not qualified to judge of the petty details of legislation ? The bill is intervention from one end to the other. Examine it — but you may as well expect to find milk in a male tiger, as the principle of non-inter- vention in this bill, [Laughtet-.] It has interven- tion on the fir.tt |)age, for the very act of organiza- lion implies the power and necessity of congres- sional interference. It is on the second imge, where you reserve to the Government of the United Stales the right to divide the territory hereafter; on the tliird patre, where you declare that the governor and secretary shall be appointed by the President and Senate. You will not allow these men, with nil their God-given rights, to choose their own governor — to appoint their secretary, their mar- shal, their attorney. You kindly do it for them, and facetiously term the process ;)o;)i(/(irsorfr(!igtW!/. You limit, on the fourth page, the members of their council to thirteen, and refuse them author- ity to increase the number of their representatives beyond thirty-nine. Why not permit the people to determine this matter for themselves? Are they ; not, upon your own reasoning, belter qualified than you, to judge in respect to the proper num- ber of their councillors and representatives? We find on the sixth page, " that no session in any one year sliall exceed the term of forty days, ex- cept the first session, which may continue sixty days." Who knows best — the members of the Territorial Legislature or the members of Con- gress — the length of time required by the Legisla- ture to consider the wants and interests ef the people of the Territories ? Again, we read, " that the right of sufiVage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citi- zens of the United States." Why, sir, I thought the doctrine of ''squatter sovereignty," as the Senator from Michigan [Mr. Cass] exultingly termed it, on the morning of the passage of this bill in the Senate, implied that the people of these Territories were to govern themselves without the intervention of our laws — that there a man 's rights depended upon the fact that he was a man. rilay not a man be a man, or a squatter a squatter, although he may not be a citizen of the United St-ites? Oh, the beauties, rare and radiant, of non-intervention! Proceeding with the bill, I no- tice, on the seventh page, that certain rules of taxation in respect to property of the United States and of non-residents are established by Congress. All very right, undoubtedly; but very like inter- vention. The same page acquaints us with the fact that the Governor has a veto on the doings of the Legislature, so far as to enable him — though not chosen by or from the people — to exercise a legislative power equal to one sixth of the mem- bers of both Houses. Now, the laws which this Legislature may pass, must be enforced, and questions will arise as to their construction and validity. By whom shall these questions be decided — by judges ap- pointed by the people and to them responsible, or by the appointees of a distant Executive? Of course non-intervention answers, the former, but this bill, on the 9th page, the latter. So if the people shall choose to taboo slavery the slave owner denies the validity of the law, and he goes to the court with his case, a court appointed by the Prer^ident and Senate of the United Slates, liable to removal by the President; and do you think that such judges as will be appointed, have never heard of the southern opinion, that it is not competent under the Constitution of the United States, for a Territorial Legislature to pass any law for the prohibition of slr.very? Well, Mr. Chairman, in your faith in popular , sovereignty, you have ordained, on the same 6 9th pag-e, " That justices of the peace shall nnt i have jurisdiction of any matter in controversy h where the title or boundaries of land may be in | dispute, or where the debt or sum claimed shall i exceed one hundred dollars." You cannot trust the jj people to define the jurisdiciion of justices of the peace, ij and I believe you call it self-government ! And on |l the 10th page, such is your confidence in the judg- j| ment and discretion of the people, you havej| arranged for them the order of business in their li courts. Such, sir, is*your doctrine of non-inter- j: vention, in practice; a doctrine which you flatter ' yourselves is to make this bill popular in the North, i and by which you hope to bring northern rnem- , hers to its support. It is all a delusion and a sham, ' is you will have seen by the citations which I j have made, and which might be greatly extended, j 1 do not deny the propriety and wisdom of these provisions — I only say that they are clearly and essentially inconsistent with the pretexts upon i which you urge the passage of this bill. But let us test this question of non-intervention a little further. The sovereignty you hold is not in the General Government but in the people of the Territory. If so, they may do whatever they | choose, pass laws without your intervention or ' advice, establish their ov/n institutions, create an ^ order of nobility, make a king — why not.' Tliis j Government cannot intervene. If they ask to be ^ admitted as a State, you may require that they shall come in with a republican form of govern- \ ment; but if they do not ask, you have nothing to say or do. You cannot compel them to form a constitution, and petition to be admitted into the Union. They may remain out of the Union in- definitely, and you have no bond of connection with, no authority over, them. This, although they are within your exterior boundaries, upon territory ceded to, and the property of, the United States. They are at th« same time inside of the Union and outside of it ! Yet, such must, be the result if you deny the right of intervention. If you admit it, you leave its limitations, from necessity, to the discretion of Congress, under the Constitu- tion. Such are the difficulties and absurdities in the way of a practical exposition of this doctrine. But no matter; " Will you not let the people of the Territories govern themselves?" You cannot, fully, until they becoms citizens of States; and not then, even, for they will be under the restraints of the Federal Constitution. The very term, the fact, of territorial government repels the idea of full and unqualified selt'-government; it is a terri- torial government; the government of a ward. You pay from the National Treasury the expenses of these governments, you build the public edi- fices, furnish tlie libraries, extend over the Terri- tories your revenue and postal laws, and criminal Jurisdiction. You care for them, extend to them your aid and protection, you defend them, and you are bound to do it all. You are interested in them, all the States are interested in them, as future partners, and you must make such regula- tions and impose such conditions for them as will render them desirable partners. The Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Cass,] and the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Stephens,] have likened the situation of the Territories to that of the American Colonies before the Revolu- tion. But there is no analogy between the cases. The Colonies, were distant, outside dependencies, with no prospect of a union or fusion with the old country; attempts were made to tax them, in an ofTevisive form, not for their own advantage, nor with any hope of advantage to them, and without their consent. Here, the Territories are integral parts of the American Union, soon to take their places as sovereign States in this great sisterhood of republics. In the mean time — during their mi- nority, they are to be looked after, cherished and protected by the General Government. If that Government should pass arbitrary and unjust laws to operate on the T-erritories; should set up an intolerable tyranny over them, the people of the Territories might, as our fathers did, resort to the ultimate right — the right of revolution. One word more as to the right of the first set- tlers in a Territory to fix the character of the insti- tutions to be established therein. These settlers do not, in such case, legislate for the Territory alone; they act for the whole country in esme mieasure. You and I, sir, are interested in what shall be done. We are owners, interested in the soil, in the uses to which it sliall be appropriated; in the institutions which shall grow up thereon; whether they shall strengthen the Union, or plant the seeds of dissolution and decay. And I am interested to know whether these infant commu- nities are to be led up into States in which five chattels shall have apolitical representation in this House, equal to what is enjoyed by two of my neighbors and myself? The early legislation con- cerning the Territories should have regard to all ! these high interests. These interests are in the ' keeping of this Government; and the people will j hold the Government, and Congress, which is its [ organ, to a strict responsibility. j But I desire to let the friends of the bill answer J each other. The principal grounds upon which :' it is advocated are non intervention, and equality of '' riglits, or the right of the southern people to carry ; their slave property into the Territories. Thefor- !i mer has a northern and the latter a southern face. jj Of the friends of repeal, perhaps half of them !i favor it on the principle of non-intervention, ut- |! terly denying the validity and even plausibility of ' the other doctrine. The other half scout the heresy I; of non-intervention, and contend manfully for ji equal rights. These parties answer each other |i most perfectly a)id conclusively. See how it is !| done. I now ask your attention to what is said !' of the doctrine of non-intervention. Ij Senator Brown, of Mississippi, says: ■ " Wtiat I contend for is, that if the people have the ripht of self government, as contended for hy the Senator from Michigan, then you have no right to appoint officers to rule over them, nor exact that they shall send up their laws for your approval. And if they have not the sovereignty whicli entitles them to appoint their own officers, and to pass their own laws, independent of your supervision and dictation, then they have not that higher degree of sover- eignty which entitles them to say what shall, and what shall not be property in a Territory inhabited by them, aud belonging to the States of this Union. Whatever the Senator's opinions may be, and I do not question his sincerity, the practical results of his action are these : The people, with all their Heaven-born sovereignty, have no right of self-government — of free and uncontrolled self-gnvernment — until they come to slavery, and then their power is as boundless as the universe, aud as unlim- ited as God can make it." " If I am not mistaken in the antecedents of the Sena- tor, some sixteen or twenty years of his now protracted and honorable life have been spent in the government of on<; of these Territories. He was commissioned to do so, not by Heaven, but by tlie President of the United States. i The people whom he governed with so much ability, and with such acknowledged advantage to them, were never consulted as to whether he should be their Governor. The President commissioned him, and that was the end of it. All the people had to do was to receive him, and to respect him as their Governor. When the Senator comei to rrjitx/, I shall he glad to learn from him Aotc he jttstijles himu'lj in takini; a ma»i'? commission to rule oier a yeojile who have aul/iority direct from God hiniielfto goiern them- selves ? It seems to im;, without uxplaiiaiioii, that llie Sen ator lias stood, according to his own theory, very niiirh like a usurper ; and it' I had not the greateiit posHlble veuerii- tion and respect for theScnator, 1 would say a usurper who had Inipious-ly interposed to wrest from a people the ureatest and best gift of Heaven— the ri;;lit of self novcrnnient. " Tlie Senator from South Ciirolinu, [Mr. 15i:t- LER,] in the course of the debute in tlie Senate on tliis bill, expressetl himself a.s follows: " I know, sir, Uiat it has been said that wo are parting with a great power in giving to the people of the Territo- ries the right to regulate their own concerns, according to tlieir own opinions, independent of the control of Congress. / admit of no su,h princijde. Justice to myself, the honest convictions of niy mind, as well as the authority of great minds, who have expressed themselves upon this subject, will never allow me to assent to the doctrine, that the first comers upon the soil of a Territory can ayprojrrialc it, and become sovcreii^n.t over it. No, sir;'the Federal Government stands to the Territories in the relation of a guardian to a vard. Loiik at i!ie bill as it stands. It prescribes agoveni- nient for the people of Nebraska and Kansas ; but if this spontaneous, this inherent popular sovereignty is to spring up the moment the people settle in a Territory, and assem- ble to form a covernnieni, wliy have any bill to put them into operation" at all .' You give them a chart, and say they must obey it. Suppose they do not choose to obey it. Sup- pose that the rtr^t act you get from the Territory of Ne- braska or Kansas is fine declaring that no slaveholder shall be eligible looiiice in either of those 'I'erritoriea, or that no one professing the Catholic religion, or that no Jew, shall be eligible to olfice, or that the Mormons shall have a prefer- ence, would you tolerate it.' According to some notions which I have heard expressed here, having put lliis ma- chinery of government iu operation, you have no power to control it." Mr. Calhoun has denied this doctrine in the following terms: " But tlie civil rights, the political principles of our Gov- ernment, are not to be transferred to those who shall be first in the race to reach newly-acquired possessions, or who aliall by accident be found upon tliein." The Charleston Mercury, in a recent article, speaks of squatter sovereignty in these words: " If it is intctided to be argued by Senator Douglas, that in creating territorial governments, invested with the usual powers, tlicy can legislate so as to exclude and abolish sla- very, when the very law which organizes them declares the Territories open to the immigration and settlement of the slaveholder, we must reject sucli a proposition as not only j unconstitutional, but as containing upon its very face the mark of treachery. It would indeed be the climax of spe- cious justice to proclaim non-intervention on the part of| Congress as the principle of fairness and llic Constitution, ] yet that it should p.nss a law conkerriso iton a tent- ' FULL OF HUNTERS AND 0CTLAW8THE RIOHTTO INTERVENE I IN THE .MOST ABSOLUTE AND SOVEREION MANNER." 1 But, that there should be no controversy as to the rigH't of the people of the Territories to prohibit | slavery, and to test the sincerity of those who were i advocating the bill on the ground of popular sov- j ereignty. Senator Chase, of Ohio, proposed this i amendment: | " Under which the people of the Territory, through their i appropriate representatives, may, if they see fit, prohibit Uie existence of slavery therein." The vote upon it was as follows: YEAS — Messrs. Chase, Dodge of Wisconsin, Fessenden, Fi-h, Foot, Hamliu, Seward, Smith, Sumner, and Wade — lU. NAYS — Messrs. .\damH, Atchison, Badger, Hell, Benja- min, Brodhead, Brown, Hutler, (^lay, Clayton, Dawson, Pi.xon, Dodce of Iowa, Douslas, Kvans, Fitzpatrick, Gwin, Houston, Hunter, Johnson, J'o;ics of Iowa, Jones of Ten- nessee, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pettit, Pratt, Knsk, Sebas- tian, Shietils, Slidell, Stuart, Toucy, Walker, Weller, and Williams— '66. General Cass not voting! Here we find the doctrine of popular sovereignty repudiated by those who claim to justify their voles for this bill upon the afiflumption^that it is the true doctrine. And when thus repudiated, the author of the Nicholson letter votes for the bill. Mr. Chairman, I was somewhat surprised when the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. STF.fiiE.vs) allied himself with the advocates of this doctrine. I liad supposed that he held very ditl'erent opinions from those contained in his recent speech. He then said: "That the citizens of every distinct and separate com- munity or State should have the right to govern iheinselveH in their domestic matters as they please, and that they should be free from the intermeddling reslrictioim and arbitrary dic- tallon on such matters lYoni any other I'ower or tiovern- meiit in which Uiey have no voice. It was out of a viola- tion of this very principle, to a great extent, that the war of the Revolution sprung." Again: " We do not ask you to force southern institutions or our form of civil polity upon tlicm ; but to let the free emigrants to our vast publia domain, in every part and parcel of it, settle this i)Uestion for themselves, with all the experience, intelligence, virtue, and patriotism they may carry wiUi Ihem. This, sir, is our position. It it, as I have said, the original ]iosilion of the South. It is the position she was thrown back upon in June, IKiO. It rests upon that truly national and American principle set forth in theameniliiient oll'ered ill the Senate on the 17th of June, which 1 have stated ; and it was upon the adoption «( this principle that that most exciting and alarming controversy was ailjiisled. This was the turning point ; upon it everything depended, so tar as that conipromisc was concerned." This, he says, is the original position of the South, upon whicih she was thrown iinrk z!i June, 1850. The original position of the South ! Why, sir, I find that upon the llth of .July, 1850, the gentleman himself, in answer to the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Bati.y,] denied this doctrine. In reply to what the gentleman from Virginia had said on a previous occasion, he remarked: " I remember that speech well. I disagreed with itthen, and now. I did not then hold, nor do I now, that the peo- ple of the Territories had any such right as contended for. 1 have alluded to this speech barely to answer the gentle- man out of his own mouth. I hold that when this Govern- ment gets possession of territory, either by conquest or treaty, it is the duty of Congress to govern it until the people are prepared to he admitted as a State into the Union, at the discretion of Congress. " The gentleman said something more in the same speech which I would commend to his considera- tion at this time: " We live, Mr. Chairman, in a strange world. There are many things of a strange character about us, but nothing seems stranger to me than the rapid change which some- times takes place in men's opinions upon great questions." Now, sir, in the second place, 1 propose to examine this question briefly in the light of /lis/ory, precedent, and the op'mions of public men expressed before this repeal was agitated. When taxed with the existence of slavery in this country, it has been our answer and defense, that it was planted amongst us by the British Government and people during our colonial exist- ence; that we were not responsible for its introduc- tion, but only for our faithfulness in the use of means to alleviate and remove it. It was consid- ered an evil by the people of the Colonies before the Revolution. Tiiis appears sufficiently by the extracts which I have given. It was so regarded during the Revolution. I need adduce no other proof of this than the-Declaration of Independence, which declares that " all men are created equal," and that they have, among other " inalienable rights," that of " liberty." So after the Revolu- tion; for, in 1787, the Congress of the Confedera- tion made that immortal ordinance which excluded slavery forever from the North west Territory. In 8 1788, in 8rder «' to establish justice" * * " and to secure the blessings of liberty " to themselves and their posterity, our fathers established the Consti- tution of the United States— an instrument which provided for the abolition of the slave trade in 1808, and which carefully and studiously excludes from its pages the words "slave" and "servitude." Under this Constitution we live and act. In the light of its provisions and exclusions, and of the fact that the old Congress had but just adopted the ordinance of 1787, can we believe for a moment that it was their intention to frame a Constitution -under which Congress would be powerless to restrain the extension of so great an evil as they held slavery to be? Looking along, we find that during the admin- istrations of nearly all the Presidents from Wash- ington to Polk, territorial governments have been organized by Congress, with the approbation of southern and northern Presidents alike, which have contained provisions similarto the ordinance of 1787 and the Wiimot proviso, and by which this doctrine of intervention and slavery restric- tion has been recognized and affirmed almost from the foundation of the Government to the present lime. In 1820 this Missouri compromise, which con- tains the principle of the Wilraot proviso, was made, and principally by southern votes. It was approved by Mr. Monroe, a Virginian, and it is said that its constitutionality was affirmed by his Cabinet, which contained such men as John duincy Adams, William H. Crawford, John C. Calhoun, and William Wirt. I understand, too, that the Supreme Court have in various decisions, directly or indirectly, recognized its validity. To show how distinctly this doctrine was held so late as 1850 by our leading public men, I will read from the debates of that period, and first from Mr. Clay: " But I must say, in a few words, that I think there are two sources of power, either of wliich is sufficient, in my judgment, to authorize tlie exercise of the power, either to introduce or keep out slavery, outside of the States and within the Territories. Mr. President, I shall not take up time, of which so much has been consumed already, to show that the clause which gives to Congress the power to make needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property of the United States, conveys thd power to legislate for the Territories. " Now, sir, recollect when this Constitution was adopted that territory was unpeopled ; and how was it possible that Congress, to whom it liad been ceded, for the common ben- efit of the ceding States and the other States of the Union, had no power whatever to declare what description of set- tlers should occupy the public lands.' Suppose that Con- gress had taken up the notion that slavery would enhance the value of the land, and, with a view to replenish the public Treasury, and augment the revenue from thatsource, that the introduction of slavery there would be more ad- vantageous than its exclusion, would they not have had the right, under that clause which authorizes Congress to make the necessary 'rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property belonging to the United States ' — would they have no right, discretion, or authority — what- ever you may choose to call it — to say that anybody who chose to bring his slaves and settle upon the land and improve it, should do so .' It might be said that it would eniiance tlie value of the property ; it would give import- ance to the country ; it would build up towns and villages ; and, ill fine, we may suppose that Congress might ttiink that a greater amount of revenue might be derived from the waste lands by the introduction of slavery than could be secured by its exclusion ; and will it be contended, if they so thought, that they would have no right to make such a rule.'" **♦*»* " I will not further dwell upon this part of the subject; but I have said there is another source of power equally satisfactory in my mind, equally conclusive as that whicti relates specihcally to the Territories. This is the treaty- making power— the aciiuiting power. Now, 1 put it to gentlemen, is there not at this moment somewhere exist- ing, the power either to admit or exclude slavery from the territories acquired from Mexico .' It is not an annihilated power. That is impossible. It is a substantive, actual, existing power. And where does it exi^t.' It existed — no^ one, I presume, denies — in Mexico prior to the cession of those territories. Mexico could have abolished slavery, or have introduced slavery, either in California or New Mexico. Now, that power must have been ceded. Who will deny that .' Mexico has parted with the territory, and with it the sovereignty over the territory ; and to whom did she transfer it .' She transferred the territory and the sov- ereignly over the territory to the Government of the United States. The Government of the United States then ac- quired all the territory, and all the sovereignty over that territory which Mexico held in California and New Mexico prior to the cession of these territories. Sir, dispute that who can. The power exists, or it does not exist. No one will contend for its annihilation. It existed in Mexico. No one, I think, can deny that Mexico alienates her sov- ereignty over the territory to the Government of the United States. Tne Government of the United States, therefore, possess all the powers which Mexir.o possessed over those territories; and the Government of the United States I can do with reference to them — within, I admit, certain ! limits of the Constitution — whatever Mexico- could have done. There are prohibitions upon the power of Congress, within the Constitution, which prohibitions, I admit, must apply to Congress whenever it legislates, whether for the old States or"lhe new Territories ; but within the scope of these prohibitions; and none of them restrain the exercise of the power of Congress upon the subject of slavery ; the powers of Congress are coextensive aad coequal with tlie powers of Mexico prior to the cession," " The power of acquisition by treaty draws with it the power to govern all the territory acquired. If there be a power to acquire, there must be a power to govern ; and I think, therefore, without at present dwelling further upon this part of the subject, that from the two sources of au- thority in Congress to which I have referred, may be traced the power of the Government of the United Stales to act upon the Territories in general." I now read from Senator Badger: M 1 have said it at home ; I have said it everywhere— I have said it at large mass meetings, and I choose to say it again, because I have no concealment upon this subject, and believe that what I aim at can be besf accomplished by a frank avowal of the truth— so far as I understand it. I'have said, and I say again, that Congress has the consti- tutional power to apply the Wilniot proviso to this Territory, and to all the Territories that belong to the United States. I believe that Congress has entire power and jurisdiction over the Territories— that we are ths supreme law-giver over them— may dispose of their institutions as we think right, and let in and shut out just whom and just what we please." Mr. Douglas, speaking of the slaveryTestric- tion applied to the Oregon bill in 1848, and for which he voted, remarked: "It is a simple, plain provision of law, older than the Government itself, and, in my opinion, entirely unneces- sary ; at the same time that it is free from insuperable corv- stilutional difficulty, with the sanction of precedents under almost every Administration, to warrant its adoption." And of the Missouri compromise he spoke as follows: "That measure was adopted in the bill for the admission of Missouri by the union of northern and southern votes. The South has always professed to be willing to abide by it, and even to continue it, as a fair and honorable adjust- ment of a vexed and difhcult question. In 1845 it was adopted in the resolutions for the annexation of Texas by southern as well as northern votes, without the slightest complaint that it was unfair to any section of the country. In 1846 it secured the support of every southern member of Congress— Whig and Democrat, without exception— as an alternative measure to the Wilniot proviso. And again, in 1848, as an amendment to the Oregon bill, on my motion, it received the vote, if I recollect right, of every southern Senator, Whig and Democrat, even including the Senator from South Carolina himself, [Mr. Calhomi.] If this principle of slavery restriction by Con- gress had been deemed unconstitutional, or so very objectionable as gentlemen now contend , how could it have received the vote of all the southern Sena- tors, as above stated; and how could it have been moved by the Senator from Illinois himself.' And a does this extract look as if southern gentlemen, 1 1 or the Senator, tliouile. M With this authority, this history, are we now i to be told, or to believe, that Congress has no power to legislate for the Territories, or, by such legislation, 10 restrict the extension of slavery? If slavery be the evil which our fathers, in the South as well as in the North, held it to be, what a re- proach to their memory if they gave us a Govern- ment impotent to restrain it — too leeble to prevent its overrunning and blasting tlie free green earth of God. Generations have lived and died in the faith that this power existed in the Government. It was never doubted until political necessities broughtoutjin 1848, thecelebrated Cass-Nirholson { letter — a bundle of absurdities — with the doctrine 1 of non-intervention, which, havin"; done no little , mischief by its tenciency to unsettle old and well- established opinions, will, after this bill shall be disposed of, be consigned, by common consent, to tliat " limbo large and broad" long since prepared as the receptacle of exploded humbugs. [Laugh- J ter.] i Well, sir, as I have said, the drama of non- : intervention after one performance more, will be removed from the stage forever. As we some- ; times read on the bills, it is " postively for one night only." Whether it shall accomplish the abrogation of the Missouri compromise or not, it , will have filled its destiny. In the former case, it will be thrown overboard by the South as a thing for which they never had any respect, and | now have no further use. Then we shall hear that the time has come for the inculcation of the true doctrine: "The North is sufficiently weak- ened and humbled — the country is ready for it— let it be proclaimed everywhere, that the Consti- tution of the United States, propria vigorc, carries ■ slavery wherever the flag of the Union flies." It carries it, we shall be told, into the Territories, and neither Congress nor the local Legislatures, nor both combined, can restrain its march, for the Constitution is above both, is the supreme law of the land. Ay, and carries it into all the States, for neither State laws nor State constitutions can exclude the enjoyment of a right guarantied by the Constitution of the Federal Government. This, sir, is the doctrine with which we shall be vigorously pressed if this bill is carried. Already j has it been more than hinted, and whoever has ^ noticed the advanced ground which slavery occu- pies now, compared with that on which it rested in 1850, will not be slow to believe it. ; I will here ask your attention to the fact, which I meant to have noticed before, that Senator HcKTER, of Virginia, the gentleman from North Carolina, [Mr. CLi.VGM.w.l'and nearly all southern gentlemen who have spoken on this subject, and have in any manner recognized the doctrine of^j non-intervention, are careful to limit the right of ,1 the people of the Territories to leglHlate for them- selves, by the Constitution of the United States; nnd-thnt they liold llnit the Constitution forbids all territorial legislation for the prohibition of slavery. Ann in this connection let me remark, what you mutt have observed, that in the debate which took place in the Senate a few days ago on the Badger amendment, it was di.stincily staled by southern Senotors, that in the event of future acquisitions of territory, no in)plicution was to be drawn from this bill that the people of such Terri- tory should be allowed to deride for themselves the question of the admission of slavery. In view of these facts, northern gentlemen will perceive how transcendfiitly important it ia for them to.niake, while they are yet able, asucce-^sful stand against the aggressions of the slave power. I do not mean to say, sir, that all southern men are prepared to go tliese extreme lengths I know they are not. I know that there is honor, wis- dom, moderation, and patriotism in the South, but 1 fear they will be overborne by tlie fanaticism of slavery; for there is a fanaticism of slavery in the South as truly as there is of anti-slavery in the North, and I do not think it half so excusable or respectable as the latter. II. The J\lissouri compromise is ■unconstUutioiial and unju.''l — il denies equal rights to the citizens of the several States. This, 1 think is a very palpable mistake. I do not see how the citizen of any Slate is de|)rived by the Missouri compromise of any right which a citizen of any other Slate can enjoy. The south- ern man as well as the northern man can go to Nebraska, and when there the same laws will be over both. But the southern man complains that he cannot carry his local laws with him. The northern man cannot carry his, and yet he does not complain. That the southern man may not lake his slave there is no hardship. Ifhewi.shes to go he must content himself to do as the north- ern man does, v.ho sells liis properly — hissliipor his bank charter — which he cannot take with him. Mr. Chairman, lei us look at the practical oper- ation of this doctrine. If it be true that a citizen of any State can take with him and hold as prop- erty in a Territory, whatever is regarded as prop- erty in his IState', and neither Congress nor the local Legislature can forbid him, what a jumble and confusion of rights would ensue. Vor in- stance, a citizen of Maine cannot take intoxicating liquors with him — a citizen of Pennsylvania may; a citizen of Massachusetts cannot carry game- cocks — others may; a citizen of New York wmnot go with slaves — a South Carolinian may. A na- Tive of the Emerald Isle, who may have been in the country but a year, if a resident of Illinois, where he was a lesral voter, may, upon this theory, be a voter in the Territory; but if he has been a resident of New Hampshire for twenty years, if he has never been naturalized, he can have no vote. Well, if lliis doctrine be sound, and such is its operation in the Territories, it must by parity of reason have the same opera' ion in the Slates; and what is denied to be property in every State in the Union, except Maine, may be held as property by emigrants from that State in every other; and so, to this extent, every State must be governed by the laws of Maine, to the injustice of her own citizens and those of all the other Stales. But in this regard I wish to let the northern 10 friends of the bill answer the southern friends; and I think they do it most effectually. Mr. Douglas adverted to this argument in 1850 in terms like these: " But you say that we propose to prohibit bylaw your emigrating to llie Territories with your property. We pro pose no sucli thing. We recognize your riglit, in common with ourown, to emigrate to the Territories with your prop- erly, and there hold and enjoy it in subordination to the laws you may find in force in tlie country. Those laws, in some respects, dilier from our own, as the laws of the va- rious State« oi' this Union vary, on some points, from the laws of each other. Some species of property are excluded by law in most of the Stales, as well as Territories, as being unwise, immoral, or contrary to the principles of sound public policy. For instance, the banker is prohibited from emigrating to Minnesota, Oregon, or California, with his bank. The bank may be property by the laws of New York, but ceases to be so when taken infv^ a State or Ter- ritory where banking is prohibited by the local law. So, ardent spirits, whisky, brandy, all tlie intoxicating drinks, are recognized and protected as property in most of the States, i(' not all of them; but no citizen, whether from the North or South, can take this species of property with him, and hold, sell, <>r use it at his pleasure in all the Territories, because it is proliibited by the local law — in Oregon by the statute'; of the Territory, and in the Indian country by the acts of Congress. Nor can a man go there and take and hold his slave, for the same reason. These laws and many others involving similar print-iples, are directed against no section, and impair the riglits of no State in the Union. They am laws against the introduction, sale, and use of! specific kinds of property, wlnlher brought from the North 1 oi- the South, or from foreign countries." 1 General Cass, in his late speech in the Senate, \ answered this objection successfully and triuinph- antly. He said: " The recond objection which I propose to consider, connected with this alleged seizure of the public domain, is, that a southern man cannot go there because he cannot take his property with him, and is thus excluded by pecu- liar considerations front his share of the common property. " So far as this branch of the subject connects itself with slaves, regarded merely as property, it is certainly true that the necessity of leaving and of disposing of them may put the owners to inconvenience — to loss, indeed — a slate of things incident to all emigration to distant regions ; for there are itirtiiy species of that property, which constitutes the common slock of society, that cannot be taken there. Some because they are prohibited by the laws of nature, as houses and f.^rnis ; others because they are prohibited by the laws of man,' as slaves, incorporated companies, monopo- lies, and many interdicted articles; and others again, be- cau.se they are prohibited by statistical laws, which regulate the transportation of properly, and virtually confine much of it within certain limits which it cannot overcome, in consequence of the expense attending distant removal; and among these latter articles are cattle, and much of the property which is everyvi'here to be found. 'J'lie remedy in all these cases is the same, and is equally applicable to all classes of proprietors, whether living in JMassachnsells, or New York, or South Carolina, and that is lo convert all these various kinds of property into universal representative of value, money, and to take that to these new regions, where it will command whatever may be necessary to com- fort or to prosperous enterprise. In all these instances the practical result is the same, and the same is the condition of equality." Again: " Such a principle would strike at independent and ne- cessary legislation, at many police laws, at sanitary laws, and at laws for the protection of public and private morals. Ardent spirits, deadly poisons, implements of gaming, as VPeil as various articles, doubtful foreign bank bills, among others, injurious toa prosperous condition of a new society, would be placed beyond the reach of legislative interdic- tion, whatever inight be the wants or Ihe wishes of the country upon the subject. For the constilnticnial right by which it is claimed that these species of |>rci|icrly may be taken by the owners to the ' territory' of ihe I'Miled States, cannot be controlled, if it exist by the local Legislatures ; for that might lead, and in many cases would lead, to the restriction of its value." " And we arc thus brought to this strange practical result : that in all controversies relative to these prohibited arti- cles, it is not the statute-book of the country where they arc to be held, which must be consulted to ascertain the rights of the parties, but the statute-books of other Gov- ermnents, whose citizt-ns, thus, in efl'ect, bring their laws with tliem, and hold on to them." III. The Missouri compromise {so called) was not a compact binding the slaveholding section of the country, because it had not the proper parties to create such obligation. I maintain that the legislation, in virtue of which Missouri was admitted into the Union, had the essential elements of a compromise or compact, and that the North may fairly hold the South to a faithful observance of its provisions. When Congress was called upon to pass an act prepara- tory to the adinission of Missouri, the northern members of the House, with great unanimity, opposed lier admission as a slave Stale. Many attempts were made to carry the measure, but they all failed. It became apparent that no act could pass the House of Representatives looking simply to the admission of Missouri as a slave State. At length a compromise was proposed. Mis- souri, in which slaves were then held, was to be admitted with a constitution recognizing slavery, and the rest of the territory acquired from France was to be set apart for freedom forever. The bill, as amended by this provision of compro- mise, passed both Houses of Congress and be- came a law. It was voted for by nearly the entire South, and obtained a sufficient number of north- ern votes to carry it. The latter were given, as the record shows, purely and simply in consider- ation of the exclusion of slavery stipulated for in the eighth section of the act. Without this exclu- sion, Missouri could not have been admitted; with it, she becair.e a State. She was adinitted by northern votes, and could not have been without. It is not of the slightest importance whether one tenth or nine tenths of the northern members voted for the bill. It is enough that a sufficient number voted for it to pass it, and whatever it contained for the advantage of the non-slaveholding section inured to its benefit fully and completely. And because its terms were so hard that it could not obtain the favor of a majority of the northern Representatives, can afford no reason why the North should not enjoy the modicum of justice which, it was supposed, was secured to her. It should seem that this fact would only enhance and render more sacred the obligation of the South. But if this compromise is of no force for the rea- son now assigned, what is to become of the com- promise acts of 1850, no one of which, I believe, obtained the votes of a majority of both southern and northern members of Congress.' Again: The lawyers tell us that subsequent rati- fication is equivalent to previous authority; and that such ratification may be inferred from long acquiescence. The North has faithfully and reli- giously acquiesced for thirty-four years in this compromise. It is now too late to say that she has no claims under it. Why, sir, it is but a lit- tle more than a year ago that the present chairman of the Committee on Territories [Mr. Richard- son] reported a bill for the organization of the Territory of Nebraska, in which there was no pro- vision for the abrogation of this compromise, and no suggestion that it was inoperative and void. He advocated its passage with earnestness and ability. It encountered no opposition except on the Indian question. While it was before the House, a gentleman from Pennsylvania, no longer a member, [Mr. John W. Howe,] who was in the habit of saying that he was a "Whig with Free- 11 Soil tendencies, inquired of the treiitleman from Ohio [Mr. GinDiN;t;s] why llie l)ill ilui iioi contain , the Wilmot proviso? Mr. Giuuings, in reivjy, after quoting the eighth section of the act of l&A), . remarked that: "This Uuv siantis pcrpotunlly, niul I did iioi iliink tlinl this act wnuKI ri'ceive any iiiiTfusrd v.iliillly by ii rii riaci- < iiictil. Thfri- I lenvi^ lln,- iimllcr. 1 1 is viTy cicir ihm ihc ' territory iiii'ludiil in that treaty iiiusi he lorever tree, uidi'»« ' tliat law be repeahd." I And yet, sir, no gentleman proposed to amend the liiil; and it passed this branch by a vote of ninety-eiijht to forty-three, a larsje number of south- '< ern members voting with the mnjority. The bill went to the Senate, and was there pressed by tlie Senator from Illinois, without any sufj^esticin ofi change in its provisions so far as Vespects slavery; but it failed for want of time, and, 1 think, for no i other reason. It was at tiiis time that the .Sena- tor from iVlissouri [Mr. Atchison] made the dec- 1 laration which has been alluded to in this debate, j He said: " j " I liave always been of opinion tliat the first Jrent error ' comniitted in the poliiioal history of this country was ihc i ordinance of 1787, rendering the Norlliwcsl Territory tree territory. The next great error was the Missouri conipro- | niise. l$nl they are botli irreniediabje. There is no remedy for i them. We must submit to them. I am prepared to do i(. It is evident that the Missouri compromise cannot be re- pealed. So far as that question is concerned, we mi^'ht as well agree to the adnii.>sion of this 'J'erriiory now as next year, or live or ten years lience." Now, I beg to ask, whence this new light i which lias so suddenly flashed upon the minds of | honorable and learned members.' Were they stark blind in 1S53? Who had rilled them of their memories and their wits.' If the Missouri compromise is unconstitutional, unjust, and super- seded by the principles of the coinpromise of 1850, in 1S54, was it not equally, so in 1853.' And if so, did not gentlemen know it djen as well as they do now.' And, if they knew it, how could they vote for it — so unjust, so greatly wrong, so flagrantly unconstitutional, as they declare it to be.' Oh! sir, can anything be more impudent, more auda- cious, more insulting to the good sense of the American people, than this attempt to annul the Missouri compromise, forthereasons nowassigned for the act.' IV. andV. The act prcparalonj to the admission of Missouri, if 01-iginally binding upon the South as a compromise, has, by repeated violations on the part of the Ao)7/i, ceased to have any such obligation. Jlnd, besides, il is iticonsislenl ivilh the comjrromise acts of 18.50. It was violated by the North, as some gentle- men contend, in 1821, when iMis.souri, having adopted a constitution, asked for admission as a State. The objection of the North at that time was, as everybody knows, or ought to know, wholly independent of the fact that her constitu- tion tolerated slaveholding. It was because that constitution contained a provision for the exclu- sion from the State of free people of color. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hu.s-t] has set this matter right so clearly and so well, that I need not dwell upon it. It was then that the joint resolution for the admission of Missouri, in which Mr. Clay acted so conspicuous a part, was adopt- ed. When this resolution was passed, and Mis- souri admitted, the compromise, if before inchoate and executory, became a fixed fact, a compact executed in behalf of the South, and complete and perfect in its obligation. If Missouri had never asked to be admitted, the act of the previous ses- sion would have remained executory, and perhaps repealable, without any suggestion of bad faith; but when it had been no far carried out as toad- mil Missouri, then, in all honor and good neigh- borhiunl, it was irrepenlable by the Snulh. Tlie North violated the compromihe, insists the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Stkimien's,] in 1830", when Arkansas applied for leave to come in as a State. He tells us that Mr. Jolin Quincy Adams led off the northern firces irf'opjiosition to her admission, and leaves it to be inferred that this opposition was because she would be a slave State. Mark how plain a tale shall answer the gentleman. I quote what Mr. Adams said upon that occasion: " Mr. Cliairman, f cannot, consUienily with my sen»e of my obli^atioijH as a citizen of the United Slater, and hound liy oalli to siipporl ihe (.'onstiliilion, /ninno/ olijrct ti the nilmistion nf^lrknn^ns into the Union m n ulave State, I cannot pro;)05i- or nerce to mnke it n covititioii of her nd- mi.iM°on, (Au( a lonrentioii of her people ahull expunge thit article from her comlitution." Again: ".Arkntisas, therefore, comes, and hn.s a riclit t«,comc, into the i;nii>n with Iter slaves anil her slave laws, ll is writ- ten in tlie bond ; and however F may lament lliitl it ever was wrUtcn, I must failhlully perform its obli'.'itions." The following will show what he did object to: " liul I am unwilliii;; that Congress, in accepting hfiT constiiution, should even lie under the impnlalion nfanSent- Ing to an ariiele in the cnnstuution of a Stale which with- holds from its Legislature the power of giving Ireedoiii to the slave." Is this the way history is to be read to make out a case .' Again, we are informed that this compromise : was violated by the North in 1845, 1848, and 1850. A learned and able Senator [.Mr. Bauckr] con- tends that the line of 36^ 30' was to apply to States as well as Territories, and to all territory, as well to such as might thereafter be acquired, as to the territory then held by the United States. This, he says, was the idea, the principle of the , compromise: " The Missouri comproniise law intended to fi.x it as a ' rule for all Territories of the t/nited Slates. It is applied in terms to all that territory which was ceded by Krance ; but we liad no other territory. Th.it was all the territory wliicli we then had, whose destiny was to be settled by an act of Congress. Therefore, the further principh- involved was this: They intended to compromise and aijjust Uie question between tlie ditlerent portions of the 1,'iiion ihea and forever." Well, sir, that rule or principle, as we are as- sured, having been violated by the North, and being no longer in force, was succeeded, or super- seded, by a new principle in 1850, the principle of non-intervention. , I cannot help thinking that these assumptions of the Senator are unwarranted by anything which has been done, or omitted to be done, by Con- gress, from 1820 to this time. When Missouri was admitted, slavery existed within her limits, as it did in wiiat is now Arkan.sas. There were then no slaves, except in Missouri, north of the line of 3G0 30'. The great thought, the principle of the compromise of 1820, was, that where sla- very then existed in fact, it should be permitted ' to remain; but that from all the territory which I. we possessed, into which it had not found us way, I it should be forever excluded. The idea was ' clearly that of prohibition. The law provided that in territory wliere slavery did not then actu- lally exist it never should exist. This was the 12 fact. What pnnciple but that of restriction could be deduced from this fact? In 1845, when Texas was annexed, the same principle was adhered to. Slavery was in Texas, and it was not to be abolished by Congress; but it was not to be extended by possibility to terri- tory then free; and the principle of slavery re- striction was distinctly affirmed. Here is the third article of the second section of the joint resolution for annexing Texas: "New Slates, of convenient ?ize, not exceedinz four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, having suffi- cient population, may hereafter, by the c(uisent of said State, be formed out of tlie tenitoVy tliereof, which shall be entilled to adnii^Jsion under the provit^ions of the Federal Constitution. And such Slates as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lyinp; soutli of 36° 30' north lati- tude, commonly l^nown as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State askinj,' admission may desire, ^iirf in such S'ale oi- States as shall be formed out of the territory north of said Missouri comjiromise line, slavery or involuntary ser'citude (except for crime) shall be prohib- ited." The North did not at this time undertake to disturb the Missouri line. She did not then at- tempt, and she never has attempted, to interfere with slavery in Missouri or Arkansas, or impair their rights as States. When the Territory of Oregon was organized in 1848, the principle of slavery prohibition was recognized by the adoption of the Wilmot proviso. That (.he constitutionality of the proviso could not have been sferiously questioned at that time, is manifest from the fact that the Oregon bill ob- tained the official sanction of President Polk. It was when this bill was before the Senate that Mr. Webster said, in reference to the principle of the Wilmot proviso: " For one, I wish to avoid all committal?, all traps, by way of preamble or recital; and, as I do not intend to dis cuss Ibis question at large, I content myself with sayin:;, in few words, that my opposition to the further extension of local slavery in this cniiitry, or to the increase of slave representation in Congress, is neueral and nninersal. It has no refei^ence to limits of latitude or points of the com- pass, I sliall oppose all such extension, and all such in- crease, in all places, at all times, under ail circumstances, even Jigainstall inducements, against all supposed limita- tions of great interests, against all coiiibinations, against all COMl'ROMISES." This action of Congress was in harmony with the principle of the Missouri compromise, and •was a legitimate expression of that principle on a fit occasion. And now, sir, to come down to the compromifje acts of 1850. In what respect, and how, did the North at this time violate the compromise of 182U.' Which of these acts is inconsistent with that compromise, and which contains the princi- ples of non-intervention .' The acts for the organ- ization of the Territories of Utah and New Mex- ico, and for the ^Texas boundary settlement, are the only laws of that series which bear at all upon these questions. Let us examine them. In tiie fifth clause of the first section of the Texas boundary bill, one of the acts constituting the compromise of 1850, are these words: " Provided, That nothing herein contained sli,^ll he con- strued to impair or (|nallfy anything coniaim^d in the third article of the second section of the joint resolution for anncxuig Texas to the United States, apinoved March 1, 1845, either as regards the number of States that may here- after be formed out of the Slate uf Texas, or otherwise." Here, by reference to the joint resolution which I have read, we find that the Missouri compro- mise was not only not repudiated, not only not ignored, but expressly referred to and recognized as an existing fact and of continuing obligation; and yet we are told that Congress at this time was legislating in such way as to work its complete abrogation. The New Mexico and Utah acts provide that those Territories, when ready to become States, may be admitted with, or without slavery as their constitutions shall prescribe. It was not contended then, nor is it now, by the great majority of the friends of slavery prohibition, that Congress can control this matter in the States; and to say that the States can do as they please, is very far from saying that the Territories may. But the Wilmot proviso was not attached to these acts, and therefore its principle was abandoned. Abandoned! by whom ? Let us see. These bills were passed by the aid of such men as Clay, Webster, Badger, Douglas; and without their help, and that of many others who entertained sim- ilar views to theirs, they could not have become laws. Did they advocate them on the ground that, if they should pass, they would abrogate the Mis- souri compromise, or would operate as an abandon- ment in any way of the principle of prohibition .' Not at all; but they all affirmed the power to make such restriction, and most of them the propriety of it, where it could be of any practical service. But here they alleged that what was as good as the proviso was already in force. The Mexican law, they said, excluded slavery in these Territo- ries — it does not now exist there by law, and it cannot go there unless you shall legislate it in ; and if you are disposed to do that, you can as well re- peal the Wilmot proviso, if it should be adopted. But more, slavery is excluded by a higher law than this — the law of God. Here is what is equiv- alent to two Wihnotprovisoes; why makea third? It can do no possible good; it will be regarded by the South as an unnecessary act for the protection of the North, and as something insisted upon merely to taunt her. Considerations like these, all implying the duty and the principle of restric- tion, prevailed wiih a sufficient number of north- ern members to induce them to forego the Wilmot proviso. I think they made a mistake; but I will not charge them with aliandoning the principle. For when I see the grounds upon which they acted, I perceive that they meant to affirm, and by their action did affirm, this principle. To the testimony. And first, I will read from one of the resolutions offered by Mr. Clay, in February, 1850: •'Resolved, That as slavery does not exist by law, and is not likely to be introduced into any of the territory acquired by the United Stales from the Republic ofMe.vico, it is in- expedient for Congress to provide by law either for its introduction into, or exclusion from, any part of the said Territory." From Mr. Clay's speech, made upon his reso- lutions, I read as follows: '• I take it for granted that what I have said will satisfy the Senate of that first truth, that slavery does not exist there by law, unless slavery was carried there the moment the tre'aty was ratified by the two parlies to the treaty, under the operation of the Constitution of the Uiiiu-d States. « Now really, I must say, that the idea that, eo instanti, upon the consummation of the treaty, the Consiiliilion of the United States spread itself over the acquired country, and carried along with it the institution of slavery, is so irreconcilable with any comprehension, or any reason which I possess, that I hardly know how to meet it." Mr. Clay, so far from thinking that the legisla- tion of 1850 would in principle open up the Ter- ritory to slavery, used this language: "But if, unhappily, we should be involved in war, in civil war, between the two parts of this Confederacy, in which the etfirt upon the one side should be to restrain the introduction of slavery into Uie new Territories, and upon 13 the other side to force its introduction there, what ii spec- , tacle should wc prcsrnl to tlic n-'loiiiF^liiiirnt ol iiiiiiikliid, in an ftlort, mn to piO|);ipiiic riijlits, bu( — I must say it, I thoiied |)erpttual jience, and by a sense of duly, lo open anew the foun- tains of slavery a^itnlion. Mr. Chuirman, 1 tliink I have shown pretty conclusively that the compromise laws ol IWJO could have estalilished no mucIi prii)ci|deH as it is ' now insisted they did. Kut if 1 nin wrong in litis,. 1 submit that such principles could apply only lo future acquisitions, or lo territories whose slatm '. or condition in respect to slavery was not already fixed by law. The laws whicli contained such principles could not involve tiie abrogation of a compact which had been fully executed i|;i favor of one party, in such way as to wholly deprive the other ^lariy of what it had reluctantly accepted as its portion in the division. Having considered what 1 understcn I to be the ^ main arguuients lor the abrogation of the Mis- I Bouri conifiromise, 1 pass to notice, briefly, some I of the minor reasons and incidental remarks by I which It is attempted to be justified or excused; jj and to submit, in closing, a lew general observa- i' lions on the question. It lias been slouily denied by the gentlemen from Kentucky [Mr. Ewisg and Mr. Drkckin- ripoe] that Mr. Clay took any leading or prom- inent part in the enactment of the Missouri com- promise; thai lie was to any con.siderable extent responsil)le for it, or that he would, if living, insist upon its preservation. 1 think these gentlemen do great injustice to the memory of their illustrious friend. 1 believe that history is entirely conclu- sive upon tl^is point — that Plenry Clay did more than any other man to effect this settlement. 1 am quite sure that he thought so; at any rate he knew that the country thought so, and he never disa- bused it of this opinion. He never corrected the statements to thiseirect, in the numerous memoirs and notices of his life which were published before his decease. He had been called the great Paciji- calor, the great Compromiser. Why, if not for his connection with this compromise, and the tarilT compromise of 1633? In a speech which he made upon the compromise of 1833, he said: " I derive great consoiation from finding myself, on this occasion, in the midst of triends with whom I have long acted, in peace and war, and especially wiili the honorable Senator from Maine, [Mr. Holmes,] with whom I lind the happiness to unite in a memorable in>lance. It was in this very Chnmher, thai senlteman presiding in the committee of the Sennle, and I in the committee of twenty four of the House of Reiiresenl(itives,on a Sabbath day, that the terms leere adjusted by which the compromise was ejfeited of the Missouri question. Then the dark clouds that hung over our bi'loved country were dispersed ; and now the thun- ders tVoni others, not less ihreatcning, and which have been longer accumulating, will roll over us harmless and with- out injury." I wonder if Mr. Clay did not think in 1833 that he had something t» do with passing the .Mis.'^ouri compromise? And if he believed that the compro- mise which dispersed the dark clouds that hung over the country, by the admission of a slave State, did not secure some substantial benefit lo freedom? I wonder if he, who would have felt a stain of dishonor like a wound, would, if he were on earth, hearken to such a violation of faith as is implied in this repeal? For the honor of that great and celebrated name believe it not. What- ever may have been Mr. Clay's connection with the act of March, 18,0 — and he says he has no 14 doubt he voted for it — the joint resolution of 1821, I which £;ave it effect, and the vigor and force of a [ compact; which enabled the s!aveholdin me, with little thought of what they are saying: as if in a controversy in respect to honor, good faith, and historical truth, there could be any difference of principle among honor- able men North or South; as if questions of fidelity and fact were to be determined by degrees of latitude; as if northern principles or southern principles would tolerate a palpable breach of a contract deliberately entered into, whenever either section should believe its interests would be pro- moted by such breach. With the gentlem.an from Louisiana [Mr. Hunt] I may, and undoubtedly do, differ on many points concerning the institu- tion of slavery. But, sir, as to what good faith and honor require in the matter of engagements and compacts, we can have no difference. When, the other day, he stood up in this Hall, and with the spirit and bearing of a just and honorable man, denounced, in bold and eloquent terms, what he could not help believing to be a violation of a solemn compact, there was not a man in his presence but respected him — not a true, brave heart but felt better and braver than before, and stronger in his own ability and purpose to do his duty like a man, whatever he might deem that duty to be; — not one but felt within him something of the dignity and grandeur of a true manhood. Mr. Chairman, with the cant of" our northern brethren" and "our southern breth- ren," I am tired and sick. We are brothers all, and we know and feel it; but why talk about it everlastingly, and too often in such man- ner as to imply to all high-toned minds that it is but talk. I'fear not that any southern man, worthy of the South, will doubt that he has my respect as truly as if he belonged to my own sec- tion of the country, although I may not be con- tinually reminding him of the fact. And there are northern men who can never, in their hearts, believe that they possess it, let me tell them what I will. But, sir, this Nebraska business, bad as it is — and God knows it could not easily l)e worse — will not be without its compensations. If I do not misread the signs of the times, they portend a " hard win- ter " to a class of politicians in the North; some of whom, I am told, have heretofore found their way into these Halls. I refer to the 'Umble Heeps and respectable Littimers of politics — your self- sacrificing patriots, who " abase themselves that they may be exalted;" your soft-footed men, who profess one thing at home, and vote another here, and who are always but too happy if they can obtain the countenance and patronage of older flunkeys than themselves. Mr. Chairman, of the motives which have influ- enced the Senator from Illinois and the President in their action upon this question, I am not authorized to judge. It has been suggested that party straits and necessities required this measure of the Ad- ministration. But what party end or acquisition could justify such awful price.' No, sir; we must not yield to this suggestion. Shall we believe that the inducing cause of such action was to aid any man's prospects for the Presidency.' To raise such an issue as this ques- tion presents, for such purpose, would be a wan- tonness of wickedness v/hich should in itself pre- 15 elude the belief that it could have found entrance into the breast of any man. Away, theri, with this uncharitableness. The life of man is short — the Presidency and its honors are but for a day, but this measure runs with the prosperity anil happiness of millions of human beinga for ages. Let it not be considered possible, for it is not, that any nan, whether in hiijh or low position, inten- tionally, dertignedly, with a view of the Ifgitimate consequences of tlje act, could for such object, ori- ginate a measure like tliis. Sir, the misfortune of our time is that it run across the era of " little men in lofiy places, • • * the men so little and the places so lofly, that, casting my pebble 1 only show where they stand" — of politicians and not statesmen, of dex- trous and cunning ratiier than wise and strong men, who, looking before and after, scan, with unerring vision, the just proportions of public measures, comprehend their meaning, and foresee their consequences. There are edtlies in the cur- rent of every nation's history, where the sup|>le and the adroit perform their feats and play fantas- tic gambols to the delight and admiration of the bystanders, gaining such applause as is yielded to the ring and tight rope, until they tire of their profitless exhibitions, and sink, and are forgotten. INo success can be but nominal; no popularity, however wide-spread and boisterous, can l)e more than temporary, which have not the foundations of great and wise deserving. An honorable Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. Butler,] a very able man, with whose clearness of statement, and scholarly, vigorous style 1 am always delighted, has said: " I will iindprtJike to maintain that llie Missouri com- promise, iiotwitlistnnding the laudations of llie lionorahle Senator from Texas, [Afr. Houston,] instead of bringlnj; With it peace and harmony, has broii<»ht with it si'cliorial strife ; that it is, instead ot being a healin'r salve, a thorn in the side of the southern portion of this Confederacy, and the sooner you extract it, the sooner you will reatore har- mony and liealth to the body -poliiic." If this be true, how does it happen ? Because the North has ever been unfaithful to her part of the agreement? Surely not. She has at all times lived up to the very letter of tiie bond, and lias never, in any manner, done that v/hich could be construed by suspicion herself as impugning its spirit. That the compromise is a tnorn in the side of the South, is no fault of the North. If it be such a thorn, it is simply because slavery can submit to no limits or restraints, not even to those itself imposes. It is for the reason that slavery is under an inevitable, inexorable necessity to be constantly aggressive; that no barriers can hold it, no repose give it rest. It must go forward, or die — the moment it halts, it recedes. Let us see how things have gone on during this century. In 18U3, Louisiana, a slave Territory, was purchased of France. Three slave States and one free State have been formed out of it; and we are now told that freedom has had enough. Then, in 1819, Florida was purchased, to make a«other slave State. In 1845 Texas was annexed, to give us five more, while the free States have acquired but California, and a hope for New Mex- ico and Utah. These Territories were organized in 1850, without the Wilmot proviso. Whether or not the North yielded anything of practical value in this, she was made to recede from a posi- tion which she felt herself bound in honor and all fidelity to a great cause to maintain. By one of the compromise laws of this year she was made to pay to Texas her portion of §10,000,000, to in- I duce the consent of that State to a boundary line J with New Mexico, although she was far from , being satisfied that Texas had given up any terri- tory to which she had a jusi claim. But of this she made little com|)laint. Then the fugitive slave law was passed; but I need not tell you what she thought of tliat — how hard it was to take — nor that she submitted to it as gracefully tvi she could. The learned and dis- tinguished Senator from M JssacliUHetts [Mr. Ev- kkktt] will not be charged with having overstated the case when he said, a few weeks ago, in the , Senate, that Mr. Webster, in his 7lh of March speech, " Went to the very verge of the public sentiment in the nonslnveholdini; HtiitcH, and that to have gone a linir'a breadth furtlx-r, wonid have been a step (00 bold even fur , his gruut weight of character." It was in reference to these oets that General Foote said, in December, 1851, that the South had gained all that she claimed; and when he said this, ' he had no ihmijjlit that she had obtained the abro- gation of the Missouri compromise. Sir, when the North had, by this legislation, yielded so much for the sake of peace and har- mony, and when the finality and comprehensive- ness of the settlement had been a.Tirnied again and again, she did not fear, she had no reason to fear, a reopening of the slavery question so soon as this; certainly not by those who succeeded so well in the arrangement which had been efl'ected. She had acquiesced; she was quiet. She had made no aggressions, meditated none. At such a time, and under such circumstances, you of the South pro- cure, or permit this bill to be brought into these Halls. Though introduced by a northern Sena- tor, acting in concert with a northern President, it is nevertheless your measure, supjiorted as it is by nearly the entire southern ilelegation in Con- gress. Without such support it could not live an kour. It is you, then, who are responsible for the agitation it will not fail to produce, and for all the consequences that will result from its intro- duction. Tliree months ago the country was in profound repose, a repose which the North has in no way sought to disturb; but which she finds, to her grief and alarin, you are bent upon destroy- ing. She has not moved. She stands v.here you placed her in 1820, and upon the title v.'liich you confirmed in 18.50, and in 1852. She claims not what is yours, but only to the limits yourselves have set down. Can she, with safely or honor, recede from those limits ? If she does, where can she stop, and what guarantees can you give her inore solemn and binding than you have given already? You may persist in your attempts to expel her from her just and purchased possession; but I think you will find it a more difficult enter- prise than you imagined in the beginning. Pass this bill, and you kindle a fire which will need all the rain in the sweet heavens to extin- guish, unless you shall consent to its unqualified repeal. If the fire shall not blaze up at once, and fill the sky, it will burn the more intensely when it does break out. The excitement on the day of the passage of the law (if that day shall come) will not be so great as it will be in six months there- after, nor then as in twelve. Sir, if, by the aid of treachery in her household, you shall sucfteed in depriving the North of this fair domain, dedicated by your fathers and our fathers to freedom and freemen forever, you will return it all. You can- not afford to keep it, and I believe you will not desire to keep it. 16 So far from your being permitted to comfort yourselves, as the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr Stephen's,] and others, have done, with the ide that the North will acquiesce in this measure a she did in those of 1850, be assured that her sut mission then will nerve her to the more earnes and determined opposition now. Upon question relating to slavery the South has always bee united. She could at any time bring all her force to bear upon any point to which she would direct them. In this she has had great advantage over the North. Unity of purpose and action, con- centration of power, have the practical value of vast forces in themselves. The North, not having been alarmed by the growth and approaches of slavery heretofore, has never been deeply and thoroughly stirred. She has been influenced by abstractions and sentiment, rather llTan by the power of direct interest; and she has seldom seen any practical good to be ac- comf)lished by agitation. But let this bill become a law, and you convince her that it is true — as some have asserted, but the many denied — that slavery is aggressive, boldly, badly aggressive; that it knows no law, regards no compacts, keeps no faith, and derides those who trust it; you unite the whole North by the motives of interest, and by a sense of injury and deep wrong, as well as by the power of a generous sentiment. You do that which will tend, more than all things else, to array a fierce and unrelenting opposition to your institution wherever it can be reached under the Constitution. And why will such opposition be arrayed .■' From the irresistible promptings of self-preservation; for, in this event, the North will be forced to believe that the time has come when slavery must be crippled, or freedom go to the wall. Mr. Chairman, I have felt bound to speak truly and faithfully what I feel and fear. It can afford me no pleasure to witness or participate in the controversy that must arise if this measure shall prevail. I would avert it, if possible, as I would prevent, for however short a period, the formation of sectional issues and sectional parties in this countr)'. With such issues once distinctly and squarely presented, and such parties deliberately and fully organized, our future, though it may not be without hope and without promise, will be dark, dark, shaded " With hues, bs when some mighty painter dips His pen in dyes of earthquake and eclipse." Yet not so dark and cheerless as it would be if the North should so shrink from the behests of honor and duty, become so blind to the moral lights of the age, and so regardless of the glorious traditions of the past, as to submit tamely and ignobly to the exactions and' aggressions which fanaticism is preparing to make. And, sir, I would avert it as I would prevent the dissolution of the party with which I have always been con- nected. To part company with those with v/hom we have long been politically associated, with whom we have sorrowed in defeat and rejoiced in victory, is what cannot be contemplated without the deepest pain. But if it be true that the great body of southern Whigs in both Houses of Con- gress have determined to make a sectional issue upon this question, and by their vote declare to us of the North that good faith, solemn, mutual covenants, the loftiest obligations of honor, (as we must thinkj) and all the ties which, for a quar- ter of a century, have bound a great party together *" "' ' """""iation, are as the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS |ict with a fancied the Senator from caucus of south- was held a few ed a work of su- ...„„ d the dissolution 011 897 869 "sii^ ^^^ ^° National *v lug |jui.j >,„ „^ ^^ Well, gentlemen, it must be as your course shall constrain; and if i you will have it so, it only remains for us of the North to bid you a "long good night." And what then — and what then.' In 1848 Daniel Webster told the farmers of Plymouth county, in the old Bay State, that there was no North; but, it will be remembered, that he predicted, at the I same time, that there would be a North. I^et this bill become a law, and prophecy will not loiter on 1 the way to fulfillment. There will be a North; and I think you will be at no loss to discover i where it is, and in no doubt as to the position of i northern Whigs. How can you believe that we j can remain quiet? Pray look at this measure; con- I sider what it is, and what it implies. It opens up j the wide regions of Kansas and Nebraska — an j area nearly as large as is occupied by the free States of this Union, and dividing them from the j Pacific ocean — to the institution of slavery; nay, I it invites it to go there. It reverses the ancient ! policy of the Government, which was restriction, I and inaugurates a new policy, that of slavery ex- j tension. It presents considerations which will meet us everywhere, on sea and shore, in our fields of enterprise, in our places of business, at i our thresholds and firesides. No evasions, no ! subterfuges, no compromises will be left to which \ men can resort, or upon which they can rely. No one will be so blind as not to see that, with ; this new policy, this invitation, slavery, will be j carried at once into Kansas, as well adapted I to its occupancy as Kentucky, Missouri, or the ■ half of Virginia; carried there for political, if [ not for economical reasons; and that, once in- ! troduced under such circumstances, possessing j such " coigne of vantage," it will be permanently established there. Sir, the North will — for she , must — oppose this measure to the end. And in the i business of resistance, or restoration, if it shall I come to that, she will labor firmly, faithfully, and, ■ I doubt not, effectively. Mr. Chairman, the ag- gression will be stayed, tfee tide will be rolled back, i and the ancient policy of the Government con- ■ firmed — restriction in the Territories, non- intervention IN THE States. To doubt it were to admit, indeed, that there is no North, and no : hope of a North; it were to admit adegeneracyin i her people more swift, more thorough and mourn- ': ful, than ever marked the history of any Other peo- I pie since the birth of time; it were to confess the j descendants of Hancock, Adams, Warren, and j Franklin, of Sherman, Livingston, and old Put- nam, the most pitiful slaves themselves. To doubt it were to admit that slavery has the indwellirf^, I central power of immortal truth ; that liberty is but I a name, and the love of it a phantasy — a delusion. j But, sir, we will not doubt it. We know that in I all human affairs there are seasons of action and j of reaction, of victory and defeat. But we also know that, in the end , nothing shall prevail against truth; and no verity is more grand, more immu- table, than this: " There is nothing on earth ; divine beside humanitt."